1926-03-29

TARIFF ADVISORY BOARD-PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
if the tariff commission, or whatever it is called now, has yet been appointed, or if the government has changed its mind?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The tariff advisory board
is what I presume my hon. friend has reference to. The order in council appointing the board has not yet been passed. I hope that will be done in the course of a day or so.


Arthur Meighen: Has the government reconsidered the personnel at all or does it intend to appoint those gentlemen named last week?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The government still has the personnel under consideration.


Arthur Meighen: In reference to the statement of the Prime Minister, I desire to ask another question, and before doing so to quote his words in an answer given on 25th March, as follows:
The Right Hon. Mr. Graham will, as I have said, be chairman and the other two members will be Mr. Joseph Daoust, ex-president of the Chamber of Commerce of Montreal, and Mr. Donald Gordon McKenzie from Brandon.
In the face of this statement, does the Prime Minister still persist that the personnel is under consideration?


John Warwick King: If my right
hon. friend will look at the concluding words of the statement I made and from which he has just quoted he will observe that I said that I hoped to be able "on Monday" to lay a copy of the order in council on the table

Civil Service Committee
giving the personnel and the powers of the board. He will likewise observe that I was also about to mention the name of another gentleman-	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: The secretary?


John Warwick King: The secretary, and I was informed that he had not formally given his consent to become a member of the board. I was answering my right hon. friend's question just at the moment without having had any previous notice of it, and I learned after I had announced the personnel that the other two members of the board also had not formally signified their acceptance, but that the matter was still being considered. I admit that I was a little premature in the statement, but subject to that I hoped to be able to make a full announcement by to-day.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask, has the interview reported to have been given by one of the members had any effect on the reconsideration of the question?


John Warwick King: Well, it undoubtedly would be taken into consideration along with other circumstances.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask:	Does the
statement of principle made by the member in question represent the views of the government on the subject?


John Warwick King: The views of
the government will be expressed in the order in council which deals with the matter.


Arthur Meighen: When may we expect
the order in council?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Well, well!


John Warwick King: I hope before
the House adjourns at Easter.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE-1923 RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING SALARY SCHEDULES AND OTHER MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I desire to bring to the attention of the government what is described as a protest and an appeal of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada. The document is issued by the local council, and based on it I wish to ask a brief question. I presume the government have received copies of this appeal, but I will briefly refer to it instead of reading the whole. It refers to the report of the parliamentary committee of 1923, and then goes on to say:
Though ithese recommendations were concurred in by parliament in the year 1923, we find in 1926 that no action has been taken.
And so on. Then follows this paragraph:
On behalf of our membership we emphatically protest against this most unsatisfactory method of dealing with staff side civil service problems. It is neither just nor in the best interests of the service, the servant or the public. As an elected representative of the people of Canada we appeal to you to do your part in assisting the civil servant to get some measure of fair treatment. Surely three years' delay is not the best that we may expect (from those who are elected by the people of Canada to attend to its public affairs.
Based upon that quotation I would like to ask the government if any steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the parliamentary committee of 1923, which included a permanent revision of the salary schedules and the adjustment of other matters which, I may say, were in dispute between the government and the Amalgamated Civil Servants at that time. I presume the government have copies of this circular, but I will send over the copy which I now have.


Ernest Lapointe: The civil service is not under the Secretary of State, but I understand the Secretary of State is the via media between the Civil Service Commission and the government. I will make the necessary inquiry about the matter referred to by my hon. friend and will give him the information he desires.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I might apologize, Mr. Speaker, for not having given notice, and if the minister would give, the answer fully tomorrow or the next day it will be satisfactory.


Ernest Lapointe: I will.



GREAT LAKES STEAMSHIP MERGER

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: I would like to ask the government what action, if any, has been taken to prevent the merger of the large steamship companies operating on the Great Lakes? The effect of such a merger can only be to increase the rates for carrying produce both east and west.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Has my hon. friend any direct information that there is a proposed merger, other than the one already existing, which we corrected by legislation in 1922?


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: From time to time for several months past, Mr. Speaker, articles have been appearing in our papers in connection with this merger, and I am surprised that the attention of the Minister of 11nance (Mr. Robb) has not already been directed to them. In the Canadian Railway
Unopposed Motion for Papers

and Marine World for this month, you will find the following at page 125:
On February 23, a Toronto newspaper stated that Canada Steamship Lines had arranged to acquire the Great Lakes Transportation Company's fleet, including the steamship being built at Midland, Ontario, for slightly under $6,000,000, and also to acquire 1,500,000 common stock of Geo. Hall Coal and Shipping Corporation for approximately $2,000,000, and further that Canada Steamship Lines would issue consolidated bonds to retire existing issues, and provide about $10,000,000 additional, adding that the issue had been underwritten, W. H. CoverdaJe, president, Canada Steamship Lines, having arranged with an underwriting syndicate, including J. W. McConnell of Montreal, and a New York group.
I could add to this statement but I do not think it is at all necessary. I believe I am entitled to some answer from the Minister of Finance after making the statement which I have.


James Alexander Robb: I think I gave my hon. friend a complete answer: If there is any merger that is in opposition to the law's of the country, it is open to any person to take action in regard thereto.



AUSTRALIAN BUTTER-DUMPING CLAUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I should like to make an inquiry
of the Minister of Finance regarding a question I asked on February 25th respecting the bonus being given by the Stabilization Committee of Australia to butter producers in that country. The minister informed the House that butter imported into Canada from Australia would be subject to the provisions of the dumping clause in our tariff. I should like to ask if the dumping clause has been applied to imports of butter from Australia and New Zealand since that time. I may say there have been upwards of 1,500,000 pounds of butter imported during the present month, and it is a very important matter.


James Alexander Robb: I observe that question No. 1 has something to do with this matter. I understand the answer to that question has been prepared and will be tabled when we come to it.



AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND BUTTER-WRAPPERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Donald Sutherland: I should like to make inquiry of
the Minister of Agriculture regarding an article which appeared in the Star Weekly

of the 27th instant. The statement in question is attributed to Mr. J. A. McFeeters, Manager of the Toronto Creamery, and to another -dealer in dairy produce, who contend that it is unfair to insist that butter coming to Canada from Australia and New Zealand should not be put up in wrappers indicating that it was made in Canada. I should like to ask whether the Minister of Agriculture, or the Department of Agriculture, permits this to be done, because it is the practice at the present time; the article indicates clearly that the practice is followed.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The answer is covered in the
replv that will be tabled to-day to question No. 1.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: 1.	Is Australian or New Zealand butter sold in Canada in such a way as to lead the consumer to believe that he is purchasing the Canadian made product ?
2.	Is butter from Australia or New Zealand being sold in London and St. Thomas in wrappers similar to those used in wrapping Canadian butter, the only difference being that the registration number is not printed on the wrapper of the imported article?
3.	Is it a fact that creameries now wrapping butter under their own trademark place their own registration number on the wrapper?
4.	Could Australian butter be placed in the same wrapper with the registration number eliminated?
5.	Is it not a fact that Australian butter is now being sold in Canada in wrappers similar to those used by Canadian creameries with the registration number omitted, and, if so, what does the government intend to do in regard to this matter?
6.	Has the government issued instructions to their inspectors to tell vendors of Australian butter that they may use the same wrappers as heretofore, but that they must ship in plain boxes and not use creamery registration number either on the boxes or on the wrappers?
7.	Is the dumping clause put into effect on all Australian butter, and if only applied to a portion of the butter imported from Australia, to what extent does the dumping clause apply ?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	As far as the Dairy and Cold Storage branch is aware Australian and New Zealand butter is not being sold in such a way as to lead the consumer to believe that he is purchasing a Canadian made product.
2.	As far as the Dairy and Cold Storage branch is aware, butter is not being sold in London and St. Thomas in -wrappers similar to those used in wrapping Canadian butter

Questions
with the exception that the registered number is omitted on the wrapper on the imported article. A London firm and a St. Thomas firm did for a time put Australian and New Zealand butter in wrappers bearing their respective registered numbers. In the latter part of February and the first part of March, the violation in this respect was pointed out to these two firms with the result that new wrappers in accordance with the legal requirements were provided.
3.	Yes.
4.	Australian butter cannot legally be placed in the creamery wrapper with the registered number eliminated if the wording of the wrapper indicates that the butter contained in the wrapper was made in the creamery which was doing the wrapping. Regulation 13A under the Dairy Industry Act reads as follows: "No person shall brand any cheese or brand any package containing cheese or butter in any manner that shall give false information as to the country or province of origin, or as to the cheese factory or creamery in which it was manufactured."
5.	In as far as the Dairy and Cold Storage branch is aware Australian butter is not being sold in wrappers similar to those used by Canadian creameries with the exception that the registered number has been omitted. The regulations prohibit giving false information as to the creamery of origin. Creameries wrapping Australian and New Zealand butter are required to eliminate from the wrapper used on imported butter not only the registered number but any other wording which would give the impression that Australian or New Zealand butter was the product of the creamery w'hich was printing and wrapping the Australian or New Zealand butter.
6.	No. Inspectors have been instructed to advise vendors that registered numbers of Canadian creameries must not appear either on boxes or wrappers containing Australian or New Zealand butter.
7.	All Australian butter sold to the purchaser in Canada at more than 5 per cent below the fair market value thereof as sold for home consumption at the time and place of direct exportation to Canada is subject to special or dumping duty.


DESPATCH OF CANADIAN TROOPS TO SIBERIA
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	By whose authority were Canadian troops sent to Siberia in 1918-19?
2.	What was the cost of the expedition, and what portion of this was borne by Canada?
3.	(a) What supplies were on hand at the time cf the return of the expedition?
(b)	How were these disposed of?
(c)	What amounts were obtained for same?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Authority P.C. 1983, dated August 12, 1918.
2.	(a) No information; (b) $2,823,960.98.
3 (a) (b) and (c) No information.
Note.-The cost of all supplies, ammunition, etc., (except the initial issue of personal equipment and clothing for the Canadian personnel) was borne by the Imperial government, which assumed responsibility for same upon shipment from Vancouver and any balance remained in their hands. (See Hansard, p. 1034, April 7, 1920.) The Imperial government also paid all transportation charges from port of embarkation to Siberia and return. The pay and allowances of the Canadian personnel were borne by Canada.


HIGH COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	What is the annual ground rent of the premises now occupied by the High Commissioner and his staff in London?
2. For how many years does the present lease run?
3. Is there any increase in the rental before the end of that period?
4.	What are the annual rates or taxes on the property ?
5.	What sum did Canada agree to pay the Union Club to acquire their rights in the premises?
6.	What has been the total expense of the alterations and improvements made to the property?


John Warwick King: 
ALBERTA NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: 1.	How many acres of land will be conveyed to the province of Alberta under the agreement dated January 9, 1926?
2.	The approximate value of such lands?
3.	How many acres are included in school lands refered to in said agreement and approximate value of eame.
4.	What is the amount of the school land fund to be transferred to the province under the said agreement?
3.	What amount has been paid by the federal government to the said province to date on account of school lands?
Questions

6. How inary acres have been added to each of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario since confederation?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	Approximately 98,758,000 acres.
2.	Impossible to give. approximate value as most of this area is in unsurveyed territory.
3.	Approximately 6,993,578 acres in surveyed and untsurveyed territory; impossible to give an approximate value.
4.	Amount of principal moneys at credit Alberta school lands fund, March 1, 1920, $7,388,779.04.
5.	Amount paid to September 30, 1925. $6,543,194.73.
6.	Quebec 332,436,480 acres; Ontario 93,696,000 acres.


MR. ALPHONSE G. ROBICHAUD
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Was Alphonse G. Robichaud an employee of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the year of 1925?
2.	Between what dates was he so employed?
3.	What was his salary?
4.	What particular duties were his?
5.	Is he still employed by the department?
6.	Did he receive remuneration from the department for the boat "J. G. Robichaud" during that period?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	August 11 to September 2, 1925.
3.	$3.50 per day with board (exclusive of Sundays).
4.	Official observer on experimental scallop fishihg boat.
5.	No.
6.	No.


MR. LAWRENCE HACHE
Mr. CULLIGAN:: 1.	Was Mr. Lawrence Hache, of Kedgewick, Resti-gouche county, New Brunswick, in the employ of the Customs and Excise Department, outside service, during the year 1925?
2.	When was he so employed?
4.	What salary did he receive?
4.	Is he still employed? If not, when did the employment cease?


Hon. Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	October 1, 1925.
3.	$100 per month.
4.	Employment with salary ceased January 16, 1926. Re-emp;loyed without salary, February 27, 1926.


PICTOU-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND STEAMSHIP SERVICE
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1.	What amount of subsidy was paid during the year 1925 for steamer or packet services between Pictou, Nova Scotia, and points in Prince Edward Island ?
2.	What service was given on the several routes?
3.	What boats (performed the services?
4.	What amount of subsidy on each route, and to whom paid ?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to continue these services during the season of 1926?


James Alexander Robb: 1,	2, 3 and 4:
Subsidized Services between Pictou, N.S. and Prince Edward Island.
Route	Vessel employed	Service	Contractor	Subsidy paidPictou, Murray Harbour,	Muriel (gasoline	1 round trip weekly,	J. W. Smith, Pictou,	$ cts. 3,866 64Georgetown and Mon-	schooner).	during the season of	N.S.	tague, calling at way ports. Charlottetown and Pictou	Hochelaga (steamer)	navigation. Daily, except Sunday,	Hochelaga Shipping &	24,629 62Pictou, Souris and the	Lovat (steamer)	during the season of navigation. Twice a week during	Towing Company, Halifax, N.S. Lovat S.S. Company,	50,000 00Magdalen Islands.	the season of navigation.	Halifax, N.S.	5.	An amount has been placed in the estimates for the continuation of the subsidies for the Charlottetown and Pictou service and the Pictou, Souris and Magdalen Islands service during the coming season, but the subsidy for the Pictou, Murray harbour, Georgetown and Montague service has been discontinued.


DUTY ON RAW SUGAR
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton) :: 1.	What is the duty per pound at present on raw sugar similar in quality to the raw sugar taken from sugar beets coming into Canada from the West Indies and Australia, separately, and what will the duty be on said raw sugar when the treaty between Canada and the West Indies now before parliament is consummated ?

Questions
2.	What was the duty on same grade of raw sugar previous to the reduction of duty on this product in 1923?
3.	How many vessels of the Canadian merchant marine operate between Canada and the West Indies?
4.	What was the amount lost in operating these vessels each year since they have been placed in that service?
5.	What subsidies, if any, were paid in years 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, separately, to vessel owners operating between Canada and the West Indies?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	The present customs duty on 96 degree raw sugar entering Canada is $1.28712 per hundred pounds under the general tariff and 45 cents per hundred' pounds under the British preferential tariff. Raw sugar from the British West Indies and Australia enters Canada under the British preferential rate. The proposed Canada-British West Indies agreement does not require any change in the general tariff but stipulates that the British preferential tariff be $1 less than the general tariff rate.
2.	Prior to the reduction of the general tariff rate in 1923, the duty on 96 degree raw sugar entering Canada was $1.68712 per hundred pounds under the general tariff and 85 cents per hundred pounds under the British preferential tariff. Australian raw sugar has enjoyed the British preferential tariff rate since 1906.
3.	Five steamers.
4.	Western Group of Islands:
Subsidy received Operating from West Indies Deficit	Islands
1921	$310,988	54	$59,090	001922	
255,320	96	59,250	001923	
153,064	10	43,458	831924	
119,228	34	39,146	521925	
98,756	60	*34,228	98
The above figures represent voyage operating results and do not include charges for interest, depreciation, annual overhaul and overhead expenses.
5.
Year	Subsidies
1921	
$340,666	561922	
340,666	561923	
318,810	601924	
318,051	201925	
322,051	20


SANDY BAY WHARF
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What was the amount voted for the construction of a wharf or breakwater at Sandy Bay, county of Matane?
2.	What was the amount expended?
3.	Were the moneys expended by day labour?
4.	If so, who was the foreman in charge?
5.	Did this foreman have the necessary experience?
6.	How was the location of the wharf arrived at?
7.	What was the foreman's salary per day?
8.	Were specifications issued for the construction of such wharf?
9.	By whom was the work inspected when completed?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	$3,000.00 (1925-26).
2.	$3,002.02.
3.	Yes.
4.	Ulric Verreault.
5.	Work was satisfactorily completed by the foreman.
6.	Wharf located whefe wanted by the parties interested in shipping and navigation after consultation with the district engineer.
7.	$4 per working day.
8.	Yes, specification of timber required issued to the foreman in charge of the work.
9.	Senior Assistant Engineer L. G. Trudeau.


MARY E. FULLER
Mr. COTNAM:: 1.	Is the said Mary E. Fuller, appearing in estimates of the fiscal year 1927, under vote No. 76, the wife of Mr. T. W. Fuller, Assistant Chief Architect, Department of Public Works?
2.	If so, under what regulation is this pension paid from year to year?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	No.
2.	No information.


MR. MAURICE CASEY
Mr. GOULET:: 1.	What is Mr. Maurice Casey's position in the Patent Office, Department of Trade and Commerce?
2.	How is Mr. Casey classified and what salary is he receiving ?
3.	How old is he?
4.	What is the nature of his work?
5.	How long has he been in the service?
6.	How long has he been absent in the last two years?
7.	Has he applied for superannuation?
8.	Who takes charge when he is not in his office?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Editor of the Patent Record.
2.	Head Clerk, $2,640.
3.	66.
4.	Editing, indexing, etc., the Patent Record, a technical publication issued every Tuesday. Directing and supervising the work and the clerks in connection therewith.
5.	44 years.
6.	Three months sick leave in the fiscal year 1924-25. No statutory leave. 6^ days sick leave in the fiscal year 1925-26. Eighteen days statutory leave.
7.	No.
8.	The officer next in rank in the office.

Unopposed Motion jor Papers


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. GRIMMER:: 1.	Was the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ship Canadian Navigator burned at Barbadoes in or about the month cf January, 1925?
2.	If so, what insurance was carried on the said ship?
3.	Was any inquiry held in Canada respecting the loss of the said ship and if not, why not?
4.	What cargo was the Canadian Navigator carrying at the time of her destruction?
5.	If the cargo was of an inflammable character are the Canadian Government Merchant Marine still carrying cargoes of inflammable goods, and if so, are such ships insured?
6.	What reduction of wages, if any, have been made since 1922 with regard to, (a) officers, (b) engineers, (c) crews of ships in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine sailing from Atlantic ports?
7.	What reduction, if any, in wages since 1922 has been made with respect to the same classes of ships sailing out of Pacific ports?
8.	What reductions or increases have been made in the salaries of the general manager, the assistant General Manager, the general superintendent, the marine superintendent and the assistant marine superintendent during the same period?
9.	What new offices have been. created during the same period in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?
10.	Is it true that two new assistants have been appointed to the general manager?
11.	What reduction in the number of able seamen has been made on the 8,000-ton class of ships since 1922?
12.	What is the system of promotion in vogue on board the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships?
13.	Is the promotion by seniority or pull with the management?
14.	Was the ship Canadian Ranger stranded in the
St. Lawrence river in the summer of . 1924 ?	*
15.	If so, was any inquiry held into1 such stranding and when and where and by whom was such inquiry made?
16.	Why was Captain Gowdy promoted to the position of marine superintendent over Captain Monk who had been in the service as assistant marine superintendent for several years?
17.	What were Captain Gowdy's qualifications for promotion over the heads of many of his seniors in the service?
18.	Was Captain Smeltzer of the ship Canadian Runner dismissed from the service in or about the month of July, 1923?
19.	If so, what were the reasons for his dismissal?
20.	If so, what the reasons for his reinstatement in or about the month of January, 1924?
21.	What was the cost of (a) temporary, (b) permanent, repairs to the ship Canadian Ranger due to the stranding of the said ship in the St. Lawrence river in the summer of 1924?
22.	Was this damage covered by insurance?
23.	What is the average cost per annum of operation of ships of the 8,000-ton class in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. MACLEAN (York) (for Mr. Foster):: For a copy of al'l correspondence, letters, telegrams, affidavits, reports, communications and documents of

all kinds between the Electric Machinery Manufacturing Company, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the Honourable the Secretary of State or any officer of the Department of the Secretary of State or any other departments of the government or any officers of any other departments of the government between the 11th of November, 1919, and the present time, regarding the incorporation of the Electric Machinery Company, Limited, and the suggested change of name of that company to the H. G. Stewart Machinery Company, Limited.


Mr. WHITE (Mount Royal) (for Mr. Foster):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, affidavits, reports, communications and documents of all kinds passing between E. W. Bachus and Bachus-Brooks Company and the Honourable the Secretary of State or any officer of the Department of the Secretary of State or any other departments of the government or any officers of any other departments of the government between the 11th of November, 1919, and the present time, regarding a change of name from the Electric Machinery Company, Limited, to the H. G. Stewart Machinery Company, Limited.


Richard Smeaton White: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, affidavits, reports, communications and documents of all kinds passing between Canadian Minneapolis Electric Company, Limited (subsidiary of Electric Machinery Manufacturing Company, Minneapolis), and the Honourable the Secretary of State or any officer of the Department of the Secretary of State or any other departments of the government or any officers of any other departments of the government between the 11th of November, 1919, and the present time, regarding a change of name from the Electric Machinery Company, Limited, to the H. G. Stewart Machinery Company, Limited.


Richard Smeaton White: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams affidavits, reports, communications and documents oi all kinds passing between the Canadian Minneapolis Electric Company, Limited, and the Honourable the Secretary of State or any officer of the Department of the Secretary of State or any other departments of the government or any officers of any other departments of the government between the 11th of November, 1919, and the present time, regarding a change of name from the Electric Machinery Company, Limited, to the H. G. Stewart Machinery Company, Limited. Also a return showing the names of all Directors of Canadian Minneapolis Electric Company, Limited.


Richard Smeaton White: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, affidavits, reports, communications and documents of all kinds passing between Henderson & Herridge, Ottawa, and the Honourable the Secretary of State or any officer of the Department of the Secretary of State or any other departments of the government or any officers of any other departments of the government between the llt'h November, 1919, and the present time, regarding the Electric Machinery Company, Limited, and a change of name from the Electric Machinery Company, Limited, to the H. G. Stewart Machinery Company, Limited.

Ocean Shipping Rates


Richard Smeaton White: Far a capy af all correspondence, letters, telegrams, affidavits, reports, communications and documents of all kinds passing between the Electric Machinery Company, Limited, and the Honourable the Secretary of State or any officer of the Department of the Secretary of State or any other departments of the government or any officers of any other departments of the government between the 11th of November, 1919, and the present (time, regarding the incorporation of the Electric Machinery Company, Limited, and a change of name from the Electric Machinery Company, Limited, to the H. G. Stewart Machinery Company, Limited.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE -SALE OF SHIPS
Mr. DOUCET:: 
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Mr. STANSELL (for Mr. Church):: For a coipy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, orders in council and all other data between the Government of Canada, the provinces and the municipalities regarding the question of unemployment and unemployment relief during the years 1925 and 1926.


POSTMISTRESS AT RIGAUD
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department and the Civil Service Commission and others, relative to the appointment of Mrs. Georges Seguin, as postmistress at Rigaud, Vaudreuil-Soulanges county, Quebec.


POSTMASTER AT LITTLE CASCAPEDIA
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, reflating to the dismissal of Pierre Poirier from the postmastership of Little Cascapedia, Bonaventure county, Quebec, together with a copy of the evidence taken of the inquiry held and also the report of the investigator in such inquiry.


EXPENSE ACCOUNT OF T. W. FULLER
Mr. COTNAM:: For a return showing a statement of the expense accounts of Mr. R. C. Wright, chief architect, and Mr. T. W. Fuller, assistant chief architect, Department of Public Works, for the fiscal years 1918-1919, 1919-1920,	1920-1921,	1921-1922,	1922-1923,	1923-1924
and 1924-1925.


CONSTRUCTION OF LACHINE CANAL SUBWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Guerin:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams between the Minister of Railways and Canals, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or any officer of those departments and public bodies or private individuals of Montreal or other parts of Canada in connection with the construction of a subway under Lachine canal in St. Ann's division, city of Montreal.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I am informed that the mover of this motion would like to have it transferred to debatable motions; therefore, it will stand.
Motion stands.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette) moved:: That, iin the opinion of this House, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine should withdraw at once from the North Atlantic Conference and should be operated independently of any association, conference or combine of steamship lines with the sole object of conferring the greatest possible advantage upon the Canadian producer.
He said:	In the investigation before the
committee on Ocean Freight Rates, evidence was given to show that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine were in the combine, and were operating in the combine the same as other lines of steamships. I do not know whether the Canadian Government Merchant Marine is still in the combine and I would like the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to let us know, because he has stated in interviews on many occasions in western Canada that it was the intention of the government to obtain a reduction of freight rates on the ocean liners. So far nothing has been done. The rate remains at $20, which is too excessive altogether to promote one of the basic industries ol western Canada, the live stock industry.
The sale of the boats of the merchant marine leaves a doubt in the minds of the people out west as to whether we are going to get any redress in the matter of rates at the hands of this government. A private line has been established in the city of Toronto, called the Live Stock Producers' Line, which runs four boats which have been refitted for the cattle trade, and with excellent results. The people in the west are wondering why the boats of

Ocean Shipping Rates

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	My contribution
to the resolution will be brief, and necessarily so. I waited with some interest to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Mullins) who introduced the resolution say something in support of it, and I am still waiting. I do not believe that the hon. gentleman mentioned the resolution at all. It reads:
That in the opinion of this House, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine should withdraw at once from the North Atlantic conference and should be operated independently of any association, conference or combine of steamship lines with the sole object of conferring the greatest possible advantage upon the Canadian producer.
The hon. member did not discuss this resolution at all. Perhaps he is aware now that [DOT] there is no point in it for the reason that it is more than one year late: the Canadian Government Merchant Marine withdrew from the conference in February, 1925. There is, therefore, no object whatever in pressing this resolution upon the House at this stage. I do not think I need say more.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask the minister
a question? Do they not at the present time charge the same rates as the conference fixes?


Mr. DUNNING:: So far as I am aware,
that has nothing to do with the resolution. I am not in a position to answer the question just now, but I should be glad to get the information for my hon. friend. The point of the resolution is whether the Canadian Government Merchant Marine is a member of the conference. The answer is it withdrew in February, 1925, and is not now associated with any body of steamship owners. As to rates, I shall be glad to get the information for my hon. friend.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MiEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):	The new Minister of
Railways (Mr. Dunning) has summarily dismissed the resolution, and seems to assume that the House will be satisfied with his assurance that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine withdrew from the conference in February, 1925. The House, however, will put a question mark after the word "withdrew," having some doubt as to what its meaning is. The government has evidently a dictionary of its own and applies such meanings as may suit the occasion. It is true that in the debate of last year on the Petersen contract, and as well in the evidence given before the committee, assertions were then made that the Canadian merchant marine had formally withdrawn. Some of the evidence, however, went to show that while they had
(Mr. Mullins.]
formally withdrawn they still sat in, whatever may be the government's dictionary meaning of that term. They "sat in" while not being members and, I presume, not voting. They sat in and took such part as the sitter-in is entitled to, whatever that may be. But the more important fact, indeed, the only fact that is Pf any consequence at all, is the question of rates. If the rates are the rates dictated by the conference, it will not make any difference to the people of Canada whether they are members of the conference or sitters-in or sitters-out of it. If they follow the rates the conference fixes, then it is equally the same to the pocket of the shipper whether they are inside in the ring or outside in the vestibule. The minister comes into the House supposed to be in a position to discuss the resolution, and he does not know yet whether or not the merchant marine, which this government owns and which it is operating through a directorate, actually obeys the dictates of the conference. This is a matter of indifference to him so long as it formally asserts its nominal independence, or at least proclaims itself not a member in full standing, of the conference, paying the fees. Now,-


Charles Avery Dunning: Will the right hon. gentleman permit me? I am in a position to state absolutely that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine does not obey the dictates of any conference. My hon. friend is attributing to me statements I did not make.


Arthur Meighen: I attributed to the minister the effect of a statement he made before, which was that he did not know whether they followed the rates fixed by the conference or not.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; I must again object. I made no such statement. I said that I could not inform my hon. friend as to the rates charged. I did not say that I did not know whether or not they followed the conference rates.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will have
some difficulty in confirming his present impression from the notes of Hansard. I did not ask him if he knew the rates: I would not expect him to carry the rates in his mind. I asked whether it was not a fact that the government merchant marine followed the rates of the conference, and I got in reply the statement that he did not know, but that he would look it up. The necessities of the case, however, seem to warrant the minister in revising that answer. He is at liberty to revise it, but not to tell me that he did not make it.

Ocean Shipping Rates


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not revised my
answer. At least I understood my right hon. friend to ask me if the rates charged by the government merchant marine were the same as those charged by the conference.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is entirely a different question from the one he now puts into my mouth. He asks me now if the government merchant marine charges the rates set by the conference, implying in his twisting of words-at which he is of course a master, and I defer to him in that regard-something that I did not say. In his twisting of words he is now distorting his question to make my answer mean what I did not intend it to mean at all. I did not intend it to mean that the merchant marine is in any sense controlled or directed by any north Atlantic conference. Whether or not its rates are similar to those charged by the conference I am not in a position to . say, but I am able to say that they are not dictated by the conference. Now is that clear?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it is just as clear as the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. The minister follows the well-known habit of those who find themselves in a tight comer of their own creation, of attributing to the other side -who points it out a splitting of hairs and a trading on words. I wonder who the trader on words is. Is it not he who says that the board may follow the rates or adopt the same rates as the conference, but that that is a very different thing from saying that they adopt the rates set by the conference? This is the distinction drawn by the minister who attributes to me hairsplitting. I am not endeavouring to split hairs. It is not the minister's hairs that are in danger at all; it is his head I am trying to enter. If the rates are the rates the conference sets, then I repeat it makes not one whit of difference whether the board is a member of the conference or not. I am not particular whether the rates are followed because of dictation or because of affiliation or because of affection or because of admiration; the reason is not material to the pocketbook of the producer. What we want to know is: Are they not the same rates? The evidence before the committee last year showed that the so-called divorcement meant nothing whatever because the rates then were the same as the rates had been before. So we are in the position of being asked by the government to close this debate without a particle of information as to whether the position is changed, as to whether or not the absolution
granted the mercantile marine by the conference was of any set or practical value. We are asked simply to take the assurance of the minister that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine is not a member of the conference, and that if they follow the rates which the conference sets they do not do it because they have to, but because they like to.


Hewitt Bostock: The reply of the hon. member for Marquette will close the debate.


James Alexander Robb: Before the hon. member for Marquette closes the debate I should like to say a word. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) appears to blame this government because of the operation of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.


Arthur Meighen: Never at all.


James Alexander Robb: It was a baby that we found on our doorstep when we came into office. We do know that upon the first inquiry we made it was discovered that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine was working in co-operation with the North Atlantic Conference, and objection was taken to this state of affairs. I do not say that the government merchant marine became members of the conference when my right hon. friend was Prime Minister, but I do say we were surprised to find this to be the case after coming into office.


Arthur Meighen: Surprised?


James Alexander Robb: In 1923 or about that time.


Arthur Meighen: No, it came out in this House over and over again and the government knew all about it.


James Alexander Robb: And they were in the combine when we assumed office.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, and for two years afterwards.


James Alexander Robb: Very well, we have the admission of my right hon. friend that they were in the combine when we assumed office. We know they withdrew from the conference in February 1925. We also know that the members of the north Atlantic conference are not trying to help the Canadian 4 p.m. Government Merchant Marine business. I have here a letter, received no later than this morning, complaining that the Canadian merchant marine have two vessels leaving a Canadian port with cargo on the same dates as those selected for some of the vessels that are in the conference. They would like us to withdraw from that
Ocean Shipping Rates

business. But as the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has just said, we are not under any obligation to the conference, we are no longer members of it. These boats are running in the interests of the Canadian people and their earnings are gradually improving the position of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.


Arthur Meighen: Does the government intend to build more ships?


James Alexander Robb: What has that to do with the resolution?


Arthur Meighen: I thought if the government was going to add to the size of the baby it would not be complaining about finding it on the doorstep.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some interest to the fine distinctions drawn by hon. members on both sides of the House with regard to the rates now being charged by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member
tell me what distinction he heard me draw?


Robert Forke: I do not think any of the
hon. gentlemen knew what rates were being charged at the present time anyway, so we did not get from them any information on the subject. My hon. friend from Marquette says he is very much in love with the cow. Well, I do not blame him at all. I am in love with the cow myself-so long as I can get soimebody blse to milk her. But the hon. member never gets on his feet without making slighting references to the people of the west who grow wheat. Now, I think he is making a mistake in adopting this attitude. I agree with every word he says in regard to mixed farming and the raising of as many beef and dairy cattle as possible, but I would remind him that for a great many years to come wheat will be the staple production of the three prairie provinces. It is wheat that is going to help pay the national debt, and we must not forget that. As to doing anything to help mixed farming, I am at one with the -hon. member for Marquette. He sometimes tells me-I do not think I shall be betraying his confidence when I say this- that although he sits on the Conservative side and I sit on the Progressive side, our ideas are not very far apart after all. I repeat, I am prepared to agree with him that we should encourage mixed farming, but I dissent from his slighting references to the farmers of the west who are raising millions of bushels of wheat, a production that means so much to the Dominion.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend from Marquette does not expect me to engage in a discussion on the advantages of diversified farming on a resolution of this kind, and yet I do not want to pass up his appeal to me to say something. Like him, I was keenly interested in the operations of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and when this government took office I made some inquiries regarding its relationship with the north Atlantic conference, and also the capacity of the boats to carry cattle, because about that time this government interceded with the home government and eventually succeeded in having the cattle embargo removed.


An hon. MEMBER:: What!


William Richard Motherwell: With the aid, of
course, of our predecessors, who had been working assiduously along the same line. I communicated with Sir Henry Thornton, who partially converted four boats for the cattle traffic, each accommodating approximately 265 head, or an aggregate capacity of a little less than 1,100 head. Besides providing insufficient accommodation for the traffic, these boats were not very satisfactory in other respects. Therefore Sir Henry thought .that this was a sufficient experiment, especially as the results were not too satisfactory from his point of view, and I frankly admit that I did not make any further attempts to convince him of the desirability of converting other boats into cattle boats for the reason that it cost a lot of money to make the conversion, and they were none too satisfactory after they were converted. Further, they did not carry sufficient cattle to take care of the situation. As my hon. friend knows, the Petersen contract came up for consideration last year, and one of the primary objects then was to improve the situation with respect not only to cattle space but cattle rates as well. My hon. friend perhaps heard enough of the discussion to know that not very much encouragement was given to the proposal of the government by the other side of the House.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: If I recall the situation, my hon. friend-


Henry Alfred Mullins: May I ask the minister a question?


William Richard Motherwell: I will be through in a moment. My hon. friend was an important witness at the inquiry in connection with that matter, and I remember that he disagreed very strongly with some of my hon. friends

Ocean Shipping Rates
on the other side of the House. I remember he disagreed with the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) as to the best way of shipping live stock. My hon. friend is familiar with all these facts, and I think he was in sympathy with the attempt of the government to do something by means of that contract. He must therefore give us some credit for at least a desire to improve conditions.
My hon. friend asked a question the other day with regard to further attempts by this government, particularly by myself, to increase the space available. I answered him on that occasion, pointing out that one boat known as the Jensen boat, now rechristened the Ontario, held more cattle on its initial trip than those four mercantile marine boats combined. This boat had a most successful trip, probably the most successful of any boat on the Atlantic during those terrible storms. That is as far as we have gone; we cannot do everything at once. We hope to be here for several sessions to clean up a lot of the things which require attention and which we have not yet caught up with. I am sympathetic with the ambitions of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins), but Rome was not built in a day, and all these wrongs or grievances cannot be corrected in a day. I think we are headed in the right direction, however, and I enlist the co-operation of the hon. member for Marquette in improving conditions as opportunities present themselves.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Mr. Speaker, we have had promises, promises and promises, and none of them have been fulfilled. Western Canada and the country as a whole are tired of promises. The hon. gentleman knows the correspondence which has been going on. We want action; we want something done which will give us redress in connection with ocean freight rates. The trade cannot stand a rate of $20 per head.
The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) stated that I made insurrections at the grain growers of western Canada. I refute that statement. I am upholding the cattle industry; it is the leading industry; it stands out more and is based on sounder principles than are the activities of the man who is just mining the soil, a soil robber is a menace to the western country. If a man is not in mixed farming he is usually a failure. The sowless, cowless, chickenless farmer of the west! I made that statement before in speaking on this subject, and I make it agaifi. A man cannot be successful in western Canada without live stock. If you go back far enough in
history you will find that we would have very little of the group system and very few Progressives if it were not for the dissatisfied settler who has been producing weeds on the western prairies. He has become so dissatisfied with raising weeds and mining the soil that he is ready to join any old party at all. They have two or three new parties in the west now, which the government will have to contend with if they hold office. There is a party called the Farmers' Union, and there is still another which I have been invited to join. In time you will have the group system, with no stable government at all.
With all due respect to my hon. friend I have everything in common with the man on the land out west. Politics have never played a part and will never play a part, so far as I. am concerned, in matters affecting the interests of the man on the land. I came here with an open mind, ready to support the government in getting a reduction of ocean rates, at the instigation of one of the leaders of the Progressive party, the right bower of the Hon. Mr. Crerar. I refer to Mr. Rice Jones, who requested me to come and give evidence in regard to freight rates. I had some experience in negotiating with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) in trying to get a reduction in freight rates. I took the Canadian government boat Victor, whose freight rates were supposed to be $25 per space. I took her, it is true, because she was the only boat available out of the port, and I had to go to Dundee. I did not want to go to Dundee, but it was all I could get. I asked the minister if he would get a rate of $20, which the conference and the other regular liners were charging, but it was impossible. I was being charged $25 per space and I was compelled to take the boat, because the cattle were ready* on my ranch and I had to ship them to market. The minister wired me and said that on account of going to another port the rate had to be $25. I did not like to crowd the cattle on that ship; they were heavy cattle and I could not put five cattle in four spaces. The capacity of the Victor is 233 spaces, and I was compelled to pay for 270 spaces at $25 per space, which was a gross injustice, for which I was never able to get any redress from the hon. gentleman. I could not do anything. So I was ready to come and support the government in an endeavour to do something in the right direction; I was ready to come to this committee and lend my support to it. But what was the result of that investigation? What did it cost the country? The man behind the investigation was that gentleman who has been in politics since I was a boy in West
Ocean Ship-ping Rates

Elgin. I remember him-W. T. R. Preston- [DOT] a good organizer for the Liberal party; one who used to sing hymns on Sunday afternoon and bring in votes on Monday. I object to such men handling the cattle industry, and if that practice is still followed when the Conservative party comes into power I will still object.
Then there was Duncan Marshall; let me refer to him for a moment. He was sent to England to receive the first cargo of cattle going to the British Isles, and what did he and the other gentlemen do? They put a red 'tape across the gangway, and as the first intelligent Canadian steer saw that tape he nearly knocked Duncan Marshall and the other gentlemen into the Clyde. The cattle should have been allowed to walk off the ship gently, with no red tape in front of the gang plank as a demonstration to the British public of their kindness in removing the embargo. It was a direct insinuation that red tape had kept Canadian cattle out of England for thirty-two years, and in my opinion was a direct insult. Never would a man who understood conditions do a thing like that, but that is what was done, and I say it was an injustice. The government allowed those wild Texas range cattle to go to the Wembley exhibition, which did not permit of the display of true Canadian cattle. Those were not cattle that we raised in western Canada. They were cattle that were brought up from Mexico in the old days of the range and turned loose on our western prairies. They were long horned, range cattle and to represent these as typical of our western cattle was a libel on the undoubtedly fine stock we raise out west. We had the olid range days out west, but those days are gone, and we are now raising thoroughly domestic' ated cattle.
I should like to see the vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine taken out of the steamship combine. They are still charging a $20 rate, and it looks to me as if the officials of the government line still have their feet under the combine table. The present government proposed to give a million and a quarter of the people's money to Sir William Petersen ostensibly to break the steamship combine. What were we to get for that? We were to get a bunch of old hulks belonging to the Thomson line, I think ten in number, vessels not to be compared with the ships of the government merchant marine. I have loaded cattle on the old Thompson line boats in the early days, and they are not ships that are at all fitted for the cattle trade today. What should have been done was to refit the vessels of the merchant marine just as 
the Livestock Producers, or the Jensen line, have done. By refitting the ships could have been made very comfortable for the carrying of cattle and could have transported from five himdred to six hundred cattle each, and the government could have handled the cattle transportation problem in the most economical way. But instead of that they proposed to pay out the enormous sum I have mentioned. In addition to that they have paid to their agent, W. T. R. Preston, between nine thousand and ten thousand dollars. They also engaged counsel during the cattle inquiry at $200 a day, with a resultant cost to the country for that item alone of $40,000. Then when Sir William Petersen died the government incurred an outlay of $4,000 to send his remains back to England. This will give an idea of the way the government have been spending money, of the way our debt is mounting up. I do not know where the old ship of state is drifting, but if it continues to drift much longer, God help the man who is struggling to make his way out in western Canada.
1 make this plea not from any personal motive, but on behalf of those who are engaged in the live stock industry in western Canada. They have large numbers of cattle to move to the Old Country this spring but there seems no chance whatever for them to get ocean space. The old line boats have done good work, but their day is past. These ships are not able to make the trips across now, yet it is most urgent that the cattle men should have ocean tonnage for their live stock I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he get busy at once. I suggest that he get say ten vessels of the merchant marine and refit them just as the Jensen line did with their boats. I urge the government to do something so as to afford the live stock industry a chance of moving the cattle so badly in need of transportation. I speak feelingly and earnestly on this matter.
The Minister of Agriculture made an allusion to the dead beef industry, but I may say to him that I am not in favour of shipping dead beef to England. I believe the minister tried the experiment of shipping dead beef at one time and experienced a loss of $50 on every carcass that was shipped. I made a shipment of dead beef myself on one occasion, but that was the only time I ever did it. No man who has any understanding of the Canadian cattle industry would ever favour shipping dead beef to England. He might try it once, but never again. On Saturday evening I had dining with me one *of the largest stock salesmen in England, who imports considerable quantities of South American meats. He told me that

Duty on Automobiles
three and one-half pence a pound was the price at which dead beef sold in England. I asked, "What about the price of Canadian cattle?" He said that the Canadian cattle sold for nine pence a pound. If we can get such a price as that we do not want to go into the lower market. Ireland wants to keep Canada out of the road; she does not want this Dominion to get into the Old Country market. Those who do not understand the trade are the ones who are advocating the shipment of dead meat. Very recently a vessel carrying cattle to the Old Country drifted to the Azores and the opponents of Canada are pointing to the mishaps that they say are likely to occur, as an. argument for the keeping of our cattle out of the British market.
I appeal to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), who comes from a great producing district in the west, to do something in the interest of the cattle trade. He reminded me the other day that he had sold me cattle twenty years ago. I remember when he was up in that country driving oxen. He knows something about the cattle trade, therefore, and I think we can look to him to take measures that will be in the interest of the industry. Hon. gentlemen opposite are in power through the support of our friends the Progressives and our friends the Labour men. I ask them to do something in behalf of the cattle industry, not to expend all their efforts in the interest of the grain industry. I repeat that the Minister of Railways was identified with the cattle industry and with the building up of the west in the old pioneer days. He knows how badly it stands in need of a helping hand and should be prepared to do something for it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should like to sell you a few cattle now if I could.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I am sorry, but I am not in the business. I got old in the trade, and now I feel that a man is so much handicapped by present conditions that he had better be out of it. I feel satisfied that if hon. gentlemen on this side had the reins of power action would be taken very promptly, and that the cattle industry would be on the way to a stable basis within five months. Holding the views I do I would not sit in this House if some action were not taken to obtain redress for the live stock industry, to build up and protect that industry.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Ernest Lapointe: Unanimously.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House a substantial reduction should be made in the customs tariff on automobiles and motor trucks.
He said: The subject dealt with in this resolution is one of very great importance to this country. Canada is a land stretching 4,000 miles from east to west. We cover an immense territory. AVe have a population of nine million odd scattered over this large area. For that reason transportation is one of the greatest questions confronting us today. The greatest improvement in transportation facilities since the invention of the steam locomotive is the automobile, both fieight and passenger. The greatest competitor that Canada has to-day is the United States. The United States has motor trucks available to her population at two-thirds the price at which they can be purchased by the people in Canada. The United States has one motor car for every six of her population, while Canada has one to every fourteen of her population. On account of our sparse settlement in this country, we really require more motor trucks and automobiles proportionally than the people of the United States. The only reason that I can see why we have only one car to fourteen of our population, and the United States one to every six is that cars are too expensive in this country and the people cannot afford to buy them. The Ford Times a year ago published this statement:
The development oi the automotive industry is only a logical sequence of the demand for transportation facilities, which have always played a major part in opening up a land to its fullest possibilities. With vast unopened areas in our land of huge distances, proper railroad service could not be a paying or a practical proposition. The need for transportation still remains and is of prime importance in changing these waste spaces into productive areas. No country can rise to its full height of importance without adequate transportation.
What is the truth? Let us apply such facts as are available to the solution of this involved problem.
The automobile industry could never have attained its present tremendous totals over a period of 23 years had not its product more than justified itself economically.
Its proper use lengthens life, increases efficiency, stimulates general business and promotes the wealth and stability of the nation.
There we have in a paper published by the largest manufacturers of automobiles in Canada a veiy good argument as to why automobiles and trucks should be cheaper in this country-because they are so necessary to development and production. Because of the development of our social and economic life, cars to-day
Duty on Automobiles

are a necessity for a great many of our people, particularly doctors, preachers, commercial travellers and farmers. It has been estimated that farmers in western Canada, or in Alberta, live on an average ten miles from a railway, and yet only about one-third of them own motor cars. While on a visit to British Columbia last year I noticed that practically all the fruit which was being delivered to packing houses in one of the large fruit centres of British Columbia was being delivered in motor trucks. I did not see one rig drawn by horses These men have to pay practically 50 per cent more for their motor trucks than their competitors to the south of the boundary. In one town in my constituency this fall there were fifty-seven men delivering wheat to the elevator with motor trucks. Some of them were hauling the wheat a distance of twenty-eight miles. There are mans7 others still hauling -wheat with horses. I wish hou. members in this House could realize what a boon it would be to these farmers if they could afford to own motor trucks and deliver their wheat with them. It is impossible for a railway company to build railways within ten miles of all our settlers, and any man who has to haul his wheat, his cream and all his produce more than ten miles to market is certainly badly in need of a motor truck. For these and other reasons which I shall enumerate I think it is the duty of the House, without further delay, to see that some reduction is made in the price of motor trucks, so far at least as this can be attained through a reduction of the tariff. Henry Ford was quoted last year in the Ford Times as saying:
The great trouble with farming is that it involves too much unnecessary work. There is no reason why agriculture may not hope to come abreast of the other industries in the near future, if the farmer will turn his attention to modern industrial methods, instead of to the problem of borrowing money. There is no food scarcity. The problem is not one of how to increase production, and thereby pile up a surplus for speculators to play with, but how to simplify production and distribution so that less human energy shall be wasted in the process.
One of the ways to solve this farm problem is to reduce the price of motor trucks. I have never yet heard any suggestion in this House as to how it could be done unless we reduce the tariff. The low-priced automobile and the motor truck is the greatest boon which has come to farmers since labour-saving machinery was invented. Again I would quote from the Ford Times:
Autos Reduce The Farm Migration Easy to Get to Town Now; Just a Case of Starting the Family Car
The farm telephone, the coming of labour-saving devices and the low-price auto are three of the greatest factors in checking the admittedly large migration from the farm.

Probably no mechanical invention has done so much as the low-priced automobile to lessen the monotony of farm life, particularly for people living on the prairies a long distance from the railways, and nothing has done so much to relieve the monotony of life for the farm women. Many of these people, prior to the coming of the automobile, were limited to their own farms. They are too far fiom town to drive there with a horse and rig. As I said before, approximately one-third of the farmers in Alberta are able to own motor cars, and I think the only reason the other two-thirds do not own them is that they are too dear at the present time. The Ford Times said recently:
Every sure enough farm needs three automobiles- any farmer with a family will vouch for that and that number is his goal.
Then it goes on to show that he needs a truck, a roadster and a Ford sedan to take him to town in bad weather.
I would be pretty well satisfied, Mr. Speaker, if we had on an average one automobile to each farm, and I should like to say to the editor of the Ford Times that there is only one reason why there are not more automobiles on the farm, that reason being that the Ford Company have kept the price too high. If we reduce the duty the company would have to reduce the price and they would sell more. The Ford Times goes on to point out that only one-third of the farmers of Canada have motor cars. There is another reason why this is a very important question for Canada. We have for the past twenty or twenty-five years been trying to encourage the automobile business in Canada with a protective tariff of 35 per cent. Many other incidentals enter into it with which I shall deal later, and which give it a protection really of about 40 per cent.
Looking over a booklet recently issued by the automotive industries of Canada, I find that from 1904 to 1924 they have manufactured and sold in Canada 793,519 cars. The wholesale value of these cars is $699,237,511. To get the retail value of these cars, we must add to that amount one-third, which would bring the total retail value of these cars to $932,316,681, or an average value, without excise and sales tax, of $1,174. The total extra cost-I am assuming here that these cars were sold to the Canadian public at an advance of 35 per cent over the American price-the total extra cost of these ears to the consumers of Canada was $242,000,000. That means an average increased price to the consumer of these cars in Canada of $305 per car. This price does not take into account sales tax and excise tax.

Duty on Automobiles
The Ford Motor Company have estimated the life of a car to be five years. That would mean an extra $60 per year to each of the families owning a car, due to the increase in the sale price which is made possible by the 35 per cent tariff. To this amount would have to be added the increase in the price of tires, accessories and repairs, which I think would average at least $15 a year, or a total extra charge of $75 per car per year due to the cutoms tariff.
This booklet also shows that the total customs duties collected by this government from the manufacturers of parts of all kinds was $43,000,000, so that if that were deducted from the $242,000,000, which I have shown to be the extra cost, we would still have approximately $200,000,000 which it has cost us to establish this industry.
Possibly for the information of the House I should state that the rate of duty on cars and trucks is 35 per cent. The United States has an excise tax of 5 per cent, and any consumer bringing a car into Canada must pay this 5 per cent tax in the United States before he can bring his car in here. Then we have also a sales tax of 5 per cent, plus an excise tax of 5 per cent on the value of the car up to $1,200, and 10 per cent on the value in excess of $1,200. On trucks there is a sales tax of 5 per cent, but no excise tax.
But this is not all the protection they enjoy. On page 15 of the booklet recently issued by the Ford Motor Company it is stated that on a Ford Fordor sedan, imported from the United States and priced at $565, Detroit, you pay sales tax and excise tax when bringing it into Canada of $78.11. If you purchase this car in Canada from the Ford Company it is listed at $755, and you pay sales tax and excise tax amounting to $56.62. There they have an additional protection of $21.49 on the Fordor sedan.
Someone will say: Why single out the automobile industry for a reduction in the tariff when there are many other articles in the tariff on which some of us think the duty should be reduced?	The reason I have
singled it out, Mr. Speaker, is because the automobile is such an important article to the Canadian people, and because a demand for a reduction in the duty is so general. No matter where you go in Canada, I think you will find an almost unanimous demand from the people that the tariff on automobiles should be reduced. I think I shall be forgiven if I say that Toronto is generally regarded as the home of protection.


Arthur Meighen: One of them.


George Gibson Coote: One of them. At any rate, it is one of the places where they really believe in protection, and in a good share of it. The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) I think is a consistent protectionist. I have an editorial published in his paper, the Orange Sentinel, some time ago. It is headed " Reduce the Duty on Motors and Prosper", and says:
Whatever may be done with the customs tariff at the next session of parliament,-
I neglected to say that this was published in 1923, so we have missed two opportunities alreadj':
-there should be a substantial reduction in the duty on motor cars. It is clear from the prices quoted in the United States and Canada that the Canadian manufacturers are charging "ail the traffic will stand. The duty of 35 per cent is more than protection; it is in part a government subsidy to the makers of automobiles.
I hope the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon), who objects to government subsidies, will bear that in mind:
As long as the motor car was purely a luxury that only the rich could enjoy, there was not much reason for complaint. But the motor car has become a necessity in business and professional life, and those who are thus compelled to buy one should not be forced to pay excessive profits to the manufacturers. A certain type of car that sells in the United States at $1,875, costs $3,100 in Canada. That is altogether too wide a spread, and is not warranted by any factor in the trade. The American makers have larger production, it is true, but they pay higher wages, and there is no reason why their raw materials are any cheaper. The makers of motor cars in Canada are soaking the public unduly, and* it is the duty of the government to lower the tariff, and in that way inject a little competition of American firms that will bring down the prices.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Was all that in the Orange Sentinel?


George Gibson Coote: That was all in the Orange
Sentinel, and surely, coming from that paper, it is sufficient justification for the government to reduce this tariff without any further argument.
As a further indication of the feeling in Toronto, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a news item appearing in a Toronto paper of January 30th, reporting the annual meeting of the Toronto Local Council of Women, and we should not forget that the women now have votes. It says:
Buy cars in the United States. Be patriotic. Then the Dominion, not the makers, would get the duty.
It goes on to say:
You can buy Canadian made cars cheaper in England and Australia than you can here.
200G
Duty on Automobiles

I shall not weary the House with reading the whole report, but might quote this:
The Ontario farmer, if he were a patriot, would buy his car on the other side of the Detroit river and pay the lax to the customs collector on his way home, thus contributing to his country's treasury and not to the personal fortunes of Mr. Henry Ford and his son.
Then the report goes on to quote some of the dividends the Ford Company have been able to pay because of the privilege they have enjoyed of charging us 35 per cent more for cars on this side of the river.
Public opinion can sometimes be judged by the attitude of the press, but in this particular case I think the press would really like to advocate a reduction in the duty on automobiles in much stronger terms than they have done, but the automobile industry is furnishing a large amount of the advertising which these papers enjoy, and I think the newspapers have to go pretty easy on this question of reducing the duty on automobiles, or they may lose some of their advertising. But almost every editor with whom I have ever spoken is very anxious to be able to buy a motor car cheaper than he is able to do at the present time. In my speech in this House a year ago I showed that on ten different makes of cars manufactured both in Canada and in the United States the Canadian price f.o.b. factory, without any sales or excise tax, was from 38 to 41 per cent higher than the price charged across the line. That statement has never been challenged so far as I know. I do not think it is necessary to repeat that list, but I will give you the prices obtaining to-day on two of the best known makes of cars manufactured on both sides of the line, and I think it will prove that the extra price charged is equivalent to the duty. These two cars are the Ford and the Dodge. The Ford runabout is $290 at Detroit, and $410 at Ford, Ontario, or a difference of 41 per cent. It is true that in a booklet issued by the Ford Company this runabout is quoted at $310 in Detroit, but I have an advertisement published by that company in the Detroit News of February 21, 1926, giving the price of the runabout at $290 and of the touring car at $310. The mistake, therefore, if there is a mistake, is on the part of the Ford Company in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a difference of equipment.


George Gibson Coote: You will not find much equipment on a Canadian runabout or touring car of the Ford make. As a matter of fact I do not know what you could safely eliminate if you want to run the car. The runabout at Detroit is $290 as against $410 at Ford,

Ontario, a difference of 41		per cent.	The list
is as follows:			Increase
			
Ford	Detroit Ford, Ontario	Per centTouring car ..	.. $310	$440	42Coupe	. 500	665	33Tudor sedan. ..	.. 520	695	34Fordor sedan. ..	.. 565	755	34Price in	Price in	IncreaseDodge	United States	Canada	Per centTouring car ..	.. $795	$1,095	38Roadster .. ..	.. 795	1,095	38Coupe	.. 845	1,170	38De Luxe sedan..	.. 1,075	1,485	38Just note how closely these prices	keep to
the line of the tariff. The Canadian manufacturer is taking practically full advantage of this tariff and is pushing the price up to the limit. We pay in Canada to-day the United States price plus the tariff, but if you buy a car in Canada the tariff goes to the manufacturer and he puts it into his pocket. Of the capital engaged in this industry 80 per cent is said to be owned outside Canada, practically all in the United States. This seems to me to be a tariff levied on the Canadian people for the benefit of the American stockholders rather than of Canadian industry.
Canada established a national policy about fifty years ago for the purpose of affording protection to infant industries, the idea being that when an industry had grown up the protection which it had enjoyed should be lowered. This is brought out very well, in better words than I could use, in a speech delivered in 1911 by the right hon. gentleman who at present leads the opposition in this House (Mr. Meighen). The right hon. gentleman contended that the tariff should be lowered when the industry had grown to such proportions that it had a reasonable hold on the home market and was able to export its product in competition with the products of other countries. I will quote one paragraph from his remarks on that occasion:
But the charge I have to make, and which I hope to bring home to the government this afternoon, is not that one, though it is the most serious; it is this, that in their attempts to continue the national policy which had obtained for years before, they have overlooked, they have neglected one essential feature of that policy: they have quite forgotten its guiding principle, namely, the principle that as our industrial institutions advanced in strength and as they were able with every advance to acquire a hold on the home market, the import duties were to be diminished and adjusted in order to meet the evolving and changing conditions. It is that restraining guiding principle which I claim this government has entirely overlooked-
I think that charge can be made against the Liberal government in power to-day.
-and as a consequence they have allowed, in the respect which I am discussing thi3 afternoon, protection to run rampant-

Duty on Automobiles
That certainly applies to automobiles.
-and they have for reasons that are only too obvious, become the slaves of those who helped them into power and who now maintain them there behind ramparts of gold.
That charge might have been true in the last parliament, but we see very few representatives here this year sitting on the government side, returned from automobile constituencies. I could quote further from the remarks of the right hon. gentleman, elaborating that principle and proving by the speeches of protectionist ministers of finance in the past that this was the policy, namely, that as an industry advanced and grew stronger, demonstrating its ability to supply the home market and, as well, to compete in foreign markets, the duty should be lowered.
In a booklet recently issued by the automobile men themselves it was stated that automotive products exported from Canada are fourth on the list in value of all commodities. Surely this is an indication that the tariff might be lowered. I dealt at some length with the question of exports last year, and perhaps I might quote a paragraph from the remarks I made on that occasion regarding the ability of our automobile manufacturers to export their product. This is taken from the Ford Times:
For the calendar year 1923 statistics show that there were manufactured in Canada 147,582 motor cars and trucks. Of these, 69,920 were exported and 77,662 were consumed in Canada. That is, our exports were 47 per cent of the total output of our Canadian factories.
The value of automobile imports for 1924 was $11,443,158, the value of our automobile exports was $33,828,692, or approximately three times the value of our imports.
We exported those cars to 97 different countries. I will not take the time of the House to read the list, but we sent the United Kingdom over $5,000,000 worth, to South Africa $2,480,000, to British India, $2,043,000, to Australia, $6,115,000, to New Zealand. $4,680,000, to the Argentine Republic, $1,413,000 and so on.
I presume someone may say that these exports went largely to Great Britain and her colonies where our manufacturers enjoy some preference. That is partly true but I would * point out that we exported to Great Britain $5,575,000 worth, although the preference our manufacturers enjoyed there at that time was only 11 per cent. Now, if they could do that large amount of business in a market where they had an advantage over their American competitor of only 11 per cent, why do they need 35 per cent protection right here in Canada? Of course, it will be argued that
it is good policy for us to encourage our automobile industry so that there may be an exportable surplus. That argument I do not question if the encouragement given to the industry does not cost us too much. What I should like to suggest to our automobile manufacturers is that if the cars they are exporting were made available to Canadians at the United States prices, I think they could sell every one of those exported cars right here in Canada. Canada needs these automobiles, but she cannot afford to buy them.
One other thing which must be taken into account when we are considering a reduction of the tariff duty is the financial condition of the industry. As an indication of that condition, I may be permitted to quote to the House from a clipping from the Financial Post of February 12, 1926, dealing with the last annual statement of the Ford Motor Company of Canada. This is the quotation:
The Ford Motor Company of Canada was incorporated in Ontario in 1904, and re-incorpora ted with a Dominion charter in 1911. It has the exclusive manufacturing and selling rights on the Ford automobile, the Ford truck and Fordson tractor throughout the British Empire, with the exception of Great Britain and Ireland. Its field of activities includes Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, British South Africa, and so on. Originally in consideration of $63,500 stock given to the Ford Motor Company of Detroit, the Detroit company agreed to extend to the Canadian company the privilege of using all the devices and improvements of the American company's car without further cost. The capital stock, which amounted to $125,000 in 1905-half of which went to the Detroit company-has by the distribution of bonuses to shareholders been increased to $7,000,000.
I want the House to note that all of this capital stock has come out of earnings, with the exception of the first $125,000.
Shares have a present market value of about $500, representing a stock valuation of $35,000,000. The company has in twenty years distributed to shareholders in cash and stock dividends a total of $20,176,238; this in addition to the stock issued as dividends now having a market value around $35,000,000. In other words, an original stock holding of $100 has paid about $11,000 in cash dividends and in addition stock bonuses with a -market value to-day of approximately $24,000 or a total of approximately $35,000 on the original $100.
The assets of the company- as shown by the last balance sheet, total $41,419,335, of which $22,093,614 is represented by fixed assets-plant, equipment, etc.- stock -in affiliated companies $5,866,998, and cash in government bonds $6,525,615. Profits for the year ending July 31, amounted to $6,132,327. Net earnings on the paid-up capital were approximately 87.5 per cent. The year's output was 70,816 cars and 4,543 tractors.
With the permission of the House I will place the rest of the statement on Hansard, unless any hon. member would like me to read it.
Duty on Automobiles

The continuation of the statement is as follows:
Capitalization-
Authorized Outstanding
Common	$10,000,000	$7,000,000
Par value, $100.
Funded Debt-
None.
Dividend Record-
Dividends have been paid as follows: 1905, 0 per cent; 1908, 10 per cent; 1909, 25 per cent; 1910, 100 per cent; 1911, 100 per cent and 500 per cent in stock; 1912, 20 per cent and 33th per cent in stock; 1914 10 per cent; 1915, 110 per cent; 1916, 600 per cent in stock; 1917, 5 per cent; 1918, 5 per cent; 1919, 35 per cent; 1920, 15 per cent; 1921 and 1922, 30 per cent; 1923, 15 per cent; 1924, 10 per cent; 1925, 20 per cent.
Officers and Directors-
Henry Ford, pres.; Edsel B. Ford, 2nd vice-pres.; W. R. Campbell, 1st vice-pres.; Geo. E. Dickert, 3rd vice-pres.; E. C. Kanzler, P. W. Grandjean, sec. and asst, treas.
Profit and Loss-
Year end July 31	1925	1924'Gross profits	
$ 6,132,327	$ 3,719,188Income tax adjust	
975	3,497Net profits	
$ 6,131,352	$ 3,715,691Bai. forward	
19,609,861	16,594,170$25,741,213	$20,309,861Dividends	
1,400,000	700,000, $24,341,213	$19,609,861Contingency res	
340,000	Surplus	
$ 24,001,213	$19,609,861Earning rate	
82.73%	53.07%
'After all expenses, including depreciation and taxes. Market Record-
1923	1924	1925


H L H L H L
[Stage Direction]
Stock	480	400	485	440	512	488
Let me draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that in 1924 the company had a net profit, after paying taxes and all other expenses, of $3,715,691, and that in 1925 the net profit was $6,131,352. It is significant how enormously the profit for 1925 has increased over that for 1924.
In view of the strong position of this company, I should like to ask the House whether it can any longer be considered an infant. Is it the spirit of the National Policy that when an industry has grown, out of earnings, to the position now occupied by this company that it is still to be protected to the extent of 35 per cent, when those engaged in the industry are taking advantage of the tariff practically to the last one per cent? Are 5 p.m. our people to understand that that is what was contemplated by the framers of the National Policy? I have always understood that the prime reason underlying the adoption of the National Policy was to establish industries in this country on
fMr. Coote.]
such a footing that they would be able to pay a living wage to those engaged in them. Measured by this standard, is the present tariff on automobiles higher than is necessary? For 1924 the total salaries and wages paid by the automobile industry was $14,219,137, and the value of their production, $88,000,000. Wages and salaries were therefore 16.1 per cent of the value of the production. The protection enjoyed is 35 per cent, and the increase in price over the United States price is also 35 per cent. In other words, the increased price which our automobile manufacturers exact from the Canadian people because of the tariff is twice the total salaries and wages paid by the industry.
Mr. CAHAN:: Does that include the wages paid by companies making parts which are sold to the Ford and other automobile companies?


George Gibson Coote: These figures are from the
Bureau of Statistics, and I take it they represent the wages paid in the automobile factories, although the report does not state this definitely. But whether that is the case or not, the wholesale value of the cars manufactured in 1924 was $88,000,000, of which cars to the value of $31,000,000 were exported, leaving $57,000,000 worth to be consumed in Canada. To these figures we would have to add one-third to get the retail price. This is shown clearly in the Ford Company's booklet at page 15, where the retail price of a touring car is quoted at $440. The sales and excise tax, which is 10 per cent, is put at $33. Clearly, then, the wholesale price is $330. So we must add one-thirdl to these wholesale figures of production in order to get the retail worth. Adding this one-third we get $76,000,000 as the retail value of cars in Canada, without allowing for the sales and excise tax. This value is approximately 35 per cent greater because of the tariff. That means that approximately $20,000,000 is the excess price paid the manufacturers of these cars, or at least paid by the people of Canada for these cars in the year 1924. Of the cars made in Canada, 35 per cent were exported and 65 per cent consumed at home. Sixty-five per cent of the $14,219,137 of salaries and wages would be $9,242,429, for salaries and wages on Canadian made cars. That is less than half of the excess price charged to us by the makers of these cars.
As I have just said, $20,000,000 is approximately the price which we pay to manufacturers because of this tariff. It actually figures out at $19,696,432. On 76,923 Canadian made cars sold in Canada, that means an average increase in price of $255 per car The total

Duty on Automobiles
wages paid by the industry in Canada without salaries, was $10,938,202.. Sixty-five per cent of these cars consumed in Canada would make the wages paid on Canadian cars consumed in Canada $7,109,831, or an average wage of $92.42 per car. The manufacturer charges us because of the tariff an extra $255 per car; he pays in wages $92.42, yet we are told that protection is for the purpose of enabling our manufacturers to pay a living wage to those engaged in the industry. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that surely this tariff on automobiles is a violation of the spirit of the National Policy.
I have no doubt that someone will say, "See the large amount of customs duties which these manufacturers pay to the government." On page 22 of this yellow booklet it shows that in the year 1924 they paid as customs duty on engines and parts $5,745,813; in 1923 they paid $5,857,689, a total for those two years of $11,603,502.
But I find that in the year 1924 we paid to those manufacturers as drawbacks $5,223 341 and in 1923 $3,216,396, a total of $8,439,737. The net customs revenue for those two years, when you deduct the drawbacks, was $3,163.765, or an average for each of the two years of $1,581,882. The wages and salaries paid on cars consumed in Canada in 1924 amounted to $9,242,429; the wages alone paid on cars sold in Canada amounted to $7,109,831; the net customs paid to the government was $1,581.882. You will find that in wages and customs duties they have paid a little over half of the excess price which they charged us for the cars. If there had never been any motor cars made in Canada and we had paid customs duty of 35 per cent of the value of those cars, instead of that money going to the manufacturers, we would have a revenue of $20,000,000 a year, and just think what we could do with that $20,000,000. Given to the railways as a bonus for hauling coal, it would solve the coal problem; it would, I am told, amortize our national debt in sixty years, and I think it would more than pay-


Edward Joseph Garland: Would it
build the Hudson Bay railway?


George Gibson Coote: It would pay, I am sure, our
share of the old age pensions. I would like to point out here that the revenue which we are receiving on cars imported into Canada is not increasing, but seems rather to be decreasing. People are buying more Canadian made cars and the duty is going to the manufacturer. The revenue to the government on automobiles imported in 1923 was $4,133,321. In 1924 it dropped to $3,316,369 and in 1925
to $3,038,851. I think that point is worth bearing in mind. If we maintain this policy there will soon be no revenue from the customs tariff on automobiles, unless the people accept the advice given by the Local Council of Women of Toronto, and buy American cars just to be patriotic.
What effect would reduction of duty have on the automobile industry and on employment generally? First I think it is beyond question that a reduction in the tariff would reduce the price. Secondly, a reduction in price will increase consumption, and increased consumption means more employment. According to a statement on page three of a booklet recently issued by the Ford Motor Company, there were 6,706 people on the pay list of that company, while 12,054 persons secure employment as dealers and employees in Ford service garages. This would show that 35 per cent of these people are on the salary list of the company, while 65 per cent are employed throughout the country as dealers and garage men. It is surely beyond question that a reduction in the price of automobiles would increase the number of dealers and garage men. If there were any decrease in the number of employees in manufacturing establishments, it would be more than offset by the increase in the number of dealers and garage men, but I am sure there would be no decrease in the manufacturing plants. This industry does not need a 35 per cent protection in order to carry on. If the tariff were reduced they would have to reduce prices; more cars would be sold, and they would have an increase of employment rather than a decrease. I do not think that statement can be successfully challenged. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, there would be an increase in the total number of employees in the automobile industry generally, and in the dealers and garage men as well. Lower prices, mean a greater consumption, a greater consumption of cars, tires, gasoline, repairs and accessories; it means more men employed as dealers and garage men and in the running of service stations; it means an increase in the number of tire vulcanizers; it will mean an increase in road work, because we will have to have more good roads. It will mean more business for the railways in hauling cars, trucks, tires, repairs, gasoline and so on. I think it will also mean more work for the railways in hauling gravel and other material for road building purposes. It would increase employment and stimulate industry generally, not only in the automobile industry but in many other industries as well.
Duty on Automobiles

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that someone will say, "Well, we believe that the tariff might be reduced, but we are going to have a tariff board and we had better leave it tc them to settle this question."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


George Gibson Coote: I am glad to hear that "no" I understand that is the attitude of the automobile manufacturers themselves. The automobile manufacturers realize perfectly well that the Canadian people are demanding this reduction, and they think that if they can only get the matter before a tariff board there is no question in the world but that they can stave the matter off for at least one year more. And one year is worth a considerable amount to them. As I pointed out a little while ago the Ford Company profits in 1925 were $6,132,000 compared with $3,719,000 the year before. No doubt they want to enjoy one more year of these very handsome profits. They have already a reserve in cash and government bonds to the amount of $6,520,000. Is there not evidence enough before this House to convince us as representatives of the people that the tariff protection which this industry enjoys could and should be reduced now, and that the question should not be shelved by referring it to some tariff board? I say let the tariff on automobiles be reduced now. If the automobile manufacturers are not satisfied let them go to the board and convince it they have not been justly dealt with; but I do not apprehend there is any danger of the government putting the tariff so low that they will need any further protection. I do not think we need a tariff board to determine the fact that a Ford car on this side of the river is just the same as a Ford car in Detroit. I do not think we need a tariff board to convince us that a bolt or a nut in a Dodge car on this side of the river is the same as a bolt or a nut in a Dodge car in the country to the south. Furthermore, we do not need any tariff board to convince us that the Dodge car costs $300 more on this side of the river than it does on the other side. So I ask, what do we need an advisory tariff board for in connection with the automobile industry? In the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday there was an editorial headed " Uncertain tariff protection," which contained this paragraph emanating from a Conservative newspaper:
In the border cities alone men have been out of employment for months, and production has been curtailed for months, simply because the government seeking to curry favour in certain sections of the country, let it be given out that it would reduce the tariff on cars.

I wish the government had given that statement out; I would not need to make this speech this afternoon.
Now, to show you how unreliable some of the statements which are published in the press may be, I have here some figures showing the production in the automobile industry in the last four months compared with a similar period a year ago. They are as
follows:
November,	1924	
5,962	carsDecember,	1924	
7,200	carsJanuary, 1925	
8,301	carsFebruary, 1925	
10,779	carsNovember,	1925	
8,741	carsDecember,	1925	
7,498	carsJanuary, 1926	
11,252	carsFebruary, 1926	
15,895	cars
Surely those figures will dispose of the idea advanced in the paragraph quoted. I do not want to leave a wrong impression on the House. The paragraph I quoted was mentioned by the Citizen as coming from some other paper; I do not wish it to be understood that the Citizen itself was expressing that opinion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am very nearly through. But before I close I want to appeal to the members of all parties, in all sections of this House to support this resolution. I do not think I need appeal to any free trader that may be here. I should not have to appeal to any low tariff men, and I feel that I can safely appeal to protectionists in this House to support this resolution. I have heard it contended here by protectionists that protection does not necessarily increase prices. Well, there can be no doubt it does in this case because a Dodge car which sells in Detroit for $795 costs $1,096 at Windsor, so that protection increases the price of this car by exactly $300 The National Policy was established fifty years ago to build up industries in Canada. It has built up this industry; but surely the protectionists here would not want the Canadian people to think that it is the spirit of the National Policy that industries of this character should be permitted to take advantage of the tariff to the fullest extent as they are doing in this case. I claim there is no doubt in the world but that an unfair advantage has been taken of the tariff in the case of automobiles. We have often heard hon. gentlemen to my right say that when unfair advantage is taken of the tariff that tariff should be removed. Has not unfair advantage been taken of the tariff in this case? Then why should not the duty be lowered? If I were to take the resolution moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition in 1911 and substitute the word

Duty on Automobiles
" automobiles " for the words " agricultural implements " in one place, and then in another place add the word " consumers " this is how the resolution in question would read: That in the opinion of this House a substantial reduction in the import duties on automobiles is now due the agriculturists and consumers of Canada, and is in just accord with the true ends of a protective tariff.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that these words are absolutely true, and I cannot see why any protectionist cannot consistently support this resolution to-day. I know that many of my Conservative friends, and some of my Liberal friends who, I think, are protectionists, believe that this should be done. They think it is about time the Canadian people-


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman explain why he did not word his resolution in that form?


George Gibson Coote: All I can say is that when I placed my resolution on the order paper I had not looked up the resolution moved by the right hon. gentleman. I must admit that I had read his speech before, but I did not remember the exact form of the resolution which he moved at that time. I may say that I would have no objection to having the resolution changed in the manner indicated. I am no.t a protectionist, but I realize that it is not possible to get rid of protection in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Why not?


George Gibson Coote: If we must have protection it should be as low as we can get it. In the case of automobiles I think it is altogether too high.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman answer the question why we cannot get rid of it if we want to?


George Gibson Coote: Because both the leading parties in this House contain a number of protectionists.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Would the hon. gentleman remove it if he could?


George Gibson Coote: It is impossible to do it, so I do not think it necessary to discuss that question. I should like to make it clear that I am not advocating that or asking for it; I do not think the people of Canada want all of the duty removed. I may say I am tired of the continual strife going on in Canada in regard to this question-some people wanting to put the tariff up as high as Hainan's gallows and others wanting it removed altogether. We cannot get either of those policies, I believe, but I think we should 14011-127
do our best to get together, and I think the question of automobiles affords an opportunity for doing it.
I have appealed to my protectionist friends to support this resolution. I am now going to appeal to the government to support it, and this is the question I should like to put to the government particularly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb): How can a government which reduced the tariff on butter, eggs, lard, cheese, mutton, beef, dried fruit and so forth, coming from Australia, partly at least to secure from Australia preferential treatment for our automobile manufacturers, now refuse to lower the tariff on automobiles, a tariff which amounts in the aggregate to twice the wages and salaries paid by this industry-


Donald Sutherland: Are you in favour of putting back the duty on agricultural implements-


George Gibson Coote: -and under which the manufacturers are soaking us 35 per cent for the benefit of foreign capitalists. It is the farmer's turn now. I think the time has come when some consideration should be shown him. I hope nobody will think this will be of mere advantage to farmers than to any other class, because we all pay the same rate of duty. There were no lobbyists here in the interests of the farmer when the Australian treaty was put through. It is an open secret the lobbyists for the automobile manufacturers have' been busy around the House for the past few weeks. Possibly a vote on the resolution to-day will show what effect they have had on hon. members. But I ask the House, what its duty is in regard to this question. To protect the automobile manufacturers eighty per cent of whose stock is owned in the United States? Is it our duty to protect the industry which makes these inordinate profits, or is it our duty to protect Canadian consumers from further unreasonable exploitation at the hands of these men by insisting that the tariff be reduced, so as to make it possible for our own people to take advantage at a reasonable price of this great invention-the autombile?


Mr. AIME BOUCHARD (Kamouraska) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, it affords me much pleasure to rise in support of the motion of my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote). Last year on March 16, 1925, the same hon. gentleman delivered on the same question, a very noteworthy speech, which I regret to say did not at the time draw our attention to the

Duty on Automobiles


Mr. RAYMOND MORAND (East Essex):: Coming from the riding of East Essex, where a very great number of the automobiles used in this country are manufactured, I cannot of course be expected to be very enthusiastic in support of this resolution favouring a reduction in the duty on automobiles. I have listened during this session to a discussion of Maritime rights and to the western lament, and after listening to them both for a long time I began to wonder whether we in the centre of Canada had any rights at all. I must say that I viewed with considerable sympathy the troubles of both, and I was quite prepared to support any move that would help them, or at least stop some of their lamentations. But when, not satisfied with telling us about their own troubles, they come out determinedly with a definite resolution that would put us in the central part of Canada into trouble, I think it is time for us in the central part of Canada to say that we have some small rights at least, and that they should be protected.
I rather enjoyed hearing the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) say a little while ago that he was quite willing to have a cow so long as somebody else milked her. So far as I can see, the two ends of Canada want, one the cow, and the other the milk, and they expect us in the centre to milk the cow for them.


Mr. BROWN:: It is the milking we object to.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I am glad you are good-natured about it.
Now first I am going to admit a few facts, and it is not very often I do that. The automobile to-day is a necessity; I am glad 14011-127*
to have heard that said, because I believe it is true. The automobile industry has made a start in Canada, and it should be maintained in Canada because it is a permanent industry; it is not a thing which will be here to-day and be gone a short time after. Being a permanent industry, then, surely we must take care of it, surely we must protect it. We must see that it is based on a proper foundation, not ruined and given over to the United States; for I believe that would be the result of this resolution if adopted and put into effect in its present form.


Mr. EVANS:: Oh, no.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Well, I will come to that in a little while. I was rather surprised at some of the statements the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) made when speaking to his resolution. I was very much surprised to know, for instance, that every third person in Alberta owns an automobile.


George Gibson Coote: Every third farmer, I said.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Very well then. That is certainly a very much higher percentage than in my constituency, for not every third family in my constituency owns an automobile.


George Gibson Coote: I wonder if the hon. member would tell us how far his people live from a railway or from a town.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I assure the hon. member that that is not the reason they do not own an automobile; the reason is they cannot afford it.
The hon. member also said that there have been quite a number of lobbyists around here in the last two or three weeks. He probably is acquainted with some of them, because I am quite sure I saw amongst them the late member for South Ontario. I do not know if that is what he was doing, but he was here a great deal. I know my own opponent, who is a Liberal, was also here, and he is very much interested in seeing that the automobile industry should not be adversely affected.
I did hope and think, Mr. Speaker, that when this resolution was brought up some member of the government would rise and say: Here is a resolution that concerns a very important industry in this country, an industry with many ramifications, therefore we will refer the matter to our tariff board. I suppose, however, they did not do that because they had very little confidence in the
Duty on Automobiles

board. I notice that when it was suggested this afternoon that this question should be referred to the new tariff board, there was quiet among the government followers, and when it was suggested that it should not be referred to the board there was considerable acclaim. Judging by the protracted labour over the birth of this new board, I am not sure that it is going to be very healthy now that it has arrived. I can readily sense its inheritance; I am sure it will inherit a lot of low tariff ideas. I also quite realize that it will not have very much direction, nor will its environment be good, and most things, of course, base their development on inheritance and environment. Furthermore, before the board was even bom the government shackled it in the Speech from the Throne, where they definitely state: "We do not believe the time has arrived for raising the tariff." So that I can quite readily understand that our good friends across the way would not have much faith in such an offspring of the government as apparently we shall see in a short while.
I am going to show as far as I possibly can some of the ramifications of this business which the hon. member who has moved this resolution (Mr. Coote) feels can be so readily adjusted. I should have thought that the fertile brains of hon. members from the west especially could have conceived, for what they consider an abuse, some other cure than the lowering of the tariff. I expected to get something much different from that. All I am interested in is that the market for automobiles shall remain in Canada for the benefit of the workingmen of this country, and in making this statement I declare emphatically right here that I have no interest in automobile factories, nor am I interested in any great amount of profit. I do believe however that every firm which invests money, brains, and efficiency in an industry has a right to a fair profit. A good deal has been said about the large profits made by the Ford Company in Canada. This is absolutely true, but the same thing applies to the Ford works in the United States. At least, they invested $125,000 on this side to start the Ford plant, whereas the Ford plant in the United States was started with nothing but debts. It grew, however, and I have heard no one over there so far find fault with Ford for having developed a wonderful industry. Let us remember, too, that that industry was built up under protection. The profits made by the Ford plant in Canada are no greater than the profits made by the plant in the United States, and this fact can be substantiated.	[DOT]

I will now give a few reasons why I am interested in seeing this industry maintained in Canada. In my own town and in the border cities we have working for automobile manufacturers, and the manufacturers of automobile parts, 8,978 men. Remember, this is in the border cities alone. If therefore you wipe out the duty on automobiles, or even materially reduce it, you will affect not only the automobile manufacturers but a vast army of workers as well. In Windsor alone we have working in the manufacturing of automobile parts 1,786 men, and the pay-roll in the border cities amounts to $10,928,000, while the total plant investment is over $23,000,000.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Are those
factories engaged exclusively in the manufacture of automobile parts?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Yes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are they a part of
the Ford Company?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: No; these are manufacturers who make parts required in the assembling of various automobiles.


Mr. MACDONALD (Glengarry):: Where
do the employees come from?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Most of them come from constituencies of many of the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Archibald John Macdonald: From
the farms?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Yes, too often from the farms. The sons of farmers who want to go to the United States come to Windsor, and then slip over. If it were not for the automobile industry in the border cities, the number going over into the United States would be still greater.


Robert Forke: It is a net to catch the
farmers that are flying away.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I still believe that the
hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) would rather have them stay in the city of Windsor under the British flag than go to the United States. Let me now read from a list showing some of the places that derive a benefit from the automobile industry in Canada. The parts manufacturers in the border cities buy supplies not in small quantities, but in a largo scale from such firms as Steel Company of Canada, Hamilton; Anaconda American Brass Company, New Toronto; Algoma Steel Corporation, Sault Ste. Marie; Standard Paint and Varnish Company, Windsor; J. T. Wing Company, Windsor; Canadian Handon and Van Winkle Company, Toronto; John Morrow

Duty on Automobiles
Screw Company, Ingersoll; Northern Bolt, Screw and Wire Company, Owen Sound; and from other concerns in Windsor, Walkerville, Montreal, Hamilton, St. Catharines, Galt, Wallaceburg, and elsewhere.
The foregoing is just a list of a few of the numerous manufacturers from whom the industry in the 'border cities gets its supplies. Some of the material the manufacturers of the border cities buy are malleable iron castings, pig iron, fire brick, steel porcelains, asbestos, cartons and containers, wires, sheet steel, sheet brass, incandescent bulbs, electrical apparatus, glass, baking enamel, and so forth. These supplies are obtained in various parts of Canada and any general reduction in the tariff would undoubtedly affect some of the manufacturers who turn out these products.


An hon. MEMBER:: If the duty were reduced, more cars would be sold1.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I heard an hon. member
some time ago say that if the prices of cars were reduced there would be an increase in the number of automobiles sold. Of course I agree with that statement, but I do not admit with any hon. member that a man who knows nothing about the automobile business can instruct the manufacturers in the proper conduct of that business. If the manufacturers knew of any way of increasing their business, we may rest assured that they would adopt it.
At a meeting of manufacturers of automobile parts, at which there were fifteen companies represented, there was a unanimous expression of opinion against any reduction in the duty on automobiles. For example, the Motor Products Corporation took this view:
Reduction in duty on automobiles would affect our business very seriously. Practically our entire output is sold to the various automobile companies of Canada and we could not continue to manufacture with a lower tariff protection on the industry.
The Canadian Lamp and Stamping Company, Limited, said:
We believe that a cut of even five per cent in the present duty on automobiles and parts would make it impossible for us to continue in business. Our profit in 1925 was three and a half per cent on our sales.
The Canadian Top and Body Company had this to say:
Reduction in duty on automobiles would have a very serious effect on our business.
One after another they all told the same story. Supplies for the manufacture of parts that enter into the construction of automobiles are obtained in every part of Canada, and the sources of these supplies show the ramifications of the industry. As a matter of fact these supplies are obtained from New Brunswick to Winnipeg, from hundreds of firms. With the permission of the House I would place this list on Hansard:
FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED STUDEBAKER CORPORATION AND CHRYSLER CORPORATION Sources of Supply
Firm's Name
D.	Auckland & Son Ltd	
Acme Steel Goods Co	
Acme Waste Mfg. Co	
Addressograph Sales Company	
J. Albert	
Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd	
Aluminum Co	
Aluminum Steel Products	
American Pad & Textile Co	
Anaconda American Brass Ltd	
The Arco Co. Ltd	
The Angus Mnfg.Co	
Arlington Co. of Canada Ltd	
Armstrong Cork & Insulation Co...
The Arnold Mfg. Co	
J. H. Ashdown Hardware	
E.	C. Atkinson	
The Ault & Wiborg Co	
Auto Specialties Mnfg. Co	
Babcock-Wilcox & Goldie McCulloch
J. H. Back & Co	
Bailey Motor Co	
Bakelite Corp	
W. H. Bamfield & Sons	
Winnipeg, Montreal. Toronto..
City
Product
Windsor	
Sault Ste. Marie..
Toronto	
Owen Sound, Ont,
Chatham	
New Toronto....
Toronto	
a
Spring Steel, Carbon Steel Alloy Steel.
Alum, castings.
Brass and copper.
<<

Guelph	
Winnipeg....
Hamilton....
Toronto	
Windsor	
Galt	
London	
Montreal, P.Q Toronto	
Cork.
Mall, castings. Bakelite.
Duty on Automobiles


FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED STUDEBAKER CORPORATION AND CHRYSLER CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
Sources or Supply
Firm's Name	City	Product
		Mach, shop equipment. Springs. Uphol. material.
		
		
Bartlet, Macdonald & Gow			
The Barton Netting Co. Ltd			
Bauer's Limited			
Beldams Asbestor Packing & General Mnfg. Co		Toronto		
The Bell Thread Co			Threads.
Benjamin Electric Mnfg. Co			
Bird & Sons Ltd			
Black & Decker Mfg. Co			Drills.
		
Bogardus Wickens			
Thos. Bonar Co. Ltd			
Border Builders Supply Co			Sand, gravel, brick.
Border Cities Insulation Co			
Border Cities Wire & Iron Works		u	
Border City Auto Supply Co. Ltd		tt	
Bowes Co. Limited			
Bowman Anthony Co			
British American Oil Co			Oils.
The Brown Bogg's Co			
The Brown Bros. Limited			
Brown & Rutherford			
Bryant Pattern & Mnfg. Co			Patterns.
F. L. Buchanan			
The Bull Dog Lacer Co			
Buntin Reid Co. Ltd			Paper. Lumber.
Thos. A. Burrows Lumber Co. Ltd			
F. W. Burt Co. Ltd			
Campbell Chrome Leather Belting		Galt		
Campbell MacLaurin Lumber Co			
Canada Foils Ltd			Tin foil. Body parts. Glue. Tools.
Canada Furniture Manufacturers			
Canada Glue Co			
Canada Illinois Tools			
Canada Iron Foundries Ltd			
Canada Machinery Corp		Galt	Equipment. Solder. Tacks. Elect. Material.
Canada Metal Co			
Canada Tack & Nail Co			
Canada Wire & Cable Co. Ltd			
Canada W'ire & Iron Goods Co			
Canadian Acme Screw & Gear Co			Screw, Mach. Parts.
Canadian Asbestos Co			
Canadian Atlas Crucible Steel Co			Special Steel.
Canadian Bag Co			
Canadian Blower & Forge Co. Ltd..		
Canadian Bridge Co			
Canadian Carborundum Co...		Emery Wheels.
Canadian Commercial Motor Car Co			
Canadian Consolidated Felt Co			
		Tires.
		
		
		
		Tools.
		
	ti	Imitation leather.
	tt	
	tt	
	tt	Elec, equipment. Tires.
		
		
		
		Alcohol.
		
	m ,	
Canadian Johns Manville Co			
Canadian Laboratories Supplies Ltd		tt	
[Stage Direction]
Duty on Automobiles
FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED STUDEBAKER CORPORATION AND CHRYSLER CORPORATION Sources of Supply
Firm's Name	City	Product
		Auto lamps.
		
	tt	
	U	
	tt	
		
		Asbestos lining.
		
		
		
		Ball bearings.
		
		Body wooden parts.
		
		
		
		Uphol. material.
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Spark plugs.
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Plate glass.
		
		
	U	
	u	
	it	
	tt	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Forgings.
		
		
		
		
	Galt		
		
		Uphol. material.
		Car springs.
		Tires and rubber.
		Parts.
		
		
		
	tt	
		Bendix drives.
		
		
Empire Cotton Mills Ltd		Welland		Cotton.
Duty on Automobiles
[Stage Direction]
FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED STUDEBAKER CORPORATION AND CHRYSLER CORPORATION Sources of Supply
Firm's Name	City	Product
Essex Stamp Co Ltd			
Eureka Planter Co			Grey'iron cast.
Everlasting Valve Co			
S. H. Ewing & Sons			
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co			
Firstbrook Bros Ltd			Packing boxes. Cast, and fittings. Paint.
Fittings Ltd			
Flint Paint & Varnish Co			
H. W. Fox Co			
Frank & Bryce Ltd			
Freysens Cork Co		ti	
Frontier Products Co		ti	Tools.
		
D. Gostestner (Canada Ltd.)			
Widley Boat Co					
Phillip Gies Pump Co			
The Glidden Co			
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co			Tires and rubber parts. Lumber. Trucks.
A. E. Gordon Lumber Co		it	
Gotfredson Corp			
Gould Baird Poster Co			
Graham Nail Works			Nails.
Grasselli Chemical Co		it	
Gray Ball Bearing Co			ii	Bearings.
B. Greening W;ire Co			
		Carpets.
Gummed Papers Ltd				
H. E. Guppy & Co			
Gutta Percha & Rubber Ltd			Misc. rubber parts.
Hamilton Caster & Mnfg. Co			
Hamilton Cotton Co			Brake band lining jEquipment.
Hamilton Gear <fc Machine Co			
Hamilton Press & Machining Co			
Hamilton Stamp & Stencil Works			
O. P. Hamlin Co			
H. A. Harrison Tool Co			Tools.
S. R. Hart Ltd			
Hart Battery Co. Ltd			Batteries.
Hartwell Bros. Ltd			
Hay & Co			Wood parts. Stationery.
Hay Stationery Co			
Hinde & Dauch Paper Co. of Canada			
Hi-Speed Tools Ltd			Tools.
Hobbs Mnfg. Co			
Holden Co			
Holland Varnish Co			
Holmes Foundry Co			Grey iron cast.
Home & Wilson			
Holmes Thompson Inc			
Hart Metal Co			
Imperial Oil Ltd			Oils.
Imperial Trading Co			
Imperial Varnish Colour Co			
Industrial Equipment Co			
Ingersoll Machine & Tool Co			Tools.
Instruments Ltd			
Interlake Tissue Mills			
International Business Machines			
International Malleable Iron Co			Mall, castings.
International Polishing Buffs			
Jefferson Glass Co			
D. M. Jessop & Sons Ltd		it	Steel.
A. Jobborn			
Jordon Roberts Sales Ltd			
H. J. Jones Sons Ltd			
Kelsey Wheel Co		Windsor		Wooden wheels.
Kennedy Car Lining & Bag Co			Car coverings.
Ker & Goodwin Machinery Co		Brantford		
[Stage Direction]
Duty on Automobiles
FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED STUDEBAKER CORPORATION AND CHRYSLER CORPORATION Sources op Supply
Firm's Name	City	Product
		
		
		Lumber.
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Misc. Bolts and nuts. .
	U	
	((	Soap.
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Castings.
		
		
		
		
		
		
		Good lacings.
		
		Forgings.
		
		
		
		Mica sheets and parts.
		Castings.
		Tools.
		Upholstery material.
		
		Screws and nuts.
		
		Stampings and Windshields.
		
		Solder.
		Brass castings.
		
	St. John, N.B		
		
		
		
		Chemicals.
		Files.
		
		Elec. Wiring.
		Office supplies.
		
		Elec, wiring.
		Tubes.
		
		
		
		Machinery.
		Elec, wiring.
	Halifax, N.S		
		Glass.
		Steel.
E. C. Potts Mnfg. Co		Paris		
Duly on Automobiles

[Stage Direction]
Sources of Supply		
Firm's Name	City	Product
Powerlite Devices Ltd			
Pratt & Whitney			Tools. Tools.
Precision Tool Works			
Prest-O-Lite Battery Co			
Preston-Schwartz Ltd			
Preston Woodworking Machinery			Machinery. Tools.
Production Materials			
Rapid Electrotype Co			
Ratcliffe Paper Co			
Richard Wilcox Canadian Co			
Roach & McLaughlin			
Jas. Robertson Co			
P. L. Robertson Mnfg. Co			
Robinson Clay Products			
Roelofson Elevator Works			
Rudd Paper Box Co			Paper boxes. Axles.
Ruckstell Axle Co			
Rudel Belnap Mach. Co			
S. M. Tool Co			Tools.
St. Thomas Metal Signs			
Sandwich Foundry			Grey iron castings. Paints. Cotton waste.
Scarfe & Co			
Scythes & Co			
See & Duggan Motors			
Sheldons Limited			
Sherwin Williams Co			Paints and varnishes.
Shimer Cutton Head Co		Galt..	
Shurly & Derrett			
Simcoe Mitt & Glove Co			Gloves.
T. S. Simms			
Simonds Saw Co			Saws. Sewing machines.
Singer Sewing Machine Co		a	
Skinner & Co			
C. H. Smith Co			
Somercille Paper Boxes			Paper boxes.
Standard Foundry & Supply Co			
Standard Paint & Varnish Co			Paints. Steel tubes. Elect, wiring. Misc. stampings. Steel, etc. Steel products. Tools.
Standard Tube Co			
Standard Underground Cable Co			
Stanley Works of Canada		a	
Steel Co. of Canada Ltd		a	
Steel Co. of Canada, Ltd			
Stevens Co. of Galt			
Sully Brass Foundry			
Superheater Co			
Tallman Brass & Metal Co			Brass castings.
Taylor & Arnold Engineering Co			
Taylor Forbes Co			Grey iron castings.
Terry Nicholson Cates			
Thistle Rubber Co			Rubber parts. Carpet.
Toronto Carpet Mnfg. Co			
Trussed Concrete Steel Co			
Turnbull Elevator Co			
Union Drawn Steel Co			Cold drawn steel.
Union Lumber Co	'			
United Paper Mills		ii	
Victoria Paper & Twine Co		it	
F. Villeneuve Lumber Co			
Walker Sons Limited			
Hiram Walker Metal Products Co		a	
Walkerville Hardware Co		n	
Walkerville Hydro Electric Co		tt	
Wallaceburg Brass & Iron			Brass castings. Forgings.
W alton-Carlson			
Warford Corp			
Western Glass Co			
Williams & Wilson		Montreal		

Duty on Automobiles

[Stage Direction]
STUDEBAKER CORPORATION AND CHRYSLER CORPORATION Sources of Supply
Firm's Name	City	Product
		Uphol. springs.
		
	U	
-J. T. Wing & Co		U	
		
		
		
Names on Studebaker and Chrysler Corporation Lists but not on Ford List
Alemite Products	
Barber Ellis Co	
Northern Bolt Screw & Wire Co....
Harvey E. Dodds Co	
Gabriel Mfg. Co....,	
Galt Machine & Screw Co	
Might Directories	
Moto-Meter Company	
Murdock Stationery	
T. J. Parsons	
A. Schrader's Sons, Inc	
Thompson & Norris Co. of Can. Ltd
To we & To we	
United Typewriter Co	
Wiggins Systems	
Wilson Bros	
Belleville, Ont- Brantford, Ont... Owen Sound, Ont
Toronto	
(«
Galt	
Toronto	
Hamilton	
Toronto.,	
[Stage Direction]
it
(t
London	
Windsor	
Winnipeg	
Walkerville	
Now I think the hon. gentleman said that a cut in the automobile duty would give us more railway revenue. I may state that since 1907 over 129,000 automobiles have been imported, and it is only natural to expect that a lowering of the duty will stimulate this importation, and instead of increasing our railway revenue it will reduce it, because the imported cars will be brought into Canada at the nearest point of sale and we shall lose the very considerable railway revenue that now accrues from the raw materials imported for the manufacture of automobiles. Hon. members will be surprised to be told that under the present rate of duty one of our border cities' plants representing a capitalization of millions of dollars has had to close down, only a watchman being now in charge. This plant manufactured automobile engines and axles, and these parts of course are now being shipped in from the United States.
Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Why is that?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Because the duty is too
low.


Edward James Young: Twenty-five per cent?
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Rate of Duty Per cent
Bendix drive	 27$
Springs fo-r cushion and back upholstering. 30
Cylinder hubs, drums and flanges	 35
Windshields, metal mouldings, metal stampings, and	so	forth	
30Lighting and	ignition cable	
30
Cylinders, cylinder heads, and so forth.. 27$
Dies, tools, and	so forth	  27$
Cylinder blocks, heads and exhaust fittings. 27$
Following is a statement of the duties on raw and semi-finished materials required in the manufacture of parts, accessories and so forth:
Fire brick			Rate of Duty Per cent
	
	
Cartons and containers		
	
Sheet steel		
Sheet brass		
Incandescent bulbs		
Electrical apparatus		
	
	
High speed end carbon:	
	
	l 30
	
	
Manufactures of rubber		
Machine screw products		
	
	
Cotton thread		
faring wire		
Hoop steel			
	Per ton
Pig iron		
That, Mr. Speaker, will show you the diversity of the duty on the parts and materials that enter into the manufacture of.automobiles. In addition to the duties imposed upon the various parts and materials entering into the manufacture of an automobile, the industry in this country has to bear the burden of a great number of taxes which the automobile industry in the United States does not have to bear. For instance, the sales tax. There is a sales tax in the United States, it is true; it was 5 per cent, but it has been cut down to 3 per cent. But in this country there is the sales tax, the excise tax, the stamp tax, and in addition, a sales tax upon the parts which go into the manufacture of an automobile, on the various raw materials, and so forth, all of which adds to the cost of the auto.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is my hon. friend correct in saying that these are taxes on the industry? Are they not taxes on the consumer
direct?

Mr. MlORAND: One equals the other, because the taxes make the price of the automobile higher than in the United States. When you compare the price of automobiles in the United States and Canada, you must certainly admit that taxes form a part of the price, and more than that, there are taxes upon the parts that go into a car, all of which adds to the price before the final tax is added to the finished product.
In comparing the Ford prices in the Unitec States with Ford prices in Canada, we must remember that there has been a gradual evolution of the Ford plant in the United States over a considerable period of time, in a country with a very large population compared with ours, and the Ford Company, by virtue of the money which they made out of their plant, not what they invested in it, were able to secure forests, mines, railroads, and boat transportation, so that the Ford car evolves direct from the basic products into the finished article, and there is only one profit upon it. That certainly is not possible in any country until sufficient money has been made and the plant is sufficiently large to be able to own and control these various basic products. So in the United States there is only one profit on the Ford car from the time it leaves the forest until it is delivered to the purchaser, and that has been possible only by reason of the fact that they were able to do a large business and make considerable money, and thereby accumulate sufficient capital to acquire these basic resources. We have reason to believe that with the proper development of our own industry we shall get gradually into the same position, and that under a tariff here, as under a tariff there, we shall eventually turn out our Ford cars as cheaply as they do in the United States.
There is another factor which enters into it. In the United States competition has been so keen that some companies have been eliminated. It may be news to many hon. members to know that last year, in 1925, three hundred million dollars worth of new autos were sold in the United States on the instalment plan, which shows that the market there is saturated, and that they are cutting their prices. They are eliminating car after car company in the United! States, and the remaining firms we have to compete with. Personally I 'believe in protection and so do my constituents, a protection that will be sufficient to maintain the Canadian market for our own goods. That applies not only to the manufacturer of automobiles; it applies to all other manufacturers, and to farm products as well. All I ask is, that before any-

Duty on Automobiles
thing is done with the tariff on automobiles .a proper and thorough survey of the entire situation be made by some competent body and that we be left with the Canadian market for our Canadian cars. We ask that those factories which are running at the present time be allowed to continue to function, and that some of the factories now closed be permitted to re-open, I believe that a proper survey such as I have indicated having been made, and some readjustment of the tariff and taxes carried out, cars can probably be produced more cheaply. Furthermore, with a reduction in taxation, a reduction in excise tax, of the sales tax, and of the stamp tax I believe we will get a materially reduced price on automobiles, and then, our factories can continue to operate. I think that the working men in those factories, the people who have invested in homes for themselves, the farmers who depend upon the industry for their market, have a right to expect from this government that it will make no move in regard to a change in the tariff, that nothing in this direction will be done until the whole question has been thoroughly investigated and the results of that investigation submitted to the House.


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I wish to say at the outset that I am in hearty accord with the resolution introduced this afternoon by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). The question of the duty on automobiles is one of more than ordinaty importance in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. The hon. gentleman who preceded me declared that his constituency wants protection. I cannot say that the people of my constituency are very strong for protection. I believe there is no one question of more general consequence to my constituents than the duty on automobiles and motor trucks. This is partly due to the geographical location of that constituency. It extends for some ninety miles along the border of North Dakota, and this being the- case our people- and particularly those who reside near the border itself-have an opportunity of studying at first hand the manner in which the duty on automobiles works out in actual practice. Under the circumstances, therefore, our people are familiar with the conditions that were described by the mover of the resolution this afternoon, and they have found that in some cases the man on the Canadian side is paying two hundred, three hundred and even four hundred dollars more for his automobile than his neighbour who in some instances lives only
just across the road. My constituents have inquired thoroughly into the conditions which have brought that result about. They have found them to be the conditions that were described this afternoon and which I shall not weary the House by repeating. Thi3 tariff is not being used to protect an infant industry; it is being used to create millionaires not in our own country but in a foreign land; and the more we inquire into the conditions which prevail the more we are convinced there is something very unfair in connection with the operation of the tariff on automobiles and motor trucks.
The question has been asked: Why is it that we hear so much about the duty on automobiles to-day; why is it that so much has been said about it in the last few years? So recently as fifteen years ago very few people *were concerned very much as to whether there -was a high duty or a low duty on automobiles. The reason for that was that the automobile was so much of a luxury then that only a few' people of wealth were able to buy it. But in the last ten years the automobile has come into much greater use, and it is no longer looked upon as a luxury. To-day it is being used more and more by ail classes of people, and has come to be looked upon as an economic necessity. Not only is that the case on our farms, but it is also true as regards professional men, and "men in all lines of business-in a word, the automobile is now considered a time saving device. The same can be said of the motor truck. And now that people use automobile? to such an extent and now that they are familiar with the use made of the tariff in connection 'with the manufacture of these vehicles, there is an insistent demand on their part for the reduction of the duty.
No doubt it will be argued that a material reduction in the duty is fraught with danger. No doubt some will maintain that as a consequence of that reduction the automobile industry will be unable to continue to function successfully, and that a large number of workingmen wiH be thrown out of employment. Personally, I have no desire to be otherwise than fair to the employees engaged in this industry. My desire is to be particularly fair to the local dealers in automobiles. I am not particularly concerned about the men who have made millions out of the automobile industry as we know they have in the past, but with respect to the argument advanced on behalf of the employees I do feel some concern. That being the case, I have made a careful study of the situation with respect to these employees and from that
Duty on Automobiles

study I have come to the conclusion that a lowering of the tariff will reduce prices. I think there is no doubt whatever about the fact that a reduction in the tariff will bring about a reduction in the price of the automobile. But would that be an evil? I think not, because in my opinion a reduction in the price of automobiles and motor trucks would result in a greatly increased demand for these vehicles and as a result of that increased demand the manufacturers would increase their plant and equipment. That would mean more work for the employees; and in my opinion their position would be greatly improved from what it is at present. The same remarks would apply to the local dealers. Their commission probably would not be as large in the case of each car they might sell, but the volume of increased sales would more than make up for any loss in that regard. With respect to the manufacturers, we have not found in the past that a reasonable reduction in the tariff has resulted in the closing of the factories or a lessened production, although we have heard arguments along that line.
I should like to say a word now with respect to the Ford Motor Company, with whose position hon. gentlemen are more or less familiar. As I view matters, the Ford Motor Company is unique in its financial standing amongst the automobile industries of this country. If it were not so I would say that the automobile tariff should be wiped out entirely. If it were possible for other industries to emulate the success of the Ford Motor Company I would say they should have no protection whatever. But as I said, I believe the Ford Company is in a unique position, and for that reason I would not advocate wiping out the tariff entirely. But believing as I do that the time is long passed when we should have a substantial reduction in the automobile tariff, I would call on the government to introduce legislation which will have the effect of substantially reducing this tariff. With the farts which have been enumerated this afternoon by the hon. member who introduced this resolution, we do not require td refer this matter to the tariff advisory board or any other organization, because we have sufficient evidence to prove that there is just need for a substantial reduction in the tariff.


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I address myself to the question now under consideration. I shall endeavour to express myself as best I can, this being the first occasion on which I have attempted to address the House upon any serious question. In the

first place, I desire to say a few words with regard to the automobile business as it affects the community, apart altogether from the man who happens to make a few thousand dollars in the business. Permit me to say that I have no interest whatever in the automobile business which has grown up in the city of Oshawa. Oshawa which has been denominated The Motor City of Canada, is in the constituency which I represent, and is the place where I happen to reside. I have seen the little city spring up around me. I have seen it grow from a village - of 3,500 people to a city of 20,000. I saw the inception of the automobile business, and I say now that probably it was a mistake that that industry happened to be started in so small a place. It is a big industry, a tremendous undertaking, and probably it naturally would have started in a larger city if the people concerned in it had had any idea at its inception that it was going to expand to such dimensions. Naturally we as Canadians, were proud of the fact that our city was growing, and it is a matter of gratification to us that those who had been connected with other industries were able to foresee the possibilities to a city from having such a tremendous industry within its bounds. But remember that it cast upon us as a community a tremendous responsibility, and we were obliged to undertake financial obligations quite-beyond the expectations of a city of our size-. When the industry started in Oshawa in 1908 we had a bonded debt of only $299,335'. In 1907, when the McLaughlin people started to build automobiles we had an obligation of only $300,685. In the year 1918 it increased to-$617,482. In the year 1919 the McLaughlin automobile works merged with General Motors of the United States of America and established the Canadian branch of the General Motors. This was a tremendous concern. It came to our city, and in order that we might equip ourselves for the big industry we required streets, pavements, water, schools and all the equipment and facilities necessary to accommodate this great concern. The rapid increase in the financial responsibilities of the city of Oshawa will be apparent from the following figures showing the growth of the municipal debt during the period from 1920 to
1925:
1920		 $ 900,333
1921		 1,413,458
1922		 1,695,370
1923		     2,142,764
1924		   3,091,235
1925		 3,383,433
Now we have issued bonds to this amount in order to provide necessary municipal services. These bonds should be paid in

Duty on Automobiles
twenty years' time. Four years of this period have passed and with this tremendous debt 'staring us in the face we come to this parliament and find that it is calmly and coolly considering a proposal to reduce the tariff on automobiles, and place this industry in jeopardy in Canada and in our city. Is it any wonder that we feel alarmed? If those were the only obligations we had incurred, the position might not be so bad, but there were other undertakings beyond this. There were debts incurred in building schools, amounting to $1,000,000 and the obligations undertaken in providing churches to accommodate the people. We had workmen coming to our city from various parts of Ontario to work in these industries, and these people had to be housed. What did we do? We pledged the credit of the city for $800,000 to build homes in Oshawa for workmen. One-quarter of the moneys required for these homes is perhaps paid but three-quarters remains yet to be met. I just mention these things to show, in the first place, the number of people who are affected, the condition in which our community is placed, and the alarm we feel over this proposition.
It has been stated that the reduction of the duty on automobiles will not disturb the industry. We have that on the authority of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) and also of representatives from some other constituencies. These gentlemen, I suppose, consider themselves authorities in regard to this matter and perhaps they are. I have, however, some doubt about their conclusions. Why? Because this is not the first time our little city has been swept by the same kind of theory and reasoning; we have gone through these crises in that city more than once.
In 1923 we were told that the reduction in the duty on agricultural implements would have the same stimulating effect as we are told now the reduction in the duty of automobiles will have. Down went the tariff on agricultural implements. The government of the day did not realize that behind the agricultural implement industry were subsidiary industries here and there throughout the country. In Oshawa we had an industry manufacturing the iron that goes into these implements, and in order to appease the Mas-sey-Harris people, what did the government do? They reduced the tariff on malleable iron from fifteen to six per cent. Six per cent was the only protection the malleable iron industry had in the city of Oshawa. If that had been the only thing that had been done we would not have suffered as we did; but, for instance,
somebody from British Columbia stated that, they had clay for making fire brick which the malleable iron people require, and the duty on fire-brick was increased. The result was that as the mallleable iron people could not bring the brick from British Columbia, they had to pay the duty on the same kind of brick coming from the United States because that is the only place from which they could get it. Taking into account the duties that were added in this way, the result was that the protection of six per cent upon malleable iron was absolutely wiped out. What happened? In three months' time all the patterns that were in the malleable iron industry were taken to Batavia and in the Massey-Harris building in the United States of America they undertook the business that we had been carrying on in Oshawa. This industry was thus transplanted to a foreign land. The price of the agricultural implements was not reduced, but nearly one thousand men in Oshawa were thrown out of employment.
If that had been all, we would not have minded it so much, but as soon as the patterns were gone we picked up the Buffalo papers and found in them advertisements for Canadian moulders of malleable iron to come to Batavia to manufacture the iron that formerly had been manufactured in Oshawa. We saw these thousand people thrown on the street by virtue of the action of the government of the day and what kind of responsibility did this put upon us? Nobody knows better than I, associated as I had been for-thirty years with the social affairs of the city. We had to organize welfare societies-and Dr. Kaiser was always put at the head of this kind of work-to collect money and to care for the people who were in distress.
This reduction, instead of affecting one thousand people, will affect twenty thousand people in Oshawa. Why? Because nearly every industry in that city plays some part in the building of automobiles. We have the. textile people making the material for the linings. We have the Pedlar people making the iron for the hoods and we have the woollen industry. We have the malleable iron industry making the little malleable iron that' is required to go into these automobiles. This business is being carried on at very much reduced prices; in fact the malleable-iron business throughout Ontario is just breathing to-day by virtue of this reduction in the tariff. They tell us that the aforesaid reduction will not affect our industries, that there will be such a demand for automobiles that there will be an increased demand for the
Duty on Automobiles

output of our industries. A reduction in the tariff has never increased the demand. Every time the government has disturbed the tariff in the industrial city which I represent, the result has been almost to put the industry affected out of business. We have seen this happen before. The same people who are advocating this reduction stated that there would be an increased demand if the tariff was removed from binder twine. But what happened? The binder twine people went out of business and binder twine became more expensive than before. They told us the same thing would happen in the case of wire fencing and wire fencing became more expensive than before. What has happened as regards the woollen industry? The effect on Canada has been almost ruinous. Why? Because our farmers had been developing the sheep industry-


Robert Forke: It is a good paying business.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I want to tell my hon. friend something about the sheep industry.


Robert Forke: I raise them.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Every farmer in Ontario
who has a good flock of sheep has a clean farm. We cannot afford in this country to continue reducing the number of our domestic animals. The vegetable and animal kingdoms should grow side by side. I cite those just as instances to show how a change in the tariff has disturbed an industry instead of helping to build it up.
Some of the arguments that have been advanced are pure misconceptions. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) stated recently that a certain sedan was sold in the United States for $1,195 and in Canada for $1,925. Those figures, standing by themselves, may be reasonably correct, but it must be remembered that the $1,195 price was the factory price and the $1,925 price as quoted was the dealer's price in Canada, including license plates, a full supply of gas, bumpers, extra tire, extra cover, the freight and what is still more, the sales tax and the luxury tax which were not included in the United States price. A fair statement of the prices would be $1,195 in the United States and $1,720 in Canada. As a matter of fact it should be $1,195 in the United States as against $1,400 in Canada. Of all the automobiles put upon the market this particular one carried with it the widest comparative spread. Why? In Canada this particular car was more strongly built. In the next place it was lined with mohair as against cotton lining in the United States, the mohair lining costing two and one-

half times as much as the cotton. The next factor is this, that the automobile people, just the same as any other manufacturers, sometimes put a new article on the market. This was a new article; it was a try-out of the market. The automobile people did not know whether this would be a popular car or not, and therefore manufactured only a thousand. As a matter of fact, it did not take with the public, and the company produced no more. That total output would have kept the factory going one single week. This explains why in the case of this particular car there was a reasonably large spread.
In discussing this subject ldst year, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) gave a comparison between the prices paid for different cars in Canada and in the United States. We will not quarrel over the difference that existed last year-and there was considerable difference-but it is interesting to compare the prices that obtained then with those that are paid to-day. On a Chevrolet five-passenger touring car the price last year was $525 in the United States, and in Toronto with the tax paid it was $817. This year the Canadian price is $695. I will give now a short list showing the prices last year and this year:
U.S. list 1925	Tax paid Toronto	Present Canadian listChev. 5 pass. tour. car..	.. .. $525	$ 817	$ 695Chev. coach	,. .. 735	1,118	895Chev. 5 pass, sedan.. ..	U79	985Star 5 pass, tour	.. .. 540	844	735Star sedan	.. .. 820	1,276	1,095Dodge 5 pass. tour.. ..	1,404	1,095Dodge special tour.. .. ,	.. .. 985	1,506	1,180Ovenland 5 pass. tour.. ,	783	710Overland 5 pass sedan..	.. .. 715	1,199	1,010What is the reason	for the reduction? It	
is due simply to the fact that in the evolution of the automobile industry they are now just emerging into mass production; this year they were enabled to reduce their prices considerably and I have no doubt that this tendency will increase as the years go by. We may, I think, look forward to a continued appreciable reduction.
The ordinary man in comparing the respective prices of cars in the United States and Canada is 'apt to be guided in his opinions entirely by the bare figures, without taking into consideration all the various factors that enter into the production of the car, and consequently into the cost. We have in Canada, for example, a sales tax of five per cent; we have an excise duty of ten per cent

Duty on Automobiles
on all cars over $1,200; and there is also the duty payable on parts that enter into the manufacture of cars. Adding all these charges together, we find that 30 per cent of the value of the car is represented by some form of taxation. Now, if the Canadian public wants a cheaper car our public men must not lose sight of these factors to which I have referred; and if it is decided that the revenues at present derived from the various duties and imposts levied on automobiles shall be raised from some other source, then the problem of producing cheaper cars in Canada is greatly simplified. The automobile men assure me that they can reduce the price by 30 or 40 per cent if the government will comply with certain requirements which they indicate as necessary to a reduction in the cost of production. I have here a table of revenues which the country has derived during the. last four or five years from automobiles, and to save time I will simply hand it to Hansard. I need not read the list because I think hon. gentlemen are reasonably familiar with the facts it discloses.
The statement is as follows:
Statement of imports of automobiles and parts entered for consumption in Canada with Customs duties and Excise taxes collected thereon during the fiscal years ended March, 1922 to 1925, and for the period from April 1st to December 31st, 1925.
Item and	Year	No.
Automobiles, Freight-
Fiscal	year	1922	
806Fiscal	year	1923	
1,082Fiscal	year	1924	
1,340Fiscal	year	1925	
934April to	December,	1925	
353
Automobiles, Passenger-
Fiscal	year	1922	
7,181Fiscal	year	1923	
11,402Fiscal	year	1924	
9,549Fiscal	year	1925	
8,835April to	December,	1925	
11,494
Automobile engines-
Fiscal	year	1922	
12,177Fiscal	year	1923	
26,225Fiscal	year	1924	
33,744Fiscal	year	1925	
30,732April to	December 1925	
53,315
Automobile parts, n.o.p.-
Fiscal year 1922	
Fiscal year 1923	
Fiscal year 1924	
Fiscal year 1925	
April to December, 1925,
I want to state just a few facts in relation to this great industry that we have in the city of Oshawa. The following table will speak for itself:
The General Motors of Canada, Ltd., is responsible for
Employment in Canada
General Motors employees	 3,743
Dealers and	staffs	
2,739Estimate of	salesmen on	comm	
3,500Estimate of associate dealers, etc	
2,000Estimate of employees of manufacturers supplying materials to General Motors of Canada,	Ltd., and dealers	
4,000
14,982
Using generally accepted statistics, this means that the number of Canadian residents derivingua living from General Motors of Canada, Ltd., 74,910.
1923- Employees 3,758-payroll	 $4,646,644
1924- Employees 3,390-payroll	 4,118,876
1925- Employees 3,743-payroll	 5,187,859
What the withdrawal of General Motors of Canada Limited would mean to Canada is shown in the following statement:
Value	Customs Duties	Excise Taxes
$1,537,765 1,889,105 1.910,808 1.364.664 1,245,654	$ 533,541 39 651,540 69 661,565 57 466,068 40 429,391 56	
$ 9,501,362 11,857,165 9,532,350 8,726,714 10,847,171	$3,278,259 28 4,133,321 38 3,316,369 99 3,038,851 83 3,776,664 53	$ 996 08 706,722 16 790,083 05 684.562 72 866,308 62
$3,119,926 4,153,926 5,056,302 4,313,598 6,519,656	$ 857,718 72 1,140,783 51 1,389,706 54 1,185,566 28 1,792,142 13	
$10,211,791 14,134,874 16,808,323 14,188,715 15,922.965	$3,053,875 00 4.313,673 95 5,123,078 47 4,290.851 37 4,852,785 57	
Loss to employees	 35,187,859
Loss of Wages.
Loss of homes.
Loss of purchasing power affecting all lines of trade. Loss of ability to pay taxes.
Loss to Canadian suppliers	 12,000,000
Depreciation of invested capital.
Reduction in employees.
Reduced purchasing power affecting Guelph, Border Cities, London, Gananoque, Toronto, Montreal, Peterboro, Oshawa, Chatham, Waterloo, Hamilton, St. Catharines, etc.
Loss to dealers-
Reduction in value of used car stocks.
Reduction in value of new car stocks.
Reduction in gross business due to reduced car values. Loss to railways on freight on raw materials and duo to direct north and south distribution of finished cars.
Loss to shipping companies.
Loss to banking and financial institutions.
Loss to Newspapers-advertising and printing.
Loss to professional men-legal, engineering, eto.
Loss to government (millions of dollars).
Loss of duty.
Los3 of C.N.R. freight.
Loss of taxes paid by employees.

Duty on Automobiles

Loss to municipalities:
Loss of population.
Reduction of land values.
Lower assessments.
Loss in taxes.
Loss to Dominion of Canada:
Loss of skilled workers.
Reduction population.
Retarded development of natural resources.
Balance of trade adversely affected.
General retarding of manufacturing.
The question has been asked why the manufacturer of automobiles in Canada cannot produce and put on the market as cheap a car as can be sold in the United States, even leaving aside taxes and duties. Putting the manufacturers in the two countries on an equal footing, what are the reasons why the competition even then would tell against the Canadian producer. Let me give the House some reasons why cars produced in Canada cost more than those produced in1 the United States. The main reasons are that quantity production is less, resulting in higher cost; there is a considerable purchase of materials from outside countries on which duty is collected; machinery and equipment are largely purchased abroad, carrying a duty of 27i per cent; materials purchased from Canadian manufacturers are higher in cost because those manufacturers have been required' to pay a duty on their raw materials; the cost of these materials is further increased because of small production; the cost of distribution in Canada is greater because of wide area and small volume, this item alone accounting for at least 10 per cent. Furthermore, the car produced in Canada contains certain refinements for which no credit is given when making price comparisons with similar cars produced in the United' States. Then again, the car as listed in Canada includes certain extras not included in the United States list, and the latter list prices are usually on an f.o.b. factory basis, while in Canada they are on a delivered basis. In addition to these items of higher cost, dealers in Canada require a greater margin on their business because of its small volume. The following comparison bears this out: Canadian dealers' margin to United States dealers' margin
United States dealers 100 per cent
Per cent
Buick	 153
Chevrolet	 144
Oakland	 146
Oldsmobile	   157
Cadillac	 150
Truck	 144
In this connection I may mention that Canadian dealers last year made less than one per cent as a clear profit on their turnover. 
The automobile industry means the expenditure in Canada of vast sums of money for wages, materials, taxes, transportation charges and so on. The following statement gives at a glance the Canadian expenditures made by General Motors of Canada during 1925:
General Motors
Canadian exipendiituxes during year 1925
Materials purchased from Canadian manufacturers	$ 9,942,368
Paid employees	 5,187,859
Paid federal government, duty less drawback, sales tax,	excise tax, etc	 5,498,463
Paid to railroads for freight, express and
cartage	 2,664,204
Paid for factory improvements, tools, jigs,
supplies, etc	 1,201,24-4
Expended on branch operations, parts
depots, etc	 1,864,544
Dividends to 1,243 Canadian stockholders paid from New York on stock in General Motors Corporation	 1,085,464

It has been stated that 80 per cent of the stockholders in this industry are people of the United States. I doubt very much the accuracy of this statement, for even in the Oshawa district alone we have hundreds of stockholders in our automobile plants, many of them farmers. Now I come to the domestic and export side of the automobile business. For the calendar year 1925 the sales of General Motors of Canada, Limited, were divided in these proportions:	Domestic 55 per cent;
export 45 per cent. Do we Canadians ever take cognizance of the fact, I wonder, that this one company has developed its Canadian industry to such an extent that within a few years the volume of its export business is the second largest of that of any motor company in the world?


Robert Forke: It weakens your argument.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Everything weakens an argument to my hon. friend here except one thing, that is how to get a cent or two more for a bushel of wheat. Are we to be governed in this country by two or three men whose vision of Canada begins at their barn door and ends with their line fence?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Well, every argument in favour of Canadian industry is questioned. The only argument that appeals to some of my hon. friends is how they may get an extra cent a bushel for their wheat. We want the people in the west to be prosperous, but we do ask them not to be dominated by the idea that wherever a little prosperity in other lines is manifested in Canada it must be de-

Duty on Automobiles
molished. We must not be so intolerant in our view respecting any Canadian who is making a few dollars. Apparently as soon as a person has begun to make a success out of an invention some people seem to think that parliamentary action should be taken to destroy such prosperity. We are not asking for any favours. All we desire is to be left alone.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Let me say that in Oshawa we are undertaking greater obligations to-day in maintaining this industry than the assistance that is being asked to complete the Hudson Bay railway. We in that little city are assuming those obligations because we want to develop a Canadian in-
9 p.m. dustry employing Canadian people, an industry within our own borders to take care of our own needs. Surely every agrument we advance along that line is not to be regarded as a fallacy. This large export production necessitated the use of large quantities of Canadian labour and materials. The handling of these shipments by our railways and steamship lines is also an important factor.
Now let me direct the attention of the House to the huge sum of money that the export sales of General Motors of Canada alone has brought to Canada in the last five years. Hon. members may be surprised to learn that these export sales brought to this country 865,000,000 in that short period. That may be a matter of no importance in the opinion of some hon. gentlemen, but I do not think their opinion will be shared by the House generally. The benefit of this business is being shared by thousands of farmers around Oshawa. The other day a farmer told me that he had made $40,000 out of selling milk to the citizens of Oshawa. But of course a farmer must not make any money catering to the needs of our urban centres; he must make it out of growing wheat, or else be driven from the country! All our farmers in the county of Ontario are protectionists- quite naturally, because they realize that they
can make a good living by looking after the needs of the local market.
Now then, Oshawa is not the only centre that is concerned in this automobile industry. The province of Quebec received in purchases from General Motors $103,068.77; Toronto, $4,983,258.67; Chatham, $652,022; Oshawa, outside of General Motors, $1,461,000; Hamilton, $421,000; Walkerville, $591,000; Gananoque, $563,000; St. Catharines, $379,000; Galt, $76,000; Ingersoll, $55,000; Peterborough, $195,000; Windsor, $201,000; Waterloo, $83,000; Belleville, $55,000. With miscellaneous purchases of $177,000 we have a total of $9,942,369 distributed among the towns and cities of Ontario and Quebec in connection with the activities of the automobile industry. General Motors of Canada, Limited, have constantly obtained from Canadian sources such raw materials as could be utilized in the manufacture of a motor car, without penalizing the consumer so far as intensive competition would permit.
Mr. Speaker, some heed should be given to this thought. The automobile to-day is only one of the requirements of mankind, and I would like to give a few figures as to the cost of one dollar's worth of goods in 1913 as compared with the cost of the same goods to-day. In 1913 one dollar went a certain distance in buying an automobile and its accessories. To-day the same amount of automobile and accessories can be bought for eighty cents. Now let us compare that with the cost of some other articles entering into living costs:
	Cost of dollar's	Cost of
	worth of goods	same goods
	1913	1925
Automobiles.	
$1 00	$ 80Living.. ..	
1 00	1 59Clothing.. .	
1 00	1 52Furniture..	
1 00	1 95Building and construction. 1 00	1 54I have	here a list which I will	hand toHansard,	without taking the time of the	House to	read, of one hundred	and fifty
firms in Canada which have received orders from General Motors of Canada, Limited, and are furnishing supplies to this one industry in the city of Oshawa. The list is as follows:
licit-128J
Duty on Automobiles



LIST OF CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS AND OTHERS SUPPLYING MATERIALS TO GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA, LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
Material Purchased
Pressure Lubricating equip
Bindings and Weltings...
Top Fabric	
Brass & Copper, Radiator.
Jacks	
Corks	
Batts Trimming	
Pyrlin Sheets	
Door Locks	
Coil Springs	
Brass & Copper, Castings, & stampings nickle
plated	
Cloth for Head Lining__
Lubricating Oils	
Dies	
Tools (small)	
Insulated Wire	
Tools (small)	
Tools (small)	
Insulated Wire	
Insulated Wire	
Insulated Wire	
Office Supplies	
Office Supplies	
Office Supplies	
Job Printing	
Lumber	
Lumber	
Lumber	
Lumber	
Lumber	
Lumber	
Lumber	
Lumber	
Lumber	
Lumber	
Lumber	
Lumber	
Lumber	
Hair Pads	
Lumber Hair Pads Glue
Abrasive Paper & Cloth Solder
Wire Nails \	
Plumber Suppliesl
Solder	
Hessian & Buckram	
Hessian & Buckram	
Cold Drawn Steel	
Cold Drawn Steel	
Cold Drawn Steel	
Coated Fabrics	
Lubricating Oil	
Abrasives	
Machinery & Repairs Waste & Wipers Abrasive Paper and Cloth
Disinfectant	
Platters Supplies etc	
Asbestos Gland Packing etc...
Lamps	
Oxygen & Acetylene	
Upholstery Cloth	
Curtain Fasteners	\
Pressure Lubricating equip. /
Fender Irons (stampings)...
Plate Glass	
Plate Glass	
Plate Glass \	
Wood Moulding/
Belleville, Ont...
Walkerville, Ont... Manchester, Eng...
New Toronto	
Windsor, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Waterloo, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Hamilton, Ont	
Source Located at
Toronto, Ont..
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Hamilton, Ont	
Rock Island, Qu3...
Hamilton, Ont	
Dundas, Ont	
Walkerville, Ont....
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Montreal, Que	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Oshawa, Ont	
Oshawa, Ont	
Montreal, Que....
Toronto, Ont....
Toronto, Ont....
Oshawa, Ont	
Toronto, Ont....
Toronto, Ont....
Toronto, Ont....
Elsos, Ont	
Toronto, Ont....
Lindsay, Ont____
Belmont, Ont....
Toronto, Ont....
Toronto, Ont....
Toronto, Ont....
Toronto, Ont Lindsay, Ont.
Name of Company
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Hamilton, Ont	
Hamilton, Ont	
Oshawa, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Niagara Falls, Ont.
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Ford, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Peterboro, Ont___
Hamilton, Ont____
Chatham, Ont. Toronto, Ont.... Toronto, Ont.... Oshawa, Ont....
Almite Products Can. Ltd. Godfredson Corp.
Armitage, Sir Elkahan & Son. Anaconda Amer. Brass Ltd. Auto Specialties Mfg. Co. Fraceing Cork Co.
Bauers Limited.
Arlington Company.
W. H. Banfield & Son.
Wallace Barnes Co.
Booth Coulter Copper & Brass. Barrymore Cloth Co.
British American Oil Co.
Brown Boggs Co.
Butterfield & Co.
Boston Insulated Wire Co.
Pratt & Whitney Co.
Canadian Detroit Twist Drill. Canadian Wire & Cable Co. Canadian General Elec. Co. Northern Electric Co.
Brown Bros.
Business System Limited. Reformer Printing Co.
Alger Press.
Campbell McLaurin Co.
Linton Lumber Co.
Terry Nicholson & Gates Co. Gale & Trick.
R. Laidlaw Lumber Co.
Can. General Lumber Co.
Union Lumber Co.
Continental Wood Products. Pedwell Lumber Co.
John Carew Lumber Co.
W. F. Hamblyn.
Big Bear Lumber Co.
Boake Mfg. Co.
Burlington Windsor Blanket Co. Belany Pettit Co.
Canadian Metal Co.
Hoyt Metal Company. Canadian Bag Company. Woods Mfg. Co.
Canadian Drawn Steel Co. Union Drawn Steel Co.
John Baiies & Son.
Canadian Fabrikoid Ltd. Canadian Oil Co...
Can. Carborundum Co.
Can. Fairbanks-Morse Co.
Can. Germicide Co.
Can. Hanse & VanWinkle Co. Can. Johns Manville Co.
Can. Lamp & Stamping Co. Can. Liquid Air Co. Canadian Woollens Ltd.
Car Fasteners Co.
Chatham Mall. & Steel Mfg. Consolidated Plate Glass Co. Toronto Plate Glass Co.
W. E. Phillips.
[Stage Direction]
Duty on Automobiles

[Stage Direction]
GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA, LIMITED-Confirmed
Material Purchased	Source Located at
	
Cap Screws, Nuts, etc. j	
Cap Screws, Nuts, etc. /	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Stampings /	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Paints and Varnishes		
	
Paints and Varnishes		
Snubbers		
Chassis Springs		Gananoque, Ont....
Chassis Springs		
Paints and Varnishes		
	
	Toronto, Ont	
Steering Connecting Rods		
Wire Rope		
Sprinkler Equipment		
Carpet		
Non-elastic W7ebbing	:		
Lumber		Haliburton, Ont	
Machine Knives		
	
Demountable Rims		
Lubricating Oils		
Gasoline		) ' 	
Shackles, bolts, hardened and ground		
Tabulating Machines		
Truck Racks		
Curtain Frames		} '	
Office Equipment		
Office Equipment		
Trimming Clothes		
Motomcters		
Windshields		jWalkerville, Ont...
Rolled Mouldings		
Bushings (bronze)		
Leather Straps		
Differential and 3rd Member Assy		
Tire Chains				St. Catharines, Ont. 1
Forgings, stampings		
Universal Joints		
Gear Shaft Lever Assy		j
	
Pile Fabrics		
Elevator Equipment		
Tube Products		
Tube Products		Woodstock, Ont.... Gananoque, Ont....
	
Office Supplies		
	
Misc. Stampings		} ' 	
Upholstering Leather		St. John, N.B
Upholstering Leather		
Draughting Room Supplies		
	
Car Heaters		
	Hamilton, Ont	 Gananoque, Ont...
mpers (collision)		
Name of Company
Can. Acme Screw & Nut Co.
Jno. Morrow Screw & Nut Co.
P. W. Ellis Name Plate Co. Dodge Mfg. Co.
Dominion Oilcloth Co. Dominion Rubber Systems. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Co. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Dexter Lock Co.
Exide Batteries of Canada. Prest-O-Lite Co.
Willard Storage Battery Co. Fiber Boxes Ltd.
Canadian Wire Bound Box Co. Fittings, Limited.
Ont. Malleable Iron Co.
Flint Varnish Co. Sherwin-Williams Co.
Holland Varnish Co.
Gabriel Mfg. Co.
Can. Spring & Axle Co.
Central Spring Go.
Glidden Varnish Co.
Grasselli Chemical Co.
Nichols Chemical Co.
Gray Ball Bearing Co.
B.	Greening Wire Co.
Grinnell Co. of Canada.
Guelph Carpet & Worsted Co. Hamilton Cotton Co. Haliburton Lumber Co.
Peter Hay Knife Co.
Hayes Wheel Co.
Hayes Wffieel Co.
Imperial Oil Co.
Ingersoll Machine Co. International Business Mach. Geo. B. Meadows Co.
Office Specialty Mfg. Co. Mitchell & McGill.
Montreal Cottons, Ltd. Moto-meter Co. of Canada. Motor Products Corp.
Muellers, Ltd.
H. B. McCarthy Co.
McKinnon Industries.
McKinnon Columbus Chain Co.
Massey-Harris Co.
Verity Plough Co.
Oriental Textile Co. Otis-Fensom Company. Paige-Hersey Tube Co. Ltd. Standard Tube Co.
Parmenter & Bulloch Co.
T. J. Parsons.
The Pedlar People Ltd.
C.	H. Peters Sons.
Blanchard Bros. & Lane.
Frank Row.
Rose Excelsior Mills. Richards-Wilcox Co.
Francisco Auto Heater Co. Skinner and Co.
Duty on Automobiles

[Stage Direction]
GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA, LIMITED-Concluded
Material Purchased
Source Located at
Name of Company
Radiator Tanks (Brass)	
Stampings	
Steel (Bar and Sheet)	
Bolts, screws, nuts, rivets	
Bow Sockets	
Forgings	
Brake Pull Rods	
Wire Nails and Tacks	,
Small Tools	
Carpet	
Mouldings	
Sewing Machines	
Sewing Machines	
Typewriters	
Thread	
Thread	
Thread	
Brass Cocks, Ground Plug	
Top Fabric	
Upholstery Springs	
Office Supplies	
Pneumatic Tools	
Scales	
Electrical Room	
Wood screws, bolts, etc	
Leather Straps	
Cutting Compound	
Twine	
Machinery and parts	
Condulets	
Welding Rods	
High Speed Steel	
Radiator Name Plates	
Saws	
Structural Steel	
Tire Chains	
Tacks	
Twine	
Heating Equipment	
Flowmeters	
Calculating Machines	
Envelopes	
Nickle Plated Die Castings and Stampings..
Signs	
Envelopes	
Packings	
Leather Belting	
Taps and Dies	
Gummed Paper	
Jigs and Tools	
Pneumatic Tools	
Air Compressors	
First Aid Supplies	
Automobile Covers	
Electros	
Brushes	
Brushes	
Multigraph Equipment	
Brass Castings	
Files	
Grinding Wheels	
Hinges	
Insulated Wire	
Jigs and Tools	
Machinery	
Printing	
Abrasives	
Cotton Cloths	
Ventilating Equipment	
Waste and Wipers	
Recording Instruments	
Hessian Strips	
Sanitary Supplies	
Hamilton, Ont.. Hamilton, Ont.. Hamilton, Ont..
Toronto, Ont___
Gananoque, Ont. Montreal, Que... Brantford, Ont..
B. Slater Co.
Stanley Works of Canada.
Steel Co. of Canada.
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Hamilton, Ont	
Montreal, Que	
Wallaceburg, Ont... Manchester, Eng... .
Windsor, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Windsor, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Montreal, Que	
Ottawa, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Brantford, Ont	
Galt, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Niagara Falls, Ont..
Galt, Ont	
Doon, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Orillia, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Hamilton, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Galt, Ont	
Brampton, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Montreal, Que	
Oshawa, Ont	
Woodstock, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Hamilton, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Oshawa, Ont	
Port Hope, Ont	
Hamilton, Ont	
Hamilton, Ont	
Brockville, Ont....
Toronto, Ont	
Preston, Ont	
Hamilton, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
Galt, Ont	
Oshawa, Ont	
Toronto, Ont	
St. Catharines, Ont. Toronto, Ont	
T. A. M. Taylor Tool Co. Toronto Carpet Mfg. Co.
Tubing & Moulding Co.
Singer Sewing Mfg. Co.
Union Special Machine Co. United Typewriter Co.
Universal Thread Co.
Bell Thread Co.
Central Agency Co.
Wallaceburg Brass & Iron Mfg. Holdsworth & Gibbs.
L. A. Young Industries.
Can. Office Appliance Co.
Can. Pneumatic Tool Co.
Can. Toledo Scale Co.
Can. Triangle Conduit Co.
Can. Tube & Steel Products. Hugh Carson.
Cataracts Refining Co.
Consumer Cordage Co.
Cowan & Co.
Crouse-Hinds Co. Davis-Bournville Co.
Deloro Smelting & Refining.
P. W. Ellis Co.
G. Disston & Sons.
Dominion Bridge Co.
Dominion Chain Co.
Dominion Tack & Nail Co.
Doon Twines, Ltd.
C. A. Dunham.
Dominion Flowmeter Co.
Elliott Fisher Co.
Geo. Everall Co.
Fisher Motor Company.
Flexume Sign Co.
W. J. Gage Co., Ltd.
Garlock Packing Co.
Sadler & Haworth.
Greenfield Tap & Die Corp. Gummed Papers Limited.
Hall Gear & Machine Co. Independent Pneumatic Tool Co. Ingersoll Rand Co.
Jury & Lovell.
Kennedy Car Liner Co.
Lee Bros. & Jones.
Meakin & Sons.
Muirhead & Co.
Multigraph Sales.
A. F. McCulloch.
Nicholson File Co.
Norton Co.
Can. Oakville Co.
Eugine Phillips Co.
Precision Tool Works.
Preston Woodworking Machine. Reid Press.
Ritchie Supply Co.
W. Robinson & Son.
Sheldons Limited.
Oshawa Iron & Metal Co.
Taylor Instruments Co.
Walker Bag Co.
West Disinfecting Co.
﻿MARCH 29, 1926
Duty on Automobiles
In conclusion, I wish that hon. gentlemen who consider that certain abuses have arisen in this industry, as in others, would get into their minds some other remedy than that of destroying the industry in this country. It seems a strange thing that certain people, no matter what the difficulty is, have only one remedy to propose, and that is-reduce the tariff and destroy the industry; make it go to some other country. If they find a man making a million dollars in an industry in Canada, they propose to destroy his business and force it across the line into the United States, where a man will be making five hundred million dollars instead of one million. Their policy is to patronize the man making hundreds of millions in some other country, and to destroy anybody in Canada who attempts to make a success of his business. I claim that it is our duty as Canadians not to destroy prosperity in our own country. If we find a number of farmers making a little money by catering to the needs of an industrial city, why should we bow down to the fellow who says that they should not make money on anything except wheat? We are all citizens of Canada, and I might say that it costs me more for the boots I need than it does for wheat, the same as it does every other hon. gentleman. We consume 'five bushels of wheat a year per head, and one pair of boots at prices to-day costs me more than all the wheat I can consume in a year.
["I have in my constituency a class of farmers, a class of insurance agents and a class off commercial travellers, and as they all need automobiles, I believe it is my duty to help them out in connection with this question of the tariff. As I have a really bad cold, I move the adjournment of the debate.\nMotion agreed to and debate adjourned.\nOn the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m. '"]
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Yes, it is the automobile
to-day, and to-morrow it will be the boot and shoe industry, as soon as the automobile industry in this country is destroyed. I do not know where the boots are made in this country, and I do not care, but if they are made in Canada and that industry requires 35 or 40 per cent protection to keep going and keep men at work in this country, I do not care what it costs me for a pair of boots, for I want to see Canadians at work and industries built up in this country and protected. Surely the genius for government on both sides of this House has not been exhausted. Surely there is some way of maintaining an industry in Canada without resorting every time to knocking down the duties and driving the industry out of the country. We want to build up this Canada of ours. We have toiled each of us in his little sphere, always ready to help everybody else. The hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa) says he has a legacy of five or six generations behind him; that is two generations more than I have, but he does not
love Canada any more than I do. I want to see our country prosperous and progressive, and I say that the way to build up this country is not to destroy one industry after another. There is some other way surely of curbing avarice where it exists than that of reducing the tariff and driving industry out of the country entirely. I intended to move an amendment, Mr. Speaker. I would like to move-


Edward James Young: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that because a duty was imposed on fire brick in order to help an industry in British Columbia, it was a factor in ruining the malleable iron industry in Oshawa?


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: No, I never said anything of the kind. The hon. gentleman has not listened carefully. I said that the tariff on malleable iron was reduced from twelve or fifteen to six per cent, but that an additional burden was placed on the industry. A duty was placed on fire brick, which formerly came in free, and this increased duty was put on to accommodate someone who had clay out in British Columbia, and the freight from British Columbia to Oshawa more than offset the duty, and they had to bring in the American product and pay the duty, showing that it was an additional handicap. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. MEMBER:: Move your amendment.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: You will have to get someone else to move it, if you want it moved.


Mr. THOMAS DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak
briefly in favour of this motion now before the House to reduce the tariff on automobiles and motor trucks. My chief reason for speaking in favour of this motion is because of what it costs the people of Canada to have this automobile industry in this country. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) quoted statistics this afternoon showing that in the year 1924 it cost the people of Canada something like $20,000,000 to have this automobile, industry in Canada. Now $20,000,000 is a lot of money. Twenty million dollars would complete the Hudson Bay railway twice over. Twenty million dollars would pay one-half the deficit on the Canadian National Railways; it would pay also the interest on the bonded money it would take to deepen the St. Lawrence waterway. That is one reason why we are asking for a reduction in the tariff. We are told, however, that if we reduce the
Duty on Automobiles

tariff on automobiles we will have to reduce the tariff on many other articles that enter into their construction; the tariff items are so inter-related that when a change is made in one an adjustment of others becomes necessary. This only goes to show that a protective tariff is like a malignant disease. When it once becomes rooted in the country it spreads and permeates other lines of business, with the result that every industry except the farming industry begins to ask for protection. Now, in the case of a human being the only way to get rid of a malignant disease is to cut it out, and cut it out early. So I say that in the case of a protective tariff on automobiles, or any other industry, the only way to get rid of it is to cut it out root and branch- cut it out early and do away with protection.
But I wish to refer particularly to the manner in which the automobile industry affect? the constituency which I have the honour to represent, the constituency of Willow Bunch This constituency extends for something like 106 miles along the northern Montana boundary line. Twenty years ago it was nothing but a bald prairie; it was not even surveyed. In the year 1908 it was opened for homestead entry but not until about the year 1911, that is 15 years ago, did the cultivation of the land begin. Now we have two lines of railway traversing this constituency. We have our little towns, our churches, our schools, our hospitals, and our telephone lines radiating throughout the country; and for the last five years this constituency has exported more wheat and better wheat than any other electoral district in western Canada. We also have 100 miles of railway traversing the constituency, and this stretch of railway ships more wheat from the producer than any other line of equal extent in the world. I simply mention these facts to show the House that the soil of Willow Bunch is fitted for the growth of wheat, and that the climatic conditions are ideal for the growth of good wheat. The people who live within fifteen or twenty miles of the railway have mostly all the land under cultivation, and a few years since- some seven or eight years ago-when we were told by our Conservative friends that the farmers in the country to the south were prospering, many of our settlers left their farms ?-d went down there. Unfortunately, as a result, they went broke. Some of their neighbours here in Canada are helping to bring them back. They are coming back again now. The stream has turned northward. Now we have immigrants Coming into our country and settling there. Just in this connection I may say that at one of our meetings in the last 
election we heard from Conservative orators how hard up our farmers were. Seated in the audience were eight of these people who had returned from the south, and how they must have laughed when they heard how prosperous the farmers were in the country from which they had just come. As I say, these people are returning to that district and trying to make homes there. The settlers who remained during the last three or four years are going ahead and becoming a happy, prosperous and contented people. That is the best asset that any country can have.
There is, however, another portion of this constituency which lies twenty, thirty, forty, yes, sixty miles away from the market along the boundary line of Montana. Things are different there; the settlers are too far away from the market. These people went into that country some fifteen years ago and settled there. The promise was made to them that a railway would be built right away. The war broke out and they did not get the promised railway. In 1923 a bill was introduced in this House to build what was known as the Fife lake extension of the Canadian National railway. We know what happened to that bill. It was defeated in the Senate, and the settlers did not get the much looked for railway. In consequence of the defeat of this bill the Canadian National have given up the idea of building into that section. The Canadian Pacific, however, are beginning to show signs of extending a line into the district, -and the people are anxious to see progress made with it in the hope that they may have a railway in the near future. Originally the people who live at that distance from the railway started to raise cattle, as the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) said this afternoon. But when they did that 99 per cent of them went broke, and of recent years they have gone into raising wheat. Nevertheless anyone who is engaged in farming knows that men cannot farm and raise wheat twenty, thirty, forty, fifty and even sixty miles from a railway; it is impossible to do it. They are making a 'living and getting along, -but it is most essential that these people should have motor trucks in order to be -able to haul their wheat to market. We find as we travel from one of these towns to the south that we will meet probably twenty, thirty, forty, and even one hundred motor trucks hauling wheat to the town. But these people come into contact with American farmers and they find that a truck which costs $800 in the United States cannot be bought for less than approximately $1,200 in Canada; and an automobile which costs -in the neighbourhood of $1,500 in Can-

Duty on Automobiles
ada can be obtained in the United States for $1,000. Is it any wonder that these people begin to say, "the automobile industry is against us, the railways are against us, yes, every man's hand is against us" and they are almost inclined to give up hope of ever obtaining any relief in this country.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Do they ever consider the difference in the freight rates between Canada and the United States?


Thomas F. Donnelly: Surely they do. We have cheaper freight rates now in Canada than they have in the States; we have the cheapest freight rates in the world in this country.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Yes, but we have deficits on our National Railways.


Thomas F. Donnelly: My profession is that
of medical practitioner. I have travelled through this district and have seen many families where the women and children have not been to town for four, five, six, and even seven years. The reason for it is that it requires three or four days to make a trip of sixty miles with a horse and rig and costs too much. Therefore they do not go into town; they cannot get in. It is almost essential for these people that an opportunity be afforded them of getting a cheap automobile or a cheap truck in order to be able to get into town and carry on their business. I would therefore urge upon the government that they provide a means whereby our people may be able to purchase a cheap automobile or a cheap truck. Then we may render contented settlers of the class to which I have referred and save them for our country till the railway is built.
I shall only say in conclusion that the automobile industry is expecting a reduction of the duty on automobiles. We read this in the press and we hear it on the street. The people themselves are expecting such a reduction. Why then should we disappoint them? Why not give them a reduction in the tariff? Let me say that although production in the automobile trade during the month of February has been the greatest, with the exception of one month in the whole history of the industry, yet the public generally and the automobile dealers are not buying automobiles, believing that the duty is going to be cut, and that on that account there will be a downward tendency in the price of automobiles. Let me therefore say to this government, "Do not wait for any tariff advisory board to investigate the situation and to recommend what should be done." Let the
government act and act at once, in order that the public generally may know where they stand with regard to the prices of automobiles. Let them get down to business, so that the country may get back to normal conditions.


Mr. T. GERVAIS (Berthier and Maskinon-ge) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) for the perseverance which he has shown in moving once more the resolution under discussion. I was under the impression that the resolutions moved in previous years differed somewhat from the present motion. I think that I remember, without having them before me, that the resolutions of previous years were more of a free-trade character than the one we are actually discussing. This question of tariff reduction as you may judge, Sir, brings back the protection and free-trade issues of days gone by. One could, I think, fill a whole library with the speeches which were delivered on the subject, both in the House and on the hustings. I remember that in my childhood, it was at a time when Sir John A. Macdonald had expounded his national policy, a protective policy, and I grew uip amid the din of discussions which took place on free trade and protection. Later on, faced with the responsibilities of office we were forced to give closer study to this question of free-trade and protection, with the idea not only of discussing them as mere theories, but with the idea of applying them to the needs of the particular situation which arises in this country.
The doctrine of free trade! How delightful it was, the first years, to listen to our friends the Progressives and especially to one of them who is no more in this House, how delightful, I say, it was to listen to him debating on unrestricted free trade. Absolutely unrestricted trade, no barriers, no frontier anywhere; a sublime humane impulse on the part of nations bartering freely and in a brotherly way their products and living in the happiest possible manner on this terrestrial globe! In short, it was a dream, a humanitarian dream but unrealizable. However, the system opposed to it, protection, has given rise, in the business world to many abuses, and I think-perhaps my ideas may be wrong- however, I believe that if there had not been any tariff wall in Europe, if the whole of Europe had been under the same tariff system, if there had but existed a legitimate competition, I think that there would have been no war nor would there be any in the future. It is trade rivalry created by different conditions which give rise to disturbances
Duty on Automobiles

among the nations. The truth, the golden mean, to my mind, lies between these two doctrines.
It is impossible for us to establish absolute free trade. It is a very humanitarian theory, but it remains a theory, nothing more nor less than a theory. Now, is it possible to maintain, and should we maintain a tariff wall as high as the one we have at present? Must a tariff be enacted for a country according to definite and fixed principles? I do not think so. I believe that tariff questions must be considered one by one according to the particular conditions which arise, and this applies to the automobile industry as well as to others.
Some thirty years ago, we witnessed the development of the automobile industry. This development has revolutionized the transportation problem. You will remember like me that some forty years ago we travelled by boat; those among us who then lived at Sorel, Berthier or at any point along the St. Lawrence river, will remember the circumstances. When the railway was built it entirely superseded the boats. To-day, the latter are used merely as a luxury. In the district which I represent, the railway in its turn has entirely given way to the automobile. The town where I have the pleasure of residing is the starting point of one of the largest motor bus services in the whole country, and it gives a regular service. We have but to consult the statements of railway companies to find out that the automobile has entirely altered the problem of transportation and has superseded the railways just as the latter had replaced navigation. This only goes to prove that the automobile has become part of our life, and of the economic structure of the country, and must now be considered as a necessity and not as a luxury.
Let us briefly examine how this expansion took place in this country. I am not going to comment upon the numerous statistics which were cited by the hon. members who have spoken on both sides of the House. I received, like everybody, all the literature on the subject that the opponents and partisans of this measure were kind enough to supply members with. I glanced over most of it. My views to some extent were already settled on these questions and I am glad to be able to submit them to the House.
Under the regime of a very high protective tariff we gave birth to the automobile industry in this country. Protected by a 35 per cent tariff this industry made rapid strides. On this score Canada compares favourably with all the foreign countries, even including

our powerful neighbour, the United States. I think that the amount received from automobiles exported by us approximates the value of our imports of the same article. Our exports and imports balance or very near. Two or three years ago, having the occasion of looking up the statistics on this subject, I think I ascertained that our exports and imports balanced as to numbers and value, or near.
Can we, now that the automobile industry has established itself in this country, now that our manufacturers have improved their implements, now that they have trained expert hands, can we now, I say, abolish entirely the tariff? I do not think so, and so far as I am concerned I would oppose it. I am in favour of maintaining a protective tariff wall on automobiles. And if I make use of the word protective, allow me, Sir, to define the meaning I attach to it. To me, the word protective, so far as industries are concerned, should never have borne the interpretation given to it and must not be so construed. It behooves legislators, it devolves upon parliament to give to any industry, not protection, because we must not give to one, two or three individuals protection, to the detriment of ten, twelve or fifteen other individuals, but it is the duty of this country to give to any industry legislation which will allow the suppression of all unjust competition on the part of similar industries operating in other countries.
What is the sum of protection which the automobile industry, to-day, requires in order that it may not be crushed by the United States industries? What constitutes the advantages which the American automobile industry has, relatively, over the Canadian industry? Is our tariff of 35 per cent too high? That is the question. I believe that a duty of 35 per cent is too much; however, I would strongly oppose doing away with all duties, because I think that the American industry enjoys a much larger market and a ready sale of its products, when we are restricted to seasonal sales, in our country.
I think that the automobile industry to maintain its present level, needs a reasonable protective tariff, a tariff which I am not in a position to determine; but on the other hand-I do not wish that my words be misunderstood-I think that the duty, at present, of 35 per cent is too high and that it can be reduced. To what extent? So far as naming the figure, I cannot do so on the spur of the moment.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: At what
figure would you fix the duty?

Duty on Automobiles


Joseph-Charles-Théodore Gervais: I have
just stated, I cannot on the spur of the moment fix the amount of duty.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Therefore,
we can leave this to-


Joseph-Charles-Théodore Gervais: I do not
know, at present, what duty to place on this article. I am not an expert on tariff matters,
I have not studied item by item, all the interchangeable parts which may be imported or not, I have not gone into the details of the automobile from the wheels to the starting crank, I have not looked into all these things,
I do not know what amount must be fixed as a duty, but I state-and it is my conviction-that a duty of 35 per cent seems to me excessive and exaggerated; however, I think that the duty should not be abolished, because the United States industry has over us an advantage against which we must protect our own industry by means of a pro rata duty. I hope that my hon. friend has well understood my answer.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: To whom
are you going to leave the care of deciding this question?


Mr. DAPOINTE (Translation):: To the
government.


Joseph-Charles-Théodore Gervais: I will say
to my hon. friend that I place such trust in the government that I shall confide the task to them.
Mr. Speaker, it is customary for every member, who delivers a speech,-and rightly so, I think-to air his views, but these views may have been moulded or somewhat influenced by the feelings which exist in the riding he represents, for no one can better feel the pulse of a county than its member elect. I represent one of the finest farming counties, the most fertile district that exists in the province of Quebec. There are but few industries in the large electoral division, made up of two counties, that I represent and I wish to inform you, Sir, that the industries that prosper in the counties of Berthier and Maskinonge can take care of free-trade, do not fear competition and control entirely the market, because they are alone. And if I express my views, if I ask that a moderate protection be maintained, it is not that I am influenced by my constituents, who belong to a farming community and who would have very much liked to have reciprocity; to such an extent that my opponent, at the last general election-he once was a member of this House-fearing defeat, came forward, in 1911, and openly advocated reciprocity. Notions
of freedom and free-trade are the orders of the day in my riding and in making the above statements I was, therefore, in no way guided by local influences. Reviewing all that is being done in our country, considering the almost phenomenal growth and the ever-increasing success of the automobile industry in Canada, taking into account the interest of the whole country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, weighing all the questions that may affect the national prosperity, I would ask the government to kindly give to the resolution of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) a substantial effect if not immediately at least in the nearby future. The only objection I find at present- and I am speaking frankly, I am not hiding my thoughts-is that the summer purchasing contracts have already been closed, at least, in the province of Quebec and it would upset trade for the incoming season-the sale of automobiles is at its highest in the months of May, June and July-it would upset trade because almost all contracts have been signed, agents are on the road and have made their arrangements. However I would gladly see the government take a step forward in the direction pointed out by the resolution of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). And I have sufficient confidence in the government to know that if they give us to understand that they will take steps in that direction, they will keep their word.
Mr. C. II. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George): Mr. Speaker, Canada for nearly fifty years has been protectionist. Whether the Conservative party were in office or the Liberal party, with a few lapses in particular instances on their part, we have maintained a policy of protecting home industries. During those fifty years I have noticed that occasionally some industry which was able to manufacture by mass production on a large scale, made profits which were regarded by the people as undue profits, as profiteering, and in such a case, in times past, the governments of the day and successive parliaments have reduced the customs duty in order to prevent such excess profits being made by reason of the tariff or to prevent what is know in the ordinary phrase as profiteering ' on the part of manufacturers.
But in our industrial development we have reached a stage where a small reduction in the tariff will not meet the necessities of the case. When we began manufacturing in Canada, a few individuals started to manufacture in a small way gradually increasing their output as the market increased. We were at that time dealing with Canadians resident here,
Duty on Automobiles

who had their capital invested here, whose whole future was bound up in the future of this country, and if they entered upon a scheme of profiteering or of making undue use of the tariff by increasing their prices, we could nip that sort of profiteering in the bud by threatening a reduction in the duty which gave them the protection necessary for their industry. But in recent years we have seen a large influx of United States capital invested in Canadian industries which are in fact branches of larger industries in the United States. We welcome them because they have brought into Canada expert artisans, expert workmen, and they have taught us in all classes of engineering to become as expert workmen in this country as their workmen are in the United States.
During the war when I was interested in a small engineering factory in the town of Amherst and the question came up of producing in that factory not merely ordinary shells, but certain other articles necessary for the war, I sent experts through England, and in all England with the exception of two or three large factories they were not so well equipped to produce that particular class of engine and certain other articles in the engineering trade as we were in the little town of Amherst, N.S.
It is absolutely essential to the future growth of industry in this country that we should have the assistance of expert artisans from abroad. England started her great manufacturing industries, for instance the woollen industry and the cotton industry, by bringing in experts from Belgium, France and Flanders. So we have welcomed United States firms which have established branch factories in this country, giving us the use of their experts and technical training, and we have been able to educate in certain industries a large body of our own workmen who would not have had that advantage unless those United States firms had established branch factories here. The tendency, I think, has been for a United States industrial company which establishes a branch in Canada to take advantage of the tariff to the limit. Many have not done so, but others have, and figures which have been placed before parliament at its last session and this session, tend to show that certain parent industries in the United States which have established and control largely branch industries in Canada, have apparently raised the Canadian price, not taking full advantage of the tariff, but in some cases raising the suspicion throughout this country that they are taking an undue advantage of the tariff.

I listened to-day very carefully to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Coote) who introduced this resolution. I think he overlooks certain considerations which may be presented in favour of the Canadian branch factory, because of the heavier municipal taxation in many cases which is paid here, because of the comparatively heavier federal taxes which are paid here, because of the fact that we have not reached the mass production which has been reached in the United States and which cuts down overhead on the individual unit of the commodity produced, and because in his statement of the factories established, men employed and wages paid out, he did not take into account the great number of factories throughout this country which are manufacturing component parts which enter into the branch United States factories here as purchased commodities. But the fact really is that with regard to this manufacture of automobiles almost the entire productive cost is in wages and largely in wages expended in this country. It is absolutely essential for the welfare of Canada, in order to give remunerative employment to our people, that we should maintain those factories in this country.
Now .can we meet the case of profiteering merelly by reducing the duty? I think not. We have had one instance in a large concern manufacturing agricultural implements in Canada with considerable factory facilities across the border, to whom a mere reduction in the duty would be a matter of utter indifference. They can transfer the manufacture of those commodities for the Canadian market to their American factories and make as much there out of their mass production per unit as they make in Canada by manufacturing the smaller quantity. So that if we reduce the duty in respect of any commodity manufactured in the United States, and produced1 in this country by a branch factory of the American establishment, it only tends to transfer the manufacture to the United States factory and to place in their hands the production of the entire quantity of that commodity required in this market, enabling them to fix from the United States the price at which they sell their commodities in Canada. Time and time again you will find that when we have reduced the duties in order to cut down profiteering in this country, the result has only been to transfer the industry from Canada to the United States, with this consequence that (.he United States manufacturer, controlling the market, has raised the price in Canada beyond what it was before the reduction in duty took place. I therefore suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) that he will not solve this

Duty on Automobiles
problem which we have now before us merely by reducing the duty. In fact, the difficulty of ascertaining the real facts is a strong argument in favour of having some expert officials, or some trustworthy commission in whom we all have confidence, who will examine into each case and present the facts, and if possible propose the solution, for the consideration of parliament.
I have not seen any of the lobbyists about this House. If any have been around I wish they would call upon me at my room, for there are a good many things I should like to have an explanation about in regard to the automobile industry. If therefore there are any lobbyists in the vicinity of parliament who have knowledge of the automobile industry I here and now welcome them to my room, because, as I say, I should like to ascertain some of the facts from those who know the facts, which I have myself been unable so far to get at.


Robert Forke: I suggest that it is the lost
sheep the shepherd seeks.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then I do not wonder that my hon. friend has been canvassed by some of them. But there are others who wish to get at some of the facts, and I am persuaded from what I know of him and his career, that the Minister of Finance is as desirous of ascertaining the real facts, and as desirous of arriving at the proper solution of the problem ae I am myself. I give him credit for that. I assure him however that in my humble opinion he will not find a proper solution in the mere reduction of the duties levied on automobiles coming from the United States. I think that the solution will be found in providing ways and means whereby any branch factory doing business in this country, if it attempts to make undue profits out of the Canadian people who purchase the commodities manufactured by such a branch factory, will be deprived of those profits beyond a reasonable and fair manufacturing return. I believe the solution is to be found in that direction.
As nearly as I can find out, although I do not know all the facts, several of these automobile companies are not making undue profits. They are simply beginning to build up their business and have not yet reached the point where they have a sufficiently large trade in this country or in any foreign country to make undue profits. When however it is stated publicly in the press of this country that the Ford Company, for instance, with a capital investment in Canada of $6,000,000 has been able to obtain a profit' in a single year of some $6,000,000, so that its capital stock has increased in value on the market from par
at $100 to $800 or $650 a share, then I say that that company is bound to make explanation to the Canadian people and to the Minister of Customs who directs the tariff projects of this country; because it does seem to me that, even taking into account the advantage of all the patents they have, and the advantages in assets which may not be comprised in the $6,000,000 investment, as well as the advantages of their skill and skilled workmen, such profits are excessive for a manufacturing industry to make from year to year in this country. Such returns the Canadian people call profiteering, and that the common people, whether they be Conservatives or Liberals, will not stand for. That the people of Canada, whether they be free traders or protectionists, will not tolerate. There must therefore be some independent means of ascertaining the facts by compelling the attendance of the representatives of this industry and obtaining their full explanation. We do not wish to do them an injustice, but if they persist in charging for their commodities in Canada prices which enable them to make undue profits by reason of the tariff, the satisfactory solution will not be found in a mere reduction of the tariff. It will be found in devising ways and means of relieving them of their excess profits and turning those profits into the treasury of the country. You will only have to do that once and for one season, and you will find that, rather than pay their excess profits into the treasury of the country, these branch factories will reduce their prices to the Canadian people, so that the purchasers of these commodities in Canada will receive the full advantage of the lower prices as well as the full advantage of the greater mass production which will result from manufacturing at the lower prices.
To reduce the tariff is to wipe out the industry; to reduce the tariff is to send thousands of expert men over into the United States to seek remunerative employment; to reduce the tariff is to wipe out the towns and villages where these automobiles are being manufactured, and where the parts that enter into their manufacture are produced; to reduce the tariff is to destroy many auxiliary industries throughout the length and breadth of the country. And that is a process which I do not think will commend itself even to the government of the day. On the other hand we need tariff protection against foreign competition. Living alongside the United States with its enormous home market and its mass production in nearly every commodity of that sort, we must have tariff protection. A tariff of 30 or 35 per cent on most of these things in order to assure the home market to our

Duty on Automobiles

manufacturers is not too great protection. But I suggest that the real solution will be found in devising ways and means whereby those branch factories which make .use of the tariff for purposes of profiteering will have their profits transferred to the national treasury.
lit was suggested this afternoon that automobiles manufactured in Canada are sold in foreign markets at a less price than prevails in this country. Obviously so, because the exporter receives, if I understand the situation aright, a rebate not only of all the duties which he himself has paid on foreign materials entering into the manufacture of the exported car, but a rebate of all the duty paid By the minor factories that manufactured the component parts for that commodity. So it is not surprising, as pointed out by my hon. friend who introduced this resolution (Mr. Coote), that when you take any one automobile factory and compare the duty which it pays on American materials entering into the manufacture of its cars with the rebate it receives on those materials which entered into the exported cars, the rebate in many cases is in excess of the duty paid. But the duty paid by that particular factory is not the whole duty, because duty has also been paid on the materials entering into the manufacture of the component parts which are supplied by auxiliary companies from one end of the country to the other.
:I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the government of the day does not intend to act hastily in this matter. It is not merely a question of automobiles. If it was, there might be some excuse, because this matter needs explanation. I do not think that the circulars which I, in common with other members of the House, have received from the automo-
10 p.m. bile companies contain a full and satisfactory explanation. But we must remember that this is only a typical case, and I could give the names of half a dozen other branch factories, some of which manufacture in very large quantities, with regard to whose commodities the same principle must be applied if it is applied to automobiles; and by a reduction of duty wTe would threaten the very existence of a large number of industries which both sides of this House regard as absolutely essential to the welfare of the country.


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the discussion should have drifted into one of those fights which we have had so often in this House, a fight between free trade and protection. I maintain that no such issue is

involved in this resolution at all. Rather it is an issue between moderate protection on the one side and extortion on the other. That is what we are called upon to decide.
Now, let me quote a few figures regarding the manufacture and sale of automobiles in 1920. I find in that year we manufactured automobiles and automobile parts to the value of about 8137,000,000. The wages paid amounted to $19,368,000. We exported nearly $21,000,000, so the balance sold at home represented a value of $116,509,000. On the basis of the wages involved in the total manufacture, the part chargeable to the cars distributed in the home market would be $16,376,000. Taking the value of the domestic consumption, and reducing it to an import basis, that is, the price they would have cost at the port of entry, their value would be about $101,792,000. Now, had all these automobiles and automobile parts been manufactured in the United States and imported into Canada, there would have been turned into the national treasury about $35,000,000. or just about double the wage bill. If we can imagine such a condition as no automobiles being manufactured in Canada, and all these goods being imported, and the government out of the national treasury paying the wages of all these men, we might still have had in the treasury about $19,000,000. We hear a good deal about the cost of wages in Canada. I submit, Sir, that the wages paid in our Canadian automobile factories are in all cases lower than the wages paid for similar work in the United States.
Let me take another year, 1923. In this case I may say that I have not been able to secure the figures for automobile parts. We manufactured automobiles to the value of $96,614,000, and we imported automobiles to the value of $32,000,000, while we exported to the value of $37,000,000. The salaries and wages paid on account of the cars manufactured at home amounted to about $15,000,000. Reducing the value of the cars distributed in the home market to an import basis, it would be about $44,000,000, on which the import duty would be $15,330,000. If we figure in the accessories as well and put them in the same category, it would run the amount up to pretty nearly $20,000,000, which was estimated by the hon. member for Macleod as the annual bonus that we paid to the manufacturers of automobiles and automobile parts. Last week we had a discussion in this House on a resolution dealing with old age pensions, and several hon. gentlemen took the ground that it would cost the country too much money; they considered that we could

Duty on Automobiles
not afford to pay annually some $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 to our indigent old people. I wonder if these same hon. gentlemen will maintain that we can afford to bonus the automobile industry nearly twice that amount annually.
Now I come to the argument as to the necessity of protection, because I am not considering the question on the merits of protection as a whole. I am assuming that the protectionist argument is right as to these industries needing a certain amount of protection. Now, there is only one way in which we can determine that necessity-by the profits made by the companies. I find that one of the leading Canadian companies in 1905, the first year in which it was in operation, paid a dividend of 6 per cent; but even this does not show the true state of affairs, because there was 6 per cent paid on all the stock. But the stock was only half paid in cash; that is, where the original stock was $125,000, only $62,500 was actually paid in. So I draw your attention to this, that the actual amount of the dividend was double the figures I quote.


Mr. BENNETT:: The other half was property.


Milton Neil Campbell: The other half was
water.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. gentleman give us the name of this company?


Milton Neil Campbell: The Ford Motor Company. In 1910 they paid a dividend of 100 per cent; 1911, 100 per cent, plus 500 per cent stock dividend; 1915, 110 per cent; 1916, 600 per cent stock dividend; 1919, 35 per cent; 1922, 30 per cent; 1924, 10 per cent. The pamphlet I am reading from states:
The original investor who sold his stock at recent market prices would have received back in dividends and sale price $350,000 in return for every $1,000 invested.
A very substantial profit indeed, and it should do away with the necessity for any further argument as to the need of this industry to be protected.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Supposing that you reduce
the duty to nothing, how will you really solve the problem which you have presented to us?


Milton Neil Campbell: : We are not asking that the duty be reduced to nothing, and I anticipate that the government has no intention of doing that. But the moment you do reduce the duty, to the extent it is reduced the price will have to be reduced. This company is taking advantage of almost every
dollar in the tariff to-day; their cars are just a few dollars less than the price at which a similar car can be imported from the United States. I assume, then, that if the duty is reduced, they must reduce the price; otherwise, similar cars would come in from the United States.
Now with regard to the question of unemployment. I am sure there is no hon. member of this House, whether he comes from an urban or a rural district, who is insensible to the problem of unemployment. We all realize that it is one of those terrible problems we have always with us, at least in recent years, and I am sure there is no one here who will advocate anything that will increase that unemployment at the present time. But taking the very figures presented to the members of this House by the two leading automobile companies in Canada, they show that for every two men working in their factories there are three men employed in the garages of the country. Now I submit that a reduction in the tariff, even supposing it will put some of these factories out of business- which I do not for a moment admit-by increasing the importation of cars and the number of cars in use, you would increase the work for the garage men throughout the country, and I think it would take a very little increase in the work in the garages to absorb all the men who might be thrown out of employment in the factories.
With regard to the protectionist argument, I have a quotation from a speech delivered by the late Sir John A. Macdonald, who is often referred to as the father of protection. When presenting the National Policy to the House in March, 1878, he stated that this was only to foster infant industries, that it would last only until such time as those industries could stand on their own feet. He was then asked ironically by one of the members of the opposition how he could ascertain when that time had arrived, but Sir John was equal to the occasion. He said that just so soon as those manufacturing concerns began to ship goods outside the country and compete in foreign markets with the manufacturers of other countries in the world, they would have demonstrated they no longer needed protection. Now what are the facts? The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Kaiser) while telling us that the industry in his city would be ruined, while telling us a terrible tale of the ruination and devastation that would follow in the wake of any tariff reduction, at the same time boastingly pointed out that forty-five per cent of ''he product of that factory was exported. Surely, Sir, when at the present time that factory is able to export forty-five per cent of its pro-
Duty on Automobiles

duct to a great many other countries of the world and compete there on an equal basis with American and other monufacturers of automobiles, a reduction of ten or fifteen or twenty per cent in the protection on automobiles is not going to close up that factory and turn all those people out of employment.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) makes a strong point of what he calls mass production, attempting to show thereby that the American manufacturers are in a much more favourable position than those of Canada. I admit there is something in that argument. We all know that the same argument applies to every line of business, that doubling the output will naturally reduce cost of the product. Henry Ford, perhaps the greatest industrialist of this continent, has proved that very clearly, and he has repeatedly expressed the opinion that the lower he sells his product the more he can sell, and the more he can sell the cheaper he can produce. Now I say that the very procedure we are advocating to-day will, on that argument, cheapen the cost of production, because there is probably no member of this House who would deny that a reduction in the price would mean the consumption of more automobiles, and the production of more automobiles would naturally reduce the price, and thereby assist the manufacturers in solving the very problem they are so much afraid of.
The automobile manufacturers have tried to make a strong point of the fact that they produce about one hundred million dollars' worth of goods annually, and they think they are entitled1 to special consideration at the hands of members of this House because their production runs so large. Well, Sir, in comparison with the industry of agriculture their output is infinitesimal. The agricultural industry in 1924 produced one billion and a half dollars worth of goods, and the figures for 1923, which are not yet available, will show a substantial increase in that amount.
Mr. MORA'ND: How does the income derived by the federal treasury from farm production compare with the income derived from automobile production?


Milton Neil Campbell: The taxes collected by ihe federal! government from automobile production are largely paid by the farmere. The agricultural industry, in the last analysis, absorbs a great deal of those taxes. Whenever we on the farms buy a tire or the product of any factory, the tax paid by that factory is passed on to us and added to the price of the article. I think the hon. member will

not deny that. The automobile to-day, particularly the cheap automobile, is essentially a farm implement and should be classed as such, and if that be true of the autolmobile, it is doubly true of the light motor truck. I would suggest to the government that in framing this reduction, and I assume the government will meet the wishes of the people in this regard and make some reduction, they should give special consideration to the motor truck. They have done it already in exempting the motor truck from the excise tax, and I think they could very well carry that a little further. As the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) has pointed out, I think there might not be the same demand for branch lines in many parts of western Canada, and perhaps in eastern Canada as well, if we could secure motor trucks at a considerably reduced price.
But, Sir, when we come to compare the protection afforded the automobile industry with that given other manufactured products there seems to be something entirely wrong. Let us take farm implements. Binders and mowers are protected by a duty of 6 per cent; horse rakes by a duty of 7} per cent; ploughs by a duty of 10 per cent; and wagons and sleighs by a duty of 10 per cent. I would think that the average protectionist himself, for the benefit of his own party and in order to expedite the adoption of his own ideas, would want to eliminate some of that discrimination and put it on a fairer basis than this. Is there any protectionist in Canada who can justify such a small amount of protection on farm implements and such a high protection on automobiles? I fail to see that there can be any. The onus therefore is on those protectionists to show why this discrimination exists. Either one is entirely too high, or the other is entirely too low. Just to show you how much cheaper our American cousins can buy cars I will quote a few figures, but I am not going to weary the House by quoting many. Classified under cars that can be bought at the factory under 500-that is, bought at retail prices at the factory-I find the Ford roadster selling at $260, the Ford touring car at $290. I should say in fairness that these are without demountable rims and starter. With demountable rims and starter added the prices are $345 and $375, respectively. The Overland 91 costs at the American factory $495, the Star touring car $525, and the Chevrolet roadster $525, and so on.
The hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand) tried to show that the automobile industry in Canada contributed a great deal

Duty on Automobiles
to the public revenue in the duty they paid on accessories and other parts imported from the United States. But in the list he quoted from there was not a single one of these products that paid as high as 35 per cent. On the other hand the figures which the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) quoted . proved that the Ford Motor Company, after receiving the drawback for the goods exported, paid only about a million and a half annually in duties to the treasury on the goods imported. That is not a very substantial amount at all. The hon. member for Macleod corrects me and states that these figures apply to the whole automobile industry- that is to say the entire industry paj^s only a million and a half into the treasury annually for the purpose indicated. So, I think there is very little indeed in the argument.
.Mr. KAISER:	What does my hon. friend
mean by the figures quoted?


Milton Neil Campbell: The figures I was quoting deal with the amount of duty paid on imported parts or raw material. When the drawback is deducted from that amount it leaves only about a million and a half that the treasury actually gets annually from the raw material or parts imported.


Arthur Meighen: I think my hon. friend has made a mistake there; I think the amount should be about four times that.


Milton Neil Campbell: The figures I quoted
from are those which the hon. member for Macleod gave this afternoon.


An hon. MEMBER:: He was wrong.


Milton Neil Campbell: Again when we come
to deal with the exports I find that we export about $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 worth of automobiles and automobile parts annually. Last year we sent automobiles and parts to the Argentine, to Australia, to Brazil, to British India, to British South Africa, to New Zealand, to the United Kingdom, to the United States; and to other countries not specified we shipped goods to the value of $6,028,000. It seems to me that when our automobile manufacturers can export their products and compete successfully with the manufacturers of other countries in the markets of the world there is no necessity for such a high duty as 35 per cent being given them by way of protection.


Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: The question under discussion is one
of great moment to-day throughout the whole of Canada. The automobile industry, I think, is the most protected of all our Canadian
industries. The extent to which the industry has developed has already been pointed out, and that growth is not to be wondered at when we consider the amount of protection it has received.
Being a westerner and a farmer, my mind naturally thinks of the Ford when discussing automobiles, because that is the farmer's car. I should like for a few moments to consider the Ford car and compare the one we get in Canada with the same make of car in the United States. We have had a great deal of discussion along this line already, and it is quite obvious to the House that it has been mostly on the part of western members. So if I reiterate something that has been already mentioned, I hope the House will bear with me. We find that.such a car sells in the United States, f.o.b. for $310, whereas at Ford, Ontario, the same car sells for $440, an increase of 42 per cent. Again, we might take the Hodge touring car. We find the United States price to be $795 and the Canadian price $1,095, or an increase of 38 per cent. The Ford runabout costs $290 in Detroit. A United States tax of 5 per cent must be paid, and this brings the price up to $304.50. This is the value for duty on importation into Canada. Add 35 per cent to that and it amounts to another $106.57, bringing the cost of your imported car up to $411.07, and if you buy such a car at Ford, Ontario, they will charge you $410, showing how closely they hew to the tariff line. All you save by buying a Canadian car is $1.07. But the revenue lost to the government of Canada amounts to $108.57. The Ford people naturally get that as additional price.
To the average Canadian citizen a car is no longer a luxury, at least not to the farmer. It is just as necessary to the farmer as is every other implement of production,, and I believe that if we reduce the tariff down to 10 or 15 per cent it will not only make cars cheaper, but will greatly increase the demand. This will mean the employment of more hands and will help to reduce unemployment. Why is it that in the United States to-day there is one car to every six citizens, whereas in Canada there is only one car to every fourteen? It is not that conditions in general in the United States are any better than they are in Canada; it is because cars are more reasonable in price there, and are within the reach of a greater number of the population.
According to figures I have before me I find that the Ford Motor Company have now invested in the business something over $31,000,000, all of which has been made from

Duly on Automobiles

profits, except the original investment of $125,000. Of the latter amount only $62,500 was cash. And so since 1904 they have been paying, as has been already pointed out by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell), a very large dividend. The Financial Post of February 12 of this year is responsible for the statement that the original investor who sold his stock at recent market prices would have received back in dividends and sale price 8350,000 in return for every $1,000 invested. Ford exported 47 per cent of his Canadian production and 53 per cent was marketed in Canada. The amount received for the 53 per cent sold in Canada came within $6,716,840 of paying for his entire production, so that if he had marketed 66 per cent of his cars in Canada the profit would have given him 33 per cent of the production for nothing.
Now, Mr. Speaker, coming from one of the great western constituencies, as I said before, I believe that the car is an absolute necessity on the farm in western Canada to-day. A great many of our people are farming from ten or fifteen to thirty, forty and fifty miles back from a railway. The government propose this year to bring over some 3,000 British families through the Empire settlement scheme, and as the minister outlined the other night they intend settling these families along the railroad, from ten to fifteen miles from the line. It is a question that has been debated a great deal in the farmers' organizations in Canada, of which I am very proud to say I have been and always intend to be a member, that it is unprofitable for a grain farmer to farm land over nine miles from the railway. So that if we intend to settle these people from ten to fifteen miles back, with the people we have in the west farming long distances from the railway, it will not be successful. It seems to me that after all the pressure that has been brought to bear on this government they should be convinced now that the reduction is necessary. It would be a great relief to those who are already in that part of -western Canada and are farming some distance from the railway, and I believe it would be an inducement, as well as an asset, to those whom we hope to welcome to our shores within the coming year.
I have not very much further to advance in this argument to-night. This is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing the House. I have been somewhat indisposed, having had- some throat trouble, but I thought this question was so momentous and meant so much to western Canada that I should at least say something.


Mr. R. H. JENKINS (Queens):: The resolution which we are now considering meets with my hearty approval; the proposal it involves is something I have advocated for some time past. It is high time that some move was made by this government to give relief along the line indicated. Although we have not such a large number of cars operat- . ing in Prince Edward Island as in some of the other provinces, yet in proportion to our population the need for some reduction is just as great. The automobile industiy is the pet of the protection family. No other industry, so far as I am aware, has such attention paid to it by way of tariff. We pay in Canada to-day for cars the United States price with the duty and all costs added; in other words, the Canadian manufacturer collects the duty and he or his friends keep it. The tariff on automobiles is not designed for the benefit of Canadian industries. It is a tariff levied on the people in the main to pay American stockholders of Canadian factories, or possibly I should say assembly plants.
In common with other members of the House I received a few days ago a letter from the Ford Motor Company of Canada, reading as follows:
Dear Sir-
In view of the agitation in connection with the tariff on motor cars, we have considered it advisable to compile data in connection with our industry, which we feel will assist in arriving at a proper solution of this problem.
This data is submitted herewith as briefly as possible in the form of a number of graphic charts, the purport of which will be very quickly grasped.
And I imagine every hon. member will know the purport of this:
We recommend thus to your careful consideration.
A change in the tariff on motor cars would be a matter of such vital importance and of such widespread ramifications, that we believe no change could be made without a most careful study of all angles of the problem by a properly constituted tariff board.
To which I replied as follows:
Dear Sirs,-
Your letter of March 10, re proposed reduction on motor cars, as before me, and I may state briefly that I need no better evidence that a drastic cut is needed on the duty on automobiles than page 15 of your folder, showing the price of Cars in the United States, and the price of same in Canada.
I am firmly convinced that the government should lose no time in making the change.
Our friends of the opposition tell us that the duty does not necessarily mean an increase in price to the buyer, but I would like to ask hon. members of this House to examine the prices of motor cars in Canada and the prices in the United States, as given by the Ford company on chart 15 of their booklet,

Duty on Automobiles
and then decide whether the contention of our friends opposite is correct.
Let us analyse the situation. Take for instance the runabout, the cheapest car on the list: United States price, $310, excise tax, $7.44 a total of $317.44. This I believe is the wholesale price to the dealer although the Ford company would leave the impression-in fact they state it-that any saving as between importing a car from the United States and buying the Canadian made car, is made by the Canadian purchaser-they do not use the word "dealer". If this is the wholesale price let. us add say 20 per cent for the retailer's profit, which I think should be quite enough. This amount added allowing 20 per cent, on the excise tax as well as on the cost price, would give us $380.92. Now what is the price at which this same car is sold in Canada? The Ford people would have us believe it is $440.76, but I find on the price list received to-day from the local Ford dealer that the price is $588, or over $200 more than the price of the same model in the United States. I am not speaking from hearsay, I am quoting the firm's own figures, a copy of which I pass along to Hansard.
Take another model, if you will, the touring car; United States price,'$330; United States excise tax, $7.92; total, $337.92. Allow the retailer 20 per cent profit, making the selling price in the United States say $405.50. What does this car sell at in Canada? According to the figures of the company, $619-again a difference of over $200. These are only two examples of the way in which buyers of cars are imposed upon by the manufacturers all along the line. I may note in passing, however, that the Canadian company will fill your gas tank and give you driving lessons free.
What has my hon. friend from Fort William to say now about his statement on page 313 of Hansard, when he interrupted me in a former speech by saying:
He-
That is the manufacturer.
-does not necessarily require to charge any more at all. The advantage to the manufacturer is that he holds his own market for himself, as they do in other countries.
He holds his own market all right, but it is a mighty heavy expense holding for the purchaser who needs a car. Motor cars, especially the cheaper ones, are not a luxury to-day. For a man with a moderate income and a family, it is to say the least a most enjoyable form of recreation-.possibly not for his pocket book, but it gives him a much greater opportunity of meeting people and seeing the country than he could otherwise
enjoy. It stimulates business, and if not carried to extremes, as in cases where owners cannot afford, it may be made to serve a useful purpose.
Suppose a man in Canada wants to buy a Ford.car, say the head of a family in moderate circumstances; what happens? He may be working in a factory drawing a wage of $6 per day. This, I notice from this famous Ford chart, is the average Ford wage; it is higher than the average wage in other occupations in this country. He may work 300 days, which would be a good average excluding Sundays and holidays. He would at this rate be earning $1,800. He may be the head of a family, and out of his wage he may be able to save, say $1 per day. This would mean, if he wished to save money to buy a Ford runabout, in the United States, that he would need to work 317 days. At the same rate of saving from his salary in Canada he would have to work 588 days, and for other models in about the same proportion. Possibly in Canada he might die before he ever reached the goal, but in the United States he would have at least a sporting chance of attaining it. It may be argued by those in favour of keeping a high duty on cars that the money is kept in Canada and paid to Canadian workmen. If this were the case, we would not particularly object, but it is doubtful. In a number of industries which I have investigated I have found that the Canadian workman is paid a smaller wage than his United States brother. I do not state positively that this is so in the automobile industry, but it would be interesting if the Ford Motor Company would prepare an additional page for their book of charts showing the wages paid to Canadian employees as against those paid for similar work in the republic to the south of us. If wages are no higher in Canada than in the United States, it naturally follows that the difference in price is corralled by the manufacturer who distributes it in large dividends to his shareholders. It would be interesting to know whether the amount indicated goes into the pocket of the workman or into that of the capitalist. I think the difference might much better be retained by us who buy the cars, and we would then know we had the difference in price and not take a chance of paying out these huge sums in dividends to people who have no interest in the country except the amount they squeeze out of us by way of protection.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in protection for all the people, not for a favoured few or a privileged class. I firmly believe that no move the government could make would be
Duty on Automobiles

more popular, at least in our part of the country, than a reduction in the duty on motor care. This government need expect no sympathy from manufacturers of this class, and we expect that a government just as an individual will do its duty, which, under the present circumstances would be to reduce the duty on automobiles and motor trucks.


Mr. A. J. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, if this resolution is carried it will strike directly at one of the most important industries in the constituency which I represent, namely the industry of the Willys-Overland. As I said once before on the floor of this House, seventy-five per cent of the electors of my constituency are composed of those who depend upon wages, salaries, and commissions that are derived in lieu of salaries and wages. It is a matter of very considerable moment in my constituency that the tariff should remain reasonably as it is, and from the standpoint of the concern which I am principally interested in, namely, the Willys-Overland, I think it can be shown that the duty is not too great for the purpose of maintaining a really beneficial institution in the country. I have no interest whatever in that institution; I am not a stockholder and I have no interest in it in any other way than simply as a representative of the constituency in which it is situated. My interest in the automobile industry is merely to see that that industry is maintained in a reasonable way; that it will prosper as one of the industries of the country; that it will afford employment to a large number of our citizens, and that it will give reasonable and profitable employment for Canadian capital.
The labour element in my constituency pronounced in no uncertain terms that they were in favour of a protective tariff. I was opposed by the' representative of Labour in this House, in fact the ex-Minister of Labour, who had every opportunity of presenting the views of labour to the electors in my constituency. He accepted the position of being in favour of reducing the tariff, but the vote was very strongly against this theory and in favour of the maintenance of a proper tariff for the institutions of this country, and in protecting the industries it was incidentally protecting the wages and employment of the workingmen.
Canada's position in regard to the automobile industry is probably the same as it is in regard to any other industry. In the United States the automobile industry has reached the highest point of production and perfection of any country in the world. Canada is situated close to United States and is 
subject to the influences of the tremendous mass production and aggressiveness of industry in that country. Our interests are interlaced in regard to the automobile industry the same as with regard to any other industry. It has been said to-day that Canada has been working under a protective tariff for fifty years. The United States has been working under protective tariff for a hundred years and its protective tariff to-day is probably higher than it ever was before. There is no tendency in that country towards a reduction in the tariff.
The automobile industry is a tremendous one in the United States. I find that in 1925 in that country there were 17,591,981 cars and trucks, or one to every six people. Great Britain is the next largest in point of number of automobiles and trucks used, and the statistics show that they have 770,839 cars and trucks, or one to every fifty-seven people. Canada comes third in the list, with 639,302 cars and trucks, or one to every fourteen people. One can readily see, in comparing those figures, that with a car census of 17,591,981, the automobile industry in the United States has had an opportunity -of giving a fair and lower price than we have had in Canada. It has afforded an opportunity for mass production; it has, as a matter of fact, brought about mass production. I am not so sure what the condition is in Great Britain, although the 770,831 automobiles and trucks there are not, of course, all of British manufacture. I think I am safe in saying that probably over 90 per cent of the 17,591,981 cars in the United States are of United States manufacture, but in Canada the 639,302 cars are not necessarily all of Canadian manufacture. In this country we have succeeded in controlling a considerable part of the market, but we do not depend upon the home market for our real returns. In fact, I think the export trade in connection with our automobile industry is equal to and in some cases a little greater than the sales in the home market.
I will confine myself to the Willys-Overland industry, because I am not familiar with the figures in connection with other concerns. In the Willys-Overland we have an employment roll of 858 men; we have dealers and staff numbering 1,075 men, and salesmen numbering 525. For the 858 men employed by the Willys-Overland our payroll last year amounted to $1,267,872. It is interesting to note that the Willys-Overland Company expended in connection with its production the sum of about $2,700,000 for materials, while the salaries and wages it paid out amounted

Duty on Automobiles
to SI,267,872, which bears a large proportion to the money spent on material.
We have heard about the duties paid by the automobile industry into the treasury of Canada. Well, the duty less drawback, together with sales and excise taxes paid into the Dominion-and these figures are obtained from the Customs department-total, from this one company alone, $924,401 or very nearly 81,000,000, while in freight and express paid to the railways and express companies the company has distributed $318,925. In plant additions they have spent over $26,900 and in miscellaneous expenditures, such as advertising, branch operations, and so on, $801,277. In other words, we find that this one company alone has expended in Canada for the year 1925 $5,947,343. In connection with that expenditure I would point out that the salaries and wages, which is a very important item to the people of my constituency, represent to the city of Toronto alone $998,686, which is a large sum of money. In Winnipeg the company pays out in wages and salaries $44,519; in Regina, $13,218, and in Montreal $111,447 or a total of $1,267,872. This total paid to employees represents about one-half of the amount spent by the company in materials used in the construction of their automobiles.
It is interesting to see what expenditures are made in the various cities and towns throughout Canada by this company. They spent altogether $3,436,146 in various parts of the Dominion, most of which, I may observe, was expended in the cities and towns of Ontario. I will not give all the figures, but I notice that the city of Toronto alone received from the Willlys-Overland people foi materials used in construction $1,315,322 while the city of Montreal received $163,112 and the city of Winnipeg $17,832. These figures indicate that the company is doing a Canadian business, paying out a large amount of money to Canadian workmen in wages and salaries, and purchasing Canadian material. It is a Canadian concern and this money is largely spent in Canada. It is noteworthy that the cars of to-day are sold at probably 20 per cent less than they were sold in 1914- that is to say, for 80 cents one can get as much in automobile purchase as could be got for a dollar in 1914. Compare this with other products. Commodities in general cost 59 per cent more to-day than they did in 1914, while the general cost of living is upwards of 50 per cent greater than it was at that time. It is clear, therefore, that the automobile industry has endeavoured to meet the desire of the people for a cheaper car.



[Stage Direction]
This industry is seventh on a list of forty leading industries in the Dominion. Its invested capital amounts to $47,761,964. The cost of the materials used throughout the whole industry is $54,408,719, and the value of the production $81,956,429. These are considerable figures, and they prove that the industry is of immense importance to the country. So that any reduction in the tariff which would materially affect the stability and the progress of any of the concerns operating in the production of automobiles wrould seriously injure not only the manufacturers themselves but all those interested in allied industries, and in any concerns in Canada engaged in supplying material used in connection with the automobile industry proper.
For the purpose of comparing American and Canadian prices perhaps the Overland No. 91 may be taken as an ideal illustration. This is a touring car and of all the models produced by this particular company it enjoys the greatest sale. A car of similar make is sold on the American side also. The American quoted sale price is $495 as against the Canadian sale price of $695, and naturally7 the question is asked, how is the difference of $200 made up? Well, to begin with, the United States model corresponding to the Canadian Overland No. 91 does not include certain parts with which the Canadian car is equipped. It does not include, for instance, in its quoted price a speedometer whioh is valued at $15, nor does it include cord tires. It has only fabric tires, and this makes a difference of $25. Again, the American car uses the single texture for the top and side, whereas the car manufactured in Canada is equipped with double texture which is stronger and better. This accounts for a difference of $20. These items alone amount to $60, so that the American quotation for a car of similar design would be really $555. The price of the Canadian car is quoted at $695, and it includes these extras I have mentioned. Besides this, the Canadian company pays $72.87 in duty on manufactured parts imported from the American side for use in the Overland No. 91. So when we consider all the facts, the protection afforded the product on this side is simply the difference between $555 plus $72.87 or say $627.87-and $695, about $67.13. That is the extent of the protection given to the Willys-Overland people on that particular car, and the protection on their other models is proportionate. The protection they enjoy is therefore not 35 per cent, as has been suggested, but a much smaller percentage.

[Stage Direction]
Duly on Automobiles
[Stage Direction]
The automobile industry throughout Canada is very much in the same position as the particular company to which I have referred. The business is only seasonal; the greater part of the sales of the Willys-Overland as well as of other automobiles being made in the months of March, April, May and June. During the rest of the year these companies must more or less depend on their export business. The Willys-Overland returns for the year 1925 show that the domestic sales were 47 per cent of the total, and the export sales 53 per cent. Some hon. member in this debate has asked the question, if the Canadian manufacturer can afford to sell a large part of his output in competition with the world's manufacturers, why it is he cannot reduce the price of the car sold on the Canadian market? The hon. member for St. Lawrence43t. George (Mr. Cahan) has answered that question completely. The rebates which the manufacturer gets in the way of the return or drawback of the duties on all goods exported as well as on the materials that enter into the manufacture of his product, enable him to make a profit by means of which he can afford to carry on an export trade, in competition with other countries. -But in his home market the Canadian manufacturer has to compete with the mass production of the United States. Owing to the tremendous population on the other side and to his exclusive home market, which is absolutely protected against the world, the American manufacturer has been able to establish mass production, which of course means that he is able to sell his output at much lower prices than are possible in this country. As I said before, the United States is not reducing its tariff even where its industries have been established for a century. The agriculturists of that country in recent years have been demanding very high protection; for instance, 42 cents a bushel against Canadian wheat. It is rather strange that we should be considering the desirability of free trade or lower tariff when so many of our competitors have been raising their tariffs since the war in an effort to protect their home market and their workingmen. On the contrary, we are advised by certain members of the House to reduce our tariff, especially on automobiles and other commodities, in order that we may buy them cheaper here.
I submit that this is one of the factors that will reduce our population and increase our difficulties generally.
A reduction of the duties on automobiles will affect a great many other industries which depend upon the automobile industry for their 
existence. For instance, the Willys-Overland Company has to import a long list of materials the duties on which range from 25 to 35 per cent, only four of the articles having duties ranging from 5 to 10 per cent.
11 p.m. The company endeavours to manufacture the bulk of the component parts entering into its automobiles, but even so it has to import a great many. In addition, they buy 39 different classes of commodities from 91 Canadian firms, all of whom would be affected by a reduction of duty on automobiles, and this is something which we should [DOT] very carefully consider before we make any change.
There are several reasons why automobiles and other commodities cannot be manufactured as cheaply here as in the United States. For instance, the limited production here results in higher cost, then the duty on imported materials, machinery and equipment also tend to enhance the cost of the Canadian manufacture. Furthermore, the Canadian car is better finished and generally of a higher standard than that sold in the United States, although they are similarly described in the American and Canadian catalogues. Then again our taxes are higher than those which the United States manufacturer has to pay. All these factors of additional cost in the manufacture of the Canadian car should make us hesitate before we decide to reduce tb" tariff. Undoubtedly we should proceed very carefully. In fact, since the government has appointed a tariff commission, I submit that this resolution should be referred to that commission in order that a proper study may be made of the effect that any reduction of duty would have not only upon the automobile industry but upon allied industries.
During the course of the debate it was said that the amount of duty pocketed by Canadian automobile manufacturers was in the neighbourhood of $20,000,000, and I believe in the circular distributed among hon. members the figure is placed at $19,942,641.60. But I do not think this is actually correct. The total value of motor cars produced in Canada in 1925, taking the wholesale price, was $107,694,168. Of this total $40,387,904 worth was exported, leaving a balance of $67,306,264 as the value sold in Canada. These cars were sold as cheaply as possible, and at very little profit to the manufacturer.
I am not familiar with the Ford position, about which a great deal has been said, but I think that Ford cars are in rather a different class from most others cars; and the cars on which the Ford company has made the greatest amount of money are in the category of utility

Duty on Automobiles
cars, the cheapest cars, purchased by the largest number of people. The profits made in that way may seem big. If cars to an equivalent amount of value, namely, $67,506.26, had been imported and sold in Canada instead of having been made here, the duty collected would have amounted to approximately $17,000,000. Against this, in 1925, motor car companies paid to the federal government, in customs duties alone, after deducting drawback, the sum of $7,418,513.66. These figures are believed to be accurate to the cent, having been obtained' from the Customs department. In addition to this, other companies in Canada, selling goods to motor car manufacturers, paid in duties to the government an amount which these various companies have estimated as closely as they could, at $1,500,000. So that the federal government has collected, in duty alone, the sum of approximately $9,000,000 from materials entering into the motor cars built by Canadian manufacturers and sold in Canada in 1925. This does not include many other items of duty which are more remote in relation to the industry and which could not be accumulated with accuracy. So that the net protection which manufacturers enjoyed did not exceed $8,000,000 on a domestic production of $67,000,000 in value. That, Mr. Speaker, is very different from the story that has been told here to-day.
In conclusion, I will place on record a summary of the results:
Number of employees in motor car factories alone (not. including factories
making parts and materials)	 11,389
Total wages and salaries	$17,595,282	44
Sales, excise and stamp taxes paid the federal government in addition to the
duty above referred to	 7,407,034 69
Amount of money spent in Canada for production material and supplies.. .. 38,663,598 65 Payments made to railroads and transportation companies	
6,497,830	93Value of goods exported	
40,387,904	86
Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have somewhat imperfectly stated, I am against this resolution. In my opinion the resolution should not be approved by the House, but the whole matter should be referred to the tariff commission for the purpose of study. If it were possible for all the members of this House to study this question as the tariff commission will be in a position to do, I would have no hesitation in saying that the members of this House would be the proper parties to deal with the matter. But there is so much involved, the question is so intricate, that it would require more time than the average member of parliament has to deal with the question adequately; therefore I have
no hesitation in saying that to refer it to the tariff commission is the proper disposition to make of the matter.
Mr. S. G. TOBIN (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). While I have nothing to add to the arguments that have been made in support of it, one may be excused for wishing to go on record in support of this resolution, as it is of so much importance to the whole of Canada. We are always glad to support resolutions that wall be of benefit to our own district, particularly when such resolutions are of first importance to our own province as well as to the whole of Canada.
This, Mr, Speaker, is an automobile age. From one end of Canada to the other every man and every woman you meet wants an automobile if he or she has not got one. As the mover of the resolution has stated, Ford has said that every farmer should have three,- a truck, a runabout, and a sedan for rainy days. That would be the ideal, but we shall probably not reach that stage for some time. However, we all realize that the automobile to-day is a utility needed by all walks of life, not by farmers only more than by all classes. When we think of automobiles we naturally think of Ford, because he was the creator of the cheap automobile. He believed, as many others in other lines of business believed, that it wa3 better to sell many units at a small profit than a few at a large profit. It seems that in Canada we have adopted the reverse idea, and that some business organizations have decided by the help of high protection that the ideal is to sell a few units at a high profit.
__ Some hon. gentlemen opposite said this afternoon that the people of the United .States did not find fault with Ford because he made millions. No, they could not, because Ford made his millions by his genius and ability. He made cars that were sold cheaply and that could compete anywhere, and people were glad to buy them; so why should they find fault with Ford? But I say we are trying to undo the very thing he did. Certain organizations in this country are saying: Here is our opportunity to make fortunes. They -do not say: Here is our chance to do a good business. They wish to take advantage of the tariff to make a fortune for themselves. That is what I am against. I wish to be fair to all business in this country, bar none. I wish all business men to profit, but when it has been shown so well to-day that an initial investment of $125,000 by the Ford people in Canada has grown to assets amounting to $31,000,000 to-day, and
Duty on Automobiles

that they have paid out approximately $20,000,000 in cash and stock dividends, I say that is a business that certainly does not require as much protection as it now enjoys. Someone quoted the Financial Post this afternoon as saying that if Ford had received the full value in stock and dividends for the 625 shares he got for his patent rights, he would have received $21,812,500. I presume that is true, because it has been stated over and over again by members of this House and has not been contradicted.
I trust that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) will take this resolution seriously and will give us his views in a businesslike manner. I have great faith in the ability of the leader of the opposition, and if he would only use his ability in the right way it would be a great advantage to us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Give him a chance.


Stanley Gilbert Tobin: We are going to give him
a chance. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) believes in mass production, but how are you going to get mass production ,by keeping prices up? Ford got mass production by lowering his prices, and that is what we want. Let us get mass production in this country by producing the cars as cheaply as possible. That is the very thing, we wish to do. I do not concur in the suggestion that we should go to the officers of these firms and ask them what we should do in the matter, or that we should wait until the tariff board sits and ask them the same question. Let us deal with the matter ourselves. Let us act promptly and in a businesslike way. The country is anxiously awaiting our decision.
I want to be brief, but before I close I wish to refer to the statements of certain hon. gentlemen who have spoken during this debate. Some of them have claimed that if the duty on automobiles was reduced the automobile factories would go out of business. Instead of the factories going out of business as a result of a reduction in the duty, I would expect that they would receive a considerable stimulus. One hon. gentleman, who comes from Omaha, I believe-no, I beg pardon; Oshawa-talked of the serious effects to his town that would follow from a reduction of duty. He dilated upon the debenture debt of the town, and the nature of the different expenditures they had incurred. The tone of his argument was that they were doing very well as they were, so why not leave them alone? But besides the interests of Oshawa I suppose we have to consider the welfare of hundreds of thousands of other citizens in other parts of the country. As a

result of a reduction in duty automobiles, I think, would become cheaper, also automobile parts. I would like to see everything all down the line, even gasoline, become cheaper. That is what we are working for, I hope, in this Dominion. Then we shall have a revival of business; the industry will not be hurt in any way but rather stimulated, and an impetus will be given to other lines of business.
We read about the exports of cars from Canada. No less than 56,000 cars were exported last year. Surely these cars are not being exported at a loss? Surely this argument is not being advanced in order to influence the government with the idea of making the good Canadian people pay the difference? Of course it is quite possible for an industry to make a large enough profit at home to justify exportation on a basis of reduced profits or even losses.
I think I have indicated where I stand on this resolution. I hope it will not be referred to any tariff advisory board. The hon. member who introduced the resolution has looked into, the matter, and I think the figures he brought forward, as well as his arguments, are wholly dependable. I know the hon. gentleman well and I am convinced that any arguments he brought forward would be as fair as he could possibly make them; he would not be betrayed by bias into any unfair argument. The great majority of the members of this House and of the people of Canada are earnestly looking to this government to do something to relieve the situation in order that they may get cars at a price approaching that which obtains on the other side of the international boundaiy line. At the present time a really good car costs in Canada $1,000 more than across the line-a tremendous advance. I hope therefore that the House will adopt the resolution. I heartily support it.


Mr. A. M. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I wish
to compliment the mover of the resolution before the House proposing a substantial reduction in the duty upon automobiles and motor trucks (Mr. Coote) for placing before the House some very valuable statistics. During my recent visit to the west I found there were two things the people seemed to be most vitally interested in: First, the Hudson Bay railway, and second, a reduction in the duty on automobiles. I think I have had more letters on this subject than on any other question since I came to Ottawa. A very short time ago hon. members were presented with a very fine copy of some statistics prepared by the Ford Motor Company of Ford, Ontario. These contained information of a

Duty on Automobiles
rather interesting character, but there were certain facts which the document omitted to state, facts which I thought I would like to have. Accordingly on March 16 I addressed a letter to the Ford Motor Company, of Canada, Limited, Ford, Ontario, in which I said:
Dear Sirs,
Please accept my thanks for your beautifully prepared statistics, "The Real Facts about Ford".
I went on to say:
Would you kindly advise-
(1)	The original investment in your company.
(2)	How much additional capital was put in the company, which was not taken out of profits?
(3)	The dividends paid yearly on actual capital originally invested.
(4)	Any bonuses which may have been paid.
I received a reply from the Ford Motor Company, and I think the figures they give can very well be taken as authentic because the letter was written by the vice-president and treasurer of the company. In a -letter addressed to myself, dated March 23, 1926, the writer says:
Referring to your letter of the sixteenth which was received during the writer's absence in Ottawa-you may recall the writer called on you last week and discussed this matter with you.
Specific information requested in your letter of the sixteenth is submitted herewith:
(1)	The original investment of the company, $125,000.
(2)	Additional capital put in the company not taken out of profits, None.
(3)	The dividends paid from year to year on original capital invested-
Year	Amount-
1005	 $	7,488
1906		
1907		
1908		 12,500
1909		 31,250
1910		 125,000
1911		 125,000
1912		 150,000
1913		
1914		 100,000
1915	 1,100,000
1916		
1917		 350,000
1918		 350,000
1919		 2,450,000
1920		 1,050,000
1921		 2,100,000
1922		 2,100,000
1923		 700,000
1924		 700,000
1925		 1,400,000
(4) Bonuses paid, None.
I am given to understand that in these lean years there were certain stock bonuses issued. When we add those up we find that the total dividends paid in the twenty years amounted to $12,851,238, or an average per year for the twenty years of $642,561. In addition to that I have this statement of their own here which shows that the total
investment-and the word "investment" is underlined-in the business was $31,275,530. These two figures added together, the dividends plus the present value of the assets, make a total of $43,978,006. If we average that up for the year and take all the dividends plus the assets it would represent a yearly average of $2,198,900. Now, mark you, Mr. Speaker, the only investment made by this company was $125,000, and according to their own figures that was worth to them annually about $2,198,900. This is one of the infant industries of this country. An infant industry! I have had a little to do with infants during my career. I have had to do with bottle fed and spoon fed babies, but in my judgment this has been the finest spoon fed and bottle fed baby I have had anything to do with. I wonder when the child will be able to walk on its own feet? It has been my experience that if you keep babies bound up too dong they will never grow strong, and I think the time is long past due when this baby should be loosed and allowed to walk upon its own feet.
I have been very much interested in some of the remarks made by some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to-night, and I was greatly interested in the remarks of the hon. member from East Essex (Mr. Morand). He said the automobile manufacturers had a right to have a fair profit. I think no hon. gentleman in this House will disagree with the statement that any concern has a right to have a fair profit, but I would ask hon. members if the figures I have given constitute what the hon. member would regard as a fair profit. I have a few figures relating to the business of another concern; I must say I have not been able to get such extensive figures as in the other case, but they are sufficient to show the difference in the cost of some models in Canada as compared with similar models in the United States:
United States price $1,581 1,475 1,977 2,205
Canadian price $2,195 2,155 2,820 3,130
But those cars w-ere not made by Ford; I think they were made nearer Oshawa. I was very much interested by the statement made by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) in which constituency, I understand Oshawa is situated. He gave us rather a nice outline of the growth of the city which he has the honour to represent in this House. He was much worried because in 1920 they had a debt of $900,000, which grew in 1925 to $3,383,000. I was not very much concerned about that
Duty on Automobiles

small amount of money when they had the automobile industry there. With all these industries going they could wipe out a little thing like that overnight. Is it not a wonderful thing that a small city could grow to such an extent with a protected industry? I come from a city where in 1903 there were 113 people, and to-day, twenty-three years later, there is a population of between 30,000 or 35,000, but it did not grow up on a protected industry.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite wonder why we in western Canada speak about protection all the time. I am going to ask hon. members in this House how they protect the wheat farmer? Out there we have to grow up and have to provide all the things they have to provide in Oshawa. We have as fine schools there as they have anywhere else. We are a little bit proud of our schools and our secondary education. We are proud of the provincial university, which happens to be located there. We have chtirches in that town, and I think they are a fair sample of the churches in the Dominion of Canada. I am glad to know that in Oshawa they have their churches, and I hope the hon. member will attend there often; perhaps if he does he will have a little of the the milk of human kindness in his make-up and will not be asking for continued protection.
My hon. friend said that if the reduction -in the tariff were made 20,000 people in Cshawa would suffer. Let me say that if no reduction is made millions of people will suffer. From my hon. friend's remarks one would be led to think that if there was some reduction in the duty on automobiles all the people engaged in the Ford industry would go somewhere else. I find on page 3 of the Ford Motor document the following:
Do these three cities mean anything to you?
Then they give pictures of Brantford, Regina and Calgary and they say:
The Ford industry supports the equivalent of the populations of Brantford, Regina and Calgary, 121,844
people.
Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited 6,706
Ford dealers	 3,300
Ford service garages	 8,754
Allied industries	 6,000
Dependents	 97,084
121,844
Allied industries 1 They seem to be worried about these allied industries and dependents. Is it supposed that if there were some reduction in this duty, the company which only made these slight profits I quoted a little while ago would go out of business? Let us not be worried or afraid of the Ford 
company in Canada going out of business on account of reduction in duty. If the duty were removed or lowered, it would reduce the price of cars, and I think I can assure the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that the price of cars will go down the moment the reduction is announced; it will not wait until the reduction comes into effect.
Cheaper production would mean an increase in the sale of cars, and instead of having less employees in Canada there would be a greater number. Then why all this talk from hon. members opposite to the effect that we must have protection? Why the talk? They were telling us just the reverse all along. They were worried about the egg industry and the strawberry industry-trying to draw a red herring over the trail; trying to get us to admit the principle of protection, which we shall never admit. Why? If the argument is good one way, it is good the other way. I say that the price of the Ford car should come down. We do not want to injure that industry in Canada; but what will happen? If the price is lowered, some of the people living in the country from which I come will be in a position to get a car which they need. You may ask what kind of country we have out west. It is a country sparsely settled, over a wide area, and we have to travel long distances. Last September and October I was out there, and what kind of people did I see hauling grain to the market? I saw the women and children out in cold stormy days hauling the grain. Are these people not entitled to a bit of luxury? Cars are a necessity out in that country, but even if they were not a necessity, is there anyone who will deny that the women and children are entitled to that much luxury; that they should be in a position to have a car so that they may travel around and get over to see their friends in the long summer days? It means a great deal in western Canada that the price of cars should be reduced as much as possible. We do not want to injure the industries of eastern Canada, but we say the profits being made in the automobile industry are outrageous, and that the tariff must be immediately reduced. I should like to ask hon. members in this House, with the exception of two or three who have spoken, if they believe in a 35 per cent protective tariff on automobiles? Does the right hon. leader of the opposition believe in such a tariff?


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. gentleman might address his remarks to the government, none of whom have spoken yet.

Duty on Automobiles


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I will address
them in a moment. I take it the right hon. leader of the opposition does believe in a 35 per cent tariff on automobiles. I heard only three hon. members in this House today suggest-and some of them made the suggestion very mildly-that the 35 per cent duty was all right.
I will now speak to this government, and I will say to them that the time has arrived for a reduction in the duty on automobiles; it would be the most popular and just thing the government could do. We do not want to refer the matter to a tariff board that is not yet in existence, because we have had sufficient evidence in this House to-day to show that the time has arrived that the duty on automobiles should be reduced.
If I may venture to make a statement which may seem a bit bold, I will say, in reference to one gentleman whose name has been mentioned in connection with this tariff board, that I think he would have been a little better advised, as the right hon. leader of the opposition said to-day, if he had not made so many remarks. This tariff board is one of the most important things we have to consider, and if I may again use the words of the right hon. leader of the opposition, I would say I am not too enthusiastic about a tariff board, but I certainly have no use for his tariff commission.


Arthur Meighen: What is the difference.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: There is quite
a difference. This House must retain within itself the power to fix the tariff.


Arthur Meighen: Did the hon. member read the resolution I moved regarding the tariff commission? If he did, he will find the same reservation there as to the power of this House. There is no difference in the world except a difference in name and that is simply to fool Saskatchewan.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: This is not the time when we should delay by referring this matter to any tariff board which may be created. We have sufficient information at the present time, and the people throughout Canada, whether they are Liberal, Progressive or Conservative, are clamouring for a reduction in .the tariff. Unless this comes a great injustice will be done to the Canadian people.
The thanks of the people of this country are due to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) for bringing the facts to the attention of t'he House to-day and giving hon. members
an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon a matter of public concern. I desire to place myself on record as being unreservedly in favour of a reduction in the duties on automobiles in Canada at the present time.


An hon. MEMBER:: By how much?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I would not be very drastic in the matter. I would be quite agreeable to leaving on say 10 per cent.


Mr.  J. E. LETELLIER@Compton: Mr. Speaker, during the last election I had the pleasure of presenting before the electorate of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, a constituency which is not the least in the province of Quebec, a programme of moderate tariff. I, therefore, feel it my duty, not only for my satisfaction, but for the satisfaction of the people of my constituency, to address a few words to the House on this important question of the tariff. I know, as you do. Sir, that a great deal, if not everything, has been said on this question; but as I, in common with, I presume, all other hon. members, have received from the Ford company a pamphlet which deals with a great number of questions, I believe it is worth while to take advantage of this opportunity of discussing the matter seriously.
I am pleased to say that I concur in a great deal that has been said by my colleague the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Gervais). I am in favour of a moderate tariff because I really believe that is the only way of protecting our industries. In Canada we have advantages and opportunities that the people of other countries may not have. For instance we have the benefit of our hydroelectric power development, and by maintaining a moderate tariff we will help our factories to develop and afford opportunities for the establishment of additional industries. As it is getting rather late I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead.


Mr.  J. E. LETELLIER@Compton: I have in my constituency a class of farmers, a class of insurance agents and a class off commercial travellers, and as they all need automobiles, I believe it is my duty to help them out in connection with this question of the tariff. As I have a really bad cold, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m. '


END OF VOLUME II.