June 4, 1931

LIB

William Alexander Fraser

Liberal

Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):

Does the hon. member wish the house to understand

The Budget-Mr. Morand

that the Minnesota Canning Company located in AVindsor as a result of the tariff enacted by his government?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Raymond Ducharme Morand

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MORAND:

I said they came in entirely because of the tariff, and I have the statement of Mr. AVall, the president, to the press that their locating here was due to the tariff and to nothing else.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

William Alexander Fraser

Liberal

Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):

AVill the hon. member permit me another question.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Raymond Ducharme Morand

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MORAND:

I am sorry, but I have only a few minutes left. In contradistinction to what happened in 1926 when the tariff on automobiles was changed-the ex-Minister of National Defence who spoke this afternoon said that the people had profited by it and the automobile industries had not suffered- it may be interesting to hon. members to have these figures on Hansard:

Importations of Automobiles from 1918 to 1929

1918 1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

William Henry Moore

Liberal

Mr. MOORE (Ontario):

Has the hon. member the production figures for those years?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Raymond Ducharme Morand

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MORAND:

Yes, the production figures for those years have gone up. Let me give them for the benefit of my hon. friend:

Production of Automobiles from 1918 to 1929

1918

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

I know what the hon. gentleman proposes to suggest, that the volume of importation increased in direct ratio to the volume we manufactured or used. But here are the percentage figures, which are also somewhat illuminating:

Percentage of imports to total domestic consumption for the years 1918 to 1929 inclusive:

Per cent

1920 11

1921 ii

The Budget-Mr. Morand

1923

1925

1927

1929

Per cent

13 101

14 171

23

So that a very definite increase in percentages was shown immediately after the lowering of the duty in 1926. The total value of automobiles and trucks imported for each of the above years was:

1918 $ 9,168,265

1919 12,741,699

1920 13,861,600

1921 10,504,699

1902 13,160,453

1923 12,326,619

1994 9,641,309

1925 14,549,309

Then immediately after the lowering of the duty we find the following:

1926 $24,381,602

1927" 31,542,416

199g 40,832,876

1929 39,423,134

And yet the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth says the industry did not suffer! I may tell the house that I am not interested in whether the manufacturers of automobiles suffered or not. I am interested in the number of men that will secure work now that did not secure work to the extent that we paid money to the United States for those importations. Every car that was manufactured in Canada gave $456 worth of work to some Canadian workman. These figures were vouched for before the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) at the time he was chairman of the tariff advisory board. In other words, for every car imported we lost three months support for a family in Canada. We have heard a good deal about interviews with Henry Ford, one of which lost me my election in 1926, but he, like many others, changes his opinions at times. Let me now quote an interview with that gentleman reported in the Border Cities Star of August 9, 1930:

"1 see no reason to object to the raising of tariff schedules in Canada," said Henry Ford in an exclusive interview with The Border Cities Star at his Dearborn office yesterday.

"Though I am not a tariff advocate in the United States, the situation of the two countries is quite different. The United States has attained industrial maturity and should be able to stand on her own feet in competition with the world, but Canada is still in the formative stage industrially, and if a higher tariff will foster industry there, who can object to that?"

"Other countries in the world," concluded Mr. Ford, "are becoming more and more able to provide many things for themselves which they now buy from us. These countries like American goods, but on the other hand, they

do like a share in the production and that is as it should be. America cannot hope permanently to provide for other countries, so it all works out for the better economic balance of the world."

Now, it may be thought that the automobile tariff is purely local in its application, and that it would help the border cities alone. The figures I am about to quote are given by Mr. Campbell, of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, but undoubtedly they will apply to other manufacturers of automobiles. The Ford company spent in 1930 for materials and supplies more than $7,000,000 in the border cities-East Windsor, Windsor, Walkerville and Sandwich; $3,000,000 in Toronto; $2,000,000 in Hamilton; $1,200,000 in Montreal; $750,000 in Winnipeg and Chatham; $650,000 in Sarnia; $350,000 in Vancouver; $260,000 in Woodstock; $170,000 in Halifax; $160,000 in Niagara Falls; $140,000 in Calgary and $120,000 each in Peterborough, London and Regina. In all more than seventy-five cities and towns in Canada contributed materials and supplies required in the manufacture of the Ford car. Among these were Almonte, Belleville, Brantford, Dundas, Galt, Gananoque, Guelph, Ingersoll, Kitchener, Milton, Owen Sound, Rock Island, St. Catharines, Sinclair Mills, St. Johns, Quebec, Tilbury, Waterloo, Welland and many others.

In addition the Ford company also expended during 1930 the following sums in pay rolls at the main plant in East Windsor and the eight branches:

East Windsor, $8,400,000; London, $100,000; Toronto, $900,000; Montreal, $400,000; St. John, $70,000; Winnipeg, $350,000; Regina, $100,000; Calgary, $100,000; Vancouver, $80,000.

This gives an idea of the extent to which the automobile industry influences the entire Canadian industrial world. The situation as it exists in connection with the Ford industry undoubtedly is the same in connection with other companies, and it is only multplied by the number of cars produced in Canada. It is my belief that the changes in the tariff at the present time will considerably increase the amount of work done in Canada. By forcing the manufacturers of automobiles to use more Canadian parts it will help the manufacturers of those parts; the automobile industry will become still more truly Canadian, and to that extent it will help the unemployment situation.

It is not my purpose to go into details with reference to the various changes in the automobile tariffs. Undoubtedly these matters will be discussed when the various items are taken up.

Reports of Committees

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

William Henry Moore

Liberal

Mr. MOORE (Ontario):

Did the figures given by the hon. gentleman include the export trade?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Raymond Ducharme Morand

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MORAND:

No, the figures did not include the export trade.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

William Henry Moore

Liberal

Mr. MOORE (Ontario):

Would my hon. friend give us the figures including the export trade?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Let him finish; he has only five minutes.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

William Henry Moore

Liberal

Mr. MOORE (Ontario):

I should like to have the hon. gentleman continue to-morrow; his remarks are very interesting.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Raymond Ducharme Morand

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MORAND:

I will put on Hansard the figures in regard to the export of domestic cars, so that my hon. friend can see them to-morrow. There are many other changes in the tariff which affect my county particularly. There is a tariff on buttons, which will affect button factories. There are certain changes in the steel tariffs, about which I know very little and with which I shall not attempt to deal. The corn tariff will help my county and many others; it will help counties producing other grains which will supplant the corn now being imported.

The whole idea behind the tariff changes was to help the unemployment situation, but I doubt very much whether the unemployed of this country are prepared to wait for a change in our economic structure before getting some help. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has said that until we change our whole economic system no help can be given. I do not know what other system, he would advocate. The only other system I see is the system now in force in Russia. He may have some other in mind, and if so I should like to hear about it. It is rather interesting, however, to note that he is one of the hon. gentlemen who says he represents labour, but I doubt very much whether he represents labour as much as I do. I believe I have just as large a labour element in my constituency as he has, and I think I was elected by as many labour votes as he was.

In this connection I should like to tell the house that at a meeting held in Windsor a few days ago, which was addressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), when the chairman mentioned the name of God there were boos from many sections of the assembly. I say that if we have come to the stage where atheistic communists are prepared to boo the name of God in public places it is time we

ceased talking socialism and other similar theories and became really aware of conditions as they actually exist around us. Liberty is only assured and secured by the following of authority and the acceptance of restrictions. We have heard a good deal in this house about the cupidity of man. If, despite the teachings of the Bible, that cupidity has become such that hon. gentlemen opposite believe a change of system necessary, I think it behooves them to reflect upon what will happen under other systems where the cupidity of man will be freed from the fear of God and from the fear of punishment or hope of reward hereafter.

What can we expect from other systems? I know hon. gentlemen opposite do not speak of a free trade system when they demand a change in our economic system. They must have reference to an entirely different system, and I have been waiting for them to give us some idea of what they mean. I have listened most attentively since the beginning of this session; I have hoped to hear from hon. gentlemen opposite, or in the corner, some suggested solution to meet the needs of the situation. So far we have heard only wails with regal'd to the breaking or the filling of election pledges, and there has been little if anything of a constructive nature.

On motion of Mr. Smith (Cumberland) the debate was adjourned.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL
Sub-subtopic:   FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order. Friday, June 5, 1931


June 4, 1931