May 3, 1926 (15th Parliament, 1st Session)


Charles Edward Bothwell



I am speaking in reference to "disappointment No. 3," as got out by Besco, dealing with a country with depreciated currency. If it is alleged that our trade with any country with depreciated currency ha3 been affected by reason of a trade treaty, some one else can deal with that. The table continues:
Russia- . Imports Exports1923
$338,907 $ 132,9091925
2.730 14,316,002
In respect to other foreign countries-and some of the other countries must also have depreciated currency-we find the following figures:
Other foreign countries- Imports Exports
*24,679,703 *20,615,4861925
20,777,442 28,734,025
From these figures, in connection with both imports and exports, it does not appear that the depreciated currency of those countries has had any bad effect on the trade of Canada, or that we need any legislation to protect our-

The Budget-Mr. Bothwell
selves against ithe product of countries which have a depreciated currency.
I want to touch for a moment or two on the question of the tariff on automobiles. I think every member who has spoken on the budget has dealt with this subject. We have had deputations appear here and the matter has been presented in various ways from both sides of the House. The same question was before the House last year, and I notice that after the debate in the House a year ago the resolution was defeated by only nineteen votes. That would appear to me to be a pretty fair intimation to the automobile manufacturers in Canada that some legislation would be passed this session. Further than that, I think practically every newspaper in Canada has carried requests for months past in connection with the reduction in the tariff on automobiles. During the darly days of this session a resolution by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) was placed on the order paper, showing that he intended to ask for a reduction of the duty on automobiles. We know too that a good deal of lobbying was being done around this House by the automobile interests and speeches of various kinds were, made in this House in the interest of the automobile industry. It strikes me as most peculiar that if it is necessary that the automobile tariff should remain where -it was, no single individual either in this House or in the lobby or anywhere else seems to be able to give us a concrete instance of any industry that would suffer by a reduction in the tariff if it were made. So far as I have been able to find out, no single concrete case has been put ou record to show that any factory, whether having to do with parts or automobiles, would have to close its doors by reason of a change in the tariff. Surely if the experts that have been able to get out books such as we have received from the automobile industry knew that a reduction in the tariff was going to ruin their industry, they would have been able to give us manufacturing costs and facts showing that such a reduction could not safely be made.
But it has been left for Mr. Ford to make his statement that it is quite in order to bring about the reduction, and that statement has not been met by any other manufacturer in Canada so far as I have been able to gather.
I presume every hon. member has received a copy of the book that has been got out by the Ford interests, because we have had it quoted at different times. It would appear from that book that the people of Canada have given the automobile manufacturers fairly good protection. Mr. Ford in the interview that was put on Hansard by the hon.
[Mr Bothwell.]
member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) stated that in his plant in Canada they use at least S5 per cent of Canadian material. He says in this book of his, and also in the interview that was read by the hon. member for Assiniboia, that the cost of manufacture is about equally divided between wages and material; that is, that wages and material cost about the same. This book of his says that wages paid out in 1925 amounted to $10,138,927. Eighty-five per cent of his product is procured in Canada. If he takes the 15 per cent from the United States, that would mean on his own figures that he would bring in approximately $1,520,838. His production cost, according to the same book on page 6, is given as $19,329,745, being spent for production material, building construction, machinery equipment, supplies, insurance, advertising and other services. He has the money bags appear at the bottom of the picture showing that the company pay to the government $2,962,234.

Full View