William Cameron EDWARDS

EDWARDS, The Hon. William Cameron

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Russell (Ontario)
Birth Date
May 7, 1844
Deceased Date
September 17, 1921
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cameron_Edwards
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=1731ef95-36db-4e61-9a7f-e27e0ed02f1c&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
businessman, lumber merchant

Parliamentary Career

February 22, 1887 - January 9, 1888
LIB
  Russell (Ontario)
May 7, 1888 - February 3, 1891
LIB
  Russell (Ontario)
March 5, 1891 - April 24, 1896
LIB
  Russell (Ontario)
June 23, 1896 - October 9, 1900
LIB
  Russell (Ontario)
November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
LIB
  Russell (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 363 of 363)


March 20, 1901

Mr. EDWARDS.

Well, if they will allow me to protect myself, I will do that as well as I can. I do not want any of the kind of assistance they propose. This matter of protection on lumber would affect the farmer injuriously, just as have all the other conditions of protection in Canada. Let us suppose that out in Dakota or somewhere in the American north-west, at a point near the border, there is a saw-mill, and that on the Canadian side of the line are a number of farmers who require lumber. It will cost them, perhaps, $2 or $3 per thousand feet to pay the freight on lumber coming from the nearest point in Canada. If you impose a protective duty on lumber, the consequence will be that these farmers must choose between paying the duty or paying the heavy freight charges on the lumber they require. I claim that this would be an injustice. It is perfectly impossible to place a duty on lumber coming into Canada without very materially injuring the farmers of Canada.

Notv, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) spoke of culls and common grade lumber coming into Canada to-day at very low prices. Well, now, I can only speak of my own experience. The fact is that at this very point, Ottawa, one of the greatest lumber manufactories of Canada, the people are unable to get the common and cheap lumber they require. I myself, who manufacture a very considerable quantity of lumber, had to buy that class of lumber at other points last season and bring it here. So far as this district is concerned, therefore, that statement is not correct. The hon. gentleman also referred to red pine and hemlock coming into Canada. Again, i would like to answer the hon. gentleman. The fact is that the demand for red pine was so great during last season and the season before that everything that was to spare in the United States and Canada was absorbed by the British market, and everything that is to be produced the coming season in red pine in this section of the country is bought up for that market.

Now. I do not think I should take up the time of the House much longer on this subject, but I just say again that I am utterly opposed to any legislation of this kind. And I am sorry, and very sorry, to think there is a lumberman in Canada who is so small and contracted in his ideas as to ask for the establishment of a condition which, perhaps, might give him a little local benefit, but would be such a great injustice to the farmers of Canada and the people generally who need lumber, and who ought to be free to buy it where they can get it cheapest. In so far as the general principle of trade is concerned, what could be more contrary to reason and justice than the imposing of duties in order to benefit special individuals ? If you are to impose protective duties so as to help this individual and that individual, why, you must pass these benefits around and protect everybody, and when all are protected, in what position are you ?

Topic:   DUTY ON LUMBER.
Full View Permalink

March 20, 1901

Mr. EDWARDS.

world in competition with the products of the world. The lumberman is in exactly the same position, and so is the miner, and so is the fisherman-but let me say here, that the miner, so far as iron is concerned, is the only man engaged in the production of the natural products of Canada who has any measure of protection at all. Now, there are, perhaps, those who believe that by giving a bounty on the exports of the farmer, he would be placed in an equal position with the others who are protected. But that is not true. If the farmer is to be placed in the same position as the protected manufacturers of Canada, he should have a bounty on that which he produces and sells in Canada. If that were done he would be in the same position as the protected manufacturer. I am not one of those who will ever stand up in parliament or outside of parliament and pretend that the farmers have any protection-they have none whatever. Now, are there gentlemen who, under these circumstances would impose a duty on lumber, I would ask: What would be the effect on the farmer ? Is the farmer not sufficiently abused and trampled upon under the conditions that exist ? Would it be fair to place a further embargo upon him by imposing a duty upon lumber ? For my part, I believe it would be a grave injustice. Now, let us investigate this matter a little. Some hon. gentlemen may say: Oh, the

lumberman of British Columbia is affected, the lumbermen in other parts of Canada are effected, but you are not affected. I say at once that I am affected. The American lumber coming into this city and into Montreal affects my interests prejudicially. And my hon. friends on the other side say that I want protection

Ml-. CHARLTON. They say they want to protect you.

Topic:   DUTY ON LUMBER.
Full View Permalink

March 20, 1901

Mr. EDWARDS.

Weil, Mr. Speaker, there are free traders and free traders, and there are protectionists and protectionists. The narrow-minded, bigoted, small, picayune protectionist, wants protection on everything he produces, but in everything else he is a free trader. So far as free trade is concerned, I am sorry to have to make the statement, but I believe that both in parliament and the country we have too few men who study the question out to its logical conclusion. The farmers of Canada are blinded to-day, as they were years ago, with the pretense that they are protected. But ihoy have not one single iota of protection. He never had one single iota of protection, and he never can have one single iota of protection so long as he has to sell his surplus productions in the markets of the

Topic:   DUTY ON LUMBER.
Full View Permalink

March 20, 1901

Mr. EDWARDS.

We imported 29,000,000 feet.

Topic:   DUTY ON LUMBER.
Full View Permalink

March 1, 1901

Mr. EDWARDS.

And some oatmeal.

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE CORONATION OATH.
Full View Permalink