Joseph READ

READ, Joseph

Personal Data

Party
Laurier Liberal
Constituency
Prince (Prince Edward Island)
Birth Date
October 31, 1849
Deceased Date
April 6, 1919
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Read_(Canadian_politician)
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=18f384df-6db6-4b46-8c71-b9ba8166d43b&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
master mariner, merchant, shipowner

Parliamentary Career

December 17, 1917 - April 6, 1919
L LIB
  Prince (Prince Edward Island)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 38)


March 27, 1919

Mr. JOSEPH READ:

When I requested the minister to suspend the matter for the time being I had no idea that he would threaten to withdraw the Bill altogether. I would be sorry to see it withdrawn, for half a loaf is better than no bread. The suggestion that we have no complaint from the railway men is not according to the facts. I represent a great number of railway men, and know that they are not receiving what they should under the McAdoo award. However, I am glad to hear the minister's statement that he intends to stand by the employees, and I trust he will remedy that matter. I refer to the freight handlers and others at Port Borden.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   AID TOWARDS ELIMINATING LEVEL CROSSINGS.
Full View Permalink

March 27, 1919

Mr. JOSEPH READ (Prince, P.E.I.):

1 am not going to detain the House very long, and I would not speak at all were it not that I have changed my mind since last session. I pointed out the other night that in my opinion consistency was the hobgoblin of little minds. I believe in expressing my views to-day, even though it may contradict everything I said yesterday, providing I have good grounds for changing my opinion. I want to say that the only vote I gave in this House last session to which fault was found in my constituency was the vote which I gave on this daylight saving measure. One of the reasons that I have for changing my mind is that my constituents found fault with me last year for supporting the Daylight Saving Bill.

I want to answer some of the arguments put forward, Mr. Speaker, in favour of daylight saving. One was in regard to train time. Some years ago the United States railway time was an hour different from ours, but we found no very great difficulty about it, and as a matter of fact there are three or four different sections between the Atlantic and Pacific where-there is an hour's difference in the train: time; for instance, we change our time one hour at Vanceboro on our way to Ottawa. That argument is not well taken.

Another thing that has come up in this debate would cause me to change my mind, that is, that I find that the large cities

*902

which wish to adopt the daylight saving scheme within their own boundaries can do so by way of by-law. Therefore, why should we extend daylight saving to the country people who do not want it? If the cities want daylight saving, let them adopt it within their civic boundaries; then there is no harm done.

An argument advanced in favour of the Bill by the hon. member from Montreal (Mr. Jacobs) was that all the rest of the world had adopted daylight saving. That is no good reason at all in its favour. If it was, why every law enacted by other nations would need to be adopted by us.

Another very strong argument in favour of the amendment is that the country young men get very much dissatisfied with the fact that the city boys can knock off work an hour earlier, because it is impossible for the farming people to complete their work by five o'clock.

There is just one more thing I want to say in regard to this question, and that is to thank the 'Government for the change in its attitude towards this House, and: inviting this expression of opinion1, instead of its former course of introducing a measure and then telling the House: You must swallow this or defeat the Government.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   DAYLIGHT SAVING.
Full View Permalink

March 24, 1919

Mr. READ:

This is what is says:

These demands are apparently made in the hope and belief that, if they are granted, those making them will be relieved of a large part of what they call the " Burden of Taxation," which the tariff imposes upon them.

They may argue that under a lower tariff the volume of goods imported win increase, and consequently there will be no decrease in the revenue. But mark this: they want the duty removed entirely from implements, lumber, cement, oil and other articles of which they are large consumers. If the revenue Is to he maintained under such a rearrangement of the tariff schedules, other classes of the people must pay what the Grain Growers will escape.

It is pretty nearly time that the Grain Growers begin to do something. My province, as I said before, has identical interests with the great provinces of the west, particularly the three prairie provinces. What has happened in our province through this tariff, the brightest province in the Dominion-that province which nature has done more for to the square mile than any other province in the Dominion of Canada; the jewel of the Dominion? This is what has happened: That province has become absolutely depopulated through forty years of this tariff-forty years of protection. When we were an autonomous province doing our own business, and doing it well, the whole revenue was raised by a ten per

cent ad valorem tax on imported goods, and we did not have to pay one per cent of direct taxes. That ten per cent has been raised up to 35 per cent to forty per cent to-day, and they expect the province to live under a burden like that. Why, the agricultural interests of this country are hewers of wood and drawers of water for these Big Interests. Here is another paper -not a Charlottetown paper, but

9 p.m. no less than one of the greatest financial and trade papers in the Dominion of Canada, the Montreal Gazette. This advertisement is headed "Dangerous to Production, to Labour, and to Industry." Then it goes on and gives the whole story, just the same story only in other words, and below are "The proxies of the fifteen thieves,"-Madam Smith the other day in the British Columbia Legislature, drew attention to. She said that the soul of Canada was held in leash by fifteen of the Big Interests of the Dominion of Canada-fifteen men own the whole shooting match. If their names are not signed, well, their representatives are there- Shaughnessy, George, Godfrey, Beatty, Black, Drummond, Ellis, Nanton, Nicholls, Williso-n, Bulman, Rolland, Russell, ficully, Worthington-just fifteen they total up.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why I have changed my mind, because I see the danger that the Western people are standing in. As I told you the other day, we will send you four members from Prince Edward Island-I am as sure of that as that I am alive-if we get a fair show, but if they come down with that stuff, if they buy the press and debauch the people, as they do whenever they have a chance, where are you going to get off at? I may as well tell you Western farmers that you are not going to get this thing if you work alone, you have to get assistance from the Eastern Provinces, and if you do not look out for yourselves you will be in the soup.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

March 24, 1919

Mr. READ:

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the particular and especial friends of the hon. gentlemen who occupy the Government benches.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

March 24, 1919

Mr. JOSEPH READ:

The Acting Prime Minister told you that the appeal we were making to you would be in vain. Very well, if it is in vain, then the burden is on your political souls, and when you go back we will see what the Western people will say about you for losing this cause. There is the danger of delaying for the Budget. If my hon. friend, the Acting Prime Minister, could be entirely depended upon, and we could have the assurance of \fhat he told you people in caucus, it might be all right, but you remember the trick he served us in 1911, when he went in with Sir Edmund

Walker and that gang in Toronto. I have not too much confidence in him in that respect. .

All the Government has got to do now, if they do not want defeat-as I said before, I do not want to see them defeated at this juncture-is to come out flat-footed and accept this motion. I dare say a few of the Ginger Group would vote against them, but I am pretty well satisfied that if they accept the motion they will get the bulk of the men on this side. That is the proper thing to do, accept this motion and avoid defeat or stultify itself. Let the Government show its hand.

If you defeat this resolution, what is going to happen to the reciprocity agreement? You cannot, you know, according to the rules of this House, bring up this motion again this session; do not make any mistake about that, unless you get the unanimous consent of the House, which you are not likely to get. My hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) said that it should not be moved now. Let me tell him in the words of the good old Methodist preacher: " Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation."

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink