Albert Edward MUNN

MUNN, Albert Edward

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Vancouver North (British Columbia)
Birth Date
January 30, 1865
Deceased Date
February 22, 1946
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Edward_Munn
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=1c09c70d-a251-423e-abff-9a7d7ccce558&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lumber merchant, manager

Parliamentary Career

July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
LIB
  Vancouver North (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 42)


April 9, 1935

Mr. MUNN:

I am very glad the minister

was interested enough to listen, because I know whereof I speak. There is an IndiaD

Long Adjournment-Mr. Munn

reservation at Pemberton. Those Indians have a very fine tract of land; all they need is a little encouragement and cooperation, but the agent very seldom goes there himself. He sends some understrapper who lords it over these poor fellows so they get no satisfaction whatever. This is a serious matter and I think something should be done to straighten it out, perhaps not in connection with the Indian department itself but in connection with the treatment of the Indians. They are entitled to fair, human treatment which they are not getting so far as my riding is concerned. Close to Vancouver we have what is known as the Squamish valley, in connection with which I have had considerable correspondence with the department, since there is quite a large Indian reserve there. I wrote the minister from Vancouver on July 25 last. I am sorry to have to put this on Hansard, but really there is only one way to do business and that is along business lines. I wrote as follows:

For your information I am enclosing a reference to the Squamish river published in the Vancouver Daily Province on the 25th instant.

I happened to he at Squamish a few days ago and went to the trouble of looking over the flood situation at that point and I have come to this conclusion, that your Indian agent is neglecting his duty. There is a lot of land in the Squamish Indian reserve being washed away, and in order to correct the situation it would only cost possibly at the outside $1,000.

Unless something is done to protect the river bank there is liable to be serious damage and my private opinion is that you should instruct your agent in charge of that reserve that you have a report with a view to protecting not only the Indian reserve land but the other lands tributary. This is really serious and should have prompt attention.

The minister acknowledged receipt of my letter on July 31, saying he had asked for a report. Then I heard nothing further until February of this year, when I wrote the minister as follows:

In July, 1934, I wrote you from Vancouver pointing out a very serious flood situation at the above mentioned river in British Columbia. At that time you acknowledged receipt of my letter and stated that you woulld have the Indian agent secure a report for you and when

it was received you would unite me again. To date I have heard no further word from you.

At that time I did not get my information in regard to conditions sitting in an arm chair in some sort of office or at some hotel. I put on old clothes and a pair of rubber boots and walked miles to personally acquaint myself with conditions and decide what should be done. I have been associated with woods operations in connection with lumber all my life, and naturally have had some experience in the handling of water in rivers.

I may say that one poor fellow lost his land and his house, and when I was there last July all he had left was the garden gate and a little piece of fence in front of his farm. To-day there is a very serious situation at that point; the property not only of the Indians but of other persons as well is being washed away, and the river is running wild. One poor fellow sends me a letter in which he complains that his fruit trees and even his poor old horse and buggy have been washed down stream. No one paid any attention; no one tried to help him out. There is a real danger at that point, where there are two rivers and the soil is very light. There is a town of perhaps five hundred people at that point, and there is danger that some day that river will take the whole town into the ocean. A very small expenditure for river bank protection would remove any possibility of danger of that kind. I do not entirely blame the Indian department, but in cooperation with the provincial government and the Pacific Great Eastern railway I believe they should do something to protect both the Indians and the white people living in the Squamish valley.

I do not want to take up too much time, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say a word with regard to tarifis. We have heard a good deal with regard to high tariffs and low tariffs. It is no wonder that we in the west are against high tariffs because we suffer and pay because of them. I have a statement here which appeared in the Financial Post of September 1, 1934, showing the net cost and the net loss or gain from the tariff, as follows:

Benefit from Cost of Net lose or Net L or G tariff tariff gain per capita $ ? $ $Prince Edward Island.. . . .. . . 467,992 2.042,150 L 1,574,158 L 17.88.. . . 9,488,493 15,784,123 L 6.296,631 L 12.28.. . . 8.126,059 12.891,077 L 4,765,118 L 11.67.. .. 132.867,447 101.171.562 G 31,695,885 G 11.03.. .. 220,722,484 168,732.723 G 51,989,761 G 15.15. . .. 19,910,971 29.185.740 L 9,274,769 L 13.25Saskatchewan . . . 3,274,950 29.228,285 L 25.952.335 L 28.16.. .. 8,211,148 27,909,396 L 19,698,249 L 26.93British Columbia .. .. 22,378,571 37,737,247 L 15,358,676 L 22.33425.448.115 424.880.384

Long Adjournment-Mr. McKenzie

I shall not take up further the time of the house.

Now that the Prime Minister is on the way to recovery I sincerely trust his improvement will continue, that he will be able to attend the jubilee celebrations and return in fit physical condition to continue with the business of the house. Before taking my seat I would urge that instead of asking for an adjournment of five weeks the time be shortened to three weeks; surely that would be sufficient. Three weeks' time should be long enough, and at the end of that time we could proceed with the remainder of the work of the session and then return to our homes where we could do some real work.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink

April 9, 1935

Mr. A. E. MUNN (Vancouver North):

I wish to support the amendment because, coming from the Pacific coast, I naturally object to the proposed adjournment; it is not convenient for the members from British Columbia. If there were to be the ordinary aidj oumment of two or three weeks we would not mind, but we object to an adjournment of five weeks. It takes almost a week to go and a week to return and that is too long a journey for the sake of three weeks at home. It is a hardship and I am opposed to the long adjournment.

Several members on the other side of the house have discussed the lumber situation more or less. A short time ago the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) proposed a resolution in connection with the Ottawa agreements. In this house, during the session of 1932, I spoke opposing the treaties and I gave my reasons, from the point of view of a lumber man. I have been in the lumber

Long Adjournment-Mr. Munn

business all my life, and at that time I pointed out that we were making a mistake in connection with these agreements, because the lumber business in this country would be ruined. Let us see what our trade has been so far as lumber is concerned. In the nine years prior to 1932 we were importing from the United States, in round figures, $11,000,000 worth of lumber. That is just lumber, and does not include shingles or any of the products of wood. Most of that lumber was expensive hardwood for furniture, and our average of importations was $11,417,000 per annum. Those were our average imports for nine years. In the same period our exports of lumber to the United States averaged $40,665,000 per annum, so that we had an advantage of almost four to one.

In the 1932 session, on October 27, page 672 of Hansard, I gave figures showing our exports and imports, and at that time I went on record as being opposed to the Ottawa agreements for the reason that we were simply making trouble for ourselves and would lose a market that had been the backbone of the lumber business in Canada for all time. No one can deny that statement; it is absolutely true. I made that speech on October 27, 1932, and on November 15 I received a letter in which this statement appeared:

It seems to me this contains

"This" was a copy of the speech which I sent my correspondent, asking him for his criticism.

-more information pertinent to conditions in the lumber industry than anything yet stated in the dominion house.

In 1934 I went on record again as opposed to the agreement. On May 14 last I said:

Speaking in this chamber on October 26, 1932, I made the statement that in my opinion the lumber business in Canada would not get back to anything like normal conditions until we got back into the United States market. For years the Pacific coast states have been asking for a higher rate of duty or tax on Canadian lumber going into the United States, but until 1932 they could not get Washington to act. During 1931 and 1932 a very strong lobby movement was engineered by the Pacific coast states to raise the tariff or put a tax on Canadian lumber imports into that country, and finally the argument was advanced that through her imperial conference treaties Canada was raising her tariffs against the United States, through preferences granted to other countries. Let me quote some of the statements which were made in Washington in support of the proposed increase in the tariff or tax on Canadian lumber. The Pacific coast lobbyists made a very strong move for the imposition of extra tax, or duty, whichever you choose to call it. As evidence of the points I have made I shall read from the proceedings before the Senate finance committee on the Revenue Act of 1932.

Then I went on and quoted the evidence; it is here in Hansard of May 14, 1934, and it is not necessary to repeat it. I gave the names of the senators and others who testified before the committee in Washington. That was their argument all the way through, that British Columbia was getting a preference in the United Kingdom and at the same time was doing more business with the United States than with the United Kingdom.

Prior to the enactment of this tariff or excise tax and the granting of the ten per cent preference, there was a time when more lumber was shipped from Oregon and Washington to the United Kingdom than from British Columbia. Now of course with the ten per cent preference we have been able to get practically all the lumber business of the United Kingdom formerly held by Washington and Oregon, but in the meantime we have lost the United States market. I should like to give the figures. I am sorry the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) is not in his place, because I wish to show him how careless some of these statements are. I do not altogether blame these gentlemen; I think the information they get is often incorrect. For instance I have here some information that was supplied to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) from H. R. Macmillan, one of our biggest lumber exporters in British Columbia; the picture is simply misleading, but one cannot blame the Prime Minister. I do blame Mr. Macmillan, who is supposed to be a lumberman, although he is not a practical lumberman; he is a lumber dealer. Presumably the Minister of Railways got his information from the same source. He said, speaking in this house on March 27 last as reported in Hansard at page 2158:

Then in regard to lumber may I say that I have before me a report from the British Columbia Lumberman, the official journal of the British Columbia lumber industry. This report is dated January, 1935, only a couple of months ago and from it I intend to quote only one sentence. They say:

"The exports of British Columbia lumber in 1934 easily beat all previous years with a total of 860,(MX),00*0 feet board measure."

That included not only exports to the United Kingdom but all exports. It continues:

"Note how gains in empire trade have more than compensated' for the loss of the United States waterborne trade. More lumber was exported to the United Kingdom alone last year than was ever shipped by water to the United States of America in any twelve monthly period."

Now, Mr. Speaker, any lumberman or any boy who knows anything about lumber knows that practically all our shipments to the United States go by rail. What, lumber would eo

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   OBJECTION TO PROLONGED ADJOURNMENT EXPRESSED IN AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink

April 5, 1935

Mr. MUNN:

How are they getting along

with the Trent canal? Are there any capital expenditures on that?

Topic:   RAILWAYS AND CANALS
Full View Permalink

April 5, 1935

Mr. MUNN:

What are the annual expenditures?

Topic:   RAILWAYS AND CANALS
Full View Permalink

April 5, 1935

Mr. MUNN:

Could the minister without

too much trouble tell the committee what the yearly expenditures and receipts are?

Topic:   RAILWAYS AND CANALS
Full View Permalink