James William MADDIN

MADDIN, James William, K.C., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal-Conservative
Constituency
Cape Breton South (Nova Scotia)
Birth Date
September 8, 1874
Deceased Date
September 29, 1961
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_William_Maddin
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=6c464b76-816d-4b88-8d66-1501f13845b5&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
L-C
  Cape Breton South (Nova Scotia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 57)


July 28, 1911

Mr. J. W. MADDIN (South Cape Brecon).

Mr. Speaker, I should be derelict n my duty as a member of this House, I would not be discharging my duty to my lonstituents, or to the people of the province from which I come, nor in a broader sense would I be discharging my duty as i Canadian, if I were to allow this debate to come to a division without contributing ny views to this very important question. Let me at first take a brief glance at the history of this country. In 1775 when the 13 British colonies that now constitute the greater part of the United States kindled the torch, and drew the sword, and cast the tea chests into Boston harbour, they probably had some justification for doing it at that time. But there were a laTge number of British subjects among them who thought differently, and they shook the dust of those colonies from off the|r feet, and came northward into the province of Ontario, and into the province of Quebec; they made their way down to the maritime provinces, and perhaps the greatest Canadian we have ever had up to the present time, the Hon. Joseph Howe, from the loins of one of those United Empire Loyalists. Now, Sir, the Tesult of that revolution was that the people of the United States made a declaration of independence, and began to map out their own career. The other British colonies which now constitute the Dominion of Canada remained outside that union, preferring to live under the Union Jack. Our neighbours to the south, who are so friendly to-day, and who come up to the line with an olive branch in their hands seeking to make an inroad on our natural resources, ;n 1812 invaded thid territory, and our forefathers met them at the frontier, met diem on their ships, gave them battle, md fought to maintain this territory as a part of the British Empire. In 1837 when die Mackenzie-Bapineau rebellion took place, it is a well known and well recognized fact that it was financed m the United States, and that a great deal of the arms and ammunition that were put mto the hands of the insurrectionists came irom across the 50th parallel. Now that was in 1837. The United States were not so friendly towards us then. In 1866 again the Fenian raid took place. Let me point out also that the United States had some

troubles of their own between 1861 and 1865. The people of Canada had entered into a reciprocity agreement with them in 1854, it was to continue for ten years at least, with two years notice of abrogation. That notice was given, and the treaty was abrogated in 1866. During the American civil war the British government was so indiscreet, according to the views of some of the people in the northern states, as to recognize the southern confederacy. On the other hand a large number of Canadians had gone over and fought with the northerners against the confederacy to help emancipate the slaves. A few Canadians expressed sympathy with the southern states, and some of the refugees from that country sought an asylum in Canada. This incensed the people of the northern states against the Dominion of Canada, and the people of the south were incensed against Canada as part of the British Empire, because Britain would not recognize the southern confederacy. The result was that when the war closed in 1865, the treaty was abrogated in 1866. Then the United States, that is so friendly to-day, set about, by the raising of a high tariff wall, to cut off communication between the two countries with the ultimate object of forcing Canada into annexation. That was a time calling for strong men and stern men; the occasion brought forth the men, and history repeated itself as it always does. At that time we had in Canada the late Sir John A. Macdonald, we had the late George Brown, we had the late Sir Leonard Tilley, we had Sir Charles Tupper, we had the late Sir George Cartier, we had the fathers of confederation. These men, gathered from the various provinces, set about to meet the situation which was now fraught with danger, and threatened to wipe the British colonies out of existence. What did they proceed to do? They brought these scattered provinces into a confederacy, they brought them into what is now known as the Dominion of Canada under the British North America Act, which is the constitution under which this parliament is sitting. After that was accomplished Canada raised a tariff wall against the United States. She struggled on as best she could, mapping out her own career, trying policy after policy, under the Conservatives first, under the Liberals afterwards, and in 1878 the Liberal-Conservative party adopted the National Policy. Instead of buying our manufactured goods from the United States, we made a tariff sufficiently high to protect our own manufacturers in articles that we could produce in Canada, thereby giving employment to people within our own borders, and by building railways and canals, extending interprovincial trade, and building up this country without any assistance from the United States.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Full View Permalink

July 28, 1911

Mr. MADDIN.

This was continued down until 1896. In 1896, the present administration came into power. A great many people expected that they would at once wipe out the National Policy. As the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) said during the course of this debate, he understood that the fiscal policy of this country had been fixed ever since the Fielding tariff of 1897, so that every man from Vancouver to Sydney, from the' Great Lakes to the Arctic Ocean, knew what it was. There was no difference of opinion among statesmen or politicians in this country, with regard to the best policy for the people of this country. During all these years, from 1867, some 44 years, we mapped out our own career, we blazed the trail through the forest, we built railways and canals that have cost this country over $500,000,000. We built them east and west, we bridged a chasm of 1,200 miles of Canadian Pacific railway that does not originate one dollar's worth of freight or passenger traffic. We built these lines of canals east and west, and because geographically that was the proper route to build them by, but because we had a neighbour to the south so hostile that we were obliged to build them east and west whether we liked it or not. We have built those lines of trade and we have developed an interprovincial trade which hon. members who have preceded me have described. On the 1st day of January last every one in Canada was happy, contented and prosperous. We had developed our trade interprovin-cially, we had built our railways and canals as I have pointed out, and whilst we did it we lived under the Union Jack. We did not share in England's difficulties. The people of the old country had extended the British Empire until we boasted that the sun never set on it, but Great Britain never asked us for one single dollar. We went on developing our resources until it is said now that the fruit is ripe to fall from the tree. Whilst we were building our railways and canals, whilst we were extending our manufactures in the Dominion of Canada, there i3 not a member of this House who picked up a British or a colonial newspaper and read the head lines of threatened war between Germany and Britain, between France and Britain, who gave it a second thought. We crawled under the_ sheets and went to bed when we felt like it, we got up when we felt like it, and amongst the worries of the day we did not carry any national responsibility. Why? Because Britain's North Atlantic squadron patrolled our Atlantic seaboard; because 110-ton disappearing guns were mounted at York Redoubt on the shores of Halifax harbour; because masked batteries at Port Pleasant, at the eastern passage, fortified Halifax harbour and because 3,500

redcoats and 500 sappers and engineers with guns and ammunition guarded the city while we slept. At Quebec the same conditions obtained. The fortifications were there, equally fit, prepared to meet the invader and there again there were 4,000 redcoats of Great Britain manning the forts, patrolling the city whilst the people of Canada were developing its resources, extending its trade, meeting the competition of our hostile neighbours to the south. On the Pacific coast, at Esquimalt, similar fortifications, every days' pay at the port hundred redcoats were there and the South Pacific squadron of Great Britain patrolled the Pacific ocean. Every ship, every man aboard those ships, every dollar's worth of fortifications, every days' pay at the port of Halifax, Quebec and Esquimalt, was paid by the burdened taxpayers of Great Britain, who were holding the flag secure above our heads, and all that we did was, on May 24 or Dominion Day, to give ourselves a holiday, sing ' God Save the Queen,' ' Rule Britannia, Britannia Rules the Waves '-that was our contribution. On Friday, the 19th of last December, a delegation came from the west. They filled the chamber, they filled the galleries of this House, they packed the corridors around this House. They numbered some 1,600, and they came from the west which had grown up and developed after the building of the Canadian Pacific Tailway. They filled this House and they had the right hon. the First Minister and a few of his cabinet sitting where you, Mr. Chairman, and the Clerk of this House sit tonight. Their representatives stood up and read resolutions asking for what? Asking for this trade pact?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Full View Permalink

July 28, 1911

Mr. MADDIN.

I submit that the a'ct of threatening the manufacturers of this country or any manufacturer is a cowardly act.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Full View Permalink

July 28, 1911

Mr. MADDIN.

If the hon. the Finance Minister were to _ single out a few other sources from which such a contribution could come, we must draw a reasonable inference as to the source of that fund.

On the same day,, July 24, the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), speaking in this House, made the following statement to which I wish to take exception:

My hon. friend has said that beoause this member or that member has not spoken there is some doubt as to his convictions. I would be very sorry to be judged from that standpoint. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) did not speak, it is true, in this House on the question of reciprocity. I did not speak, but I would not wish my views to be judged from that fact. I do know that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) during the month of June spent practically all his time campaigning, not only in Pictou, but in every county of the province of Nova Scotia. Doing what? Advocating reciprocity.

I know positively that he did not speak in any one of the counties of Cape Breton, Colchester, Digby, Cumberland or Halifax. He did speak in his native county of Pic-ton. which lie represents. He did speak in the town of Westville, where in 1904, the 3334

member for Pictou was some 400 votes behind Mr. Charles E. Tanner, whom he defeated on that occasion and in this election Mr. Robertson, a Liberal-Conservative candidate led the poll with over 600 majority. But, Mr. Chairman, we have 'been told over and over again that reciprocity was not an issue- in the provincial elections in Nova Scotia. So far as I can make it am issue in participating in that campaign I made it an issue. It may have been an issue down in Yarmouth county, and that may be one of the counties that the hon. member for Pictou campaigned in, but in the county of Yarmouth, which for *many years had sent Liberals to support the government of Nova Scotia, one of the provincial ministers of the Crown was defeated by a Liberal-Conservative candidate. He may have spoken in .some of the counties of Nova Scotia, but metbinks that he was not overly anxious to discuss reciprocity in that province. Reciprocity was not an issue there. I have before me a copy of the Sydney ' Record ' of June 13, and it outlines what, in the opinion of the Liberal party there, was the issue in the province of Nova Scotia at that time. They say:

The opposition have forced federal issues into the present contest. They are asking the electors to vote on reciprocity, coal tariff, and steel bounties, questions over which the local legislature has no control. The result, then, in Cape Breton will be regarded in the nature of a verdict on federal policy. The navy is the big federal issue in Sydney. It cannot now be shirked. A vote against Premier Murray will be equivalent to a vote of want of confidence in Fielding and Laurier. It will be regarded at Ottawa as a pronouncement not only against reciprocity but against the navy. Therefore, vote for Kendall and Carroll if yon are in favour of the navy and shipbuilding at Sydney. An adverse vote will encourage the opposition at Ottawa to block the navy contracts.

That was the issue held out to the electors in Cape Breton. But they knew what the issue was, they knew that the steel bounties and the duty on coal were being struck at 'by this pact, and that the Nova Scotia government had put the brand of approval on it before they went to the country. There were good reasons why the member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) would not care to discuss reciprocity at any great length in Nova Scotia, because he had gone out with the Prime Minister on his tour _ through the west. He had left behind him the cool and turbulent waters of the Atlantic, and he went out over the prairies on a railway that would never have been built had the two very gentlemen who were going out there had their own way about it.

They crossed the prairies from Lake Superior to the Rocky Mountains, they

penetrated the passes of the Rocky Mountains, and made their way to the limpid waters of the gentle Pacific, having followed their sinuous course across the continent. The hon. member for Pictou had been living for weeks in the hallowed presence, he had followed the white plume across the continent, and had learned words of wisdom there. He was in the confidence of the Premier of Canada. He came home with a message to the people of Nova Scotia, and he received a welcome at New Glasgow in proportion to the welcome that the Premier himself received in the city of Montreal. So important was the return of this gifted son of Pictou to his native heath, that the Liberal population of that county urged that the merchants in the town of New Glasgow should leave their electric lights burning in the windows in order to illuminate the streets down to the park where the address was to be made to the returning hero who was coming back from the feet of the man he worships as a political god. After the address had been presented, the hon. member for Pictou spoke in reply. I read this from a report of his speech sent in a dispatch of September 12, 1910, to the 'Morning Chronicle,' a paper of Halifax, and published on September 13, 1910.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Full View Permalink

July 28, 1911

Mr. MADDIN.

Positively not. I think the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) must have a pain.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Full View Permalink