James Charles BRADY

BRADY, James Charles

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Skeena (British Columbia)
Birth Date
January 21, 1876
Deceased Date
January 24, 1962
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Brady
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=6d54c06b-83db-41ad-8ccf-5ad09a81d62a&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
school principal, teacher

Parliamentary Career

September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
CON
  Skeena (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 54)


May 16, 1930

Mr. BRADY:

Under this item I should

like to direct the attention of the minister to what I consider to be a grave omission from the list of items under the countervailing duties. I refer to fish, which I think should be included under this heading. If any hon. member questions me I can quote from the Bible, from Murray's classical dictionary and from Webster's new international dictionary to prove that fish is meat, and consequently should be included under this item. The fishing industry on the Pacific coast is very important, and I am quite sure that if a few facts are laid before the government they will realize the importanace of including fish under the countervailing tariff.

Here is the situation. At the present moment on the Pacific coast over 315 American vessels are engaged in the halibut trade, and they use Canadian ports without paying any dues at all. There are no harbour dues; they have the full freedom of those ports and they pay only 81 for a fishing licence. They have the full benefit of our railways in order to send their products to the American market, and they are able to get for their fresh fish 2 cents per pound more than the Canadian fisherman gets.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

May 16, 1930

Mr. BRADY:

Do not try to misinterpret my meaning. My hon. friend will not get me to say something which I do not mean.

I made that illustration to show that the Canadian fisherman is entitled to consideration because of the present duty of 2 cents and the threat made by the United States to raise the rate on frozen halibut to 5 cents per pound. It is the little things which swing the pivot or change the flow of commerce.

I think I have placed squarely before the finance minister and the government the desire of the Canadian fishermen, namely, to get justice in their fair demands.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

May 16, 1930

Mr. BRADY:

There is a duty of 2 cents per pound imposed on Canadian fish entering the United States. The result is that the Canadian fisherman is penalized to the extent of 2 cents a pound on his fish. If, on a stormy day, a Canadian fisherman should be unable to reach the' port of Prince Rupert and should turn into the port of Ketchikan, which is seventy miles north in United States territory, he has to pay poft dues, entrance and clearing charges, and' other things which cost a considerable sum, varying in respect of the size of the vessel. The point I should like to bring strongly to the attention of the minister is this: Why should not the Canadian fishermen be protected in accordance with the principle laid down by the countervailing duty which the government is applying to other commodities? Is he not entitled at least to have that protection which has been afforded

other industries such as agriculture? I have under my hand correspondence from many quarters; from the senator representing Alaska; from the report of the United States tariff commission; from the Seattle Fishermen's Association and from the Canadian Halibut Union, and all are agreed that a reasonable solution is possible. Until now we could not get the government to believe that when we advocated something for the relief of the Canadian Pacific fishermen we were not urging retaliation against the United States. That myth is dead; there is no more heard of it now, only I trust that the government will see to it that this very important industry is given relief. It is only what is coming to it and is in accord with the principle which has been laid down under the item now under discussion. Without saying anything further, I hope this matter will receive the immediate attention of the Minister of Finance and that he will add this one item to the present list.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

May 16, 1930

Mr. BRADY:

That is conceded; they buy their ice there, and no doubt the railways receive substantial profits from that traffic. We desire to have them receive those profits, and we welcome the American fishermen to our port. But the American fisherman who enters our ports is not permitted by his government to have any repairs done, nor can he except in a limited degree purchase any supplies at that port; he must do that in United States territory. In other words, he sells his fish on the exchange in competition with Canadian fishermen at a price 2 cents per pound above that received by the Canadian fisherman, and gets the full benefits of the port. I think it will be agreed that some right lies on the side of Canadian fishermen,

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

because he is asking only for a fair and equitable agreement.

Prince Rupert is the only harbour on the Pacific coast which meets the requirements of the large American fishing fleet. Ketchikan has no railway connection to the United States market. Last year there were landed in Prince Rupert 30,500,000 pounds of halibut, of which the Canadians sold about 3,750,000 pounds to the United States. If the American fishermen were not permitted to enter Prince Rupert harbour, they would be forced to travel often nearly 1,200 miles to Seattle, and that would be a difficult and dangerous voyage in bad weather even for the larger boats. The Canadian fisherman asks that the provision which is to be applied to other industries should be applied to the third greatest industry in Canada; he asks that this industry be given a fair chance.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

May 5, 1930

Mr. BRADY:

The Prime Minister of Canada uttered these significant words in 1924. For six long years the people of the Peace River country and the people of British Columbia, who depend upon those great natural resources have been waiting for the implementing of the words of, at that time, the greatest and most important man in Canada.

Let me go a little further and speak about some other ministers of that day. I refer to the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), at that time Minister of Railways. As reported on page 2212 of Hansard of 1927, the then Minister of Railways had this to say:

"Mr Dunning: Only a relatively limited

number of the farmers are now a long distance from existing lines of transportation, and the problem is really one of providing a more economical way to the markets of the world.

Then he said that in order to assist in the development and settlement of the Peace River country and to encourage immigrants, the problem is one of providing a more economical outlet to the people already there and within a reasonable distance of the existing lines of railway.

What does the acting Minister of Immigration say? And I am glad to see the minister in his place, because I know he will stand up and say just what he said in 1927. Unfortunately, however, actions speak louder than words. I would have been delighted to see that before to-day he had urged the final solution of the great problem of the Peace River country:

Hon. Charles Stewart: I am a strong

advocate of the outlet to the coast and 1 support the suggestion that there be a survey made with a view to having the route definitely settled, this year if possible.

Thus we find three important _ cabinet members of the government realizing the importance of solving the problem of this great inland empire. If I am to judge tonight of what they have done I must bring in a verdict of disapprobation of their lack of vision and understanding regarding not merely Peace River and British Columbia but Canada as a whole. What a wonderful chance was given to the present government and the Canadian National to solve this problem. The Canadian Pacific, understanding the potentialities of that great country, of its own accord took up the solution of this problem and bought from the Alberta government the railway lines, at what price? At the very price dictated by the Alberta government. What is the inference to be drawn from that? It means that the Canadian Pacific realized the importance of controlling the wonderful wealth of that great territory.

How far have we proceeded towards getting an outlet from the Peace River to the Pacific by the amalgamation of the two great transcontinental railways? I should like to know.

I doubt very much whether the agreement entered into between these two great transcontinental railways is going to solve the problem wihch it was within the power of the present parliament of Canada to settle on its own initiative. What has happened since the agreement between these two great transcontinental railways was made? In September 1929, the Canadian chamber of commerce, representing not merely the whole of Canada, but also the British Empire, England, Scotland and Wales, paid a visit to the Peace River country because of the wonderful stories they had about it's wealth and fertility. Who were the members of the Canadian chambers of commerce who went to the Peace River country in 1929? Whom did they represent and what was the result of their visit to that country? I will briefly mention who were the men and women who comprised the Empire chambers of commerce who visited the Peace River country. It was the largest, the most influential and most representative body of business men and women within the empire. Why did they go in there? Why did they choose in 1929 to spend a week, nay, ten days visiting the Peace River country? The answer is this. Already the fame of that country had gone abroad. What was the result of their visit? I am going to add to the words of the Prime Minister in 1924, of the Minister of Railways and Canals and of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization in 1927, the words of the president of the Canadian chamber of commerce on his return to Calgary from the Peace River country. If I used these words myself I would probably be looked upon as exaggerating, but Mr. Birks, of Montreal, the president of the Canadian chamber of commerce, after visiting the Peace River country from Spirit river to Grande Prairie, to Dawson Creek, Rolla, Beaverlodge, Peace River, and back to Calgary, asked what he thought of the Peace River country, replied:

"We were amazed and thunderstruck at the immensity and wonderful fertility of this great Peace river country."

He was amazed; he was thunderstruck. What did S. P. Gundy, of Toronto, say on his return from that visit? If there is one practical man who could not be carried away by emotion I think it is this very gentleman; and here are his words:

"Never in our lives have we met such people, or enjoyed a trip like this. Wherever I go

Topic:   SUPPLY-PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE FOR COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink