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 53 of 54)


March 4, 1927

Mr. BRADY:

I regret exceedingly, Mr. Chairman, that the Solicitor General should consider that every question asked has an ulterior motive. I had no intention of prolonging the discussion or objecting to the passing of this clause. I asked my question simply for elucidation.

Topic:   RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES
Full View Permalink

March 4, 1927

Mr. BRADY:

The dictionary definition

does not cover it.

Topic:   RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES
Full View Permalink

March 4, 1927

Mr. BRADY:

I would like to ask the

Solicitor General what is the connotation of the phrase "dwelling house?" In British Columbia many of the fishermefa who possess land live habitually in a boat. That is their home. Would "dwelling house" include such a place?

Topic:   RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES
Full View Permalink

February 22, 1927

Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, from time remote the introduction of the budget has been associated, not only in England, but in most European countries, with a ceremonial befitting the importance of the occasion. As hon. members know, the word comes from the French word bougette, a little bag, and it was customary in those days to have the budget brought into the House of Commons in a small blue bag. One can imagine the exciting interest that prevailed in the House when the bag or budget was opened. To-day in our parliament that ceremonial is not a part of the reading of the

The Budget-Mr. Brady

budget, but nevertheless the budget speech is a far-reaching and important document to the people of Canada, because on it will depend the knowledge which we have of the present status of the country's finances and the future prospects of the country.

I have heard that it is usual on the budget debate for hon. members to be given a certain liberty of speech and that any subject may be discussed. I do not intend this evening to discuss a variety of subjects, but I hope to bring to the attention of the government a few things that may be of importance when they come to consider their future policy in regard to Canada.

It was a source of gratification and perhaps more of a feeling of pride in Canada to learn from the budget that by the end of the present fiscal year we would have a favourable trade balance of probably $250,000,000. but there is to this, an aspect, which I think, is worthy of the consideration of every rightthinking man and woman in this broad Dominion. There may be a danger that in parting with our great natural resources, particularly of our forests and mines, we may go too far, because there is a limit even to those two great natural resources in Canada, just as in the case of the tower of Pisa, which has stood many centuries removed from the perpendicular, yet, we find that engineers are to-day engaged in endeavouring to save that ancient monument because it is now fourteen feet from the perpendicular and at any moment may topple. I bring in this illustration just to show that it is a dangerous path we tread, when steadily, year by year, we export a large volume of the two important natural resources of our country which demand the greatest care in order that they may be conserved for future generations.

I gleaned from the budget one or two things which it might be of value to bring before the government in connection with the particular resources to which I refer. We find in the budget that the export of gold bullion and quartz in 1925 amounted to $23,600,000, and in 1926 to $5,000,000, or a decrease of over $18,000,000. I am sure that those who advocate the development of our subsidiary industries will look upon it as a source of congratulation that we are adopting a measure which will meet with the satisfaction of all the people of Canada. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will continue to work in that direction, and may we hope the same course will be adopted with other of our natural resources, because we believe-and I am sure that not only the members on this side but those on the government side hold the view-that our subsidiary industries must

keep pace with our growth and population. Our primary industries, like our great wheat fields, our forests and our mines must likewise be developed, but it must be done in connection with the development of our subsidiary industries. I regret to say that while we continue to increase our export of asbestos, copper, aluminum, iron, and pulpwood, we show a decrease in the export of wool and butter. That may seem to members of the government a mere trifle. I will endeavour to prove that it is a very important thing and worthy of notice. In 1925 Canada exported to the United States 4,397,232 pounds of butter, valued at $1,467,683 and, in 1926 the export was 353,808 pounds, valued at $101,744. Here we see a decrease which shows that something has happened that we should note particularly. What do we find as the cause of this great decrease? The United States on March 6, 1926, raised the duty on butter imported into that country from eight to twelve cents a pound, and that increase of four cents reduced the export of Canadian butter into the United States from 4,397,232 pounds to 353,808 pounds. Now I have heard, and we hear it repeatedly, that free trade is a necessity for Canada to-day, but let me remind those who believe in this policy that, although Bright and Cobden said that free trade was a good thing for England in the hungry forties of the nineteenth century, it is not a good thing for England and Canada in the second decade of the twentieth century. We know-and I am convinced that if hon. members on the government side declared what they believe in their hearts, they would say-that a tariff policy protecting our young industries is an absolute necessity.

Another matter that I think is worthy of notice is in reference to Canada's trade with the United States. For the twelve months ending November, 1926, Canada exported to the United States $470,149,366 worth of goods. That means that there was an increase over the 1925 export of $408,042. The imports from the United States into Canada for the same period in 1926 were $666,128,368, an increase of $95,747,527. Briefly, what does that mean? It means simply this; that we increased out exports to the United States in 1926 by less than one per cent over 1925, and we increased our imports from the United States in the same period sixteen per cent. I am not going to be an alarmist. I do not intend to say anything that would exaggerate or make foolish any of these statements, but I do say-and the people of Canada know it [DOT]-that there is a tendency to forget that the future of Canada and its progress are bound up with the development of

The Budget-Mr. Brady

these secondary industries which would enable us, instead of importing so much manufactured goods, to export our own goods. I believe that the government is anxious to do the best for Canada, and that it thoroughly understands the sacred duty which devolves upon a government. But this I do say, because I speak whait the heart of the people wishes to express: The government of Canada should not think of a particular class or a particular interest; rather they should do what is best for the interests of Canada as a whole and for the future progress of this country.

It may seem strange to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to the government as a body that although last year's budget was pronounced to be a great success, although Canada had enjoyed a year of great prosperity and substantial reductions were made in taxation, although an elevator was built by the government in the city of Prince Rupert and by all common logic it would seem that the constituency of Skeena should have returned to this House a government supporter, yet it did not do so. It may seem ingratitude on the part of the electors not to return to parliament a Liberal member because Prince Rupert was held in such affectionate regard by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who looked with fond eyes upon its birth and pledged almost his political destiny that that port should be developed. My predecessor, I am sorry to say, is more to blame for my presence here than perhaps any act of mine during the last federal campaign. I tell the government to-day that I was sent here to do what he failed to do, to present facts, not fancies, to the government for their consideration. I think it is the duty of a member of parliament, Mr. Speaker, to represent, not a section of the people, but all the people; to be honest and straightforward in his presentation of matters political, and neither to exaggerate nor to minimize conditions as they exist in his constituency. My predecessor did not present to the government the facts as they existed. According to him, everything was well in the land of Skeena. Everything was flourishing, and the people were basking under the beneficent influence of the government. From Atlin in the north to Ocean Falls in the south Skeena was a land, according to him where everything was well. It is a great land, Mr. Speaker. It is rich beyond the bounds of imagination, but I say to this House to-night that the aspirations of its people, their wants and their legitimate demands, were not presented to the government in order that the conditions under which they were suffering might be ameli-

orated. When men come from contact with reality, and very often tragic reality, they are apt to have small patience with the ordinary conventions of speech which are sometimes used to conceal the truth. The people's representative should be a representative of all classes, of all occupations and of all interests, and he should voice the aspirations of the people before the tribunal of parliament, the highest and the greatest tribunal in a democratic country. But, Mr. Speaker, when we see in that land, endowed with all the riches of nature, whole countrysides in a stagnant and moribund condition, when we see men and women struggling for a living under conditions that are perhaps too severe, we are looking at sights that should not be seen in Canada to-day.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

February 22, 1927

Mr. BRADY:

I shall enumerate them as

I proceed. The country population, Mr. Speaker, is the most vital element in any nation, and it should be given a better chance of continuance and growth. We are creating in Canada to-day, by our neglect in assisting the industrial centres throughout our rural districts, a parasitic state of existence, drawing our youth to the towns, veiy often to get little clerical jobs either in the banks or in the government, and thus breaking down the morale and the character of our young manhood and robbing them of those healing and beneficent influences which come from participating in the development of our resources-because, Mr. Speaker, tilling the soil and developing our great natural resources is the one great source of patriotism and love of country. So long as our youth are not given a chance to participate in the upbuilding of Canada, so long shall we have this exodus to the great republic.

Hon. members may smile and think that the opposition have nothing to do but attack whatever the government brings forward. That is not so. In my view, Sir, the duty of an opposition is an honourable and onerous one, and I believe that the government are always pleased to find in the ranks of the opposition men who will point out where legislation is weak and offer constructive criticism to make it better.

The Budget-Mr. Brady

Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, Canada's immigration problem is greater than the immigration problem of any of her sister dominions. The reason is that Australia and New Zealand, for instance, being far remote from a great industrial country such os the United States, their sons and daughters remain in the land where they were born, and likewise the immigrants to those dominions are content to remain in their adopted country. But we are in a very different position. Owing to the lack of employment for our youth commensurate with their ambition,, they go to the United States, where they meet with pronounced success. If any hon. gentleman here desires to secure concrete proof of what is happening in this regard to-day, it is easily obtained. There is not a high school in the Dominion but is pouring out every year scores of boys of brilliant attainments who go to assist in developing- a country that is the principal trade rival of their own.

To-day, Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for some statesman to solve the problem, not of bringing in more immigrants, but of keeping our sons and daughters in the land of their birth. It is no small problem and it is not to be passed over lightly. It strikes at the very vitals of our national life, and upon its solution hinges the future of Canada. We are told that Canada's one great need is more people, and we know that she is entitled to and can sustain a great population. But, Sir, before we invite more immigrants to make their homes with us we must make conditions such that those who have already settled here may be able to continue on their farms. We are not doing this at the present time, as I shall point out in regard to my own constituency. To-day, while Holland is spending large sums of money in reclaiming land from the sea, while Italy is spreading out to acquire new territory, and while in the eastern and southern countries the population increases as regularly as ocean wave follows ocean wave, we with an empire of fertile land are wondering how we shall fill up our great open spaces. That is something to be taken to heart by those who have an interest in the progress of their country.

Coming to my own constituency, by way of supplement to what I said regarding the reason for my being here, let me read a very short extract from the Province of September 17, 1926. This is a telegram sent by the Prime Minister of Canada to the Premier of British Columbia. After thanking Mr. Oliver for his congratulations on the result of the federal campaign, the right hon. Prime Minister said:

I will look to see British Columbia come gradually into line.

If I now read a quotation from the Daily News of Prince Rupert of the tenth of this month, I think the House will agree with me that the hopes of the government appear to -be bright and rosy. The late member for Skeena on this particular occasion, in addressing a public meeting, said:

There is no doubt in my mind that I am still the member for Skeena. The only difference is that I draw no salary and am privileged to stay at home and enjoy my family.

Is there any other constituency in Canada to-day that has the great privilege of being represented iby two members, one in the House on the opposition side, pleading the cause of that constituency, and one at home, the real member, who has the interests of the constituency at heart? I give to him whatever honour he deserves, and I add this, that if through his instrumentality the dream of Sir Wilfrid Laurier comes true and the port of Prince Rupert develops into one of the great ocean ports of the world, I shall not feel in the least envious. If my predecessor is still the member for Skeena, then surely this House as well as myself can support him in his demands for better transportation and greater development. And if, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) declares, Skeena is to come into the fold, supposing that thereby the development of Skeena and the happiness of the people who live there will be furthered, I offer no objection.

I have here a little clipping from an American newspaper which is pregnant with meaning:

The government estimates that the present population of the United States is 118,628,000. The country has gained 12.917,380 people in the last six years, and 1,500.000 in the last year. All this is encouraging, although it is too slow, vv e need 50,000,000 more people now to eat up the surplus products of farms, buy new automobiles and our used ones likewise. The people are the real wealth of the country.

According to this editorial the United States requires fifty million more people to absorb its surplus products; yet at this very hour we find in various parts of Canada settlers of the finest type, who have made our empire what it is, struggling in despair and quite often ready to leave a country which should be to them a very paradise.

I am not here to-night to advance any adverse criticism. I do not blame the government for the fact that settlers to-day, in the most fertile valleys of the world, are suffering untold hardships through lack of the things they need. It is an old grievance. I do affirm, however, that it is the duty of the government to listen to the voice of a rep-

The Budget-Mr. Brady

resentative who submits to them matter for thought, and who states the facts, which they can easily verify as it is their duty to do.

I come now to the constituency which I represent. An hon. member asked me why it was that my predecessor was not here to-day. I can reply to him convincingly: the electorate of that constituency by their vote on September 14 gave the answer, namely, that he wa3 not satisfactory to them, because he was not placing their needs as they ought to be placed before the government of the country. You need go no further than that. If I thought for one moment that in coming to this House I might in any way interfere with the laudable ambitions and the future prosperity of Skeena I would not be here. I feel that the government of the country is endowed with a wisdom, or at least a judgment sufficiently grounded, to enable it to rise above party politics and to view Canada's needs in a non-partisan, national spirit.

I want to bring to the attention of the government now a few points in connection with the harbour of Prince Rupert and generally of the riding I represent. As this House knows, in 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laurier visited that port, taking a deep interest in its development. He prophesied that one day Prince Rupert would become one of the ocean ports of the world. To-night, it seems to me, this prophecy is well on the road to being fulfilled. To-day the port of Rupert is an ocean port, and before the next few months will have passed, over fifty tramp steamers from Britain and the orient will have loaded grain for every port in Europe, and for the orient as well, at the local elevator. This, Mr. Speaker, is the thing I would like to dwell on for a few minutes. I believe there were many members in this House who did not believe it was advisable1 that an elevator should be built in Prince Rupert. No one should find fault with a man if his convictions are honest and if he believes that it is not advisable to put a large sum of money into an elevator or into a new railway line. But now that the elevator is a success, now that it is functioning to the extent of one hundred per cent, now that wheat from Alberta is flowing into it steadily, the government must undertake to see to it that that port continues to function and to develop, not for the sake of Rupert but for the sake of Canada and the development of Canadian ports. In that port we have wonderful facilities of all descriptions for an ocean-going trade. When the port of Montreal and the great lakes were frozen up and scores of steamers were ice-locked round the Christmas season, there were

at the port of Prince Rupert-which never in the memory of man has been ice-bound, and I believe never will-five or six vessels ready to take grain to the orient or the old country. I would ask the government to remember that it is their duty now to interest capital in continuing the work that they commenced, and that other elevators should be built as well as the present one. For Prince Rupert is the natural outlet to the Peace river country. Rupert is 4S0 miles nearer the orient than any other port of Canada, and as the orient is annually increasing its imports of wheat, the evidence is conclusive that that port will become a great ocean port. But there is one thing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the government to consider and it is this: The development of the hinterland of Prince Rupert has been sadly neglected. The transportation facilities are of the very worst. The great Buckley valley, which produced that timothy seed that won, I believe, the first prize at the Chicago exhibition, lies in the very place where to-day people find access to the market for -their products very difficult. I shall read a few words from a statement by the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia regarding the hinterland of Prince Rupert, to which I am going to refer for a few minutes: "A dominion within British

Columbia", is how the Hon. Randolph Bruce, Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, described the interior of central British Columbia after taking a trip through it in the fall of this year. His words were:

I was amazed at the vastness of the rolling country. It is a wonderful mixed farming country, and the settlers are of the type that go to make a wonderful land.

Would you believe that for five years the people of Francois lake and the Ootsa lake country, one of the most fertile, one of the most beautiful and one of the richest both in its soil and in its mineral production, have asked this government to put in a little spur line of eight miles that would open up two thousand miles of country where a thousand British families could live in peace and comfort? The people of this country consider, perhaps unjustly, that the government of Canada are more concerned in building up hotels for the tourist trade than providing the necessary facilities to get their goods cheaper to market. I do not believe -the government are as hard-hearted as that. I believe that the government, when -these matters are placed before them, will be willing to do what is right, namely, give -those people these facilities which will permit of the development of a fine type of settler. In the north country

The Budget-Mr. Brady

of Atlin, where we have thirty-two producing mines, what do I find? An immense area, rich in its soil and in its mineral production, with thirty-two placer properties, including hydraulics, and a great prospect of further development. What assistance has this country received from the federal government for the last twelve months? None, except an increase in the postmaster's salary, although its people have for years asked federal aid through the provincial members and their federal member that they might get a very necessary thing-simply a road that would enable them to bring in their goods and not have to pay a rate of $65 a ton as they are paying to-day. It is no wonder that men turn aside and lose faith in governments when governments seem to be heedless of their wants. We have likewise in the south of that constituency a great valley rich in resources and in population; but what do we find? The same thing prevails there. The people there, just because there is no road, pay $60 a ton to bring their food supplies into the valley. Therefore I would urge the government to consider the advisability of reestablishing federal aid for highways. I believe that British Columbia exhausted its quota, but last year the federal government spent more than $18,000,000 in the upkeep of our highways.

Another matter that has caused annoyance and disappointment to the people of my constituency is the fact that from the port of Prince Rupert to Canada outside there is not a road nor even a pathway. You may search the geography of the world and you will not find a port as important as Prince Rupert that has not a highway leading from it. I know the government cannot do everything, but I do know that unless federal aid for highways is reestablished, the port of Prince Rupert will still wait for many years before those ninety miles of road are built to connect with the great Canadian highway.

It is all very well for bon. members from highly organized and artificial city life to look askance at pleas made by representatives from rural districts, but the happiness of those people, yes, their very future, depends upon things of this nature. When the Hudson Bay railway problem comes before this House it may give me far more thought and doubt than I had before to decide the question: Is the government doing right when so much necessary work is required in settled places and districts where the people are waiting for that little help?

Another matter that I would like to touch upon is this. I am no pessimist; I am not an extreme optimist; but I am one who believes that we are living in a great period

in the history of Canada, and that the one thing which we need to-day is a policy of development which will bring together and relate closely the maritime provinces, the industrial provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the prairie provinces, and British Columbia. There is no value in an isolation policy, and the government will be doing a great work if, in the diamond jubilee of confederation year, they inaugurate a policy whereby every place, every province, in Canada will participate justly and equitably in federal government.

The port of Prince Rupert is the greatest fish producing centre in Canada. Figures after all are very dry, and I notice that last week when members speaking began to cite figures, many took no notice. But nevertheless no one can realize the wonders of Canadian commerce if he does not take an interest in figures. In the season of 1926 just closed, what do I find as regards the port of Prince Rupert, which is district No. 2 of the three great fishing districts of British Columbia? I find that the wdiole salmon pack for British Columbia in 1926 was 2,605.000 cases of salmon, and of that the Prince Rupert district alone produced 1,376,300 cases-in other words, nearly 60 per cent of ihe total export of salmon. We have a great fishing industry; we have in the port of Prince Rupert alone nearly $2,000,000 invested in salmon boats and halibut boats. We have contiguous to Prince Rupert a district so rich in its mineral wealth that one mine fifty miles from Prince Rupert in the last six years paid in dividends alone the sum of $8,600,000. We had a new mine opened up a few months ago called the Topley mine. It is bonded for $200,000 cash, and it is the belief of those who understand mining properties that in a few years it will be a second Premier mine, and probably a rival of the great Trail smelter. Then we have within sixty miles of Prince Rupert the great Anyox Copper Smelting Company. We have everything in that district that the people of Canada should be proud of, and yet the people are disappointed at the way they have been treated. What they need is transportation. That is the outstanding need in central British Columbia to-day, and if the Canadian National management, who are so anxious to make their hne successful, would only realize that an expenditure in this territory would bring them a good return on their capital investment, I am sure they would not delay in coming to the aid of these people.

I have little further to say. I may have erred somewhat in my presentation of these matters, but I am a new member and perhaps I am not advanced enough to be able to cloak my thoughts. I say with Shakespeare

The Budget-Mr. Brady

in Macbeth that "Security is man's chiefest enemy." There is no government, I care not where they are or how strongly entrenched they may be, that can continue to turn a deaf ear to the aspirations of the people; for if they do the day will surely come for them, as it came for Macbeth, when the hopes they built upon will dwindle away. I am not saying this in any personal way, but it does seem to me that the hour has come, Mr. Speaker, when at least the two great parties in this House, though they may choose to differ on major questions, should at least agree on minor ones and unite in putting through good legislation and in giving good progressive government for the good of the people as a whole. Mr. Speaker, the people are thinking to-day, and they are wondering why it is that in an era of such great prosperity for Canada, many sections of this country are not participating in that prosperity. May I express the hope that 1927 will be for Canada a year of progress and prosperity in which every part of the country will share. May we see in our Dominion a great and a happy people without many problems, and leading the way in good, sane and progressive government. t

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink