Charles Herbert DICKIE

DICKIE, Charles Herbert

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Nanaimo (British Columbia)
Birth Date
September 14, 1859
Deceased Date
September 16, 1947
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickie
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=7b7843bb-1f02-4f94-8f9f-02d7449e564e&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lumberman, miner, railway employee

Parliamentary Career

December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
CON
  Nanaimo (British Columbia)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
CON
  Nanaimo (British Columbia)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
CON
  Nanaimo (British Columbia)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
CON
  Nanaimo (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 36)


March 12, 1935

Mr. DICKIE:

I should like to say a word or two with respect to this matter. I am very much surprised to hear the argument of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough with respect to fishing licences. It is only as a result of eternal vigilance on the part of the fisheries department that we have any salmon on the Pacific coast at the present time. From Alaska to the international boundary we have fishery guardians at every little cove where fish run. If it were not for that fact the fishermen would catch every fish running up those streams in any year, if they could do so. We are protecting the fishermen against themselves. I have never heard very much fault found with the licences they have to secure. They are glad to see that others are licensed, and we are expending ten dollars for every one dollar we get from the fishing industry of Canada. Fishing is not at all on a parallel with the apple industry or any other branch of agriculture. We are spending that money in order to perpetuate t'he run of the salmon. Without these licences and without supervision, which costs a good deal of money each year, I can assure you that the salmon would have been

decimated long ago on the Pacific coast. It is a fight morning, noon and night on the part of those guardians to keep purse seine men and others from going in and scooping up schools of salmon just before they ascend the streams to spawn. As I said before, the present situation is due entirely to the eternal vigilance on the part of the department, and I have nothing but good to say of what has been done by the Department of Fisheries for the fishing industry on the Pacific coats.

Topic:   FISHERIES ACT, 1932 POWER TO PRESCRIBE PEES FOR FISHERY LICENCES
Full View Permalink

March 12, 1935

Mr. DICKIE:

The man who sells ice cream pays a licence fee. Everyone pays a licence fee.

Topic:   FISHERIES ACT, 1932 POWER TO PRESCRIBE PEES FOR FISHERY LICENCES
Full View Permalink

March 12, 1935

Mr. DICKIE:

Certainly they were too high, but I never stood for t'heir abolition. They have been lowered and they are reasonable to-day. I do not hear the fishermen there kicking about them at all.

Topic:   FISHERIES ACT, 1932 POWER TO PRESCRIBE PEES FOR FISHERY LICENCES
Full View Permalink

March 11, 1935

Mr. DICKIE:

Coming from British Columbia, I must associate myself to a certain degree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in pointing out that it would be disastrous to the canning industry of British Columbia were an eight hour day to be enforced. There is no one in the house more in favour of an eight hour day than I am. I believe the day is coming when we shall have a five hour day; if we are to put the unemployed to work in Canada'-and the same is true of the United States-we must reduce the hours of labour. I can quite understand however that at the present time we must move slowly, because we do not wish to hamper those who are engaged in manufacturing for export to other countries. It would be suicidal if we were to make any very drastic reduction in the hours of labour below eight hours. In British Columbia eight hours have been considered a day's work, but the British Columbia government wisely exempted the canning industry, the fisheries and ship yards from the eight hour law. AVith the ship yards there are many arguments in favour of exemption, but I see under section 10, where work is considered intermittent, they may be allowed to work longer hours. As regards the canning industry, the canning of salmon, I think we should be able to tell the cannery men definitely that they will not come under the eight hour law. They get a lot of fish one day and work from ten to fifteen hours and then they loaf two or three days before getting another consignment. They are a long way from the labour market, operating on the northern coast of British Columbia, and it would necessitate two crews, which they could not afford. I am satisfied from the minister's promise that he will frame an amendment which will take care of this phase of the question. I leave it at that.

Topic:   C0A1M0NS
Full View Permalink

January 25, 1935

Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):

I can assure the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that it was through no desire of mine that the debate on my resolution lasted an afternoon. I considered that it had sufficient merit to be carried through the house in an hour. However, in view of the fact that it has proved highly contentious; and that, being highly contentious, it has given rise to a debate which is likely to be prolonged should it be proceeded with; and because of the eagerness and avidity of the opposition and even of some of our members to have some of the more important economic measures proceeded with, I respectfully ask, with the consent of my seconder, that permission be granted to have the resolution expunged from the order paper.

Topic:   A CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   PROPOSAL FOR NATIONAL EMBLEM ON WHICH UNION JACK SHALL BE CONSPICUOUS
Full View Permalink