Alexander Duncan MCRAE

MCRAE, The Hon. Alexander Duncan

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Vancouver North (British Columbia)
Birth Date
November 17, 1874
Deceased Date
June 26, 1946
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Duncan_McRae
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=abb9e2c0-4713-401f-b0df-22b77db37572&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer, lumber merchant

Parliamentary Career

September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
CON
  Vancouver North (British Columbia)
September 4, 1931 - May 30, 1930
CON
  Vancouver North (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 23)


March 26, 1930

Mr. McRAE:

If the hon. member will hear me through he will find that I am going to touch on the one vital point in the Australian treaty. I say now as I have said before, sir, that I do not believe that we should attempt

'Mr McRae.]

to exchange any commodity which interferes with the basic products of either county'. Now, as I was saying, the importations of redwood lumber into Australia last year were

50,000,000 feet-$1,000,000 more business, whirn without any special concession on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia might be diverted to Canada.

I now come to another industry to which I previously referred, and which has profited very materially by the Australian treaty. It is the fishing business on the coast, and particularly the canned salmon. Its importance is worthy of notice. In 1926 the United States shipped to Australia 132,000 cases, while we shipped 192.000; in 1929 the United States shipments had fallen to 92,000, while ours had increased to 217,000. It is rather interesting to note in that connection that we are as yet supplying but a small part of the entire importation of fish products into the Australian market. True, we have now about 694 per cent of the business in canned salmon in that market.

Summing uip the three commodities, paper, lumber, fish-

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY AMENDMENTS TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE FOR COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink

March 26, 1930

Mr. A. D. McRAE (Vancouver North):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the subamendment before the house, I think I might shorten up the time which, owing to the importance of the industries affected on the Pacific coast, I otherwise feel I should take up, by referring to the very able presentation made of the subamendment by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). In endorsing his presentation in the house last evening I believe my remarks can be confined more particularly to those industries which I know best.

The observations which I should like to make to-day will be confined to treaties in general

Australian Treaty-Mr. McRae

and to the Australian treaty in particular. As regards treaties in general, I presume we should consider them from a national viewpoint and in that connection we on the Pacific coast, separated as we are by the Rocky mountains from the other parts of the Dominion. sometimes feel that our interests have not always been well considered.

I have in mind the revision of the French treaty which, I think, was termed the convention of 1922. To the amazement of those interested in the production of salmon on our Pacific coast they found that when the schedules became public knowledge, the preference they received in the new convention was but one-half of that previously enjoyed on their shipments to France. So seriously did this affect their exports that it was with difficulty they were able to compete with United States shippers of canned salmon to France. If one reads the convention, it would appear that some mistake was made in putting canned salmon into the intermediate column instead of into the column providing for the minimum tariff. This apparently did not occur in regard to any other article at least in the fishery line. It was a disappointment to the fishing industry on the Pacific coast that under the new convention they should be deprived of one-half of their preference without having been consulted in the matter. It might well be a principle in the negotiation of our treaties in future that those interests which are going to be vitally affected should be consulted so that a proper presentation might be made with a view of at least maintaining the preference previously enjoyed. We have a large Dominion; there are many diversified interests; changes develop from time to time; important omissions are no doubt made in certain instances, and a revision of our treaties may frequently be in order. In any event we are not experienced in making treaties; we have many interests to harmonize, and certainly revisions need not be unexpected.

Referring to the Australian treaty, I was rather surprised when I came to look the matter up to find that notwithstanding all the discussions there have been with respect to that treaty, at the present time Canadian exports to Australia are but two and one-half per cent of the imports into that dominion. This clearly shows that in a revision there is hope for an extension of the business we are now doing with that sister dominion, and I trust later to be able to point out to the house some outstanding instances which, in the light of results, do not appear to have received sufficient consideration in the making of the previous treaty. I agree entirely with the principle

enunciated by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that treaties should apply to exchange of indigenous products.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AUSTRALIAN TREATY AMENDMENTS TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE FOR COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink

March 10, 1930

Mr. McRAE:

Speak for yourself.

Topic:   UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Subtopic:   TENDERS FOR SUPPLY OF COAL
Full View Permalink

June 13, 1929

Mr. McRAE:

All I can say is that any

boat you can get for $5,000 will not go very far in the seas you get on the west coast of Vancouver island. It would not be much better than a rowboat.

Topic:   MARINE AND FISHERIES
Full View Permalink

June 13, 1929

Mr. McRAE:

I would1 suggest to the minister, inasmuch as this is a controversy of long standing on the coast, that it might be well to have associated with Mr. Lafleur, for whom I have the highest regard, some counsel who is familiar with the controversy.

Topic:   MARINE AND FISHERIES
Full View Permalink