Henry Herbert STEVENS

STEVENS, The Hon. Henry Herbert, P.C.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Kootenay East (British Columbia)
Birth Date
December 8, 1878
Deceased Date
June 14, 1973
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Herbert_Stevens
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=b2723513-c609-4a5c-87f4-bd7c225ccd75&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
accountant, broker, grocer

Parliamentary Career

September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Vancouver City (British Columbia)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Vancouver Centre (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Trade and Commerce (September 21, 1921 - December 28, 1921)
December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
CON
  Vancouver Centre (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Trade and Commerce (September 21, 1921 - December 28, 1921)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
CON
  Vancouver Centre (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Agriculture (June 29, 1926 - July 12, 1926)
  • Minister of Customs and Excise (June 29, 1926 - July 12, 1926)
  • Minister of Mines (June 29, 1926 - July 12, 1926)
  • Minister of Trade and Commerce (June 29, 1926 - July 12, 1926)
  • Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs (June 29, 1926 - July 12, 1926)
  • Minister of the Interior (June 29, 1926 - July 12, 1926)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
CON
  Vancouver Centre (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Customs and Excise (July 13, 1926 - September 24, 1926)
August 25, 1930 - August 14, 1935
CON
  Kootenay East (British Columbia)
  • Minister of Trade and Commerce (August 7, 1930 - October 26, 1934)
October 14, 1935 - January 1, 1938
REC
  Kootenay East (British Columbia)
January 1, 1938 - January 25, 1940
CON
  Kootenay East (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2600 of 2601)


February 19, 1912

Air. STEVENS.

I was saying that I was very much surprised to note the intimate knowledge the hon. member had in discussing this question. I was going to say, when he interrupted me, that I must compliment him upon the means he has taken to secure that knowledge, riding up and down the line on a hand car, a locomotive, or a flat car, studying the situation. Possibly if we nad had the privilege of studying the question as intimately as he has clone, we might be able to speak with more authority on the details of the construction. But I would like to remind hon. gentlemen opposite of this statement of the Minister of Finance, that here is a road which we were told a few years ago, was to cost a certain figure and we find out that it has cost aproximately five times that figure. I also want to call attention to the contradictory arguments that have been presented by lion, members opposite on that question, compared with their statements made a few days ago, with regard to the condition of crops and grain in the Northwest. One set of hon. members tell us they don't care about a railway that connects the prairie provinces with the eastern and western waterways, they only care about an outlet to the south. On the other hand, it was the proud policy of the leader of the late government, in bringing forward his Bill for the construction of this railway, that it was to join the cast with the west of this continent^ I submit that these arguments are entirely inconsistent. We claim on this side of the House that our policy has been consistent throughout, our policy is to give the prairie provinces relief at the earliest possible moment. As the Minister of Finance has pointed out, that portion of the road from the prairies eastward to Cochrane has been practically neglected.

Further, the western portion, which would have given an all-the-year-around outlet for the grain to Vancouver and Prince Rupert is scarcely started. That was to be completed in 1911, and there is only constructed a few miles from Prince Rupert eastward, and a short distance

through the Yellowhead Pass. There is an outlet which could have been easily completed in 1911, and which would have given a very material relief to the congested conditions of the grain areas of the prairie provinces.

The hon. gentleman has. told us in criticising the action of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that all the facts in connection with this railway have been before this country for 4 or 5 years. If they were aware of these facts why is it they did not once raise their voices to have the road completed at an early date? They complain about adding interest to the cost of the road although there has been a delay of two or three years. Any business man will agree that in any constructive work until that work is completed and revenue producing, you must charge up to capital the interest on the money during construction and the longer you delay the time of construction the greater will be the amount of interest charged up. I protest that that interest must be added to the cost of construction which thus becomes $130,000 per mile. Some comparisons were made. The hon. member stated that the Canadian Pacific railway had issued $350,000,000 worth of stock, debentures and preferred stock.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Full View Permalink

February 15, 1912

Mr. STEVENS.

But I do feel that we should leave it to the Board of Railway Commissioners to deal with, give them all the assistance we can; I think it is well to air these things once in a while in the House, but I feel that to adopt a resolution of this kind, which must be construed as one of want of confidence in the commission, is inadvisable. The hon. member who moved the amendment (Mr. Turriff), has had the opportunity of getting this mass of information on ' Hansard ' and he might withdraw the motion. I feel that to adopt his amendment, would be to cast a reflection on one of the finest institutions we have in Canada.

Topic:   SUPPLY-RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES.
Full View Permalink

February 15, 1912

Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver).

I wish to make my position clear in regard to this matter. We have in British Columbia, as the House is aware, a strong grievance, the same as.other sections in the west, and we have been fighting this question before the Railway Commission for a number of years. This week we closed a very long and technical argument on behalf of the Board of Trade of Vancouver before the commission. This whole question is going to be dealt with, and the initial steps were taken on Monday last. It seems to me therefore that the offering of this resolution is simply embarrassing the action of the board, that is, it is placing on the decision of the boardi which is not yet given, the condemnation of this House. We all acknowledge that this Board has been created for the purpose of dealing with just such matters as this, that the board has been constituted in such a way, that its personnel is of such a character as to make it very efficient. This board has done noble service for the people of Canada. Yet lion, gentlemen opposite are asking this government to condemn the board before they have had an opportunity of considering . the question. As I have said, the board have already taken the initial steps to deal with this question, and the present government have appointed counsel to look after the interests of the people on the prairies. I can assure hon. gentlemen that while the question, on the face of it, seems simple, it is one of the most intricate and difficult questions that can possibly be dealt with. Everybody who has had anything to do with traffic questions knows that railway traffic rates, the equalization and adjusting of those rates, is one of the most intricate questions that come before the Railway Commission. * I have taken a deep interest in this matter for a number of years, and I think it would be exceedingly unwise to bring this question to a vote. Hon. gentlemen themselves will acknowledge that this is a political move pure and simple. I will go this far with them, I will agree to a large extent with the statements made by the hon. member for Edimonton (Mr. Oliver), and with the statements made by the Winnipeg Board of Trade. I myself have a mass of figures to substantiate those statements, to a large extent. But what is the use of making arguments of this

kind to the House, and condemning the Railway Commission who are pursuing the only course that they can -pursue? If we take action of that kind, we should logically follow it up by abolishing the Railway Commission, and I do not think that even hon. gentlemen opposite are prepared to do that. As I understood it, the Winnipeg Board of Trade is objecting, apparently, to the decision of the commission on express rates. I have not gone through the whole evidence and argument but I venture to say, from the experience I have had, that the board must have had good, sound reasons for the decision they have given. We in British Columbia suffer a great deal more than they do on the prairies, that is the percentage is increased as you go west. .

Topic:   SUPPLY-RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES.
Full View Permalink

February 12, 1912

Mr. STEVENS.

Is it not true that the late government reduced the duty 24 per cent? And is it not also true that official valuation of binders coming to this country prior to that was $80 each ard that subsequently that was raised to $100, so

293S

that the farmer paid more duty than he did before?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Full View Permalink

February 12, 1912

Mr. STEVENS.

Did not that large delegation of representative farmers ask the late government to remove the duty on agricultural implements, and did the late government do it?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EDITION
Full View Permalink