Charles Edward JOHNSTON

JOHNSTON, Charles Edward

Personal Data

Party
Social Credit
Constituency
Bow River (Alberta)
Birth Date
February 12, 1899
Deceased Date
December 1, 1971
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Edward_Johnston
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=c2d813a5-a966-4bb3-ae3f-2aa943b5d543&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
teacher

Parliamentary Career

October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
SC
  Bow River (Alberta)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
SC
  Bow River (Alberta)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
SC
  Bow River (Alberta)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
SC
  Bow River (Alberta)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
SC
  Bow River (Alberta)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
SC
  Bow River (Alberta)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 928 of 929)


March 12, 1936

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

The

growers in British Columbia are protected; we in Alberta pay through the nose all the way round.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Full View Permalink

March 12, 1936

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

If it were carried out it would be forty-four cents. Then you have the excise duty of three per cent, which is six cents; total tax, seventy-five cents. Then there is the present duty on the invoice along with that, which would be sixty cents. Then there is the freight. One of the greatest difficulties, which has been overlooked in estimating the protection for British Columbia, is the freight. The freight from California would be $1.02 and the freight from British Columbia twenty-three cents, a difference of seventy-nine cents, in addition to the other protection. That gives them a protection of 123-2 per cent, a tremendous protection. It is not a protection but an embargo on that article as well as on the other of which articles we spoke. If we assume it to be true that there is no dump duty, this would lower the percentage a little, but even at that it is entirely out of reason. It makes it so that we in the western provinces are practically prohibited from using this article. There is another sound reason why we should have a regional protection. If British Columbia wants protection I have no objection, but I say that we in the prairie provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, should not be penalized to that extent.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Full View Permalink

March 12, 1936

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

I think

that substantiates my point that in setting the duty the differential in freight should be considered, because that in itself is a protection.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Full View Permalink

February 24, 1936

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

Where I live we pay ten cents per kilowatt hour.

Topic:   COOPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH
Subtopic:   CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER-PROPOSED PUBLIC OR COOPERATIVE OPERATION OF UNDERTAKINGS FAILING TO FUNCTION IN THE GENERAL INTEREST
Full View Permalink

February 24, 1936

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

Mr. Speaker-

Topic:   COOPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH
Subtopic:   CONCENTRATION OP ECONOMIC POWER-PROPOSED PUBLIC OR COOPERATIVE OPERATION OF UNDERTAKINGS FAILING TO FUNCTION IN THE GENERAL INTEREST
Full View Permalink