Charles Bernhard HEYD

HEYD, Charles Bernhard

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Brant South (Ontario)
Birth Date
February 23, 1842
Deceased Date
September 16, 1929
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bernhard_Heyd
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ede11a44-bdbe-4b6e-8dbf-0d27f94556e9&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
grocer

Parliamentary Career

February 4, 1897 - October 9, 1900
LIB
  Brant South (Ontario)
November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
LIB
  Brant South (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 104 of 105)


March 19, 1901

Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).

Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose I should add much to the dignity of this discussion, if I were to follow the example which has just been set by my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) who has just taken his seat. The strength of the blow which the government received in Ontario, or the manner of their victory in Quebec, or anything appertaining to the elections which recently took place, are matters very far removed from the subject of the debate. I am not aware that the fact that there is a summer residence to let in the town of Paris has much to do with the great question now engaging our attention. But I take exception to one statement which the hon. gentleman made, that the British preference was of no use to the people of this country. If it has been of no other use than to reduce the burden of taxation by 25 per cent on all British goods, that in itself would be a justification for the introduction of the preferential tariff. It not only brought about that reduction, but it also reduced the cost price of all goods with which imported British goods come into competition. But I do not desire to enter into that phase of the discussion. I wish to confine myself to the question before the House. I am quite willing to leave the foraging around amongst elections and the history of Canada since confederation to our friends opposite, and try to deal with subjects which are germane to the conditions by which we are surrounded.

I desire, before I address myself to the resolution, to find a little fault with some remarks that fell from the leader of the opposition-not because they were grave in themselves, but because they assume a gravity coming from one who occupies the position he does as one of the leaders in this House. He stated-and he appeared to reproach us for it-that our trade with the United States was assuming larger proportions every day. Now, I do not think there is any reason why he should feel sorrowful because our trade with the United States is growing larger every day. A trade that is growing larger, no matter with whom it is being conducted, results to the benefit of those who engage in it, or they would not continue it for a single day. Our people do not import largely from the United States because they especially like goods from the United States. We buy there, because we can buy there cheaper than we can anywhere else in the world, and cheaper than we can produce the goods for ourselves. The fact that we imported from the United States last year a hundred million dollars worth of goods is not a matter of regret to me, but one of great satisfaction, which would be only enhanced were the amount two hundred million of dollars instead of one hundred million. No trade can be carried on between nations that is not mutually profitable ; and the mere fact that the trade exists between the United States and ourselves is the best evidence that it is profitable, or it would not be continued. I go still further, and say that if we bought from the United States large quantities of goods and they did not buy a single cent's worth from us, there would be no evidence that that trade was not profitable to us ; because it does not matter with whom we do trade, it is always bound to be profitable. Let us take the two items of coal and corn. The United States is the only country in the world where we can buy coal and corn as cheaply as we buy

There is not an English statesman that has given any greater encouragement than that: We may give you free trade, but that is the only basis on which we can even discuss tne matter. Are we prepared to discuss the mutual preference on the basis of free trade? Is there a man on either side of this House who would accept a mutual preference of that kind And is there the faintest possibility of Canada getting a preference of any other kind than one based upon the principles of free trade '! I challenge any lion, gentleman on either side of the House to mention the name of a British statesman who has ever given them the slightest encouragement to believe that they could get it on any other terms. The only man who has said that it was capable of being discussed even on the basis of free trade is Mr. Chamberlain himself. Lord Rosebery is against it. Sir -uiehael Hicks-Beach. the Chancellor of the Exchequer is against it, the president of the board of trade is against it. All the great leaders of public opinion have spoken against this preferential policy; they have said that it would ruin the empire, instead of making it stronger ; they have said it would be a standing menace to the nations of the world and would array against Great Britain and her colonies the powers of the world in a commercially hostile attitude. I can quote the words of Lord Rosebery and of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Ritchie, the president of the board of trade. And 1 will quote his words in order to set my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) straight. To-day. I asked that lion, gentleman to read all of the address from Mr. D. Ritchie. He did not have it handy apparently or he did not want to read it. I will read it now, in order that the House may understand exactly what Mr. Ritchie did say :

He thought that the strict Manchester school was passing away, and although England would never depart from her free trade policy, she might arrange a closer connection with Greater Britain. How this was to be done he did not indicate.

That is what the hon. gentleman said on that occasion, and what was read to-day. But he said more than that. His language was considered by some who were present to have given encouragement to the idea that a preference would be given to some of the colonies; and, later on, at the same meeting he craved the indulgence of the audience to disabuse their minds of any such idea :

Mr. Ritchie subsequently asked leave to say that he in no way favoured the imposition of duties on any manufactured article imported into this country. It seemed to him impossible to conceive that a 5 per cent duty on our foreign imports would help the colonies, and he strongly supported the fundamental principles of free trade. So that his remarks about a possible plan for a zollverein was. a mere pious wish.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Full View Permalink

March 18, 1901

Mr. HEYD.

What does it mean ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Full View Permalink

March 8, 1901

Mr. HEYD.

Is it not a fundamental plank in the platform of the trades unions and labour organizations that the contract system on public work should be abolished, and the government do the work themselves ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-THE CONTRACT WITH THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT BOUNTY.
Full View Permalink

March 7, 1901

Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).

I am not exactly satisfied with the position that this question has assumed to-night. I do not sympathize at all with the position taken by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson), who has moved this Bill. I do not believe that he represents true socialism when he tries to do that which is unjust, and it is quite evident to us English speaking people and French speaking people that we cannot be the judge and the jury and the witnesses in this case. There are two sides to it, but one thing is evident, and that is that something ought to be done, and ought to be done quickly to settle this matter. This everlasting drift that appears to surround a question of such moment to a large number of the people of Canada ought to be made disappear at the very first opportunity, and therefore, it is that I say that the resolution for the six months' hoist is not going to remove the grievances that the people are subject to. While I do not think it is the duty of parliament to put its construction upon that agreement, I do think it is the duty of the government to have a legal interpretation placed upon it, and that immediately. I do not believe that the poor settler who has been induced to take up lands in the North-west should have the onus of moving in this matter until his risks were guaranteed against. If I in my individual capacity were a party to that contract, and I felt my rights were being jeopardised by delay, I would take the first opportunity that presented itself to find where I stood and to get a judicial decision upon it. It is the duty of some authority in the state to get this question settled as soon as possible. I am constrained to vote against the Bill which, in principle, is vicious, dishonest and unjust. But while we may be compelled to vote for the amendment, which puts this case out of court for six months, I trust the government will assume the responsibility which attaches to them as a party to the contract of finding out where we stand, so that justice may be done to those people who are suffering in the far west. '

Topic:   CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LAND GRANTS.
Full View Permalink

February 27, 1901

Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).

Mr. ' Speaker, it would be hardly expected that I should remain quiet while a subject of so much magnitude was being discussed in this House. Representing, as I do, a constituency in which there are two binder twine factories, you would naturally suppose that I should know something about the subject of binder twine.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   COMMOXS
Full View Permalink