James Lorimer ILSLEY

ILSLEY, The Hon. James Lorimer, P.C., K.C., B.A., LL.B., D.C.L., LL.D.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Digby--Annapolis--Kings (Nova Scotia)
Birth Date
January 3, 1894
Deceased Date
January 14, 1967
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lorimer_Ilsley
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=396d7d47-d79c-4aea-bf33-18c3e7b199e3&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister

Parliamentary Career

September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
LIB
  Hants--Kings (Nova Scotia)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
LIB
  Hants--Kings (Nova Scotia)
October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
LIB
  Digby--Annapolis--Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of National Revenue (October 23, 1935 - July 7, 1940)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
LIB
  Digby--Annapolis--Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of National Revenue (October 23, 1935 - July 7, 1940)
  • Postmaster General (May 23, 1940 - July 7, 1940)
  • Minister of Finance and Receiver General (July 8, 1940 - December 9, 1946)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
LIB
  Digby--Annapolis--Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of Finance and Receiver General (July 8, 1940 - December 9, 1946)
  • Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (December 10, 1946 - June 30, 1948)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3505 of 3506)


April 4, 1927

Mr. ILSLEY:

Not at all; I think my hon. friend is entirely wrong.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   FREIGHT RATES TO BE CHARGED ON EASTERN LINES
Full View Permalink

April 4, 1927

Mr. ILSLEY:

No; there was a lowering

of the tariff.

Mr, SHORT: .And many articles were

placed on the free list.

M.r. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. gentlement to come back to the question of freight rates.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   FREIGHT RATES TO BE CHARGED ON EASTERN LINES
Full View Permalink

April 4, 1927

Mr. ILSLEY:

Consider the Conservative

party in Canada at present; we find one group from the maritime provinces which probably would be in favour of a higher duty on coal; we find a group from Ontario which would certainly be against a higher duty on c:oa!l, while the third group from the province of British Columbia would also be against it, because in that province they depend very greatly upon their export trade. As my hon. friend knows, a market ior 50 per cent of the output of the

C.N.R.-Eastern Freight Rates

Crowsnest pass mines is found in the United States, and about 10 per cent of the output of the Vancouver Island mines is marketed in that country. The United States has a countervailing duty; that is, the duty there is equal to the Canadian duty on coal. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) said the other night in the course of another debate, a duty of SI on Canadian coal would automatically raise the American duty to $1, which would put out of business a great many of the coal mines of British Columbia. I suppose ry>

man in the House better knows the sentiment of the country with regard to the question of coal than does the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald), who represents a coal mining constituency. In the Halifax Chronicle of February 5 he is reported as follows:

On the general trade policy recommendation of the report, and its lack of tariff recommendations, Mr. MacDonald said candidly, "With regard to duties on coal I am not hopeful."

He said his experiences on the coal committee of the House last year had convinced him that central and western Canada are immovable in their opposition to such relief for the east.

That question was raised in the House, and his answer corroborated rather than contradicted that statement, because he said it was probable that central and western Canada would be against it. It is well known, so why do my hon. friends opposite tell the people in the coal mining constituencies that if returned to power they would raise the duty on coal? That is absolutely impractical as a political proposal, and I venture to say that hon. members on the other side of the House know it.

To come back to the argument from which I was distracted, I was about to say that I agree to a large extent with the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) and the hon. member for Roeetown (Mr. Evans) as to the fundamental causes of the decline of the maritime provinces. I think the Canadian tariff is probably the greatest cause, and that next in importance comes the American tariff. That is particularly true with relation to the fishing industry; twice in the history of Nova Scotia our fish have had free access to the American market, once between 1854 and 1866 under the old reciprocity treaty and again between 1873 and 1885 under the Treaty of Washington. ^During both of these periods the fishing industry was prosperous, reflecting a great deal of prosperity upon the province as a whole. We rejected a third opportunity in 1911, for which the great majority have been sorry ever since.

Topic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Subtopic:   FREIGHT RATES TO BE CHARGED ON EASTERN LINES
Full View Permalink

April 1, 1927

Mr. ILSLEY:

Is it intended to compel the manufacturers of fungicides and insecticides to put on the package the chemical analysis of the article?

Topic:   SALE AND INSPECTION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC POISONS
Full View Permalink

March 24, 1927

Mr. ILSLEY:

I would like to go back to the question I asked a few minutes ago, to which I would like an answer. I know that some time ago some gentlemen from Montreal went to the fprovinee of Nova Scotia and sold several automobiles that had been smuggled into Canada although they produced prima face evidence that the duty had been paid. I believe the victims are getting back their cars upon payment of the duty, and I see that the section as it stood previously was as follows:

If any person knowingly harbours, keeps, conceals purchases, sells or exchanges any goods unlawfully imported into Canada, whether such goods are dutiable or not, or whereon the duties lawfully payable have not been paid, such goods, if found, shall be seized and forfeited without power of remission, and, if such goods are not found, the person so offending shall forfeit the value thereof without power of remission.

That would appear to me as quite reasonable and proper, but I can quite understand that it may have been difficult in a great many instances to prove guilty knowledge on persons who had such goods in their possession. What I would1 like to know.now is whether the proposed section makes any

change in the law other than shifting the burden of proof. The new clause reads:

If any person, whether the owner or not, without lawful excuse. . . . harbours, keeps conceals, purchases-

And so on. Does that moan:

If any person, without knowing the goods to have been smuggled, harbours, keeps, conceals, purchases.

It is important that we know this. How can a person in whose possession are found smuggled goods, escape the penalty? How can he go into court and show that he has a lawful excuse? Supposing he says that he was furnished with some sort of entry paper, would it be said by the court that he should have looked into and satisfied himself as to the genuineness of it? Would that be a sufficient answer by the crown to the excuse which he was offering? That is an, important matter in that connection. I understand this is a copy of another section, and it may be that it is ample protection to the person who is accused, but the uncertainty should be cleared up. With regard to the general question of penalties, it is very important that we should scrutinize them, because undoubtedly the imposition of penalties which are too severe will not serve the object of carrying out the act properly.

Mr. EULE'R: I regret very much that I

could not hear all my hon. friend was saying. If I heard him correctly, what I did hear was that he was objecting to the fact that formerly the clause contained the word "knowingly," and that word is now 'being replaced by the words "without lawful excuse." If that is his objection, the answer to that is simply this: It is practically impossible in these cases to prove that a man knew and so to secure a conviction. Under this clause he is given the privilege of making a lawful excuse. Just what form that may take, I am not able to say. It may be given in various ways.

Mr. ILSLEY': Does the minister not think it is important to know that? There are men all over the country who may be proceeded against.

Topic:   EDITION
Full View Permalink