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 3506 of 3506)


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

March 1, 1927

Mr. ILSLEY:

He was so reported.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

March 1, 1927

Mr. ILSLEY:

Is the hon. member aware

that the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) at a meeting in Sydney a few weeks ago said that his experience on committees of the House and in the House itself had convinced him that the members representing central Canadian constituencies were solidly against an increase in the duty on coal?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

March 1, 1927

Mr. ILSLEY:

Has the hon. gentleman

given consideration to the statement of the fuel board that it would take a duty of $6 instead of a duty of $1 to make us independent of foreign supplies?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink