Winfield Chester Scott MCLURE

MCLURE, Winfield Chester Scott

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Queen's (Prince Edward Island)
Birth Date
March 16, 1875
Deceased Date
June 18, 1955
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_McLure
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=c638ba68-559c-40ce-ac85-82aa844a881c&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
broker, teacher, trader

Parliamentary Career

July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
CON
  Queen's (Prince Edward Island)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
PC
  Queen's (Prince Edward Island)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
PC
  Queen's (Prince Edward Island)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 303)


May 12, 1953

Mr. McLure:

I should like to join with hon. members who have already spoken, the hon. member for Gloucester and others, with reference to the pleasant announcement made by the minister. For over a year now we have been battling to get some form of insurance or protection for the fishermen in our different constituencies. As the other speakers have said, this announcement will be received with great rejoicing by all the fishermen in my locality.

There is a matter which I mentioned last year, and which I think comes directly under this item of departmental administration. There was a heavy storm on the Atlantic coast during which a ship called the Winnie Anne was lost. I want to deal with that question because it is now up to the Department of Fisheries to look into it. Last year I spoke about the poor coastal service protection for seamen and others, which was brought out by the loss of this vessel. I think it was the firm of Sweeney and Company or Sweeney Brothers who launched the boats in that desperate storm and really saved the crew of the Winnie Anne. I hope they have been

recompensed for that act of bravery and hardship.

There is no doubt that the men in the department as well as the minister and the parliamentary assistant know the details in connection with this matter. I am informed that the insurance people have issued a cheque in full to the owner of the Winnie Anne and that that cheque is still in his possession, unless it has been forced away from him within the last two or three weeks. He has not been recompensed at all. For instance, we know that the Winnie Anne was subsidized to a certain extent. But at the same time, why was this matter not settled? If it is settled now, that is what I want to know. If the owner has received his proper allotment out of it, I am sure there is no need of my arguing the case any further. If I get a nod from anybody over there on the other side indicating that it is settled, I shall not say any more. Apparently it is not settled yet. Then I shall have to talk on.

What I want to know is this. Why is this man held up on a transaction of this kind? He has done practically everything that it is possible for a man to do. He held the cheque. He should never have surrendered that cheque because, as I understand it, it was made out in his name. If the crown were so anxious to get back their share of the subsidy, then the balance of it should have been sent to the treasury board and the treasury board should have authorized the Minister of Fisheries to place in the estimates here an amount with which to pay the owner of the Winnie Anne. I shall rest my case right there for the moment and wait till I find out what the situation is. I know the minister is anxious to say something in regard to this matter.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Full View Permalink

May 12, 1953

Mr. McLure:

What is the canal revenue? I notice there is a subsidy paid here of $3,571,525.

Topic:   CIVIL AVIATION
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO NEW COMMERCIAL ROUTES IN UNITED STATES
Full View Permalink

May 12, 1953

Mr. McLure:

Quite so, Mr. Chairman. I agree with your ruling. However, at this time I have taken a cue from some of the other hon. members who have said they were going to divide up their speeches and make them as the various items were reached from time to time when direct questions could be asked.

Under this departmental administration item comes our great question in the province from which I come. I refer to the great question of proper transportation. I have spoken on this subject a great many times and on this occasion I had intended to prepare something on our troubles with respect to transportation and the refusal of the different governments to live up to our contract of 1873; and if it had not been so late in the session I would have done so. However, I know it would not meet with the general approval of the committee if I were to talk for an hour and a half at the present time. I am therefore going to reserve some of my remarks until the specific items are reached when I can submit various questions.

However, I want to say this. Under the terms of union of 1873, the main reason why we ever joined Canada was that we expected to get transportation. But as all hon. members know, for years we have had difficulties. I blame nearly all governments -but the Liberal government is the greatest often de'r of all the governments-for not giving us a decent deal at all and for not living up to any of the terms of confederation. I might say that from 1873 the different governments tried out different steamers by way of getting transportation to the mainland. Under the Conservative government we obtained a couple of steamers which gave us fairly good transportation facilities in the summer but which were not able to cope with the winter troubles which confronted us in connection with ice.

However, the most trying circumstances and the worst example of all that we had from 1873 to the present time was in 1903. That is 50 years ago. Prior to that time we had had some good crossings and, as I said a moment ago, fair transportation in the summer time. But in the winter of 1903 there was no transportation. Not a pound of freight, not a letter nor a passenger was moved under the government contract for

40 days and 40 nights. I am not blaming the present Minister of Transport on this occasion. I have looked up the records and I find that was apparently the time that he arrived as a resident of Canada by the stork transportation system. However, we will come along later where we can blame him for negligence in not fulfilling-and that quite recently-the demands we have made upon him with reference to transportation.

I am not going to go into details but I want to ask the minister to answer a couple of questions when he is replying. One of them is a question dealing with our trade with Newfoundland. For over 50 years we had with Newfoundland an excellent trade in our farm products. I might say that now is our best opportunity-it is better for Newfoundland and better for Prince Edward Island- because we grow the best food supplies that can be grown anywhere in the world and, if we get the right consideration from the government, they can be easily shipped to the province of Newfoundland.

My question to the minister is this. What kind of service will there be between Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland for this present season? What boat or boats will call, and how often? I might also ask what is the subsidy paid, but I do not care what subsidy is paid because it is a matter of service that is due both to Prince Edward Island and to Newfoundland. This is an extremely important matter to my own province of Prince Edward Island.

I have another item I wish to mention but since I am cutting down on my general resume of hard-luck story with respect to the Liberal party of years past, I am cutting down on that. I want to put on the record another question for the minister to reply to. During the last six months or more negotiations have been carried on between Prince Edward Island and the Department of Transport with reference to a private-enterprise transportation system, namely the Wood Island-Caribou system. This system of private enterprise has been operating for some ten years and has been giving wonderful service to the people of Prince Edward Island. With the facilities they offer in the summer season they have certainly helped the Canadian National Railways to fulfil their responsibilities.

I understand the last delegation that came to Ottawa had to take just about what was given to them and sign on the dotted line, or get nothing at all. As yet I have not seen published a report of those transactions, but I would hope that the Wood Island-Caribou, or the Northumberland Ferries, as they are called, will be given consideration. It will be 68108-329J

Supply-Transport

recalled that last season, and also in the season of 1950, they offered the only means of communication with the mainland during a period in which there was a strike. We might get into another tie-up at any time, and we want to have available the services offered by this independent and private enterprise that has been giving such wonderful service. We want to see them treated right by the government, because it is a service that is bound to grow. Make it possible for them to give to the southeastern portion of Prince Edward Island the service it so richly deserves.

In common with other hon. members, when we reach a discussion of the individual items I shall have more to say.

Topic:   CIVIL AVIATION
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO NEW COMMERCIAL ROUTES IN UNITED STATES
Full View Permalink

May 12, 1953

Mr. McLure:

Probably I am not right in putting my question here, and the item may have come up before I arrived. However, I would like to ask the minister on this item, civil aviation, whether he has anything further to report with reference to the airport at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island?

Topic:   ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF CANADA, THE SPEAKER OF THE SENATE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Full View Permalink

May 12, 1953

Mr. McLure:

Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago, on the discussion of item 446, I referred to the earnings of the canals and the cost of operation. I find there was a subsidy of $3,500,000. We now reach this item which,

I am pleased to see, is not phrased in as extreme terms as it used to be. It was always classified as a deficit. I notice in the details, however, that there is reference to a deficit. My contention is that it should not be so described. How do we know whether there is a deficit or not? We have not seen any statement, and we know of no agreement made.

Let me point out that in this ferry system the Canadian National Railways have one of their greatest assets, yet they have not one cent of money invested in it. Through having this service available, and having control of it, they are permitted to haul thousands of carloads of produce from Prince Edward Island. Ten thousand carloads of potatoes at an average of $300 or perhaps $400 would total $4 million, but how much credit does the ferry boat get for that business? As I understand it, they get a credit of about $2 for loaded cars but nothing at all for empties.

Year after year I have raised objection to this being treated as a deficit when in fact it is simply a service rendered under our agreement of 1873 with the dominion. The cost of the terminals can be taken into the different accounts, as that does not matter. If it is not a deficit in the case of canals, how in Sam Hill can it be considered a deficit in the case of this car ferry? I want to be on record again as making an effort to get this word "deficit" out of the way.

Topic:   CIVIL AVIATION
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO NEW COMMERCIAL ROUTES IN UNITED STATES
Full View Permalink