Arthur Edward ROSS

ROSS, BGen Arthur Edward, C.B., C.M.G., B.A., LL.D., M.D.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Kingston City (Ontario)
Birth Date
June 9, 1870
Deceased Date
November 15, 1952
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Edward_Ross
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=17d9fbdf-1bc5-4137-ac59-4e782464990f&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
physician, professor

Parliamentary Career

December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
CON
  Kingston (Ontario)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
CON
  Kingston City (Ontario)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
CON
  Kingston City (Ontario)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
CON
  Kingston City (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 387 of 388)


June 21, 1920

Mr. EOSS:

It would be better to follow the old practice.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT.
Full View Permalink

May 6, 1918

Mr. RGSIS:

I understand that it was part of the Unionist campaign, and that its object was to cause the people to believe that the Union Government was the only Government that this country ever had or should have. I agree with my hon. friend that members of this Parliament could be chosen who would make up a Government probably more able than the present Administration. I cannot see that the Government have adopted any policies

of exceptional value since they came into office; I cannot see that they have even lived up to all their promises. What puzzles me is this: if the Government are as bad as the member for Victoria would have us believe they are, why in the world is he sitting on the right side of the Speaker? Why did he support them in the last election?

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Full View Permalink

July 7, 1917

Mr. EOSS:

I suggested the night before last that the age limit be raised from 20 to 21. The arguments advanced by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as to a man of 35, more especially apply to a man of 20. The nervous strain of this war in the trenches is greater than that of any war -the world has known, and a man of 20 is not as well able to stand that strain as a man of 21. The man of 20 is not mature, he has not had the experience that a man of 21 has; and that there is something in this argument is shown by the fact that the Government, of its own motion, raised the limit from 18 to 20. If the limit is raised from 20 to 21 it does not prevent the

boy of 20 enlisting, or the boy of 18 if he wishes to do so. The Government are going to present this to the country as one of their measures. The Franchise Act says that the boy of 20 shall not have a right to say whether he shall go or not go, but the man from 21 on has a right to coerce the boy of 20, who has no say at all. You are virtually striking a man whose hands are tied. I do not think the right should be given to any government to compel a boy of 20 to go and fight in Europe unless be is given the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship and the right to vote, whether he shall go or stay at home.

Topic:   MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.
Subtopic:   CONSIDERATION OP THE BILL IN COMMITTEE OP THE WHOLE HOUSE.
Full View Permalink

July 7, 1917

Mr. EOSS:

A volunteer.

Topic:   MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.
Subtopic:   CONSIDERATION OP THE BILL IN COMMITTEE OP THE WHOLE HOUSE.
Full View Permalink

July 7, 1917

Mr. EOSS:

In the United States they have, no doubt, watched the progress of the war and the experience of the nations engaged in it as we have in Canada, and they have fixed the age limit at 21. Can the minister advance any reason which would induce them to do that which would not equally apply to Canada?

Topic:   MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.
Subtopic:   CONSIDERATION OP THE BILL IN COMMITTEE OP THE WHOLE HOUSE.
Full View Permalink