James Langstaff BOWMAN

BOWMAN, The Hon. James Langstaff, P.C., K.C.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Dauphin (Manitoba)
Birth Date
October 6, 1879
Deceased Date
September 14, 1951
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Langstaff_Bowman
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=3fddce78-a3bf-4f9e-ac82-5d3e933992f9&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister

Parliamentary Career

July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
CON
  Dauphin (Manitoba)
  • Speaker of the House of Commons (January 17, 1935 - February 5, 1936)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 43)


May 31, 1934

Mr. BOWMAN:

I was raising a point of

order, Mr. Chairman. It is this: No agreement between the province of Saskatchewan and the federal authorities has anything to do with the item before the committee, and I submit therefore that the hon. member for Melville is out of order.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink

May 31, 1934

Mr. BOWMAN:

Mr. Chairman-

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink

May 31, 1934

Mr. BOWMAN:

What has that to do with entomology?

Mr. MeINTOSH: Wait and see. If that

was not the reason, then I thought that perhaps the minister wanted to be critical with regard to the effort made on this side to get information touching public business; and if that is so, then I submit that his criticism cannot very well be justified. As regards

what was said on the former occasion, namely, May 29, the hon. member for Melville was discussing the grasshopper item and, coming in late, I asked at one point of the discussion this question: " Are they trying to buy them with their own money?" That was a perfectly legitimate question, to which no answer was given. At another stage of the proceedings I stated that three weeks from that day, that is last Tuesday, the voting would tell the tale as to what is and has been taking place in the province with respect to the federal end of public business.

Those were my two statements and the minister became quite angry about the support that I was giving the hon. member for Melville. I was not giving any special support to the member for Melville; I simply wanted to get certain information which I thought ought to be given to the house. And in a minute or so I will give one reason why I asked the minister the question I did. Of course, he pooh poohed the idea immediately;

I fancy he took the stand that it was a question that should not be answered. To show him what is going on in the province, by way of discussion may I refer to one or two editorials that have been appearing in the Regina Leader and, indeed, in the way of comment in many other newspapers. The item before the house is a matter of public discussion and consequently a matter of importance to the people. There is therefore nothing wrong in bringing it up in parliament.

I refer in the first place to an editorial that appeared in the Regina Leader of Friday, May 25. The following points are raised in this editorial. In the first part this newspaper is wondering why there is all this sudden financial interest on the part of the federal government in Saskatchewan. The question has become public property and thousands of people are reading these editorials every day; and the moment a matter becomes of editorial importance it becomes also of parliamentary importance, and vice versa. Next, the Leader wonders why the national government is showing so much belated interest in the welfare of Saskatchewan, with an election coming off in that province in the near future. Then it states the amount of money voted for the purpose of destroying grasshoppers and building highways in the province. Secondly, this editorial discusses the fact that these moneys will be helpful to the province. Well, as far as I am concerned, I am not arguing against the dominion government giving any money it wishes to Saskatchewan; it may give Saskatchewan ten times what it is giving and I will find no fault with that. But what

3608 COMMONS

Supply-Agriculture-Insect Pests

we do want to know is how that money will be spent, how it is earmarked and who will be spending it and when. The idea put forward here is that the money will be helpful but, at the same time, that it will presumably be reserved for the election campaign. Lastly, in this editorial, the view is expressed that all this is not without a suggestion ; that is, that all this money pouring into the province at the time of an election suggests something, and this paper makes plain what that suggestion is. It states plainly that the suggestion is that the people of Saskatchewan can be bought. That was why I asked the question: " Are we trying to buy them with their own money?" Later, it uses the word "bribe." It admits that this is an ugly -word but asks whether what is transpiring can be described otherwise. I hope these remarks will enable hon. gentlemen to see the bearing of the question I asked the other night.

In another editorial, published on Saturday, May 26, the first thought put forward is that the Canadian government seems to have the idea that production should be restricted, that acreage should be cut down; and since the restriction of production is the very thing which the grasshoppers are attending to. this editorial wonders why the government is resorting to such an expensive method, voting million? to put down grasshoppers, when they are restricting production, doing the very thing in which the government believes. The second thought in the editorial of Saturday, May 26, is this. Here we have the spectacle in London and Rome of highly paid officials planning to restrict production-

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink

May 30, 1934

Mr. BOWMAN:

By that time they will

have no money left.

Topic:   DOMINION COMPANIES ACT
Full View Permalink

May 25, 1934

Mr. BOWMAN:

Speaking to the question before the committee I submit that the amendment is not in order because it has nothing to do with the bill.

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Full View Permalink