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 299 of 303)


November 22, 1932

Mr. McLURE:

I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Mac-Innis). Had I voted I would have voted for the third reading of the bill.

Southern Rhodesia

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA
Full View Permalink

November 22, 1932

Mr. McLURE:

I was paired with the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Mac-Innis). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion. .

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA
Full View Permalink

November 22, 1932

Mr. McLURE:

I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

fMr. Bourassa.]

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND THE IRISH FREE STATE
Full View Permalink

March 18, 1932

Mr. W. C. S. McLURE (Queens):

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak on this resolution, but according to Hansard the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) in the course of his speech last night said:

I see my friends from Prince Edward Island on the other side and I know they will agree with every word I say.

I think the hon. member was taking a lot for granted in making that statement. While I do not know how many members on this side of the house will agree with him-and I am not interested in how many on the other side may share his views-in his attempt to justify the blocking of this resolution and consequent interference with the government in its endeavour to relieve unemployment, I say emphatically that I do not agree with his

Unemployment Continuance Act

remarks with respect to several matters relating to Prince Edward Island. Later on I shall give my reasons for this disagreement.

The debate on this resolution has partaken of a character quite different from what I had anticipated. At first I thought the resolution would be discussed from the constitutional point of view, and that the great legal minds from both sides of the house would enlighten us on this issue; but the debate soon became divested of all its legal robes and in a short time became clothed in a distinctly political garb. This has resulted in the debate covering a wide field, and several hon. members, especially on the opposite side, have seized the opportunity to put political propaganda on Hansard for the benefit of their constituents. Whether I choose to follow the constitutional line or the political, or whether I discuss the resolution strictly on its merits, I expect that the latitude accorded to other members will be accorded to me also.

I have listened to this debate for hours and hours, yes, for days and days, and now almost for weeks, and the more speeches I listen to from the other side of the house the more I am impressed with the sincerity of our hon. friends opposite in their stubborn adherence to their traditional attitude towards relief of the unemployed and the unfortunate of this country. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) led off with a severe criticism of the manner in which the relief has been administered under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, and each of his supporters who followed him carried on the same line of attack. All seem to be imbued with the one idea-to stop the passing of any measure for further relief. Their whole object seems to be to obstruct the government in its endeavour to enact further legislation for the benefit of those of our fellow countrymen who are out of employment and in need as a result of this worldwide depression. Even admitting the sincerity of our hon. friends opposite-and they certainly demonstrated it as each one took up the cudgels for his party-I cannot understand their uncompromising opposition except on the ground that they are determined to adhere to their time-honoured policy of "not a nickel for the Canadian unemployed." That is their policy, apparently, and their stick-at-it-iveness dates back many years. I have been in this house only since 1930, but during that session the Liberal party argued strongly against any form of relief, they adopted the same course in the session of 1931, and now in this session they are still running true to form and proclaiming their favourite policy,

namely, "not a nickel for the Canadian unemployed or those in distress."

Several hon. members have informed the house how the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act has worked out in their constituencies. Last night the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) touched on this subject very gingerly with reference to the province of Prince Edward Island. He made a few remarks about unemployment in that province and said some complaints had been made with reference to the work carried on, but he said he did not know whether or not the complaints were well founded. I believe the hon. member knew very well that the unemployment relief work in his constituency, and in the island in general, was carried out solely in the interests of the unemployed and the deserving, and that it was absolutely satisfactory. With reference to the constituency of Queens, which I have the honour to represent, the relief work and the resulting benefits to the unemployed were simply godsends dn a time of distress.

The proportion of federal funds allocated to Prince Edward Island was small in comparison with that allotted the other provinces, but possibly this was due to the fact that ours is an agricultural province and did not have so many unemployed as the industrial provinces had. But we did have unemployment; when we did get our allotment it was a great help to those people who were anxious to work, and we had very satisfactory results indeed. The people in my constituency and throughout the entire province as well were loud in their praises of the Department of Labour and the federal government with regard to the way in which the relief measures were carried out; every dollar of money coming from the federal government, the provincial government and the municipalities was spent entirely in the best interests of those who were unemployed, and there was no question of creed, class or politics when a man was looking for work. If he was out of work and in need the local government and the committee in charge asked no questions as to whether the man was a Grit or a Tory; they simply gave him what work was available, and everyone seemed quite satisfied with the way this work was carried out.

Some hon. member speaking in this house the other day made the statement that this money was wasted. I do not believe the hon. gentleman really meant that, because I claim that any money spent for the benefit of the poor and needy is not money wasted but is a gracious act on the part of whatever government granted that money. In 1931 we had a

Topic:   CONTINUANCE ACT, 1932-CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION
Full View Permalink

March 18, 1932

Mr. McLURE:

They should cooperate to

see that employment and relief are given, and they might well join with those on this side and be a party to the granting of relief to the unemployed.

Topic:   IS, 1932
Full View Permalink