John Wesley EDWARDS

EDWARDS, The Hon. John Wesley, P.C., B.A., M.D., C.M.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Frontenac--Addington (Ontario)
Birth Date
May 25, 1865
Deceased Date
April 18, 1929
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley_Edwards
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=d8e64909-c88d-4e3e-abfe-a46943452386&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
physician, teacher

Parliamentary Career

October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
CON
  Frontenac (Ontario)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Frontenac (Ontario)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Frontenac (Ontario)
  • Minister presiding over the Department of Health (September 21, 1921 - December 28, 1921)
  • Minister of Immigration and Colonization (September 21, 1921 - December 28, 1921)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
CON
  Frontenac--Addington (Ontario)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
CON
  Frontenac--Addington (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 394)


April 15, 1929

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

That is the hon. member's great trouble, he gets his wires crossed.

Topic:   ELSIE ALICE HERVEY
Full View Permalink

April 15, 1929

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

If the hon. gentleman wants it all to himself, the rest of us will keep quiet.

Topic:   ELSIE ALICE HERVEY
Full View Permalink

April 15, 1929

Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):

The question has come up as to whether or not we should have a divorce court in Ontario or Quebec or Prince Edward Island. As stated by the bon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) that is outside the discussion. We could not introduce legislation this session in that regard if we were unanimously in favour of it. On this .point, however, I would simply say this: It should be within the genius of this parliament, it seems to me, to devise some kind of law which would' give the three provinces that have not now divorce courts an opportunity of establishing such courts if they so desired. But that is apart altogether from the question before us. We are asked to vote on the second reading of Bill No. 93, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) calls upon the member whose name appears after the motion as sponsor to give 'him the reasons why the bill should be proceeded with. When the hon. member puts that question he knows .perfectly well that the *reason for this, as for every other bill of a similar nature, is defined by law; and there is only one reason. What is our duty in determining whether the bill shall receive the second reading? We have to determine whether or not the evidence on which the senate committee formed its conclusions is right and proper. I cannot shift my responsibility in that regard on to the shoulders of the member whose name happens to be associated with the bill. It is incumbent upon me as it is upon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and every other hon. member, if we are not satisfied that the senate com-

mittee, taking evidence under oath, has come to a correct conclusion, or if we are satisfied that there is some weakness in the evidence, to get up and say so, to say what that weakness is, and to oppose the bill on that ground'; not merely to get up and talk in generalities about the advisability or inadvisability of conducting matters in these divorce cases as we are now doing. That does not determine how we are to vote.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spent the better part of an hour on what? Presumably he was speaking on the second reading of this bill, but he did not offer or even hint at a single reason or suggestion, why this bill should not receive* its second reading. His only comment in that regard, after giving expression is a lot of generalities more or less irrelevant-rather more irrelevant than relevant-was that, the member sponsoring the bill should tell us why he was asking that the bill be read a second time. The hon. member knows very well that under our law there is only one reason back of all these bills ; if he or any other member is not satisfied with the evidence adduced under oath before the senate committee, it is up to that member to take exception on that ground. I think the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit) put the matter very well; the court-because it is a court-hears the evidence in a proper way, cross-examines the witnesses and comes to a certain conclusion. That conclusion is passed on to this house and we are asked to concur or otherwise in the decision of that court. If I am not prepared to concur in that decision I should give my reason for that attitude and I should be able to say that I cannot concur in the judgment because I think there is a weakness in the evidence, pointing out that weakness to the house. Otherwise I should vote for the second reading of the bill and pass it on to the committee, which has all the privileges outlined by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) in regard to going further into the matter if that is thought desirable. I cannot use the word "blockade"; that is unparliamentary, but I can have my own opinion.

Topic:   ELSIE ALICE HERVEY
Full View Permalink

April 15, 1929

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

They are

very sensitive when we tell them the truth.

Topic:   ELSIE ALICE HERVEY
Full View Permalink

April 15, 1929

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

And on all

the others.

Topic:   ELSIE ALICE HERVEY
Full View Permalink