John Hampden BURNHAM

BURNHAM, John Hampden, B.A., M.A.

Personal Data

Party
Unionist
Constituency
Peterborough West (Ontario)
Birth Date
October 14, 1860
Deceased Date
April 25, 1940
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hampden_Burnham
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=0b65ff12-9c90-415b-937f-308e67da151a&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Peterborough West (Ontario)
December 17, 1917 - July 15, 1920
UNION
  Peterborough West (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 230)


June 23, 1920

Mr. BURNHAM:

He is away on private business.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RETIREMENT OF MEMBERS OF PUBLIC -SERVICE.
Full View Permalink

June 23, 1920

Mr. BURNHAM:

Pardon me, the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is strongly in favour of an increased indemnity,-and he is a man who is not afraid to say what he thinks. He has a great deal of business to attend to. He knows what he is talking about, and he knows that $1,200 a year, the annual value of our indemnity, is an insult and not a remuneration. The member for Red Deer has spoken to me on the subject with very considerable heat, and he has told me that he would at the first possible occasion speak in favour of an increased indemnity to the best of his ability. He thinks that the remuneration as it is now is an impossibility. I know a great many other members on this side who no doubt will voice their own opinions.

But, as somebody said, there has been a nigger in the fence. Why is it that the leaders have not been able to get together and decide this, question? One day the rumour going around this House would be

that the Prime Minister was "all right"- originally he was against it; that the leader of the Oposition had been persuaded to look leniently upon this, in view of the fact that he himself gets a very respectable salary,-and I am very glad he does. Many members of the Farmers.' party have spoken to me strongly in favour of this proposition, and I understand that not less than seventy-five per cent of them are strongly in favour of the increase of this indemnity. I am sure, as I said before, that ninety-five per cent of the members of this House, from explanations that are being made, are in favour of the suggested increase.

I am making this introduction of the matter to-night because I feel- that there has rested upon the members of this House an odium which should be removed by an explanation to the public of the cause; and it cannot be removed by such an explanation because it is founded upon an absolute necessity. None of us are beggars. We do not want to beg, nor do we want to grab, but we have reached this stage that, as. I say, we cannot keep up that little station- in life which a public servant is required to keep up, for he has got to be decent in his little subscriptions and things of that sort, and he has got to live in two or three places at once-

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RETIREMENT OF MEMBERS OF PUBLIC -SERVICE.
Full View Permalink

June 23, 1920

Mr. BURNHAM:

I should like to say a word on this matter as I have Indians in my constituency. An Indian who desires to become enfranchised should certainly have that privilege. This legislation does not in any way compel the enfranchisement of the band ot any of its' individuals who do not wish to become enfranchised, nor does it affect in any way the prosperity of

the reserve. Neither, of course, will it affect the money which they got under the treaty with the Government for the various properties which they have in times past sold to the Government, and for which they receive a stated annual amount. The Indians in the band in the county of West Peterborough are very intelligent, very progressive, and have a great deal of property. They want to have the vote. It is no good for my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) shaking his head, because they have told me they want the vote and their squaws want the vote. This tribe of Indians I speak of sent a very large number to the war, several of whom were killed and many decorated. Man for man they were more distinguished and more capable than the whites.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.
Full View Permalink

June 23, 1920

Mr. BURNHAM:

And to say that these men shall not under any circumstances have the right to the franchise, which, as I undti-stand thus legislation, is not in any ,vay to be forced upon them, is to my mind a great ingratitude and an impropriety that requires a whole lot of explaining.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.
Full View Permalink

June 23, 1920

Mr. BURNHAM:

Are we going to suppose that the member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) that the member for Maisonnevue (Mr. Lemieux), that the member for Shelburne and Queen's (M^. Fielding), that the member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), that the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), that the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), are not worth any more than $1,200 a year to this country? I wish to say that the member for Maisonneuve has spoken to me in the strongest possible way in favour of an increased indemnity, and he told me that if he were in the House when the question came up he would speak strongly in support of it. I cannot say about the member for Shelburne and Queen's because I have never had a word with him on the subject. But the member for Quebec East-who is unfortunately away just now-told me that he would speak in favour of an increased indemnity, that it was absolutely necessary; and he seemed to be very much stirred about it. The hon. gentleman who has just come in, the member for Four RiveTS-[DOT] ,

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RETIREMENT OF MEMBERS OF PUBLIC -SERVICE.
Full View Permalink