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 1 of 388)


June 27, 1935

Mr. ROSS:

I was paired with the hon.

member for Megantic (Mr. Roherge). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.

Topic:   FARMERS' CREDITORS ACT
Full View Permalink

June 20, 1935

Mr. ROSS:

I was paired with the hon.

member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMISSION
Full View Permalink

June 13, 1935

Mr. ROSS:

I was paired with the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.

Topic:   B.C. RELIEF CAMP STRIKERS BEQUEST FOR LEAVE TO MOVE ADJOURNMENT TO DISCUSS MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Full View Permalink

June 4, 1935

Mr. ROSS:

The former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) agreed to the idea of the marketing board.

Topic:   GRANTING OF INTERIM SUPPLY
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink

May 29, 1935

Mr. ROSS:

Quite so. I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown); so far as I know the tests are the opposite of what he indicated. A person is first stimulated; then when the depression begins it always takes effect upon those centres which are the latest developed; that is, speech is one of the latest. First the speech is stimulated; then the speech is one of the first faculties to become depressed.

There is one point that has not been dealt with, and that is a definition of just what "under the influence of a narcotic" means. You can easily detect whether or not a man has been using alcohol, whether it is his first or his hundredth drink, but the question of narcotics is a very dangerous matter. A man may have an ordinary dose of a narcotic and suddenly, without any fault on his part, he may become numb and depressed and unable to exercise his mental faculties. I think it would be a very dangerous thing, under this provision, to rule that imprisonment should be the punishment. It is not the same thing as intoxication; there is an absolutely normal dose of a narcotic which will affect different people in different ways. The same may be said about alcohol, but it is a fact that under certain conditions a moderate dose of a narcotic administered even by a doctor may have a very depressing effect upon the man and may cause an accident. It would be very severe to punish a man for something for which he was not responsible. I think every doctor in this house will agree that a dose of a narcotic may have a peculiar effect upon even an ordinary normal man or patient, and that a normal dose may bring about a very abnormal result. I do not say anything in favour of intoxication but I do think it is rather dangerous to sentence a man to imprisonment when suffering from a condition such as I have mentioned.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink