Honoré Hippolyte Achille GERVAIS

GERVAIS, Honoré Hippolyte Achille, K.C., LL.D.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
St. James (Quebec)
Birth Date
August 13, 1864
Deceased Date
August 8, 1915
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honoré_Hippolyte_Achille_Gervais
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=34b13ceb-bb77-4ad5-b74c-974b9a4a905d&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
author, lawyer, professor

Parliamentary Career

February 16, 1904 - September 29, 1904
LIB
  St. James (Quebec)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
LIB
  St. James (Quebec)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
LIB
  St. James (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 45 of 46)


August 5, 1904

Mr. GERVAIS.

I approve of the Bill just as it is. /

Mr. FOWLER, The hon. gentleman does not know that section 7 which protects Mr. GERVAIS.

these workingmen for whom he pretends to speak has been striken out, and that they are gold bricked. Now, these Italian labourers can be brought to Canada in ship loads.

Topic:   ALIEN LABOUR IMPORTATION.
Full View Permalink

August 3, 1904

Mr. GERVAIS.

There is an answer to the contention of the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler). Where Atwater Avenue is now, there was a public road even before 1700, when Mr. Dollier de Casson, the superior of the Montreal Seminary, entered into a contract with Mr. de Catalogne for the building of a canal between Lachine and Montreal, This proposed canal was even

to be constructed for the benefit of the whole of Nouvelle France. In law the Dominion is bound to build that new bridge for this reason, Lower Canada has been instrumental in constituting a servitude upon .the island of Montreal, and this servitude, which was established by the building of the Lachine canal, was created for the benefit of the whole of Canada, and now Canada is bound not to make our burden of that servitude any heavier. That is why I said that Canada is in law and equity bound to build that new bridge ; it having been made a necessity by the very act of the government of the day in building the Lachine canal. We need now in the interests of Montreal a new bridge. It is the action of Canada which has caused the necessity for this bridge and Canada should have to pay for it.

Topic:   SUPPLY-REVIEW OF FINANCIAL
Subtopic:   M. EMMERSON.
Full View Permalink

August 3, 1904

Mr. GERVAIS.

That is not the present case.

Topic:   SUPPLY-REVIEW OF FINANCIAL
Subtopic:   M. EMMERSON.
Full View Permalink

June 20, 1904

Mr. GERVAIS.

I would like to say a few words before this motion is put. In the first place, this Bill is badly drafted. In the next place the effect of this Bill will be to make this House utterly ridiculous throughout the world. I presume the promoters of this Bill desire to prevent young men from smoking cigarettes, but at the same time, there is not one word in it to the effect that only young men will be prevented from smoking cigarettes. The result is that as the Bill stands at present the man who smokes one-fifteenth part of an ounce of tobacco will be sent to the common jail for one year, while the man who smokes one-eighth of an ounce of tobacco will be left free. Can we insert such an illogical clause on our statute-book ? As

pointed out by the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa), it is utterly absurd, utterly ridiculous, to insert in our statute-book, this illogical discrimination between the man who smokes a little bit of tobacco and the man who smokes half a pound, the first one being sent to jail and the second one being left free. Under the circumstances I should vote against the Bill. It cannot be amended, it is altogether bad, it is anticommercial, it is immoral, There is no proof that the smoking of tobacco is bad. Tobacco has been in use for centuries, and I have not been able to find, either in philosophy or ethics or medicine, that it is wrong to smoke tobacco. Why should we accept the word of the promoters of this Bill as the word of the gospel ? There is nothing in the gospel against tobacco. For my part I am not willing to take the word of the promoters of this Bill as gospel. Let me say to my hon. friend from West Huron (Mr. Holmes) that it has not been proved that tobacco is a poison. It is no worse to smoke tobacco than it is to use hundreds or thousands of other articles that are in common use in this country. Therefore I say that the aim of the Bill is bad, the Bill itself is bad because it does not discriminate between classes of persons who are to suffer through the application of the Bill. Then X say that the penalties imposed by the Bill are too heavy. For all these reasons I should vote against the adoption of the Bill, not only against this fifth clause, but I am opposed to all the other clauses which have already been adopted by the committee.

Topic:   PROHIBITION OF CIGARETTES.
Full View Permalink

May 9, 1904

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITIES ON THE FRENCH MARKET.
Full View Permalink