Arthur John LEWIS

LEWIS, Arthur John, B.D.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive
Constituency
Swift Current (Saskatchewan)
Birth Date
March 12, 1879
Deceased Date
November 8, 1961
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_John_Lewis
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=4516a7aa-6abd-49e2-b507-6d82ce31249d&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
clergyperson, manager, secretary

Parliamentary Career

December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
PRO
  Swift Current (Saskatchewan)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 123 of 127)


May 2, 1922

Mr. LEWIS:

But this item we have

now, No. 360?

Topic:   TRADE AND COMMERCE
Full View Permalink

May 2, 1922

Mr. LEWIS:

Is it the intention to gradually include all statistical clerks from the various departments of the Government under this one head, because I notice on page 104 under the details of civil govern-

ment that there are 91 statistical clerks employed at a salary of $85,055? Is that in addition to the amount of half a million dollars under this head?

Topic:   TRADE AND COMMERCE
Full View Permalink

May 2, 1922

Mr. LEWIS:

But are the salaries included in this Dominion Bureau under this

item?

Topic:   TRADE AND COMMERCE
Full View Permalink

May 1, 1922

Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current) :

I think we are all agreed that every Canadian citizen eligible to vote should have the right to do so, and the mere fact that a man is forced sometimes, by circumstances beyond his control, to go to another constituency should not penalize him and prevent him from exercising the franchise as a Canadian citizen. I can readily understand that the provision that has been incorporated in the Election Act on this point has some basis in reason. It may have been placed there to make sure that no

Income Tax Act

individual would vote twice. But we are told by various hon. members that it appears to infringe upon the rights of voters more in the cities than anywhere else. In the rural districts very few people are penalized in this respect by moving; but in the cities, where people are continually on the move, it may be a great hardship, and I can see that there is likely to be some difficulty, no matter what you may do, to remedy the existing law. We do find, however, that in the resolution No. 12, relating to proportional representation and the alternative vote, there is a safeguard not only to the man who wishes to exercise his franchise, but also to the public interests of Canada, and I believe that when this subject is brought before the House and we have time to study it carefully we shall be able to remove a great many of the electioneering difficulties that at present exist. In this connection, I might refer to proportional representation in the cities. Under proportional representation I understand that no matter where a man may reside in the city, or whether he changes from one district to another within the pale of the city, he still has the right to vote; and I think that when that system comes up for consideration it will be time enough to indicate the benefits to be derived by the removal of a great many of the difficulties and anomalies of the Franchise Act. By the adoption of a proper system then we shall be able to ensure, not only to the individual who votes at an election, but also to collective bodies of voters, in the actual returns of men to this Parliament, a fair proportion of representation for every constituency. If it is necessary to change the existing law for rural districts, well. and good. But as we have been told that the great majority of inequalities that result from the present law are to be found in the cities, and as these inequalities can be finally removed only when we have a system under which every man will have the right to exercise the franchise under a city list rather than under a list in an electoral division, I believe that action should be delayed until the question of proportional representation is before the House for consideration.

Topic:   FEDERAL ELECTIONS ACT
Full View Permalink

April 27, 1922

Mr. LEWIS:

I am not so much interested just now in the merits or demerits of education under religious bodies or under a national system, because I presume that this subject will come up later for discussion. At least, we have been so informed by the minister. But I am interested in the education of Indian children, and in view of the statement of the minister that the educational authorities in the religious bodies were asking for increased estimates, I should like to know what accounts for the reduction in this estimate. Looking over the estimates as a whole I find that the amount is about the same as last year. In three or four places there is a large increase, but the large increase in connectioin with the three prairie provinces seems to have been deducted from the item for education in order to level the totals. Has there been any cause for this reduction? Are there fewer children today than there were a year ago, or fewer schools in operation, requiring a smaller

S upply-Indians

number of teachers? We should know these things before voting for this reduction, because we believe to-day that education is one of the most important subjects. There is something else I want to ask in regard to the health situation, as referred to by the leader of the Opposition. Are the religious schools subject to the same supervision in regard to air space and light as schools under the public system, or do the churches build schools promiscuously according to their own plans? If not, must those plans conform to certain federal regulations?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   STATEMENT OF PREMIER NORRIS
Full View Permalink