John Gillanders TURRIFF

TURRIFF, The Hon. John Gillanders

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Assiniboia (Saskatchewan)
Birth Date
December 14, 1855
Deceased Date
November 10, 1930
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gillanders_Turriff
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=52a4499f-fa60-4960-92e4-bb99baf0c85e&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer, merchant

Parliamentary Career

November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
LIB
  Assiniboia East (Northwest Territories)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
LIB
  Assiniboia (Saskatchewan)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
LIB
  Assiniboia (Saskatchewan)
December 17, 1917 - September 22, 1918
UNION
  Assiniboia (Saskatchewan)
September 23, 1918 - October 4, 1921
LIB
  Assiniboia (Saskatchewan)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 396)


May 11, 1918

Mr. TURRIFF:

I would move that a committee be appointed to consider this Bill and make a report at the next session.

Topic:   THE CIVIL SERVICE.
Full View Permalink

September 14, 1917

Mr. TURRIFF:

That may be what was in my hon. friend's mind, but he certainly referred to members on this side of the House, although he did not have tho courage to designate them, as my hon. friend from Humboldt had.

Topic:   WAR-TIME ELECTIONS ACT.
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR THIRD READING DISCUSSED UNDER RUDE 17B.
Full View Permalink

September 14, 1917

Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):

Since the question of conscription was first brought into this House -a few months ago, I have been endeavouring to treat all these matters in connection with winning the war as free -as I possibly could of partisanship. It is a somewhat difficult position, especially as this afternoon I was made the subject of an attack by my friends -on this side of the House. However, I do not pay very much attention to that. The question we are now discussing is the Franchise Act, and I look on the Franchise Act as more or less connected with winning the war.

Topic:   WAR-TIME ELECTIONS ACT.
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR THIRD READING DISCUSSED UNDER RUDE 17B.
Full View Permalink

September 14, 1917

Mr. TURRIFF:

It is not necessary for

any one to put words into my mouth. I know what I want to say, and I propose saying it in my own way. If I were disposed to do so, I might say that I think the winning of the election will have a great deal to do with the winning of the war. However, the question we are discussing to-

night is the Franchise Act. I do not agree with all the features of the Franchise Bill now before the House. I can-9 p.m. not bring myself to believe that disfranchising anybody is a good policy or is a necessary policy for winning the war. During the local election held a short time -ago in Saskatchewan, that question was up rather strongly, brought about principally by my hon. friend from North Simeoe (Mr. Currie). I took a strong -stand then against disenfranchising anybody, and I do not propose to change m-y views on the subject, and on this occasion, in spite of the ill-natured remarks-as I take them to be-of my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) this afternoon, I intend to support h-is amendment. During this debate I have on two occasions voted in favour of the closure, and I did so feeling absolutely certain that as we are right at the closing of the term of Parliament, unless the closure were adopted this Bill would never have got through at all, and there would be no Election Act whatever, and we would be in a state of confusion. Judging by the bright speeches which have been made during the last two or three weeks under closure, better debates have taken place than when every member was given all the latitude he chose to take. My judgment is that many men on both sides of the House on this occasion have put as much into twenty minutes as would be put into an hour's- and very often into two hours' discussion without closure. It seems to me when the next Parliament meets it would not be a bad idea, whichever party is in power, to take up the question of curtailing discussions in this House, -and so shorten the -sessions, that we may not be here -six, or seven, or eight months.

This Bill, as I look :at it, is mo-re or less of a party Bill. It could not be otherwise. It is brought in by one party. I think I am fair in saying that it i-s introduced more for winning the war than -tar -any advantage to the Conservative party, because if my hon. friends on the other side of the House think the Bill will help them win elections for many years to come in the West, they are labouring under a delusion. However, whose fault -is it that the Bill is brought in -as -a party measure? I -think it is only fair to say that the right hon. leader of the Government has made every effort to have a union or national Government to bring in this measure. I feel th-at -a much better measure could have -been prepared by -a union or national Government. At the same time, I do not think it is the fault of

the present 'Government that we have not a national government to introduce this measure. In my judgment a national government would be better than any party government could possibly be during the war, and I am satisfied if we had a national government there would have been no necessity for disfranchising anybody. I would have preferred to put the matter squarely before all classes of people and take my chances. Possibly, by disfranchising certain diasses of people, we may help win the war. This Bill may help elect a win-the-Wiar government, but I am not so sure of that, and for what little advantage there may be in it I do not thinx it was worth while. If I understood my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) rightly this afternoon, he likened us twenty-six Liberals who had voted for conscription to Judases.

Topic:   WAR-TIME ELECTIONS ACT.
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR THIRD READING DISCUSSED UNDER RUDE 17B.
Full View Permalink

September 14, 1917

Mr. TURRIFF:

My hon. friend from Edmonton need not worry about my conscience. If the appellation Judas can be applied to a man who votes against his party, my hon. friend from Edmonton is certainly an authority on the subject. I remember that, not so many years ago, he made these lialls ring with his denunciation of the very people he is now so anxious about, and he was voting against his party, which was in power then, almost as often as he was voting with it. However, he had a perfect right to do that if he wished, and I have ao objection. I do object, however, to be called a Judas because on one occasion I have differed from my leader.

My leader, the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), has been bigger, as we would naturally expect, than my hon. friend from Edmonton or my hon. friend from Humboldt. He said to every man on this side of the House: If you do not agree with my views, do exactly

as you like. But the hon. member for Edmonton and the hon. member for Humboldt apparently think that because a member on this side of the House takes that position, he must, if possible, be driven out of the party. I usually use my own judgment and nothing they can do, one way or the other, will influence me in the slightest degree as to what position I will take on this or any other question that may happen to come up.

The hon. member for Humboldt stated this afternoon that I had broken faith with the conscription Liberals by the action I took at the Winnipeg convention. I did nothing of the kind. He also stated that my amendment to the win-the-war motion that was brought up in the convention was unanimously voted against. If he had been watching-and he was on the platform- he would have found that some hundreds of votes were given in favour of my amendment.

Topic:   WAR-TIME ELECTIONS ACT.
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR THIRD READING DISCUSSED UNDER RUDE 17B.
Full View Permalink