David TISDALE

TISDALE, The Hon. David, P.C., K.C.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Norfolk (Ontario)
Birth Date
September 8, 1835
Deceased Date
March 31, 1911
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tisdale
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=767d2ad4-15bd-4cc2-9ce2-29707e4c6128&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

February 22, 1887 - February 3, 1891
CON
  Norfolk South (Ontario)
March 5, 1891 - April 24, 1896
CON
  Norfolk South (Ontario)
June 23, 1896 - October 9, 1900
CON
  Norfolk South (Ontario)
  • Minister of Militia and Defence (May 1, 1896 - July 8, 1896)
November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
CON
  Norfolk South (Ontario)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
CON
  Norfolk (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 134)


June 12, 1905

Mr. TISDALE.

Topic:   EMPLOYMENT OF LONDON MILITIAMEN AT NIAGARA.
Full View Permalink

June 12, 1905

Mr. TISDALE.

In other words there may be anticipated a very large expenditure. It will all depend on how these fortifications are manned and armed at the present time.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITIA ACT AMENDMENT-PERMANENT FORCE.
Full View Permalink

June 12, 1905

Mr. TISDALE.

Do you know what it L eans to undertake the defence of two fortifications that ought be second to none in the world so that the fleet of Great Britain, may be safe under the guns of these forts. That is a thing that requires serious consideration. I want to know what the cost will be for five or ten years to come. I will go as far as any one eise to endorse any reasonable expenditure for the defence of Canada and the empire, but I want to be sure that we know what we are undertaking and I want to be certain also that our maintainance of these fortifications so vital to the empire, will be thorough. I would have a great deal of hesitation about committing myself to this proposition without further information. I agree to a certain extent with my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) in regard to a standing army. I suppose there is a distinction between a permanent force and a standing army; the difference may be in the name but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. So far, our permanent force has been confined to schools of instruction, to aiding the civil power so that the volunteers may not be involved, and as forming a nucleus which we may rely ou in case we want- to call out a large military force. But now you are going to put the permanent force into fortifications, and they must be instructed in the most modern military tactics.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITIA ACT AMENDMENT-PERMANENT FORCE.
Full View Permalink

June 12, 1905

Mr. TISDALE.

If these fortifications were only for the defence of Canada it would be an entirely different thing. I do not want to oppose this proposition if I possibly can avoid it, but I certainly must know what we are doing before I support it. Speaking as a Canadian I would be proud to make an expenditure for the joint defence of the empire and of Canada, but it goes past pride and becomes conceit when any one thinks that the defence of Canada is more important than the defence of the empire. I will join with the government in any reasonable expense, but I want first to know what we are about.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITIA ACT AMENDMENT-PERMANENT FORCE.
Full View Permalink

June 12, 1905

Mr. TISDALE.

Don't begin too fast, and don't begin unnecessarily, and don't forget that you are now undertaking not only to defend Canadian interests but imperial interests as well. It is one thing to provide

for the defences of Canada alone, and it is another thing to undertake the defence of the empire.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MILITIA ACT AMENDMENT-PERMANENT FORCE.
Full View Permalink