Ross Wilfred GRAY

GRAY, Ross Wilfred

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Lambton West (Ontario)
Birth Date
January 5, 1897
Deceased Date
December 11, 1968
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Gray_(politician)
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=f4ceca5f-a3b8-45ec-9f93-1bdbf0a83ec1&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister

Parliamentary Career

January 14, 1929 - May 30, 1930
LIB
  Lambton West (Ontario)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
LIB
  Lambton West (Ontario)
October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
LIB
  Lambton West (Ontario)
  • Whip of the Liberal Party (January 1, 1937 - January 1, 1940)
  • Chief Government Whip (January 1, 1937 - January 1, 1940)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
LIB
  Lambton West (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 147)


August 12, 1944

Mr. R. W. GRAY (Lambton West):

I wish to lay on the table a petition signed by Neil McLeod of Sarnia and several hundred others praying that full effect be given to what is commonly known as bill No. 80.

Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): I have a similar petition signed by several hundred persons requesting that bill No. 80 be implemented at once in order that the lives of our men overseas may be saved and reinforcements given to our troops.

Mr. II. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale): I have a similar petition from the constituency of Rosedale signed by approximately two hundred persons, and another from the constituency of Spadina bearing approximately sixty names.

Topic:   CANADIAN FORCES
Subtopic:   PETITIONS WITH RESPECT TO APPLICATION OF N.R.M.A. ACT
Full View Permalink

July 27, 1944

Mr. GRAY:

I realize that I am out of order in reverting to section 3, but the minister has been very liberal, and we passed these sections rather rapidly. I hope that in spite of the fact that that section has passed, the minister, in the light of what has been said, and in the light of experience under the old act, which was renewed, as he pointed out, for some thirteen years, will remove the time limit under clause 3. I hope there will not be a time limit in this act, and I wish the minister would give the committee the reasons for putting one in. I endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. It takes members of the armed forces a number of years to get on their feet and become reestablished. The young men who come out of this war, though they may be a little better informed on insurance matters than those who survived the last war, know very little, at the age of eighteen or twenty or twenty-one, about the various types of insurance. I think it is a mistake to have a time limit of three years. The bill would be more generally acceptable to the returned men of this war and to the country generally if that limit were removed, and I urge the minister to remove it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   VETERANS' INSURANCE
Full View Permalink

July 27, 1944

Mr. GRAY:

Before I supplement what the hon. member for Brantford City has said, I should like to ask if there is any date of expiration in this bill.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   VETERANS' INSURANCE
Full View Permalink

July 27, 1944

Mr. GRAY:

I call the minister's attention to class IV in schedule B, where it states:

In cases where an applicant with or without dependents whose health has become impaired as a result of immoral conduct prior to enlistment, during service or after discharge.

Applications are to be refused.

We might as well discuss this matter frankly. I presume the thought in connection with this general class has to do with the man who has contracted venereal disease. That is what is aimed at. May I at the outset commend the minister and the Department cf Pensions and National Health upon the vigorous campaign waged in the past few months in connection with the elimination of venereal disease. It does seem to me however that this clause, which refers to men who contracted the disease prior to enlistment and afterwards served, and men who

contracted it during service, should be limited to men who refused treatment, thereby putting themselves apart and in a situation where they do not deserve to receive insurance.. I am not holding any brief for these people, but I am afraid that, worded as it is

"as a result of immoral conduct prior to enlistment, during service or after discharge" -it is too -broad, and is subject to the possibility of misinterpretation by returned men. It would also be subject to abuse, if I may say so, either by departmental officers or by a minister who might not see the returned man's point of view in the same way as the present minister might see it.

I am sure the minister must know of cases under the old Pension Act where what I have said would apply. I recall particularly cases in which illegitimate children were involved, and where the chairman of the then pension commission would almost refuse to read the files if anything of that nature was contained in them. My recollection is-and it is quite vivid to-day-that he had a stack of files almost as high as himself sitting in one corner of his room, and he would not even look at them because of the nature of the material they contained. I urge the minister to reconsider this class, or at least to give us some explanation for the present wording.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   VETERANS' INSURANCE
Full View Permalink

July 27, 1944

Mr. GRAY:

Yes, that would be satisfactory.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   VETERANS' INSURANCE
Full View Permalink