Frederick William BORDEN

BORDEN, The Hon. Sir Frederick William, P.C., K.C.M.G., B.A., M.D.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Kings (Nova Scotia)
Birth Date
May 14, 1847
Deceased Date
January 6, 1917
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_William_Borden
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=40fc41ed-f3f0-41b5-bb07-da9a6af9d52f&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
businessman, physician

Parliamentary Career

January 22, 1874 - August 16, 1878
LIB
  Kings (Nova Scotia)
September 17, 1878 - May 18, 1882
LIB
  Kings (Nova Scotia)
February 22, 1887 - February 3, 1891
LIB
  Kings (Nova Scotia)
March 5, 1891 - April 24, 1896
LIB
  Kings (Nova Scotia)
February 13, 1892 - April 24, 1896
LIB
  Kings (Nova Scotia)
June 23, 1896 - October 9, 1900
LIB
  Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of Militia and Defence (July 13, 1896 - October 6, 1911)
July 30, 1896 - October 9, 1900
LIB
  Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of Militia and Defence (July 13, 1896 - October 6, 1911)
November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
LIB
  Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of Militia and Defence (July 13, 1896 - October 6, 1911)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
LIB
  Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of Militia and Defence (July 13, 1896 - October 6, 1911)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
LIB
  Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of Militia and Defence (July 13, 1896 - October 6, 1911)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 619)


June 19, 1917

Sir EOBEKT BOEDEN:

I beg to lay upon the table of the House copies of Order in Council approved by His Excellency on the 16th instant, providing for the appointment of an officer to be known as Food Controller for Canada. I have further to inform the House that the Hon. W. J. Hanna, Toronto, has been asked to accept the position of Food Controller, and he states that he is free to do so upon the condition that no salary shall be attached to the office.

Topic:   FOOD CONTKOLLEB.
Subtopic:   HON. W. J. HANNA APPOINTED FOOD CONTROLLER.
Full View Permalink

May 5, 1916

Sir BOBEET BOEDEN:

The change that was made was an enlargement of the chamber. The chamber of the Boss rifle, I understand, was slightly smaller than that of the Lee-Enfield. The Lee-Enfield chamber was slightly enlarged, and the chamber of the Boss rifle enlarged to a still greater extent, and I believe that the enlarged chamber of the Boss rifle is now somewhat larger than the enlarged chamber of the Lee-Enfield. It is said, however, by those who are in a better position to judge of these matters than I am, that the jamming to which allusion has been made was occasioned by the character of a certain quality of amunition which at one time was being served out, but which I think has since been withdrawn. I am informed that neither with the Boss nor the Lee-Enfield has any great difficulty been experienced when other ammunition was used. As a matter of fact, when our own ammunition, manufactured in this country, was used in the Boss rifle no considerable difficulty in jamming occured.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

May 5, 1916

Sir EOBEET BOEDEN:

I have heard stories of our men picking up the Lee-Enfield rifle, and I have ako heard stories of British soldiers picking up the Boss rifle in preference to their own. I have been told it is not an uncommon thing for a soldier, when a rifle of a different type is available, to think for the time being it is better than his own, and to favour the idea of making the change. As far as the sale of rifles is concerned, I should like my hon. friend to bear in mind that the Boss rifle was adopted by the late Administration, instead of the Lee-Enfield, as the rifle our soldiers were to be armed with. It was a model weapon that was adopted. It is perfectly true that the contract made by the late Administration with the Boss Bifle Company provided that the Government might from time to time require the production of rifles of a different model, if it saw fit, provided it would pay the cost of the neo ssary machinery, gauges and other alterations of a complex character that the change would necessitate. The Lee-Enfield rifles, ,and some of the Lee-Metfords, I think, were disposed of, as they were not required while that policy was being carried on. The policy with regard to the Boss rifle was not changed when the present Administration came into power. I deprecate the idea of endeavouring to convey * the impression, either to the House or to the country, but especially to our own troops, that the rifle with which they are armed is not a suitable weapon. Any idea of that kind, I think, would be most un-

fortunate, and do a great deal of 'harm. If we had any choice a3 to the rifle to be used there might be some obiect in it, but inasmuch as, under present conditions, we have to use the Boss rifle or nothing, I for one can see no good reason why any hon. gentleman in this House should seek to cast discredit on the rifle with which our troops are armed. There was a good deal of discussion about the Boss rifle some years ago, and there ha3 been some discussion since the war broke out. To avoid a particular difficulty that occurred at the front a change has been made in the Boss rifle. A difficulty occurred at the front, not only with the Boss rifle, but with the Lee-Enfield as well, and a change corresponding to that made in the Boss rifle has also been made, I am informed, in the Lee-Enfield, and with good results in both cases.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

April 11, 1916

Sir EOBEET BOEDEN:

The Board of

Eailway Commissioners can do the same thing, because they must approve also; and, if they arbitrarily refuse approval, then, as a matter of fact, the project embodied in a private Act of Parliament for the construction of a railway could not be carried out. But we do not find that such bodies act in that arbitrary way, and the Board of Eailway Commissioners will be governed by conditions, and by public opinion in the exercise of the powers which are conferred upon it by this Bill, just as the minister and the Board of Eailway Commissioners have been governed by conditions, by public necessity, in exercising the powers which would still remain to them if this Bill were not passed. After all, it does not seem to me that the portion of the Bill to which my hon. friend objects really deals with more than what one might call a detail. The provision is this:

If the board deems that the construction of a railway upon the proposed location or upon any portion thereof is not in the public Interest it shall refuse approval of the whole or of such portion.

That necessarily would be their power, by arbitrary refusal of approval, to accomplish that very thing under present conditions. The provision goes on:

And in any case where the board deems It in the public interest it may, as to any portion of the proposed railway, make any order, or require the taking of any proceedings, provided for by subsection seven and eight of this section.

That is, they may insist upon the granting of running powers fipon some other railway located substantially in the same place, which will be able to perform not only the service that it has already undertaken, but the additional service which would be performed by the new railway if it were constructed. The purpose of the Bill is to avoid the duplication of railway lines and the construction of unnecessary lines, so far as that is consistent with affording a reasonable and necessary service to the public.

Topic:   II, 1916
Full View Permalink

April 11, 1916

Sir EOBEET BOEDEN:

The section follows precisely the form which was submitted to Parliament in the Consolidated Eailway Bill of two years ago. My hon. friend, I think, is conjuring up some difficulties that are not likely to occur. As a matter of fact, the governing authorities of any country, if they acted to the extreme measure of their powers and in defiance of convention and public opinion, would ren-

der the government of the country absolutely unworkable. A great many illustrations could be given of that. As a matter of fact, the Eailway Act itself, as quoted by my hon. friend, would afford an illustration of it. The Minister of Bailways and Canals, by arbitrarily refusing approval, might defeat the intention of Parliament as expressed in any Act.

Topic:   II, 1916
Full View Permalink