Donald MACLENNAN

MACLENNAN, The Hon. Donald, Q.C., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Inverness--Richmond (Nova Scotia)
Birth Date
March 2, 1877
Deceased Date
October 19, 1953
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_MacLennan
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=4d3cba0c-1c67-4806-b1e4-bf231bb9da40&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister

Parliamentary Career

October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
LIB
  Inverness--Richmond (Nova Scotia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 5)


February 5, 1937

Mr. MacLENNAN:

The hon. member

attributes it to politics?

Topic:   $1.78S,000.
Full View Permalink

February 5, 1937

Mr. MacLENNAN:

Is it not efficient now?

Topic:   $1.78S,000.
Full View Permalink

January 21, 1937

Mr. DONALD MacLENNAN (Inverness-Richmond):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word in support of the motion. In the 1033 revision the counties of Inverness and Richmond were joined to make the present constituency of Inverness-Richmond. This constituency is over 300 miles long. A man would need a good automobile and would have to be a tireless driver to go from one end of the constituency to the other in a single day. On the other hand, the constituency represented by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Hartigan) is so small that he can drive from the centre to the end in any direction in one hour and a half. I am not complaining about the number of people who live within a district; all I say is that it is utterly impossible for anyone to look properly after the constituency which I represent. There are more than 300 miles of shore line filled with coves and inlets, and a man would have to spend his entire time and even then would find it impossible to go over the constituency as he should.

I was very glad to hear the hon. member to my immediate right say that the boundaries of a constituency could be changed by parliament without a new census being taken. If that can be done, I think the house should pass this resolution and refer this whole matter to a committee in order that it may be studied. If nothing can be done this year, perhaps the matter may be considered at the next session. In the meantime, we would have an opportunity of looking into these matters and suggesting necessary corrections. I am not finding fault with what has been done nor am I imputing motives, but I must say that it seems almost ridiculous to have such a large constituency territorially as the one which I represent. I therefore have pleasure in supporting the motion.

Topic:   MOTION FOR SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO STUDY MORE EQUITABLE READJUSTMENT OF REPRESENTATION
Full View Permalink

June 12, 1936

Mr. MacLENNAN:

I wanted to bring the instance before the minister to see if something could not be done, for I am sure if he were seized of the facte he would be sympathetic because in this instance they really couldi not afford to borrow the money to bury this soldier. Possibly some rule prevents anything being done in this instance, but sometimes rules are very illogical, and on this occasion the rule was not very logical. If this man were above ground he would be buried by the last post fund, but the moment he goes underneath the ground he does not come under the fund.

Topic:   PENSION ACT AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

June 12, 1936

Mr. MacLENNAN:

I do not know whether my observations should be made at this point, but I wish to say one or two things about an instance which came to my attention, and I am suggesting that some provision should be made against such contingencies. The soldier I have in mind went overseas and performed the duties of a soldier in France. After being gassed or wounded he came back and was not in receipt of a pension. In order to seek a livelihood he went to the United States, in which country he died not long ago. In order to prevent his being buried in a pauper's grave certain friends of his in my constituency borrowed the money to defray expenses of his burial. I have written the minister stating these facts and he replies that there is no provision whereby the friends of a soldier, once he has been buried, may obtain any money from the last post fund. In this instance a friend borrowed the money -and I know this, because I endorsed the note-in order to prevent the soldier's burial in a pauper's grave. Now the minister says, *"Oh, he is buried; we cannot touch it." I am asking the minister if he could reimburse the friend who had no legal obligation to bury the soldier. I am just wondering why a person who spends money in this way should not be reimbursed, and if he is not I wonder why the last post fund was created. It will not do for the minister to say that there may be abuses. In the particular instance I have cited I really do not see why some provision could not be made. I am fully aware of the overreaching of certain people because they were soldiers overseas, but I think the particular instance I have mentioned should not be barred.

Topic:   PENSION ACT AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink