Robert Laird BORDEN

BORDEN, The Right Hon. Sir Robert Laird, P.C., G.C.M.G., K.C., D.C.L., LL.D.

Parliamentary Career

June 23, 1896 - October 9, 1900
CON
  Halifax (Nova Scotia)
November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
CON
  Halifax (Nova Scotia)
  • Leader of the Official Opposition (February 6, 1901 - October 9, 1911)
February 4, 1905 - September 17, 1908
CON
  Carleton (Ontario)
  • Leader of the Official Opposition (February 6, 1901 - October 9, 1911)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
CON
  Halifax (Nova Scotia)
  • Leader of the Official Opposition (February 6, 1901 - October 9, 1911)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Halifax (Nova Scotia)
  • Leader of the Official Opposition (February 6, 1901 - October 9, 1911)
  • Prime Minister (October 10, 1911 - October 11, 1917)
  • President of the Privy Council (October 10, 1911 - October 11, 1917)
  • Secretary of State for External Affairs (April 1, 1912 - October 11, 1917)
October 10, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Halifax (Nova Scotia)
  • Prime Minister (October 10, 1911 - October 11, 1917)
  • President of the Privy Council (October 10, 1911 - October 11, 1917)
  • Secretary of State for External Affairs (April 1, 1912 - October 11, 1917)
October 27, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Halifax (Nova Scotia)
  • Prime Minister (October 10, 1911 - October 11, 1917)
  • President of the Privy Council (October 10, 1911 - October 11, 1917)
  • Secretary of State for External Affairs (April 1, 1912 - October 11, 1917)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Kings (Nova Scotia)
  • Prime Minister (October 12, 1917 - July 9, 1920)
  • Secretary of State for External Affairs (October 12, 1917 - July 9, 1920)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 3580)


May 25, 1921

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

It would vary in different instances.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

May 25, 1921

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I am taking as correct everything that my hon. friend has said.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

May 23, 1921

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

Every one

understands perfectly well that evidence taken before a court of justice in Quebec or any other province is not evidence before a committee of this House. The question what is evidence before a committee of this House is, in the first place, a question for the committee itself and not for this committee. That committee must decide what is evidence, and if they go wrong, an appeal can be taken to this House. The point of order, as I understand it, in the first instance was this. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side desired to have this Bill referred back in order that evidence might be given for the purpose of disproving the conclusion at which the, committee of the Senate had arrived. I did not understand them to suggest that evidence taken before a court in Montreal would be evidence before this committee. They were giving the fact that evidence of that character had been given in the Superior Court of Montreal as evidence to show that evidence of the same character should be given before a committee of this House. Then the question was raised whether or not it would be competent for that committee to hear such evidence if it should be given in a proper way. My intervention was merely to say that I thought it was perfectly competent for that committee to hear that evidence if it were tendered in a proper way.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS FIRST AND SECOND READINGS
Full View Permalink

May 23, 1921

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

My hon.

friend does not remember the ruling given by the Chairman a little while ago. If it is desired to refer the Bill back to the Private Bills Committee, we shall have to proceed in another way. We must have the Bill reported, and before it is read the third time, some hon. member can move that the order for third reading be discharged and that the Bill be referred back to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills for the purpose of taking further evidence; or some hon. member can move that the Committee of the Whole rise and report progress, and when progress is reported a motion can be made that the order for reference to the Committee of the Whole be discharged and that the Bill be referred back to the Private Bills Committee. The same result would be attained in either case, but you cannot refer the Bill back to the committee at this stage.

I am perfectly satisfied, since reading the evidence, that there is ample proof that the woman has been guilty of adultery.

It is quite possible that the husband also has been guilty of adultery, and it is equally possible that there may have been collusion. The difficulty about dealing with these questions, in the way they are dealt with in this Parliament, is that the ordinary precautions taken in a court to guard against collusion, are not taken here; and I must confess that sometimes I am a little surprised at the attitude of some of my hon. friends on the other side of the , House. If they want to restrict divorce and put proper safeguards around it, then all these questions ought to be referred to the courts, where the necessary precautions can be observed. You cannot very well have these safeguards so long as the present procedure is continued. You have a sub-committee of the Committee on Miscellaneous Bills going over to the Senate and watching the evidence, and, after all, that is little better than a makeshift. There are circumstances in this case that seem to point to the possibility of collusion. What would take place if these matters were relegated to the Court?

The King's Proctor would be there, and would institute an immediate inquiry as to whether or not there was collusion. You would have a subpoena issued by the Court, bringing the woman before the Court, and she would be examined thoroughly and exhaustively in respect of every circum-tance that might point to collusion or otherwise. You cannot very well carry out any such procedure as that in the Senate or in a Committee of the House of Commons, but you could take every necessary precaution and exercise every safeguard if these questions of divorce were dealt with in the proper way. I hope the committee will pardon me for this suggestion, which has often occurred to me. Let me repeat again: if it is desired to refer this Bill back, some procedure other than that which my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), has just suggested, must be adopted.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS FIRST AND SECOND READINGS
Full View Permalink

May 23, 1921

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I should think that instead of the word "is" in the sixth line the words "shall occur" should be substituted; it is the future tense.

Topic:   BANKRUPTCY ACT
Full View Permalink