Jean-Joseph DENIS

DENIS, Jean-Joseph, Q.C.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Joliette (Quebec)
Birth Date
January 27, 1876
Deceased Date
September 22, 1960
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Joseph_Denis
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=691705c6-e71f-4fae-a033-f5eeacf51c8d&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
L LIB
  Joliette (Quebec)
December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
LIB
  Joliette (Quebec)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
LIB
  Joliette (Quebec)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
LIB
  Joliette (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2 of 148)


May 9, 1928

Mr. DENIS ( Joliette):

Let me assure my hon. friend, as I said in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), that no hon. member is by any means committed to the principle of the bill in voting for the second reading of it. The sole purpose is to have the bill sent to the railway committee. I would not ask my hon. friend to commit himself to the principle of the bill. Indeed I am not committed to it myself, if it can be .proved that it is unsound.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES AND ATLANTIC CANAL AND POWER COMPANY, LIMITED
Full View Permalink

May 9, 1928

Mr. DENIS (Joliette):

I do not want to take up the time of the house, but it is perfectly understood and agreed that no member is committed to this bill by the mere fact that it gets its second reading. We simply want to send it to the committee to have it examined.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   GREAT LAKES AND ATLANTIC CANAL AND POWER COMPANY, LIMITED
Full View Permalink

May 8, 1928

Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):

On the orders of the day yesterday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) requested an explanation regarding the sittings of the committee on privileges and elections. I did not at the time gather the full purport of the question and I asked to be allowed to give the hon. gentleman an answer last night at eight o'clock. Inasmuch as the house was in committee of the whole on resumption at eight o'clock I had no opportunity of making a statement on the matter, and I should like to do So now. I have read Hansard carefully and I find that the leader of the opposition stated that according to the votes and proceedings on May 3 the committee on privileges and elections had been called for Tuesday, May 8 -that is, to-day-while, according to the votes and proceedings of the next day, May 4, the committee is now scheduled to meet on May 10 instead. The hon. member asks for an explanation, and he follows this up with the statement that he had already made arrangements to be present on May 8, this change in dates being of course inconvenient to him. I may offer this explanation. The last day on which the committee met was Thursday, May 3, and when the committee rose, to resume at the call of the chair, I immediately went to the clerk and asked him to reserve, as the date of the next meeting, May 8. This was suggested tentatively because I was not sure at the time whether certain documents which are expected from the Attorney General of the province of Alberta would be available on that date. Nevertheless, seeing that we have experienced considerable difficulty and a good deal of trouble in getting together not only this but other committees, and as there are not sufficient rooms available for the committees, I deemed it wise to retain May 8 as the next date of meeting. I thought it best to reserve that date at once and I asked the clerk to arrange accordingly. I was not then aware that the mere fact of my asking the clerk to reserve May 8 would mean the printing of that date in the votes and proceedings as

Athabaska Election

the next date of meeting. Unfortunately this was done, and the following day, May 4, being afraid that the documents for which we were waiting would not be available on May 8, and not wishing to have the committee meet unnecessarily, I went back to the clerk and requested him to make it May 10 instead of May 8. There might be a further explanation regarding the necessity for the documents to which I have referred, but I do not think that my hon. friend's question bears any relation to that. As regards the inconvenience caused the hon. gentleman, I express my regret. It is my mistake and I am sorry.

Topic:   PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
Subtopic:   ATHABASKA ELECTION-QUESTION AS TO MEETING OF COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink

May 7, 1928

Mr. DENIS (Joliette):

No doubt it is my fault, Mr. Speaker, but I did not quite understand the question asked by the leader of the opposition. If I might be permitted to do so, I will read his question and give an answer at five o'clock this afternoon or at eight o'clock to-night.

Topic:   PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
Subtopic:   ATHABASCA ELECTION-QUESTION AS TO MEETING OF COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink

May 4, 1928

Mr. DENIS (Joliette):

This company which has a federal charter is a private company the bonds of which were guaranteed quite a number of years ago by the Alberta government. The shares are owned by the Alberta government. The deputy minister of railways in the Alberta government should therefore be entitled to have something to say in connection with this bill and I am informed, rightly or wrongly-and if I am wrong I want to be corrected-that he urged upon the mover of the bill to bring it before parliament. First of all, if the Alberta government are behind this bill, they should say so and be represented by their own government. There are many ways in which that can be done by them. If we take it for granted that the Alberta government are indirectly sponsoring the bill, my information is that they have pledged themselves to construct only twenty-five miles of the total mileage covered by the bill. If that

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway

be so, it would tend to prove that the Alberta government do not approve the bill as it now stands.

But I am not here to plead the ease of the Alberta government; I am here to plead the case of the Dominion government and the interest of Canada in this bill. The hon. member for Peace River will correct me in a moment if I am wrong. It has been said that the road is about to be sold to the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific. That the road should be sold to the Canadian Pacific does not interest me so much, but that it should be sold to the Canadian National does interest me because the Canadian National is the property of the Dominion of Canada. In the past we have had bitter experiences in connection with railways which have been constructed by private companies or even by provincial governments, if there be any such cases, and which have later turned out to be a liability on the hands of those who constructed them. In those cases they have felt that the best thing they could do was to turn the railways over to the federal government. A few years ago a gentleman from Manitoba who sat in this house used to speak quite frequently in regard to railway matters and to say that the government of the day had loaded themselves up with a lot of lame ducks. That is true. Our railway policies in the past have been anything but what they should have been.

If this road is (to belong to the Canadian National Railways or to the federal government, they should have something to do with the bill, and if extensions to the present line are to be made in one direction or another those extensions should not be made unless the Canadian National approve them. I

know I shall be told immediately that the Canadian National are not the owners of the road and therefore have nothing to do with it. That is the old argument. The Canadian National did not own a number of railways that were built outside of their control and with the consent and approval of parliament over a period of twenty-five years, but the Canadian National and the people of Canada became owners of those roads. When a venture proved to be a bad one, it was put upon the shoulders of the Canadian people. I shall have something more to say later on, but for the time being I should like to hear the hon. member for Peace River answer the point which I have raised.

Topic:   EDMONTON, DTJNVEGAN AND BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY
Full View Permalink