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 5 of 148)


March 29, 1927

Mr. DENIS (Joliette):

In view of the

opinions expressed by hon. members I would not be opposed to allowing the motion to stand.

Topic:   PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION TO REDUCE QUORUM
Full View Permalink

March 9, 1927

Mr. DENIS (Joliette):

For a list of all the civil servants in Canada earning a salary at the rate of $3,000 a year or over, on the date of January 1, 1927, indicating in each case, the full name of the person, the grade or nature of the work done, the salary so earned and the department in which that person is working, all names for each separate department being grouped together.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   CIVIL SERVANTS EARNING S3,000 AND UPWARDS
Full View Permalink

March 8, 1927

Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette) moved:

That the quorum of the select standing committee on privileges and elections be reduced from fifteen to eight members.

984 COMMONS

Privileges and Elections Committee

He said: I think I should give some explanation regarding this motion. Each year a striking committee is appointed to nominate the select standing committees and that committee has the power to determine what shall be the quorum of a standing committee of the House. In some cases that committee provides what shall be a quorum and in other cases it does not. The quorum was not fixed this year for the standing committee on privileges and elections; therefore a quorum should be a majority of the committee, and as there are twenty-nine members the quorum stands at fifteen. On the 2nd, 3rd and 8th March this committee on privileges and elections was called. Unfortunately we have been unable on each of these occasions to secure a quorum; therefore there is no report of the committee before the House, as we could not make a report until a quorum had been obtained. The members of that committee who were present at the different meetings suggested to me that I, as chairman, should move to have the quorum of the committee reduced, because the members of the committee were afraid that if the quorum remained at fifteen it would be very difficult if not impossible for the committee to sit this session. That is the reason I am making this motion. By way of comparison, I might draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines is composed of 129 members and the quorum has been fixed at 25, less than 20 per cent. The private bills committee is composed of 65 members, and the quorum has been placed at 10. lhe committee on standing orders is composed of 33 members and the quorum is fixed at 7.

Topic:   PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
Full View Permalink

March 2, 1927

Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):

In opening

my remarks, I wish to congratulate very heartily the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin) on the excellent speech which he has just made. If one would consider this matter with an unbiased and an open mind I think he would find that the

resolution speaks for itself so clearly and eloquently that it need not be defended. There might be details which some hon. members would not be ready to accept, but I think the principle of the resolution is as solid as a rock in this country. I do not want to be called a nationalist, or to insist that every person must speak both languages or speak the French language. In dealing with this subject I have not in mind any particular race or any particular group; I am speaking only in the interests of Canada and in the public interest. I ask hon. members, is it not true that a public servant in this country who speaks both languages can render more efficient service? I do not refer to members of parliament or others in public life, but to those who are members of the civil service. Do hon. members not think that a man with a knowledge of both languages is in a better position to work in the public interest than the man who speaks only one language?

The soundness of the proposal involved in the resolution cannot be denied. One may like or dislike the fundamental principle of the resolution, but no one can deny the general proposition. Those who have lived in Ottawa for a few years and have had occasion to come in contact with the departments have found that in almost every department or branch the chief has two secretaries, one French and one English. Is that necessary? Who pays for that, if it is not the state? The state is paying two secretaries in many instances when only one should be employed. If this resolution were adopted it would mean that in every branch of a department one who could speak both languages would be employed rather than two, one for the English language and one for the French. We should have one employee, not French, not English, but bilingual. The resolution asks, therefore, that in all appointments candidates who understand both languages should have the preference. I submit that that is perfectly just and right. It is fair to the country that we should consider the public interest, and fair to the individual who has gone to the trouble of learning the two languages.

The resolution provides further that employees having a knowledge of both official languages should receive better remuneration.

I suppose some people might object to that proposition. I would not commit myself to it, because it is a detail. The point to which I want to commit myself is that the bilingual employee should have the preference.

The resolution states also that the superiority of the employees possessing a knowledge of both languages should be considered in all

Civil Service-French Language

classifications. I think if we accept the first half of the resolution we accept also the last part of it, because the moment you adopt the principle that the preference is to be given to those who speak both languages, you admit their superiority. I do not argue that all should speak both languages, but I want to give my humble support to the eloquent speech made by my hon. friend, and to announce to the House and the country at large that I am supporting the proposition.

Topic:   THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT
Subtopic:   PREFERENCE TO THOSE WHO HAVE A KNOWLEDGE OF BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Full View Permalink

March 2, 1927

Mr. DENIS (Joliette):

Because the civil

servants are working in the public interest.

Topic:   THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT
Subtopic:   PREFERENCE TO THOSE WHO HAVE A KNOWLEDGE OF BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Full View Permalink