Joseph Alexandre Camille MADORE

MADORE, Joseph Alexandre Camille, B.C.L.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Hochelaga (Quebec)
Birth Date
August 3, 1858
Deceased Date
November 3, 1906
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Alexandre_Camille_Madore
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=83c162c1-32ed-4e1b-b19a-43041ba461b3&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

June 23, 1896 - October 9, 1900
LIB
  Hochelaga (Quebec)
November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
LIB
  Hochelaga (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 2)


April 17, 1903

Mr. J. A. C. MADORE (Hochelaga).

(Translation). I present the third report of the Select Standing Committee appointed to supervise the Official Report of the Debates of the House during the present session, which is as follows

Your committee recommend that the sum of $250, being the equivalent of a gratuity of two months' salary, usually allowed to widows of officials under the Civil Service Act, shall be

paid to the widow of the late N. H.. Beaulieu, who, during his life-time, was a member of the staff of translators of the Official Report of the Debates.

Topic:   OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES.
Full View Permalink

April 3, 1902

Mr. MADORE.

That is exactly what 1 have stated, that, as far as I am concerned and the people I represent, we have no

objection; but it is a question for this House, whether we are going to lose the time of the committee for the pleasure of Mr. Armstrong and company.

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Full View Permalink

April 3, 1902

Mr. J. A. C. MADORE (Hochelaga).

I rise to endorse what has been stated by the chairman of the Railway Committee (Mr. Hyman). I made the motion in the committee which killed this Bill, and I see no reason in the world why it should be sent back for further consideration. Speaking for myself personally, as well as for those whom I represent, we have no objection that the Bill should be sent back, because we know very well that when the committee have heard full explanations from both sides they would not for a moment think of passing this charter of the Montreal Bridge Company to extend the time for the building of that bridge. But the question arises : Is there any reason why the Railway Committee of this House should waste its time in reconsidering that Bill which has already been killed ? Mr. Buchan was heard in support of his Bill. Every member of the committee who was present knows that Mr. Buchan spoke twice on the subject, and it was only when he rose to ask leave to speak a third time, and after one o'clock, that the members of the committee expressed the opinion that they were fully informed on the subject, and that they did not need any more information. Mr. Buchan has no reason to complain. He has been very well treated, and every reason he could give has been given by him. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has stated that the only reason why the Bill was killed was because the name of Mr. Armstrong was mentioned in connection with it. That is not exactly the case. It is not Mr. Armstrong alone who has made application for this charter, but it is the Montreal Bridge Company,, which is composed' of a number of gentlemen. They were granted their charter in 1890, and since that time they have made no serious effort to begin the work. Under the charter of 1890, they bound themselves to commence to build the bridge within three years, and to have it completed within seven years. The three years elapsed and they did not move. They even waited until the expiration of the seven years for the completion of the bridge, and then they came back to this parliament asking for an extension of time. I claim that when in 1897, they got that extension of time their charter had actually lapsed, because they had not complied with the provisions in the charter which required them Hon. Mr. TISDALE.

to commence the bridge within three years. However that may be, this parliament in 1897 granted an extension of five years to the Montreal Bridge Company to complete the bridge. Since that time they have never moved. There is not an inch of work done to-day. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) stated that they have spent about $50,000, but the fact is that there has not been a cent spent since 1890. Before 1890, plans were prepared and these were the very plans that were produced before the committee. There is not a word of proof that they have incurred one dollar of expense since 1890. In view of the fact that parliament has already granted the Montreal Bridge Company two extensions of time, is it reasonable that parliament should again extend their charter to have it there as an embarrassment in the way of another company who seriously undertake to build the bridge ? We know very well in Montreal the reason why this application has now been made to parliament. We know very well that it is because certain difficulties have arisen between the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the South Shore Railway Company, and the New York Central Railway Company with regard to running rights over the Victoria bridge. These companies do no longer agree with the Grand Trunk Railway as regards the terms on which the Victoria bridge should be used by them, and so the American capitalists interested in these companies have decided to build a bridge of their own. When Mr. Armstrong heard this, then he made an application to have the charter renewed so that he might perpetuate the embarrassment to others which his charter has caused ever since 1890. Had that charter not been extended in 1897, the bridge between Longeuil and Montreal would have been completed long ago by responsible people who are willing and able to build it. But so long as the other charter was in existence the people on both sides of the river expected that the bridge would be constructed, and men who really desired to build a bridge did not like to embark in the enterprise. Now that Mr. Armstrong and some others connected with him see that enterprising people are ready to construct a bridge, they want purely and simply to blackmail them in order to compel them to buy that charter. That is the reason why parliament is asked now to grant a further extension of the charter. I do not believe that this House will be a party to that deal, and that the Bill which has been killed will remain killed.

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Full View Permalink

February 28, 1901

Mr. MADORE.

X need not say to the Committee that I am quite prepared to receive any suggestions that may be made from either side of the House, or from a committee to which that Bill may be referred later on. The draft I have just submitted contains the principle of the Bill, and provided that principle is admitted, I am quite willing to go either to a Committee of the whole House or to a special committee, there to consider any suggestions that may be made. For instance, the suggestions made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries are certainly deserving of discussion and consideration. We did not follow the lines of the English Bill because we considered that the circumstances in this country are not the same as in England, especially those in the province of Quebec. We did not propose to give to the judge the power to reopen the case, to go back to the beginning of the transaction, in order to ascertain whether the rate of interest charged is too high or not, and to leave that question altogether to his discretion. We thought that according to our procedure in the province of Quebec such a provision would be almost impracticable. When the borrower was sued by the lender for the amount claimed to be due, capital and interest, if the rate of interest was too high, and if it was left entirely to the judge to decide what amount should be charged, the defendant, even if he admitted his indebtedness, could not know the exact amount he would have to pay, and he could not make a tender to the plaintiff because in order to do so he must tender the amount that he really owes. If he does not tender the full amount of his debt, even if he succeeded in having the rate of interest claimed from him reduced, the whole cost of the contestation would fall on his shoulders.

Topic:   MONEY-LENDERS.
Full View Permalink

February 28, 1901

Mr. MADORE.

Section 5 does this.

The MINISTER OF MARINE AND

FISHERIES. I do not think it goes far enough. This section provides :

The bona fide holder, before maturity of a negotiable instrument discounted by a preceding holder at a rate of interest exceeding that authorized by this Act, may nevertheless recover the amount thereof?

From whom ?

Topic:   MONEY-LENDERS.
Full View Permalink