Edward Mortimer MACDONALD

MACDONALD, The Hon. Edward Mortimer, P.C., K.C., LL.B.

Personal Data

Antigonish--Guysborough (Nova Scotia)
Birth Date
August 16, 1865
Deceased Date
May 25, 1940

Parliamentary Career

November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
  Pictou (Nova Scotia)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
  Pictou (Nova Scotia)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
  Pictou (Nova Scotia)
December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
  Pictou (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister Without Portfolio (April 12, 1923 - August 16, 1923)
  • Minister of National Defence (April 28, 1923 - August 16, 1923)
  • Minister of National Defence (August 17, 1923 - June 28, 1926)
September 6, 1923 - September 5, 1925
  Pictou (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of National Defence (August 17, 1923 - June 28, 1926)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
  Antigonish--Guysborough (Nova Scotia)
  • Minister of National Defence (August 17, 1923 - June 28, 1926)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 1072)

May 4, 1926

Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, from time

immemorial parliament has always exercised control over its own privileges and over the question of whether its members were properly elected. Down until 1874 that was the practice in Canada, but in that year there was passed by this parliament the Controverted Elections Act, by which parliament divested itself of the right to inquire into the methods by which members were elected to this House. Since that time the uniform practice, no matter

[Mr. Meighen.j

what party was in power, has been to recognize the validity of that act and the wisdom of that practice.

There is only one question, it seems to me, in regard to this point of order-as to whether or not this petition which my hon. friend for West Calgary has sought to present to the House is a matter pertaining to an election which comes within the purview of the Controverted Election Act. If the assertions which he makes relate to matters which under that act have been committed by this parliament to the courts, then he has no right to present this petition and ask parliament to interfere in a question with which for the time being it has nothing to do.

My hon. friend in presenting the petition stated that it was a petition:

Praying that the House of Commons of Canada may determine and declare that Donald Macbeth Kennedy -was not duly elected and returned at the election held on the 29th day of October, 1925, and that the said return was and is void, and that it may be declared that the petitioner was duly elected at the said election and is entitled to be returned as the member eleoted to represent the electoral district of Peace River in .the House of Commons of Canada.

Now I assert beyond all question that the facts alleged and the relief sought are matters that wholly come within the purview of the Controverted Elections Act. They were committed absolutely to the courts in 1874, and no one up to date has seriously questioned this in this House. My right hon, friend the leader of the House in making his abjection to you, Mr. Speaker, cites two cases in which petitions of this character h^ve been presented and ruled out by Mr. Speaker of the day. Reference has been made to what is known as the Ooderre case, which arose in parliament in 1913. This matter did not come to parliament by way of petition, but by way of a question of privilege which was raised1 by the then hon. member for St. Hyacinthe, Mr. Gauthier. He came to parliament, presented certain affidavits and asked parliament to refer the matter to the Privileges and Elections committee. That is, what appears by the record of the day; I remember being in the House at the time. The position taken was that this being a matter which involved questions that could be determined by the courts on election petitions, the House should not deal with the question or refer it to the committee on Privileges and Elections. The then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, took that position, as did the then Minister of Justice, Right Hon. Mr. Doherty. On the other side it was urged' that the matters contained in the affidavits submitted went beyond and were not part of those questions committed

Peace River Election

under the Controverted Elections Act to the courts. It was conceded by almost every hon. gentleman who took part in the argument that if the questions raised on the matter of privilege related solely to those matters which had been committed to the courts, no action could be taken. My right hon. friend took that position; he quoted from Sir John Thompson and asserted with emphasis that at no time had parliament ventured to assert its right to deal with or inquire into matters committed to the courts by that act.

I submit the only thing Your Honour need consider is the point of order. If this petition relates to a question which has been committed to the courts for consideration I submit that under the precedents, as a matter of law and a matter of procedure, Your Honour should rule that the petition be not received. What purpose would be served in receiving it if parliament could not deal with the question in any way? What would be the use of reading a document here in relation to a subject with which we have no power to deal? The precedents which have been cited are, I submit, quite ample to justify such a ruling on the point of order.

Full View Permalink

May 3, 1926

Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):

The whole question of the air service for Canada during the coming season is now under consideration. It is being given careful attention by the department.

Full View Permalink

April 16, 1926

Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):

I was not able to follow the article as the hon. member read it, but I gathered that it referred to some suggested proposal in connection with air-craft exploration. So far as I know no information has reached the government regarding any such project, but I shall read my hon. friend'3 question carefully and advise him later.

Full View Permalink

April 12, 1926

Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, this discussion has taken a very wide range, and I think the House is to be congratulated upon the manner in which hon. gentlemen who have spoken, have addressed themselves to the subject. As a Maritime province man, deeply interested in their advance and progress, I feel that in order to obtain the best results it is the duty of parliament to approach the consideration of this question as far as possible free from any partisan feeling.

As I'say, this discussion has taken a very wide range, and we have wandered some distance from the proposal contained in the resolution of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr Black). I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that his resolution proposes merely two things, first:

That, in the opinion of this House, good faith should be kept with the Maritime provinces and other interested parts of the Dominion in regard to the recorded assurances and undertakings of governments and parliament and the agreements set out in the statutes of the Dominion respecting the routing of Canadian trade over Canadian territory and through Canadian ports,-

That is a definite declaration to which the House is asked to give adhesion-that good faith should be kept with the Maritime provinces and other interested parts in regard to these assurances which have been embodied in our statutes and in various agreements with railways in the past. To that proposal it seems to me no one can take any very great exception, but I would like to call the attention of the House for a moment to exactly what is contained in the statutes in regard to these assurances. I turn to chapter 71 of the acts of 1903, where the act incorporating the National Transcontinental Railway is to be found, and in section 42 I find the following:

It is hereby declared and agreed between the parties to this agreement that the aid herein provided for is granted by the government of Canada for the express purpose of encouraging the development of Canadian trade and the transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The company accepts the aid on these conditions, and agrees that all freight originating on the line of railway, or its branches, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points in Canada, be carried entirely on Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.

A similar provision was made in 1914 with regard to the Canadian Northern railway, when an agreement was made attaching certain conditions to its operation.

Full View Permalink

March 15, 1926


1, 2, and 3. Under the King's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Militia, 1917, only such time as an officer has actually served in the permanent force from the date he is commissioned may be counted for the purposes of automatic promotion. Automatic promotion, i.e. promotion governed solely by length of commissioned service, is confined to certain officers known as "classified officers" such as district officers of the Royal Canadian Artillery, ordnance executive officers of the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, quartermasters, etc. _

4. Officers promoted from the ranks, while holding the rank of lieutenant, receive 40 cents per diem more than young officers on first appointment. The rates of pay for ranks above lieutenant are the same. Officers who are selected for promotion from the ranks to fill certain appointments for which they are specially fitted by long experience and training are usually men of middle age with family responsibilities. Other gentlemen appointed as lieutenants are young, unmarried and have yet to undergo training . and experience to qualify.

Full View Permalink