David Arnold CROLL

CROLL, The Hon. David Arnold, P.C., Q.C., LL.D.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Spadina (Ontario)
Birth Date
March 12, 1900
Deceased Date
June 11, 1991
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Croll
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=16a359f2-d18b-45d6-be33-975d6e117d7c&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister, lawyer

Parliamentary Career

June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
LIB
  Spadina (Ontario)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
LIB
  Spadina (Ontario)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
LIB
  Spadina (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 132)


March 19, 1965

Mr. Reid Scroll (Danforlh):

I wonder if I could ask Your Honour whether it would be in order for a member at this time to move a motion granting permission to the hon. member for Yukon, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Postmaster General to appear before the Dorion commission and give such evidence as they think would be useful. The hon. member for Greenwood has drafted such a motion, and I would be prepared to second such a motion if it were moved.

Topic:   MR. NIELSEN-REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE DORION COMMISSION
Full View Permalink

July 26, 1955

Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that perhaps order No. 18 might be called before order No. 17, if there is no objection. There may be objection to order No. 17, but I think there is far less likelihood of objection to order No. 18. I suggest we deal with that first.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Full View Permalink

July 13, 1955

Mr. Croll:

I believe it was 18,000.

Topic:   AGRICULTURE
Subtopic:   SUGGESTED POLICY FOR STABILIZATION OF INDUSTRY
Full View Permalink

July 6, 1955

Mr. Croll:

I believe they paid a price for it.

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Full View Permalink

July 6, 1955

Mr. Croll:

Will the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? As I understand the position, the government is asking parliament for powers subject to review and repeal by parliament, and the opposition is agreeable to the granting of powers for a fixed period subject to renewal by parliament. My question is, is not the difference between us one of method rather than principle?

Topic:   DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARY OF MINISTER AND EXPIRY OF ACT
Full View Permalink