Joseph Enoil MICHAUD

MICHAUD, The Hon. Joseph Enoil, P.C., Q.C., B.A., LL.B., LL. D.

Personal Data

Restigouche--Madawaska (New Brunswick)
Birth Date
September 26, 1888
Deceased Date
May 23, 1967
barrister, notary

Parliamentary Career

October 23, 1933 - August 14, 1935
  Restigouche--Madawaska (New Brunswick)
October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
  Restigouche--Madawaska (New Brunswick)
  • Minister of Fisheries (October 23, 1935 - October 5, 1942)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
  Restigouche--Madawaska (New Brunswick)
  • Minister of Fisheries (October 23, 1935 - October 5, 1942)
  • Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (November 27, 1941 - December 9, 1941)
  • Minister of Public Works (May 13, 1942 - October 6, 1942)
  • Minister of Transport (October 6, 1942 - April 17, 1945)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 390 of 390)

February 8, 1934

Mr. J. E. MICHAUD (Restigouche-Mada-waska):

May I ask the Minister of Marine

(Mr. Duranleau) if it is the intention of the government to extend the smelt fishing season in the Baie des Chaleurs in order to relieve the distress of the people of that district?

Full View Permalink

April 29, 1920


The regulations in connection with this Bill are supposed to be written in both French and English.

Subtopic:   EDITION
Full View Permalink

April 4, 1918


Mr. Chairman, 1 had

a,n interview with the Miiuiister of Railways yesterday afternoon with reference to this Bill. He informed me that he was going to see the Bill through, and that I could put before the House all 'the objections possible; but he was bound to see it through. From hois remarks when this Bill was last before the committee I noticed that the [DOT]minister did not understand everything in reference to this matter. He .stated to me that we would have an interview and that, no . douibt, the matter would come out all right. As a minister of the Crown, the hon. gentleman seems to :me to be fair. minded, but I am sorry to say that he is a stubborn gentleman; and I am afraid that 'he feels himself obliged to see this Bill through the House. I am very sorry for the public that the Minister of Railways has taken this step, for, after all, we are here to protect the public interest, and the Minister of Railways should 'be the first man to set a good example.

I know the locality where it is proposed to change the site of the union station. The proposed station is altogether outside the town of St. Leonards, a distance of between a quarter and half a mile. We have had petitions and telegrams of protest read to the House. I have also received lettens from business men, and notwithstanding all these protests coming from the whole corporation of the town of St. Leonards, my hon. friend is still under the impression that this union station should be built on the Transcontinental railway. I had from the Minister of Railways yesterday


afternoon promises that the welfare of the public will be looked after.

At the present time, the Transcontinental railway has one train going east and one train going west daily. The train going east passes through the town of St. Leonards at twelve o'clock midnight. The train going west passes through at three o'clock in the morning. The Intercolonial railway train arrives at St. Leonards at three o'clock in the afternoon. The Canadian Pacific railway runs an express reaching St. Leonards at five o'clock in the afternoon, accommodating the public by running a train during the day. Now, if the location of the station is changed, I am sorry to say that the public will be forced to travel from the union station on the Transcontinental railway about half a mile to take the train at the Canadian Pacific railway station, You will not stop the public from travelling over the Canadian Paoific railway.

The day before yesterday I Tead a telegram in the Hous^in reference to the protest of the people of St. Leonards regarding this Bill. I also stated in the House that the people of St. Leonards were strongly against the proposal contained in this Bill unless the terminus of the Intercolonial railway should remain where it is at present. The ex-Minister of Railways, Hon. Mr. Cochrane, promised the people of St. Leonards^ that no change should he made, and I am sorry to see that the present Minister of Railways does not see eye to eye with his predecessor. I, therefore, Mr. Chairman, protest most energetically against the passing of this Bill, and I want to request the Minister of Railways, if he will be kind enough to listen to me, that [DOT]before he commences to move that station from the International railway to the National Transcontinental railway, he come himself to the town of St. Leonards and visit the site where he proposes to build the new station. I am sure of one thing from the good judgment of my hon. friend, that after seeing the proposed site, he will in common with the residents of St. Leonards, be opposed to the site of the new station.

Full View Permalink

April 4, 1918


I have a clipping from the Graphic newspaper published in C'amplbellton, N.B., which reads as follows:

The Graphic in conversation with a gentleman who is interested was informed yesterday that if the town of Campbellton would provide a free site and exemption for a term of years, his Arm would seriously consider the establishment of a ship-building plant here.

That such an industry would be -of immense benefit to Oampihellton goes without saying, and' nothing we can do should be left undone to induce the firm to establish a plant here.

We would suggest that the town council place itself on record as willing to assist such an industry.

The town of Campbellton is tan important harbour in the northern part of the province. I would ask 'the minister if he knows anything about the transaction that ie referred to here or if it is about to take place. Has Ihe heard! anything about a shipbuilding plant being established at Campbellton, and, if so, what?

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

March 25, 1918


Is Mr. Stevens located at Moncton?

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink