Joseph Raymond Fournier PRÉFONTAINE

PRÉFONTAINE, The Hon. Joseph Raymond Fournier, P.C., K.C., B.C.L.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Maisonneuve (Quebec)
Birth Date
September 16, 1850
Deceased Date
December 25, 1905
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Préfontaine
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=44d0a22c-b8bf-4240-9943-1aa2f95274ee&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

July 30, 1886 - January 15, 1887
LIB
  Chambly (Quebec)
February 22, 1887 - February 3, 1891
LIB
  Chambly (Quebec)
March 5, 1891 - April 24, 1896
LIB
  Chambly (Quebec)
June 23, 1896 - October 9, 1900
LIB
  Maisonneuve (Quebec)
November 7, 1900 - November 10, 1902
LIB
  Terrebonne (Quebec)
December 9, 1902 - September 29, 1904
LIB
  Maisonneuve (Quebec)
  • Minister of Marine and Fisheries (November 11, 1902 - December 25, 1905)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
LIB
  Maisonneuve (Quebec)
  • Minister of Marine and Fisheries (November 11, 1902 - December 25, 1905)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 413 of 414)


May 15, 1901

Mr. PREFONTAINE.

No.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   A. H. O'BRIEN.
Full View Permalink

May 15, 1901

Mr. PREFONTAINE.

No, there are two.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   A. H. O'BRIEN.
Full View Permalink

May 15, 1901

Mr. PREFONTAINE.

The sale of the Montreal and Sorel road took place, and the road was acquired by Messrs. Beauchemin, Tourville, Fortier and Leduc, and it was transferred to the South Shore Railway Company. The South Shore Railway Company have asked that this deed shall be ratified. That Is all that they require. The only sale about which there seeims to be a good deal of talk is the last sale of the Great Eastern Railway, which was made by the sheriff of the district of Richelieu. That sale was regularly made. I affirm it, and it was not contested within the six months that it could be contested under the laws of our province, excepting by a party named McNally, who withdrew his aetion, so that the deed is good. I will answer the question of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) about the wages of the labourers. That circular that was sent out pretended to be signed by a man named Wood. I know where it originates. It originates with the same party who sold the railway in 1894, and pocketed $92,000. the same party who has been mentioned in connection with all these transactions. His name is well known all over. Every enterprise with which he has been connected has proved disastrous and a loss to everybody.

In order to create trouble and to prevent tbe South Shore Railway Company, which is a responsible company, from using their property as they have a right to use it, he seeks to put obstacles in their way. At the present time they have sixty miles of railway, with two expensive bridges, and they are constructing another one. They have not mortgaged the road for a single cent yet, but they are on the point of mortgaging it to raise money to continue construction, and it is in order to put the title into such a shape that they may borrow money on this railway that they have been obliged to come before parliament for an extension of the time for the construction of the road. They have asked also that the titles be confirmed so (that there can be no doubt raised by the parties who may be called upon to advance money upon the bonds. Now, as regards the creditors of the Great Eastern Railway Company, or the Atlantic and Montreal, this legislation does not affect their rights in any way at all. They have the Atlantic and Lake Superior, which is at present about 100 miles in length down in the Bay des Chaleurs district. These parties have claimed against the railway company, but they have no right to claim against the South Shore Railway Company, because the South Shore Railway Company acquired these deeds regularly through the sheriff's sales, and in those sales creditors were not defrauded of their rights in any way. These sales were public sales, held publicly, and I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Ball) saying that there was anything wrong with the sales. The last sale took place in August, 1899. He was present at the sale, and he bid himself on the property. He did not think it was worth more than $500, because he did not bid more. At the previous sale in 1894, when the purchase price was not paid, the hon. member for Nicolet was present, when there was a bid of $20,000 made, and nobody bid over it. The hon. member for Nicolet did not advance a cent of it in order to help them with the sale in 1894. I advanced myself $1,200 that I have not been recouped for yet. The purchase price of $20,000 was never paid by Mr. Armstrong, so that the property had to be resold on the fo'lle enckere of Mr. Armstrong, and it brought only $500, because the property was not worth more. Nobody would buy it. Nobody would take the property from which the rails had been taken away in former years and employed on another railway, but it was not the South Shore Railway Company which did that. The South Shore Railway Company come here and ask simply for a ratification of certain deeds, which were given openly and in a regular manner, and which are now before the House.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   A. H. O'BRIEN.
Full View Permalink

May 15, 1901

Mr. PREFONTAINE.

In answer to the objection which has been made that the title has not been copied or transcribed entirely in the Bill, I may say this matter was left entirely in the hands of the committee. Here is a letter that was addressed to me, because I was taking an interest in the matter :

Re South Shore Railway Bill. Raymond Prefontaine, K.C., M.P.

Dear Mr. Prefontaine,-I inclose herewith copy of your Bill, as I am printing it. I have agreed upon this form with the Law Clerk of the Senate so as to obviate the necessity for printing the agreements, which is both unnecessarily expensive and cumbrous, but the necessary par-1 ticulars in the deeds are, I think, set out, except the date of registration of the conveyance

from Beauchemiu to the South Shore Railway Company (section 2, paragraph 'b '). This date does not appear on the document, if you have it please send it to me by returning mail, if you have it not, it will probably make little difference. I have taken some considerable trouble in getting the Bill into this shape, and I think you will consider that it is satisfactory.

Faithfully yours,

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   EDGAR ARMSTRONG,
Full View Permalink

May 15, 1901

Mr. PREFONTAINE.

There was no authority given to me for the second sale. The authority was given to the sheriff from .the court. The sheriff acted according to the order of the court, which appears by the documents themselves. It was denied by a certain party, by a party who can deny anything at all, even that the sun Is shining that there was an order of the court. There is not only one order of sale, but two orders of sale, one In September, 1895, and one in July, 1899, so that this cannot be denied in any way. and it has nothing to do with the deeds. This all appears from the deeds of the sheriff.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   A. H. O'BRIEN.
Full View Permalink