Henri-Edgar LAVIGUEUR

LAVIGUEUR, Henri-Edgar

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Québec--Montmorency (Quebec)
Birth Date
February 16, 1867
Deceased Date
October 29, 1943
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri-Edgar_Lavigueur
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=7c9ee392-8ed6-4dae-87a9-4c963866732d&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
merchant

Parliamentary Career

December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
L LIB
  Quebec County (Quebec)
December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
LIB
  Quebec County (Quebec)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
LIB
  Québec--Montmorency (Quebec)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
LIB
  Québec--Montmorency (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2 of 60)


April 7, 1930

1. How many contracts were awarded by the Post Office Department for airway mail?

2. Who are the contractors?

3. Are contracts awarded by mileage?

4. If so, at what rate?

5. Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to award other contracts?

Topic:   AIRWAY MAIL CONTRACTS
Full View Permalink

May 30, 1929

Mr. LAYIGUEUR:

Mr. Chairman, I

would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the citizens of Montreal upon having such excellent terminal facilities for that metropolis of the Dominion of Canada.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Full View Permalink

May 30, 1929

Mr. LAVIGUEUR:

This city is in the

province of Quebec. They should take great pride in the facilities which are being provided by the Canadian National system. I think the declaration has been made to the house by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that it is the policy of the Canadian National system to provide proper terminal facilities in most of the large cities of Canada. While I congratulate the citizens of Montreal upon the treatment they are receiving at the hands of the government, I would like to see the people of the old city of Quebec treated in the same manner. Montreal, Toronto and many other cities in this Dominion have been treated quite generously by the Canadian National system while we have been endeavouring for over twenty years to obtain the proper terminal facilities in the city of Quebec. We were told by the government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier that the city of Quebec was the real terminal of the Transcontinental and the Canadian National railway systems, and that we would have proper facilities. We were promised those facilities in 1910, when the Hon. S. N. Parent was chairman of the National Transcontinental railway commission. Proper engineering plans were prepared; a site was decided upon, and a contract was entered into between the city of Quebec and the Transcontinental railway. The city of Quebec consented to give a most valuable property fronting on the St. Lawrence, the Champlain market, a property worth more than $5,000,000. A contract was given to a contracting firm to erect a million-dollar railway station, and there was constructed from the Quebec bridge to that station a road six and a half miles long. After the change of government in 1911, a year later, the contract was cancelled; all work was postponed, and an agreement was entered into between the Transcontinental and the Canadian Pacific whereby the Transcontinental was to use the Canadian Pacific railway facilities at a rate, if I am not mistaken, of $200,000 a year which the Transcontinental paid to bring people into the city of Quebec and then hand them over to their competitor, the Canadian Pacific.

Supply-Pensions and National Health

As I have said, the citizens of Quebec have been making requests of the governments that have been in power from 1911 to 1921, but they have always been told that their requests were under consideration. I remember in 1917 and 191S asking some questions of the then Minister of Railways, the Hon. Doctor Reid, and the then Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Mr. Carvell, and that was the answer which was given. The Minister of Public Works at that time said that the way in which the work had been carried out in the city of Quebec was a tragedy. They admitted that our need was most urgent and1 that something should be done. The present government seems to be well disposed towards the city of Quebec, but we fail to see that anything is being done in our city. A few weeks ago I put a question on the orders of the day, but the same answer was given me by the government, namely, that the matter was under consideration.

Quebec is the oldest and one of the most important cities of the Dominion; it is the only one vdiieh has contributed towards railway development, towards the building of the Quebec and Lake St. John railway and the building of the Canadian Northern railway, and it has given to the Canadian National railway system a property worth more than

85,000,000 in order to obtain proper facilities in the city of Quebec. We are ashamed to say that we are treated as a flag station rather than in the way we should be treated. I do not blame the government, but I say that there is lack of attention on the part of the administration of the system. Sir Henry Thornton does not treat the people of the city and district of Quebec in the way in which we should be treated, and whenever an opportunity is afforded me I will protest as I have done to-day against the way in which we are treated in our city. I am glad to see that the government is dealing so generously with the city of Montreal and I hope it will press the urgency of our needs upon the administration of the railway and do something to render justice to the citizens of Quebec in whose behalf I will continue to protest.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Full View Permalink

May 10, 1929

Mr. LAVIGUEUR:

Just let me follow

up my argument. Over $2,500,000 was spent on the St. Charles river, but when the Tory government came into power in 1911 they saw fit to suspend this work and since that time the greater part of the work done has been destroyed. The citizens of Quebec are very anxious that this work should be proceeded with, and I understand that at a banquet in Quebec not long ago Mr. Tasche-reau said that this work should be proceeded with and that his government would certainly contribute to the cost. More than that, the city council of Quebec would be quite willing to share the cost. I think this fact should be mentioned and the government asked to continue the work which they undertook to carry out under a written agreement between the city of Quebec and the federal government.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Full View Permalink

May 10, 1929

Mr. LAVIGUEUR:

The hon. member for

Temiscouata has raised the question of the St. Charles river, and I am grateful to him for having done so. I have known of the conditions existing in the St. Charles river for a number of years; some work has been done there and I believe about $2,500,000 has been spent on that work by the federal government.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Full View Permalink