Leon David CRESTOHL

CRESTOHL, Leon David, Q.C., B.C.L.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Cartier (Quebec)
Birth Date
May 7, 1900
Deceased Date
March 21, 1963
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Crestohl
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=e1563762-d628-4f12-ad58-fc20c4b62221&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

June 19, 1950 - June 13, 1953
LIB
  Cartier (Quebec)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
LIB
  Cartier (Quebec)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
LIB
  Cartier (Quebec)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
LIB
  Cartier (Quebec)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
LIB
  Cartier (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 204)


February 4, 1963

Mr. Crestohl:

You will become a responsible opposition.

Topic:   ALLEGED LACK OF LEADERSHIP, CONFUSION AND INDECISION
Full View Permalink

February 4, 1963

Mr. Creslohl:

Six billion dollars.

Topic:   ALLEGED LACK OF LEADERSHIP, CONFUSION AND INDECISION
Full View Permalink

February 4, 1963

Mr. Cresiohl:

How very gallant.

Topic:   ALLEGED LACK OF LEADERSHIP, CONFUSION AND INDECISION
Full View Permalink

January 29, 1963

Mr. Crestohl:

May I ask the hon. member who has just resumed his seat a question? Can he inform the committee whether any progress has been made by the representatives of the four parties who are attempting to reach some satisfactory decision about this matter?

Topic:   SONJA BAGRY
Full View Permalink

January 22, 1963

Mr. Creslohl:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the Chair has ruled under similar circumstances that it is pointless to read all the evidence to the committee. Members of the committee received copies of the evidence and are presumed to have read it, and I do not think it helps the committee to any degree at all to have the evidence read at length now. Perhaps it does help to exhaust the very precious hour in which many people are hoping to have their cases dealt with. I am sure, however, that the hon. member does not mean to be unfair and that his motive simply cannot be to prevent other bills from being dealt with. As I say, I am

Divorce Bills

sure that is not his motive and I am also sure he will realize, as the committee certainly does, that extensive reading of the evidence is prejudicial to the other bills on the order paper and holds up consideration of them unduly.

Topic:   MILDRED DAWSON MEAKINS
Full View Permalink