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 5 of 204)


December 6, 1962

Mr. Creslohl:

Not by talking it out.

Topic:   FINANCE
Subtopic:   CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING SURCHARGE ORDER IN COUNCIL
Full View Permalink

December 4, 1962

Mr. Crestohl:

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who is opposing second reading of the bill, having based himself on some examples

he gave to the house, is confusing two things. When we have before the house a bill to change the name of a company-Allstate or any other-that is one matter. But these bills have all been before another committee. That committee has heard all the evidence. It has gone into all the proof which is available to this House of Commons, and the bills are now before us with all that evidence accepted and approved.

Mr. Speaker, I think on the date that the hon. member referred to I raised this question on a point of order, and Your Honour ruled upon it. Because you were generous enough to allow the hon. member to proceed a certain distance and ask certain questions or read certain evidence, I do not think it sets a binding precedent. We raised an objection then and you ruled upon it. We respectfully submit that what the hon. member is trying to do now is something altogether different from the examples he gave in dealing with an insurance company. These bills are before the house complete in all detail, and you are right, Mr. Speaker, when you say that all we can do now is to deal with the principle whether there should be an annulment or a dissolution of the marriage or whether there should not. As you have cited quite properly, I do not think we are in a position to go into all the evidence, as the hon. member suggests. If he wants to go into all the evidence for the sake of giving this house a lot of information it really does not need, and which it already has anyway in print, then I think he is completely out of order.

Topic:   ALETHEA SARAH IVY FOWLER
Full View Permalink

November 27, 1962

Mr. Crestohl:

I rise again on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is based on the fact that the hon. member is seeking to question whether or not the evidence taken and accepted in the other place was truthful. We have not the machinery in this House of Commons to cross-examine these witnesses or to reexamine them. It is not within our scope to do that. You are quite right, Mr. Speaker, when you say the committee has that authority, and this is proven by the citations to which you have referred. The committee can have these witnesses before it but we have not the machinery on the floor of this house to examine witnesses.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I submit the hon. member is out of order when he seeks to question the evidence already accepted in the other place.

Topic:   JOHN HARMAN
Full View Permalink

November 27, 1962

Mr. Creslohl:

On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that the hon. member who is speaking on this bill seems to consider that the House of Commons is sitting as a court of appeal on evidence that has been accepted and approved by the other place. I do not think that we are sitting here to question the veracity of the evidence or otherwise.

Topic:   FRANZ ZEITLHOFER
Full View Permalink

November 27, 1962

Mr. Creslohl:

Mr. Speaker, where an hon. member on the floor of this house questions, for example, whether the couple were married I do not know what he expects the House of Commons to do about that. That is a matter which has already been adjudicated upon in the other place. I do not think we sit here to question the veracity of evidence adduced in the other place. On second reading we can discuss the general principle of the particular bill but we cannot question the veracity and exactitude of evidence which has already been accepted.

Topic:   FRANZ ZEITLHOFER
Full View Permalink