Roch LANCTÔT

LANCTÔT, Roch

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Laprairie--Napierville (Quebec)
Birth Date
January 30, 1866
Deceased Date
May 30, 1929
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roch_Lanctôt
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=fe45452f-74d7-483e-ac86-64e9b3a8f1b7&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer

Parliamentary Career

November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
LIB
  Laprairie--Napierville (Quebec)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
LIB
  Laprairie--Napierville (Quebec)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
LIB
  Laprairie--Napierville (Quebec)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
L LIB
  Laprairie--Napierville (Quebec)
December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
LIB
  Laprairie--Napierville (Quebec)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
LIB
  Laprairie--Napierville (Quebec)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
LIB
  Laprairie--Napierville (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 67 of 67)


February 1, 1912

Mr. LANCTOT.

The hon. minister must certainly know that a parcel of land has been bought last summer in order to satisfy his own department. Mr. Bourgeois was obliged to pay two hundred dollars for that," piece of land. That occurred six months ago, it is only fair to refund that amount to that gentleman.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   ADJOURNMENT-NAPIERVILLE POST OFFICE SITE.
Full View Permalink

February 1, 1912

Mr. R. LANOTOT (Lapraire-Napierville).

(Translation):

Mr. CHAIRMAN, before the adjournment I beg leave to put a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works, concerning the Naipierville post office site.

DEPUTY SPEAKER. (Mr. Blondin). I will remind the hon. member that he is not

allowed to enter into a discussion of anything else than the item now under discussion.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   ADJOURNMENT-NAPIERVILLE POST OFFICE SITE.
Full View Permalink

January 17, 1911

Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie and Napierville).

(Translation). Mr. Speaker, I have some reason to be surprised at the stand taken by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and at the statements he proferred. The hon. member has occupied a seat in this House since 1882, I believe; at any rate he was surely here in 1894, when the county of Laprairie, which I have the honour of representing to-day, had for its representative in this House Mr. Conrad Pelletier. The then Minister of Public Works came down with^ an item towards the construction of a public building at Laprairie, and if I had the time, I would like to go through Mr. ARTHURS.

the report of Hansard to ascertain what was the position taken by the member for Leeds and whether it differed from that he took to-day.

I am glad that there should have been so much discussion in connection with the vote required for the erection of a public building at Napierville. It goes to show the importance of that locality. If, in 1894, it was found necessary to erect a public building at Laprairie, whose population at the time was not any larger than that of Napierville to-day, I fail to see why any objection should be raised against the voting of this amount for Napierville. Napierville is the county town for the county of Napierville, in the same way that Laprairie is the county town for Laprairie. They are both in exactly the same position in that respect. If the member for Leeds opposes to-day the proposal of such a vote in favour of Napierville. after taking in 1894 a favourable view of the proposal on behalf of Laprairie, it is owing to the fact that he was a friend of Mr. Pelletier, while he is not on the same terms with the present representative of the county. I wish to point out that hon. members occupying seats on the opposition side, and who were then sitting on the government side, supported Mr. Pelletier's proposal and granted his request.

I may add that the post office built by the Conservatives cost twice too much, and I trust that the building we are to put up at a cost of $15,000 will be worth the money.

Mr. Speaker, I may be allowed to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Cro'thers). He spoke in regard to bribery. Let me tell him that bribery is out of the question in the county of Napierville, the electors in that constituency being above such temptations.

What is it that prompts the opposition to thus work against the interests of the farming community whenever there is a proposal on hand for the erection of some small public building in the country? Are there not sufficient numbers of these great public buildings put up in large centres at the expense of the government? The farming community is worthy of every consideration on the part of the government, and I am glad to see that the latter are willing to do justice to that class, which I have the honour of representing here.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Full View Permalink