William John LOUCKS

LOUCKS, William John

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Rosetown (Saskatchewan)
Birth Date
June 26, 1873
Deceased Date
September 2, 1968
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_John_Loucks
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=6be06326-5c16-4c0b-9f3e-0764dae4556b&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer

Parliamentary Career

July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
CON
  Rosetown (Saskatchewan)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 29)


July 2, 1935

Mr. LOUCKS:

It was the city police who did that.

Topic:   B.C. RELIEF CAMP STRIKERS
Full View Permalink

July 2, 1935

Mr. LOUCKS:

They have been led by them.

Topic:   B.C. RELIEF CAMP STRIKERS
Full View Permalink

June 13, 1935

Mr. LOUCKS:

Well, I am glad the hon. member did not say that; however someone over there said it. But that is the story. Then when there is a measure brought in to deal with the problem, the great argument is: It is compulsion for a small minority. Let me say, with all respect for farmers-for I have been one all my life and I know them- that the farmers are their own cutthroats and always have been, and it appears to me now that the argument and policy of the opposition is that they must continue to be cutthroats for another generation. What do I mean by cutthroats? I mean one farmer competing against the 'Other, and that has been going on all my life and I am over sixty. When we have a government with vision who bring in reform measures and say: "We can take care of this thing and make conditions such that you will not be cut-

Grain Board-Mr. Coote

throats any longer," what do we hear from the opposition? Oh, that compulsion again!

I know who said that when we wanted a one hundred per cent wheat pool. I know that the grain exchange was very active in warning the farmers. The attitude of the opposition is just about the same. Quite a number from the grain exchange are down here at the present time; they are worrying, and no wonder. In Winnipeg walking about the streets I see their homes and I know we have not got such homes as some of these fellows have who have been buying our wheat the last number of years. I wonder if hon. members realize that it matters not as far as the exchange is concerned what wheat sells for. Twenty cent wheat is just as good to them as wheat at fifty or eighty cents; they get the same commission-volume is what counts with them. But that does not help the poor farmer. So I say there is only one hope for western Canada, and that is the action that is being taken by this government at this time.

The ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) said that the Prime Minister must have known that Mr. McFarland was going to be ill. Then he attempted to make something out of the statistics not having been brought down long ago giving the number of bushels of carryover, and I suppose he wanted the dollars and cents as well. Well, my memory tells me that he was one of the members of the committee when Mr. McFarland was here and I think he was one of those who said that if it was going to be dangerous to the interests of the farmers to divulge it, by all means do not do so. I congratulate him on that. But he has changed his attitude, and so has the hon. member for South Battle-ford (Mr. Vallance). There is an election coming on, so it does not matter whether it is injurious to the farmers. Is that the attitude now?

Topic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OP WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Full View Permalink

June 13, 1935

Mr. LOUCKS:

We did do it. I gave the figures to show how much better we did than the trade did. Our carryover was about forty

Grain Board-Mr. Loucks

per cent while that of the trade was about sixty per cent. We carried out our plan. What happened to us? Who were the ones who were fighting us? The big interests were the ones who were fighting us. We knew what we were up against; we knew we were up against the grain exchange, the big interests, and 1 want to say to-night that the government is up against the same thing. When I hear some hon. members saying that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is for the big interests, I want to ask the house to-night: Who is he up against now if it is not the big interests, the big milling companies and so forth when he is taking the stand he is for the farmers of western Canada?

Topic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OP WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Full View Permalink

June 13, 1935

Mr. W. J. LOUCKS (Rosetown):

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate but I finally decided to say a few words. Before I start I want to compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) upon the bill now before us, and when I say that I think I voice the views of the wheat growers in my province and more particularly in my constituency. I cannot understand the argument of the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), nor can I understand the arguments of other hon. members who are growing wheat in my province. Reference was made this afternoon to the wheat pool, and I think I am right when I say-the former Minister of Agriculture can correct me if I am wrong-that he was in favour of the wheat pool. I believe the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) was also in favour of this pool. I think they will agree with me when I say that the object in the first place was the orderly marketing of wheat. I will not go back to conditions as they existed prior to the time we organized the pools, but I can remember very well that the wheat growers sent down a deputation -in fact more than one deputation-when hon. gentlemen now in opposition were in power, about the year 1922, asking them to reinstate the wheat board. And I can infer from the fact that they did not do so that the farmers of western Canada found it necessary to organize the pools. We were very anxious to have the old board reinstated because we felt that it was to the advantage of the farmers to have this done, and when it was not done it was decided to organize the pools. Hon. gentlemen who are now criticizing this bill so severely should bear in mind that they refused to give us the wheat board, and therefore there was nothing for us to do but to organize the pools. I believe that Alberta took that step in 1923 and we followed in 1924. We went into that business for the express purpose of having the grain marketed in an orderly way;

that was the object in organizing the pools.

I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to say that the policy of the government in the last three or four years, or under Mr. McFarland, if you will, has not been for that same purpose, namely, to provide orderly marketing. What else is it? It amazes me to hear hon. gentlemen advocating the dumping of our wheat on the markets of the world, to the extent that they have suggested to-day.

I do not wonder so much when I hear that proposal coming from the hon. gentleman who has been acting as critic for the opposition, because he is a lawyer; but I am surprised to hear farmers from western Canada advocating it. They know very well that round about 1923 or 1924 we found it absolutely necessary to take the action we did then, and I am borne out in this by what the Prime Minister said yesterday. When wheat production began to go up, increasing to hundreds of millions of bushels, what else could we have done? I have been thirty years growing wheat in the west and I can remember when our exports amounted to less than one hundred million bushels. But when they got up to three and four hundred million bushels, the farmers of western Canada deoided that the time had come for a change of policy so far as the grain exchange was concerned, because they could not save the situation. The volume had increased to such an extent that we were obliged to make our own market, and that is why we went in for orderly marketing.

The hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) this afternoon condemned the wheat pools; this attitude is characteristic of him. But I want to put on Hansard a few figures to show that the pools themselves did not have the carryover which the trade had for a period of four years. The total carryover for 1929 was 127,000,000 bushels, and the pool's proportion of that was 52,000,000 bushels. In other words, the western pools carried forty per cent of the carryover while the trade carried sixty per cent.

Topic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OP WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Full View Permalink