Michael LUCHKOVICH

LUCHKOVICH, Michael, B.A.

Personal Data

Party
United Farmers of Alberta
Constituency
Vegreville (Alberta)
Birth Date
November 13, 1892
Deceased Date
April 21, 1973
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Luchkovich
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=6d793e44-6c06-4c2c-9d9b-b6c100053abb&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
teacher

Parliamentary Career

September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
UFA
  Vegreville (Alberta)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
UFA
  Vegreville (Alberta)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 58)


July 2, 1935

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:

I was paired with

the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.

Topic:   EMPIRE TRADE AGREEMENTS
Subtopic:   TRANSFER TO GOVERNMENT ORDERS OF MOTION OF MR. HARRIS
Full View Permalink

June 10, 1935

Mr. LUCHKOVTOH:

How can the small retailer compete with the monopoly?

Topic:   TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMISSION
Full View Permalink

June 7, 1935

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:

I spoke quite loudly. Possibly the hon. member for Willow Bunch wanted to be conveniently deaf at the time I asked that question, because it is indeed pertinent to the subject he discussed. Up in my district farmers are asking that question every day, as to whether a lowering of the tariff would restore the European market for our Alberta wheat. According to my recollection, in 1920 a binder cost just as much as a binder costs at the present time, so out there we do not feel that the tariff has done as much for the farmers as the hon. member for Willow Bunch and others who hold the same views would like us to believe.

There are gentlemen in my district who are telling the farmers that if they elect a Liberal government not only will the old markets be restored but new markets will be found. I wonder where they are going to find new markets at the present time. Are they going to send that colossal genius Bob Deachman, who I understand is a candidate in one of the Huron ridings, and the hon. member for Wey-burn down to the Fiji islands to teach the natives there how to bake bread? Are they going to send the histrionic member for Vancouver Centre to inveigle them out of their present food habits? Or are thej^ going to employ the editorial pen of the lugubrious

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act

gentleman from North Battleford to stop the Chinese raising rice and make shredded wheat and pancakes all the rage in that country? For the life of me I cannot understand where they are going to find these new markets. The hon. member for Melville well said that there is a glut on all the markets, that there is a surplus of wheat throughout the world at the present time which has prevented us from sending our Canadian wheat to the European market. If the other members of the party to which the hon. member for Melville belongs would only say that on the stump instead of promising that when they get into power mushrooms will grow under every blade of grass and this country will be with milk and honey blessed. I think we would be much further ahead than by listening to outworn arguments such as the free traders are preaching throughout the country at the present time

I believe there is an essential difference between Conservatism radicalism and Conservatism liberalism. I did not rise either to praise or to bury the government that introduced this marketing act. Personally I feel, like the hon. member for Melville', that this is a step in the right direction. Perhaps mistakes may have been made in certain particulars, but I certainly feel that it is a step in the right direction. It has been introduced from the point of view of what I have designated as conservative radicalism, and as between that and conservative liberalism I prefer the conservative radical application of the act as it is now presented to the House of Commons. After all, what is radicalism? It comes from the word "radix", which means the root. In other words radicalism means nothing more than going to the root of the problem, and I feel that this Natural Products Marketing Act goes to the root of the problem at the present time. I do not believe in the methods of those political dinosaurs and dodos who live in an age that is past, who still believe that by a policy of laissez-faire we can restore prosperity to this country. We are living in a changed world; there is no question about that, but they still chant the old slogans and apply them to new policies, and the thing is absolutely impossible. The farmers of my part of the country feel that we must approach this problem from a more radical point of view, whether that point of view be conservative radicalism or the point of view7 that we in this corner of the house have expressed. As a member of the United Farmers of Alberta I should like to go into the matter a little more radically than the government have done up to the present. Economics and 92582-219$

government must be brought into better coordination.

I cannot see, as some members of this house claim to see, that we are going to restore prosperity by some system of lowering tariffs. That is not enough. Certainly I will vote for any reduction in the tariff. When the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) introduced a resolution calling on the government to lower or remove the duty on farm implements and machinery I was prepared to vote for that resolution. I was quite surprised, however, when in one breath the hon. member defended low tariffs and in the next breath said, "Well, this might not bring about any lower prices of machinery because of the system of combines that we have in this and other countries, which will prevent any decreases in the prices of machinery." Well, why not be practical about it; why not tackle the fundamental problems? Why not tackle the combines, the trusts and all those other ramifications that are doing so much to prevent the return of prosperity to this country?

I think the Natural Products Marketing Act ' is a step in the right direction; personally I support it, and I believe the great majority of the farmers in my district are advocating it also.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink

June 7, 1935

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:

May I ask a question? If our tariff were wiped out-

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink

June 7, 1935

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:

Even if our tariff were reduced to zero would that restore our markets?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink