Pierre Auguste Martial RHÉAUME

RHÉAUME, Pierre Auguste Martial

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
St. Johns--Iberville--Napierville (Quebec)
Birth Date
April 9, 1882
Deceased Date
December 17, 1970
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Rhéaume
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=706d30b6-787c-40d0-aa68-81075c7ff522&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
butcher and meat cutter

Parliamentary Career

July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
LIB
  St. Johns--Iberville (Quebec)
October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
LIB
  St. Johns--Iberville--Napierville (Quebec)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
LIB
  St. Johns--Iberville--Napierville (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 52)


March 5, 1935

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

Let us have the opinion of the member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil).

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MARINE
Full View Permalink

February 5, 1935

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

I don't know. However, a moment ago I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) say, in answer to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien), that a farmer must be very highly rated to obtain money with which to settle his debts under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. When you wish to find fault with somebody, nothing is easier. I understand that the Minister of Finance is a good lawyer; he is in that respect about the equal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett): he never commits himself. His answer, to my mind, is very wise; if the farmer's standing is very good, if he is a first class man, the board will probably consider his case. But he did not commit himself.

I read in the newspaper La Presse that, in the province of Quebec, one can get but 60 per cent of the assessed value of his farm while in the other provinces, one can obtain two-thirds. When the bill is before the house for consideration, I hope the Minister of Finance will tell us why the farmers of the province of Quebec can obtain but 60 per cent of the valuation of their farms.

On what will the hon. minister base his valuation? On the municipal valuation or on that of the board's inspector? I know personally that, in a few cases, the inspector for the St. Jean-Iberville district, a man of high standing, had fixed the valuation of a farm, a valuation that met with the approval of the Quebec government, but which was refused by Ottawa. An inspector of the central board was sent to fix the valuation; the loan however was refused.

When you talk of lending 60 per cent, I ask you: On what valuation? If you take the inspector's appraisal, and if, in a number of cases, he values the land at $15 or $20 an acre, 60 per cent on that will not amount to much: from $9 to $12 an acre. It would mean that, on a 100 acre farm, a farmer could borrow under this great piece of legislation from $900 to $1,200. When the bill is introduced, I hope the Minister of Finance will give us some explanation. If you take the inspector's appraisal1, I can predict that the act will be a failure, as in 1934. I do not think there are five members from Quebec in this house who can say that two thirds or 50 per cent of the applications have been granted. In the electoral district of St. Jean-Iberville, eighteen applications have been made but not one has been granted. And we were told the new arrangement would give farmers a chance to borrow money! If there is nothing in the

act by which the lending of a fixed amount of money is authorized, and if you leave that to the inspector's discretion, I think there is no sense in that. Inspectors appointed may not be any better than their predecessors.

The Canadian Farm Loan Act passed in 1927 proved to be very advantageous in 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931; it was of some use in 1032; but since that time, it has rendered no service at all. A few Joans have been made in the electoral district of St. Jean-Iberville at $40 or $45 an acre, which was a reasonable amount. But, when you come to lending 60 per cent on the basis of a valuation made by an appraiser who values the land at $20 or $25 an acre, I say the thing is perfect nonsense and you waste the time of this house by discussing a piece of legislation under which the decision is left to the discretion of inspectors who are, in a great many cases, political appointees.

Now I would like to touch upon that great Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Much has been said about it. The Minister of Finance has just given notice that the period will be extended from 60 to 90 days. A lawyer practising in St. Johns, who has quite a number of cases before that tribunal, was telling me yesterday: "That is not of much importance; I have a case pending since last November; no tribunal has yet been organized; I asked for a postponement of 60 days and it was granted."

With this precious arrangement act, the government has absolutely killed the farmer's credit. No farmer is able to get $100 from a bank, but, before that act, two farmers could go to a bank and borrow money on a promissory note endorsed by one of them. What I am telling you now, I learned from three managers of our banks in St. Johns, where we have branches of the Banque Canadienne Nationale, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Canadian Bank of Commerce. The managers have received instructions not to lend a single cent to farmers. The farmers' credit has been completely ruined.

I know the proposed amendments may have their good points; but, if you want practical legislation, you necessarily must fix a minimum valuation per acre. Otherwise, your legislation will be worthless, because, if you leave the valuation to the discretion of inspectors, it will certainly be a failure, like all the rest.

Mr. OIROLTARiD (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the fact that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) has not appealed to the honourable minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), is very unfortunate. If the government is really

Farm Loan Act

anxious to help the farmers, I think that the Canadian Farm Loan Act and the Farmer's Creditors Arrangement Act should necessarily supplement each other.

As it is now, the Farmer's Creditors Arrangement Act operates as follows: a farmer appears before the receiver appointed by the government and files his statement of affairs. A meeting of the creditors is called for a certain date. If the creditors cannot come to an agreement, a compromise is out of question and then the fanner has the right to ask that his terms be submitted to the board of review. That board of review, as far as I know, has not yet operated in the rural districts of the province of Quebec, although the law is in force since the 1st of October, 1934.

The board of review has the power, under the provisions of the act, to compel the creditor or the debtor to accept the compromise that the board sees fit to determine. The board is composed of three members appointed by the government. The point raised by my hon. friend, the member for Proven-cher, is as follows: supposing that a compromise is arrived at and that it is approved by the board, where will the debtor find the necessary amount of money if it is agreed that a certain amount should be raised in cash? The only people a farmer can apply to in order to raise the money is obviously the Farm Loan Board. Without a Farm Loan Board, the only compromise a debtor could offer would be by way of instalments. The farmer having come to terms, and being compelled to make some payments at a more or less distant date, I am afraid he will not be in a position to do so and, under the act, i'f he does not comply with the terms of the arrangement, that failure is tantamount to bankruptcy and his property is sold by the receiver. Consequently, the necessity of giving the farmer the means of raising money by way of loans and to come to terms on a basis of a cash payment, which is of course a much better arrangement than an instalment plan, is apparent. As I have already said, the Farm Loan Board, and nobody else, can supply him with the necessary amount of money. I respectfully submit that, if the government wishes to see those two acts fairly and efficiently applied, the honourable Minister of Finance should amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act so as to compel the Farm Loan Board to advance to the farmers the amount required under the arrangement approved by the board of review.

Topic:   CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE AND INCREASE THE EXTENSION OF CREDIT TO FARMERS
Full View Permalink

February 5, 1935

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

Mr. Chairman, I wish to add a few words to the remarks of the hon. members who have addressed the house this afternoon on this measure. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has explained the resolution he moved last Friday, and the press of the oountiy has published his explanations. A representative in each province, a reduction of interest to four per cent, the elimination of the five per cent that the borrower had to invest. Yesterday morning, a farmer said he had read in the press about the advantages the amendments to the Farm Loan Act of 1927, would bring to the farmers. With those amendments, the provincial boards are to disappear and1 the whole business will be centralized in Ottawa. One could not find anything better to increase delays, and our friends will, I think, have plenty of time to expound on the hustings, during the election, the advantages those amendments to the law will bring to the farmers.

I have often endeavoured to obtain loans under this act. In one case, where I thought I had made good progress, it took a little over eight months. I know of a case where they came across after fifteen months. And, no doubt, with the proposed amendments, the number of applications will increase. The inspection of the farm cannot take place before the first days in May and, as applications will be numerous, delays will result. In the meantime, our good friends will travel through the country, before the election, and say: See what we have done for the farmers!

Last fall at a meeting of farmers at Con-trecceur, the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranteau), told those present of the advantages this government had brought to the rural people; the famous Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, the amendments to the Farm Loan Act. But those wrho tried to get a loan under the terms of the amendments of 1934, did not get a cent.

Last summer I received a dozen applications for money. I see my good friend from Compton (Mr. Gobeil), who said in his remarks on Friday last, that many farmers were complaining of their requests being refused because politics had something to do with it. I must say that in St. Jean-Iberville, Conservatives are scarce. Out of the twelve who made applications for loans, I think eleven were Liberals, and not one got a cent. In one case, one farmer wanted a loan of $5,000 on a 240-acre farm, one of the richest in the province of Quebec, and he was turned down immediately. In another case, on a 120-acre farm, with a good brick house, good outbuildings and situated at a quarter of a mile from the village, without church or road fees, $3,000 were asked. Refused; the man was a Liberal. In another case, half a mile from the village, $2,500 were asked. Refused.

Farm Loan Act

Topic:   CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE AND INCREASE THE EXTENSION OF CREDIT TO FARMERS
Full View Permalink

June 26, 1934

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

Will the hon. minister permit me to put a question?

Topic:   PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ACT
Full View Permalink

June 26, 1934

Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):

To prove his good faith, his sincerity, could not the minister, out of this amount of $2,500,000 find $50,000 to improve the Chambly canal? You can also preach by giving the example.

Topic:   PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ACT
Full View Permalink