Personal Data

Social Credit
Drummond--Arthabaska (Quebec)
Birth Date
January 9, 1908
Deceased Date
September 14, 1972
insurance broker

Parliamentary Career

June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
  Drummond--Arthabaska (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 2)

January 23, 1963

Mr. David Ouellei (Drummond-Arihabaska):

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the

hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) who introduced this motion to amend the act respecting election expenditures.

In the province where I come from, we know something about that. I do not know how an election is run in the other provinces across Canada, I have never seen one. Nor do I wish to unduly disparage my own province, but in Quebec, people are beginning to think that an election is the occasion of a huge treat. That should have been corrected long before 1963.

I was told that the present Quebec government was preparing an amendment to the act in order to grant to each party an amount proportionate to the number of votes obtained. Frankly, when you look at the report on election expenditures, after seeing some members at work during an election-and I would not wish to charge anyone with committing perjury-you would think they have very rickety adding machines.

When one sees the tremendous electoral machine at work in some ridings, one wonders if that is not tantamount to a lack of civilization. The electoral machine has an extraordinary influence on public opinion. In fact, it is even used to attack public men in their private lives. Another thing, candidates promise things they know they will never give. That is the harm that representatives do to Canadian politics.

I went through an election for the first time. The member for Brantford said that he is not ready to pass the hat. Well unfortunately I am one of those who had to pass the hat. But there is one good side to that: I showed in my return the correct amount of money I spent for election purposes, as I did not have to lie to arrive at a reasonable figure.

As the hon. member for Brantford stated, parties should report the sources of their income because foreigners are trying to influence our country's politics by contributing to the campaign funds of our political parties. People wonder why foreigners have so much power. It is because certain political parties have their hands tied by power-happy individuals. This is something that should have been discussed long before 1963 but since we are now dealing with this matter, we must take every means at our disposal to correct this situation which has done so much harm to this country.

If, as the hon. member for Brantford who sponsored the motion claims, this state of things is, as I presume, a danger to Canada, I gladly support the motion because this situation has to be corrected. In my opinion,

the whole house is duty bound to do so, because it is the first step toward the great political clean-up which must be made in order to have basically honest politics. I do not tax politics with complete dishonesty; but, to say the contrary, I should be obliged to stretch the truth a little. If political parties could balance their electoral budgets, I think they would be less reluctant to declare their sources of income.

In any case, I am talking on behalf of my own party. We were considered as beggars, but we do not owe anything to anyone. We only promised to give the best of ourselves. We have entered politics in full freedom and have acted accordingly. This is true of every single member of our party. It has been said that the situation was worse in provincial elections than in federal elections. But there is one thing we are beginning to realize in the province of Quebec, and it is that federal elections also are expensive. Federal political parties are taking the lead from provincial ones. Bad example does strange things.

Yet, it is the Canadian government who should set the example. That is why, it should be its duty to have some piece of legislation adopted, including provision to the effect, for instance, that elections should be held honestly, so that those who take part in them may remain honest. In other words, the example must come from Ottawa.

There would be much more to say on the matter, but other members probably wish to take the floor.

I have no doubt that the motion introduced by the hon. member will be carried. Therefore, may I close my remarks by saying that before rejecting this motion, we should consider it dispassionately in the interests of all Canadian citizens.

Full View Permalink

January 23, 1963

Mr. Ouellet:

The hon. member's question is not even worth answering. However,

I can tell him that we did not receive anything from Jerry Martineau, or from Mr. Pearson either. But we received funds from those who wanted a reform.


Full View Permalink

December 18, 1962

Mr. Ouellet:

Yes, I may deal with the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, it is agreed that we are faced with a normal situation. Hon. members have discussed in the past a bill to incorporate this company, when it was organized. If at that time, it was not wanted, they should have opposed it then, I think.

Faced with this problem, some may be embarrassed. But we must be realistic about the request submitted by this company. I agree with the point you have raised, Mr. Chairman, that details cannot be debated at this stage, because the point is out of order and is not relevant to this bill.

However I suggest it is most unfortunate that such things should happen. Besides, this is no time to go back because parliament has already decided.

Now, that company asks us permission to use a French name. Why? Because it suits them. It is rather difficult for us to refuse.

On the other hand, I think it would be time for parliament, when new requests are made by foreign companies, to discuss their merit before approving them, so as not to be faced again with the same problem.

When companies want a change, which is consistent with the charter given them by the

Private Bills

federal government, they should not bother parliament with this kind of thing. I understand the hon. member's remarks in that respect, but I agree with the point you raised, Mr. Chairman, and I think the house could hardly turn down the company's request for a French name.


Full View Permalink

December 11, 1962

Mr. David Ouellei (Drummond-Arthabaska):

Mr. Speaker, did I understand well? I am asking this merely because I did not hear very well. Is Bill S-12 the one to be put before the house?

Full View Permalink

December 11, 1962

Mr. Ouellei:

Mr. Chairman, several insurance companies have also asked to be designated under a French name lately. It seems to be the fashion, and everybody knows why.

I am familiar with that insurance company. It is undoubtedly an excellent company which has been in business for quite a long while. In my opinion, it wants a French name to be able to sell its policies to French Canadians by leading them to believe that it is a French-Canadian company.

If, as the N.D.P. member stated a moment ago, it is true that insurance companies are trying to find a way to catch the French Canadians of the province of Quebec off their guard, I may well oppose myself to the giving of a French name to those companies before long, because I feel that this English insurance company is looking for an indirect way of doing just that.


Private Bills

I was not against the bill concerning the Merit Insurance Company which was before the house last week. In fact, that piece of legislation purported to do the same thing, that is to give a French name to the Merit Insurance Company, which is controlled by Industrial Acceptance Corporation.

In my opinion, the mover has not given the house sufficient information concerning this bill, because I know that the loans granted by Industrial Acceptance Corporation are insured by that company. In fact, the life of the borrower is insured so that, in case of death, the debt is paid and the family is free of any liability.

Industrial Acceptance Corporation got control of that company to provide insurance itself instead of depending upon someone else for that.

Since there was no opposition to the bills previously submitted, I do not intend to oppose this one, because I believe it would be unfair to the company which, by the way, is a rather good one. However, I take this opportunity to say to the house that should such practice continue, I shall voice opposition the next time, and give my reasons therefor.


Full View Permalink