Frank Thomas STANFIELD

STANFIELD, Frank Thomas, B.Comm.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Colchester--Hants (Nova Scotia)
Birth Date
February 25, 1903
Deceased Date
July 2, 1967
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Thomas_Stanfield
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=48e8779e-92d9-4a3f-9643-cc4aa0d25b93&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
industrialist

Parliamentary Career

June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
PC
  Colchester--Hants (Nova Scotia)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
PC
  Colchester--Hants (Nova Scotia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 19)


June 20, 1951

Mr. Stanfield:

Are the minister and his

department thinking of taking any steps to support the price of dominion government bonds? I realize that there are many difficulties in the way of doing so, but at the same time many people when they bought those bonds were told that they could always get 100 cents on the dollar for them. I realize also that if they hold them to maturity they will get 100 cents on the dollar, but not everyone is able to hold his bonds. There are many small investors who for some reason or other find it necessary to sell $100 or $500 or $5,000 of their bonds. When they go to the bank and find the bond quoted at 96 or 97 or perhaps 98, they immediately wonder why they cannot get par for it. In fairness to those people who were told that Canadian government

Supply-Finance

bonds would always be worth 100 cents on to these bonds. Having established that the dollar I believe those who have to turn principle I should not think the minister is in their bonds for one reason or another in quite as good a position to back away as should be able to get their face value. he seems to think he is.

Topic:   PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE
Full View Permalink

June 5, 1951

Mr. Stanfield:

As I said during the budget debate, I think this is a very foolish change for the minister to make. I have a very high regard for him, but I believe he has made a mistake in this case. For many years the depreciation rate was 10 per cent, and everyone knew exactly what to expect and just what to do. Even in times of great crisis, even when our profits' tax had to go to seventy-five per cent, or say it did, as long as you had a steady rate of depreciation and knew what you were doing, business could keep on going along on a sound basis. But now, when you get fooling around with depreciation, and fooling around with everything, you get to a point where nobody knows what he is doing. I believe the minister was ill advised to change these rates of depreciation. He should have left it the way it was.

Topic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Full View Permalink

June 5, 1951

Mr. Stanfield:

I would like the minister to explain this deferred depreciation a little more clearly, because I have heard two or three versions. I imagine the correct one is that if you buy a new piece of machinery you lose four years' depreciation. Some people seem to think that when 1956 comes around they will get the four years' depreciation all at once, but I do not think that is right. Would the minister explain it?

Topic:   INCOME TAX ACT
Full View Permalink

June 4, 1951

Mr. Sianfield:

This afternoon the parliamentary assistant said that peanut oil and coconut oil were admitted free.

Topic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF
Full View Permalink

June 4, 1951

Mr. Stanfield:

Mr. Chairman, there has

been some discussion concerning these edible oils. I believe the parliamentary assistant should put on Hansard just what the duty is, general tariff, most favoured nation and British preferential, on these edible oils.

Topic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF
Full View Permalink