Ernest George HANSELL

HANSELL, Rev. Ernest George, B.D., D.D.

Personal Data

Party
Social Credit
Constituency
Macleod (Alberta)
Birth Date
May 14, 1895
Deceased Date
December 9, 1965
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_George_Hansell
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=b7be8f86-27c2-4da9-a780-2d2bb5edfa31&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
clergyperson, minister

Parliamentary Career

October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
SC
  Macleod (Alberta)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
SC
  Macleod (Alberta)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
SC
  Macleod (Alberta)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
SC
  Macleod (Alberta)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
SC
  Macleod (Alberta)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
SC
  Macleod (Alberta)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2 of 759)


January 31, 1958

Mr. Hansell:

I am sure we thank the minister for the way he has answered these questions. However, I believe he has missed a small question I asked him just before noon concerning the rights of Indians to hunt, either on their reserve or outside of their reserve, and whether they can hunt out of season? What is being done in respect of the complaints I have made to him that animals, after being shot, were left to suffer?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Full View Permalink

January 30, 1958

Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):

May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, or perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare would care to answer. Since reciprocal agreements were signed yesterday between the United Kingdom and Australia with respect to pensions and other social security benefits paid to their citizens living in the other country, will the government initiate a move to have similar agreements completed between Canada and the United Kingdom? Agreements are in existence between the United Kingdom and Malta, Cyprus and New Zealand.

Topic:   SOCIAL SECURITY
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS WITH UNITED KINGDOM
Full View Permalink

January 29, 1958

1. Has the government ever refused any applications for private licences to establish any new private radio or T.V. stations when the C.B.C. recommended the granting of such licences? If so, how many have been refused, and in what cases?

2. Has the government granted any licences to establish any new private radio or T.V. stations when the C.B.C. has not recommended, or advised against it? If so, how many and in what cases?

Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):

1. No.

2. No.

Topic:   ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   TELEVISION AND RADIO LICENCES
Full View Permalink

January 29, 1958

Mr. Hansell:

I know my hon. friend can poke that sort of question at me if he wishes. I am not saying that if you get into the $5 million class, there should not be some sort of graduated tax. I am not saying anything about that. But there are very few in the $5 million class.

I will give an example of what I mean. There is a widow in my constituency whose husband was ill for years. What did the wife do? She cared for her husband over those years and she managed the farm by employing a hired man. The husband and wife had a joint bank account. When the husband eventually died the joint account was frozen. That is reasonable for certain legal purposes, but then there was the further event that even though the wife thought she had a right to claim half of that joint account she was not allowed to do so when the estate was calculated. She could not claim a nickel of it except as it was calculated for inclusion in the estate. The result was that they might just as well not have had a joint account.

We find that particularly so with farm women. For the most part farm women work hard all their lives. They are one with the husband in the estate and therefore they should be half owners of the estate. I think we should acknowledge equality in the marriage partnership and recognize that work within the home and for the family is just as necessary and important as the husband's work is outside the family. The government has recognized that to some extent in other legislation.

The government of Canada has, I might say, increasingly imposed upon married women the burden of partnership with their husbands because the wife is required to pledge her credit when the husband desires to get a loan from the bank. In so far as the Veterans Land Act is concerned, the wife of a man who applies for a loan has to sign the documents and is jointly responsible. The same situation applies to the National Housing Act. The husband and wife are considered partners for the purpose of protecting these loans.

However, when it comes to considering what the husband leaves the wife, then evidently the government does not consider the wife as a partner. I suggest that this bill falls far short of what the women of this country expect. I think it is reasonable that

they should expect half of the estate up to a reasonable amount. I am not going to hold up the committee, but the minister has said that when the resolution is adopted the bill will be given first reading but will not be proceeded with beyond that stage. The minister said we would be given time to analyse it and come forth with suggestions.

I want to ask him if he is really sincere in asking the members of this house to come forth with their suggestions. If he is, then he is going to get some. If he is sincere in requesting that we come forward with our suggestions he should indicate his sincerity by saying that he will listen to them; that he will accept those suggestions and if they are reasonable, when the bill is presented at the next session of parliament, if he has anything to do with it, those suggestions will be incorporated in the bill. If he is sincere, that is exactly what he will do. If this bill is introduced and we can see it and analyse it, the women's organizations of this country can also see it, then I am quite certain that the minister will be flooded with suggestions as to how the women of this country who are left widows, perhaps without earning power, feel they should be regarded in so far as their husbands' estates are concerned.

I will not say any more than that. I want the minister to be sincere in this matter. I think he is sincere. I think he wants to do a good job for Canada. I have no doubt about that. He is a very fine gentleman. I am going to say this, however, that we in this corner of the house have, for many years, recognized that he is restricted in what he would like to do. He is restricted by reason of the fact he is a victim of the financial policies that have been embodied over the years in the legislation of this country. His hands are tied. If he is sincere about this matter and wants to do a real job for this country and particularly the unfortunate widows, he will look into all these matters, including the financial policy which is tying his hands, and he will tear himself loose from that type of policy. This will enable him to do all the things that he believes the people of this country desire he should do. Some of us expect to be back for the next parliament. I do not know whether or not the minister will be, but I suppose he expects to be. If we are all back here, we are going to remind him of what he said this afternoon. We are going to ask that suitable amendments be made to the bill.

Topic:   REVISION, CONSOLIDATION, ETC.
Full View Permalink

January 29, 1958

Mr. Hansell:

I want to have something to say on this resolution by reason of the fact that many of us, a year or so ago, received many letters and petitions asking for a revision of this act in the interests of the women of this country. I especially want to call to the attention of the minister the fact that a year ago, in the last session of the last parliament, I asked the then minister of finance, Mr. Harris, whether, on the basis of this flood of letters which all members of parliament were receiving, we could expect any revision of the succession duty act to be made before the session ended. He responded that the government had been working on a revision of the act but that it would have to be deferred to the next session of parliament. Of course, since that time there has been a change. An election has been held and a new government has come into office.

But I pursued the matter a little further. A number of weeks ago, I think in November, I asked the present Minister of Finance a similar question. I prefaced my question by calling his attention to the fact that we had all received many letters and resolutions, mostly from women and women's organizations, asking for revision of the act and making certain proposals. I also reminded him of the question I had asked his predecessor. The answer the present Minister of Finance gave me at the time was that the matter was under active consideration. I want hon. members to notice that I prefaced my question by calling attention to the fact that women's organizations throughout the country were asking for certain things.

I come now to the present resolution and I say that we are reasonably pleased that there are to be changes in the present succession duty act. The name of the act is to be

3994 HOUSE OF

Dominion Succession Duty Act changed and there will be slightly greater exemptions. Estates will not be taxed quite so heavily as before. At the same time, having regard to what is contained in the resolution, I am afraid that some of us will have to express serious disappointment. Our disappointment arises from the fact that the present resolution and the bill to follow, if we are to judge the bill on the basis of the resolution, do not come anywhere near giving the widows of this country what they have asked for in resolutions they have presented to members of the House of Commons. In addition, not so long ago there was a convention of women in Ottawa. I think they represented the Canadian Women's Institutes. They held their convention at the Chateau Laurier and if I am not mistaken a delegation of these women waited on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.

They were encouraged at the time to believe that some attention would be paid to their request. Again I say that if all that is in the bill is simply a reduction of the taxes imposed on estates the legislation will fall far short of satisfying the women of the country. It will fall far short of what the women have been asking for. In my files I have a letter from Mrs. Kehr of Vulcan, Alberta. I have another one from Mrs. Finlayson of Ottawa who is chairman of the Canadian Committee on the Status of Women. I have another from Mrs. Kellar of Cayley, Alberta, another from Mrs. Gillanders of Blackie, Alberta, another from Mrs. Ray of Royalties, Alberta, another from Mrs. Beagle of High River, Alberta, who is the president or secretary, I believe, of the High River Women's Institute, another from Mrs. Maisey of Kirchaldy, Alberta. I think she was writing for the women's institute of that district. I have another from Mrs. Williams of Arrowwood, another from Mrs. Hill of Arrowwood, Alberta, another from the district director of the Farm Women's Union of Alberta, Mrs. House of Arrowwood. I believe I have other letters in another file regarding the same matter.

Topic:   REVISION, CONSOLIDATION, ETC.
Full View Permalink