CHATTERTON, George Louis, B.Sc.

Personal Data

Progressive Conservative
Esquimalt--Saanich (British Columbia)
Birth Date
January 16, 1916
Deceased Date
September 7, 1983

Parliamentary Career

May 29, 1961 - April 19, 1962
  Esquimalt--Saanich (British Columbia)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
  Esquimalt--Saanich (British Columbia)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
  Esquimalt--Saanich (British Columbia)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
  Esquimalt--Saanich (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 148 of 150)

October 16, 1962

Mr. Chaiterion:

How about 1962?

Full View Permalink

October 4, 1962

Mr. Challerion:

Will the hon. member permit a question at this time?

Full View Permalink

October 4, 1962

Mr. Chatierton:

The hon. member referred to the cost of power and said that our Canadian share of the downstream benefits would be four mills. Does that take into consideration the cost of power from Mica, fully machined? I am just asking for information.

Full View Permalink

March 26, 1962

Mr. Chatierion:

I feel compelled to say a few words on this resolution for more than one reason. First of all, I have been closely associated with this legislation for several years. Second, as one of the "backest" of the back benchers-and I sometimes wonder, in this position, how far our voices carry-I ask myself whether the proposed resolution coincides by accident with some of the suggestions I have made or whether some of my suggestions and recommendations to the minister have played a part in the drafting of the resolution which is before us. It is hard to say.

In any event, it is certainly a source of satisfaction to me to know that many of the provisions in this resolution are such as I have recommended to the minister and to the staff of his department. First, as to the extension of the deadline date. The deadline has, up to now, for all practical purposes, been September, 1962. It has now been extended to October 31, 1968. This action was very necessary because of the many anomalies and inequities which arise in legislation such as this in connection with a deadline. For example, under the provisions which have existed up to the present time, certain veterans would have been eligible after the deadline date whereas others, with overseas service, might have lost their eligibility as of September of this year. Another important factor concerning the extension of the deadline in so far as people now serving in the

armed forces are concerned is this: not too many of them are aware of the fact that they are eligible under at least two parts of the Veterans' Land Act. The first is part II, under which members of the armed forces are eligible, provided a commanding officer can state that they will be stationed in one location for a period of 18 months. Another area of the act with respect to which members of the armed forces generally are not aware of their eligibility includes parts I and III. By virtue of an amendment brought in by the present government, members of the armed forces are eligible under parts I and III of the act, provided they are on their last posting. This extension of the deadline date to 1968 will make available the benefits of this legislation to members of the armed forces for a period of some five years. I should like to have recommended to the government that no tailgate or deadline be included in this legislation. However, we know that this government will still be here to extend the deadline further in 1968 and I take it, therefore, that the present provision will be satisfactory to the veterans of Canada.

Some of the provisions in this resolution are far reaching. The minister had indicated that the amount of loans to small holders will be increased from $10,000 to $12,000. This is particularly significant when we consider that the amount of the increased deposit required to get this larger loan will be only $200. In other words, for a $200 increase in the down payment the loan under part III will be increased from $10,000 to $12,000. This in itself will be most acceptable. But the one new departure indicated in this resolution is the fact that these increased loans, for the first time in the history of the Veterans' Land Act, will be made retroactive. Hitherto, all the increases, first, from $6,000 to $8,000, and then from $8,000 to $10,000, were available only to new borrowers. They were never made available to those veterans who had previously obtained assistance under the act.

As the minister told the committee this afternoon it is now considered that those veterans who are already established should be able to obtain the additional money required to enlarge their homes or their holdings. It is true they might have been able to do this under part IV of the National Housing Act. Over the years I have maintained that the veterans of Canada are deserving of better assistance than is provided under part IV of the housing act, so I think it is one of the satisfactory features of this resolution that all these veterans, numbering in the order of 60,000, established under parts I and

Veterans' Land Act

III of the Veterans' Land Act will now be able to get this additional assistance.

One of the major departures envisaged by this resolution, as I gathered from the minister this afternoon, is the new clause proposed to amend the act in relation to the small family farm. Before I discuss that clause I wonder whether for the sake of clarity and getting the record straight I should refer to the welcome comments made this afternoon by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. He read at some length from the report made by the veterans land administration on some 5,000 farmer veterans across Canada, going back to 1957. I think the hon. member did not clearly understand that the recommendations resulting from the findings of that report were fully implemented by this government in 1959. That report indicated the need for additional credit to enable these veterans to set up economic farm units across Canada under the Veterans' Land Act. The act was amended, and those recommendations were implemented by the present section 64 of the act which allows for a loan of up to $20,000 for one farmer, provided he farms an economic unit. That is the crux of the difference between that wonderful legislation and this new proposal mentioned by the minister today, that is, the provision for the small family farm.

The new proposal makes provision for veterans who operate small farms who could not have been accommodated under the existing legislation. Under the small holdings provisions a man was supposed to be able to assure the administration that he had an income from employment and there was a provision relating to the farm being an economic unit before one could qualify for a loan of $20,000. Between these two positions were a large number of veterans operating small family farms who will be taken care of under the new provision.

I think this is a rather bold experiment.

I hope it will serve as a guinea pig for similar legislation which will be made available to non-veterans who operate small family farms just as the Veterans' Land Act served as a guinea pig for the Farm Credit Act. In the same way I hope this legislation will serve as an experiment for similar legislation to assist non-veterans who operate small family farms.

Another proposed amendment will have the effect of extending the advance under part

II of the Veterans' Land Act from $10,000 to $12,000. As hon. members no doubt appreciate part II of the act is an adaptation of the National Housing Act to the specific use of veterans. This is part of the self-help program. It must be understood that although the advance is increased from $10,000 to $12,000 the

Canadian Wheat Board Act amount of the loan available to veterans under part II of the act remains the same as it is now under the National Housing Act. In other words for a three bedroom house a veteran under part II can still obtain a loan of $14,200 and for a four bedroom house he may obtain a loan of $14,900. The only difference is that under part II the amount of money advanced by the administration will be increased from $10,000 to $12,000.

The measure of insurance mentioned by the minister will, I think, be well received. Certainly the experience of the administration in respect of the Farm Credit Act has been satisfactory. I believe the proposal will be accorded widespread approval and a warm reception by veterans.

Further details of the amendments will be presented to the committee in due course. I merely wished to take this opportunity of making a few comments particularly because in my riding there are approximately 1,200 veterans who have taken advantage of the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act. The half acre provision that was introduced last year was well received. I know that the proposals foreshadowed by this resolution will win wholehearted support not only among the veterans and the Legion but among people all across Canada.

Resolution reported and concurred in.

Mr. Churchill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-80, to amend the Veterans' Land Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Full View Permalink

February 19, 1962

Mr. Chatterton:

I did not hear the hon. member well, so I do not understand what he said. The clipping is from the issue of January 30, and it contains a picture of the crocuses and other flowers. I mention this not in boastfulness but because there is a connection between the climate of my riding and certain items contained in the speech from the throne. Because of the salubrious climate many fine people from elsewhere in Canada and from other parts of the world come to settle there, and in particular many of our senior citizens come there to enjoy the advantages of the area. I am therefore very pleased with the increase of $10 in payments to old age security recipients, effective as of February 1 last.

I made the few notes I have, Mr. Speaker, before the debate on the speech from the throne was interrupted by certain important measures. Since then I have listened to the debates carefully, particularly with regard to the question of pensions. I was very impressed with the Prime Minister's speech on February 8, a speech that I like to look upon in my own mind as the "horns of the dilemma" speech. At that time the Prime Minister pointed out that social security payments had increased from $1.3 billion in 1956-57 to $2.3 billion in 1961-62. He also pointed out that increases in payments of all kinds to the provinces and to provincial institutions had increased from $689 million in 1956-57 to approximately $1.47 billion in 1961-62. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, these increases in payments to the provinces could have been used by the provinces to relieve the municipalities and the property taxpayers. I know that in the case of British Columbia this unfortunately was not done.

Reverting to the Prime Minister's speech on February 8, I would point out that he put a question to the Leader of the Opposition. The question was this. Which of these measures, payments in respect of which increased from 1956-57 to 1961-62 by something in

the order of $lf billion, would the opposition have eliminated? It was a clear question. I have heard equivocation, I have heard aspersions, but I have heard no answer in spite of the fact that the official opposition supposedly has all the answers. I heard many references to election promises and, Mr. Speaker, that brings me to a quotation from an editorial in the Victoria daily Colonist of January 31, 1962. The editorial is headed "The Growing List", and reads as follows:

It was just a little more than three months ago in Victoria that Mr. Lester Pearson made his now famous "no-promises" speech which was hailed by his followers as the introduction of a new and courageous Liberal party policy. It was then that Mr. Pearson bravely declared that his party would in future devote itself to planning practical and progressive action rather than "planning by irresponsible promises which . .. cannot be carried out."

Unkindly perhaps, but naturally, it was noted at the time of this revolutionary approach to election campaigning by the national Liberal leader that his party had already committed itself to an impressive list of promises-promises, to mention a few, ranging from a reduction in income tax to the institution of a free national health plan, from guarantees of full employment to the underwriting of low rental housing, from increasing veterans pensions to giving financial assistance to power, transport and other economic developments *-all without cost to the taxpayer.

Many Canadians took Mr. Pearson at his word to generously overlook these earlier pledges, satisfied perhaps that, as the Liberal party had already saturated the field of promises, its leader could now safely promise that there would be no further promises. On the face of things there did, indeed, appear to be nothing left to promise.

But, as was quickly proven, any thoughts along these lines failed to show an appreciation of the ingeniousness of Mr. Pearson and his cohorts, for, incredible though it may seem, the list of Liberal promises is still growing. So expert have they become in the science of making pledges that they have extended their operations to take in regional levels on a selective promise basis. This newest phase was explained Sunday in some detail by Maurice Sauve, the Liberal party's Quebec public relations director.

In briefing the Liberal national campaign committee in Ottawa he told them that Liberal workers must get about the ridings and find out what people want. There was no use promising bridges if they wanted hospitals, he said. Thus it would appear that even though the Liberals have run out of national promises they still have the parishes to work on. What price Mr. Pearson's promise not to promise now? Or don't the little ones count?

That will take care of the question of election promises so often referred to by hon. members opposite.

My area also has a very large percentage of veterans, particularly older veterans and veterans with war disabilities. As a tribute to those veterans, and particularly to those who are handicapped by virtue of their war disabilities, I should like to mention the name of one as representing all the veterans who have war disabilities. I refer to one of my constituents by the name of John Windsor. He was wounded and blinded in the Melfa

river battle where Canadian troops distinguished themselves. This constituent has just written a book called "Blind Date", and it gives me pleasure to read the foreword to his book by Major General Hon. George R. Pearkes, V.C., C.B., D.S.O., M.C., lieutenant governor of British Columbia. This is what General Pearkes says in his foreword:

I am very glad John Windsor has told his story. He was a popular cadet at the Royal Military College and a promising junior officer in Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians).

His writing combines a unique style of drama and humour. It is a Canadian saga, told simply with great restraint. The result is vivid and moving; a truly remarkable piece of writing.

All his friends in Canada and England will be pleased, I am sure, that John has given this book to us from his generation.

I expect that the book will soon be in the library of parliament, and I commend it to all members of the house as a great effort by a blind Canadian veteran.

So far as veterans are concerned, the Prime Minister has made it clear on many occasions through many means that we shall never forget those who fought for their country, and those who were bereaved in the effort. It is therefore no surprise to see in the throne speech recognition of these worthy citizens. I note with satisfaction that the effective dates of the War Services Grants Act, the Veterans Land Act and others are to be extended. I suggest to the government that these statutory deadlines in these pieces of legislation create certain anomalies and inequities. When the time comes-we have until 1968-I shall make further representations on that score. We know that this type of legislation benefits not only the veterans but benefits Canada as a whole.

Having had considerable experience in the administration of veterans legislation I should like to make one or two suggestions. The resolution with regard to the Veterans Land Act has not been brought before the house as yet, and although it is indicated in the throne speech that the deadline will be extended, there is no reference to the further changes to be made. I hope there will be certain improvement, particularly to the Veterans Land Act. I point out to the government that the present $10,000 limit in parts 1 and 3 of the Veterans Land Act is not as realistic now as it was a few years ago. In addition, the $10,000 limit on advances under part 2 of the Veterans Land Act is inadequate and should be increased to the amount of the loan, as is the case under the National Housing Act.

I suggest also that, having a precedent where veterans who were not Canadians have received certain benefits even though they did not normally live here before the war, the government should give consideration to extending part II of the Veterans

The Address-Mr. Chatterton Land Act to veterans of our allies who did not normally live here before the war. This feature does not involve any direct monetary subsidy, but it does encourage self-help. I know there are large numbers of allied veterans who would be very happy to be made eligible under part II of the Veterans Land Act.

Our senior citizens and our veterans, Mr. Speaker, have received some attention in the throne speech. However, there is another group of Canadians who I think are worthy of some attention. I refer to ex-civil servants and ex-armed forces personnel who were superannuated some years ago. I know that about four years ago this government introduced an adjustment in pensions which affected many of these people. I do believe, however, that many of them are suffering hardship. I know this government cannot do everything in five years, especially all that was left undone in 22 years, but I think these people may deserve further consideration from our government. I feel that in time this will be done.

The throne speech refers to some of Canada's activities in the international field. I am particularly impressed with the reiteration of the traditional policy of this government toward strengthening the commonwealth as an instrument of peace and freedom. It was most distasteful, Mr. Speaker, to hear members on the opposite side attempt to discredit the performance, as it were, of Canada in the international scene, to cast reflections and belittle the efforts of our Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, the rebuttal made by the Minister of Finance on January 24 and by the Minister of Veterans Affairs the next day was like a fresh breeze blowing over waters muddied by the opposition. I am sure Canadians as a whole will accept their version of our position in international affairs.

Vast distances and many differences lie between the island of Newfoundland and Vancouver island. I think, though, that the islands of Canada have at least one factor in common, that is a feeling almost akin to isolation and sometimes neglect. I am glad, therefore, for the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia when I see they will be receiving an automobile ferry service provided by the federal government. There are many people on Vancouver island who feel that under terms of confederation the federal government has a certain responsibility for providing transportation between the mainland and Vancouver island. I hope that this precedent on the Atlantic coast may in time be applicable on the Pacific coast.

The Address

Mr. Chatterton

I must say, too, that many people in British Columbia are not aware of the fact that this government does in fact pay a subsidy toward transportation across the straits of Georgia. This is in the form of a 40 per cent subsidy applied to the construction cost of the two ferries already built which service this strait and the two new ones under construction. There will be others. In eifect, therefore, this government does contribute something toward transportation in that area.

More and more, Mr. Speaker, this is becoming an age of technology where higher education, technical and vocational proficiency are important. Our government is already contributing generously in these fields, but the proposed increase of some 33 per cent in grants to universities is timely and far sighted. This assistance will be particularly welcome to the University of Victoria. This institution had an enviable record as the former Victoria college, but is now a full fledged, degree granting university which is expanding at the phenomenal rate of something like 400 pupils per annum. I know this university will welcome this additional assistance, particularly in view of the fact that certain assistance from the province was withdrawn from that institution this year.

The throne speech mentions acreage payments, and that matter has been dealt with by the house. This does not affect my riding, but it does indicate the attitude of this government toward the farmers of Canada. My own riding contains a large percentage of small farmers. The Farm Credit Act, itself an excellent piece of legislation, is very helpful, too. However, I estimate that some 75 per cent of the farmers in my riding could not qualify for assistance under this act. I think in due course the government, with its usual concern for the farmers, will give some thought to some assistance to these smaller farmers who cannot qualify for assistance under the Farm Credit Act.

In spite of the gloom and doom so generously spread by certain people there is a feeling of optimism in my riding, where the future promises much as a result of the positive measures taken by this government. Industries are expanding, and although I must admit that the present employment situation in H.M.C. Dockyard is not too good, the fact is that the shipbuilding industry is expanding. The future in that regard is very promising, largely as a result of the subsidies introduced by this government.

Because of the federal assistance given under the winter works program for sewage works and so on, municipalities, particularly the municipality of Saanich, are undertaking worthwhile projects which otherwise might

have been left undone. But in spite of this glowing picture there is one group in my riding who face the future with some concern. I refer to the commercial fishermen. Although the government has enacted certain measures to assist commercial fishermen, I believe some consideration might be given to more research and experimentation in connection with the preservation and restoration of the resources in the sea, and to an investigation into some means for better distribution of this crop amongst those who harvest it.

There is a general upsurge of economic activity in my riding and it is gratifying to note the references in the throne speech to extending the expansionist measures already undertaken by our government. In this regard I quote two headlines from the Victoria daily Colonist. The first appeared on January 13, 1962, and read "Victoria port business soars to all time high." No doubt that is largely due to the exports which have been promoted by the government. The other headline from the daily Colonist of January 6, 1962, reads: "More people working than in past decade." Judging by the previous reaction of members opposite to suggestions of good tidings, no doubt they will bring out their brushes dripping with black colour paints but I believe the mass of Canadians have a greater insight into this government's accomplishments and will so indicate at the appropriate time.

Full View Permalink