William Marvin HOWE

HOWE, William Marvin

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Wellington--Grey (Ontario)
Birth Date
February 24, 1906
Deceased Date
July 17, 1996
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Howe
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=cd67e9cc-34b1-46e7-a0e3-c60ae00845db&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
merchant

Parliamentary Career

August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
PC
  Wellington--Huron (Ontario)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
PC
  Wellington--Huron (Ontario)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Wellington--Huron (Ontario)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
PC
  Wellington--Huron (Ontario)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
PC
  Wellington--Huron (Ontario)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
PC
  Wellington--Huron (Ontario)
June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
PC
  Wellington--Grey (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 90)


June 27, 1972

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much time on this motion, but I was prompted to rise by the use by the minister of the words "common sense" a couple of times in respect of this legislation. Anyone who can look at this legislation and say it has been created by the use of common sense has much to answer for because here we are speaking of an amendment to the bill which seeks to do something that has been done before. The minister says it would involve the necessity of policing the mothers of Canada. This is not a new proposal which is being suggested. It was contained in the old act. I cannot remember a single situation of a mother being harassed because she did not use the family allowance cheque in the proper manner. We all know there are probably cases in which a check should be made or in which some organization should be involved in the directing of the spending of the money so that the children involved will receive the benefit. I say that here is an arrangement for the protec-

June 27, 1972

tion of the children of Canada which would not in any way belittle the mothers.

All we need do is pick up the newspapers any day to become aware of cases of children not receiving the benefits. This provision is included to protect the children of Canada. I do not think the hon. member who placed this amendment on the order paper had any idea of belittling the mothers of Canada. He feels that from time to time cases may arise where children will need the protection of this amendment.

This minister is not one who is prone to accept amendments from anybody. We have had experience with him for a long time starting with the Canada Pension Plan when he was a parliamentary assistant. There are other ministers who are much more amenable than he is in respect of amendments. I remember when the legislation in respect of the Canadian Transport Commission was being put through the House. The minister piloting that legislation accepted amendment after amendment. Of course that bill never should have been passed. It was similar to this bill. Here we have an amendment the substance of which has been on the law books of Canada for 20 years. I do not know of any case in which it has been abused. It is there as an assurance in cases where there may be abuse created by the parents, that the children will receive the benefit of the legislation. I think the minister would do well to accept this amendment.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PLAN
Full View Permalink

June 27, 1972

Mr. Howe:

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but these seats in the front row are a little confusing. I congratulate the hon. member for bringing forward this matter. A great many experts and people knowledgeable in the field of the environment warn us that not much time is left unless we come to very serious grips with this problem.

I want to speak about two particular areas. I feel that an environmental council such as is proposed could have done much good last year when the government brought before this House the clean water bill. At that time we asked the government to retain the formula that had been included in the Navigable Waters Protection Act whereby dams and projects involving conservation areas were dealt with in a certain manner. The cost was split three ways.

The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Mar-chand) earlier today asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) if his department could assist in the building of further dams and dykes in order to prevent more flooding of rivers in the hon. member's constituency. If the former piece of legislation had been in force, the formula would have been available and could have been used. If an independent environmental council had been in existence last year when this House was considering the clean water bill, it could have given advice on matters such as that raised by the hon. member and it would not be necessary for every problem involving water to give rise to negotiations. We ought to have retained in the clean water legislation the formula included in the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Let me refer to the Grand River conservation program which is now in effect and has been for the past few years. A new program is coming forward which involves the Speed River that flows to Guelph. It is absolutely necessary for the program to be undertaken; however, the province and local municipalities must pay the total cost. Because the Grand River eventually flows to the St. Lawrence Seaway, I maintain that the federal government ought to pay 37.5 per cent of the cost of the new conservation program which is absolutely necessary on the Grand River.

I wish to raise another important point. I refer to the government's decision with regard to the second international airport at Toronto. If an environmental council of Canada had been established when the airport was first being considered, it could have advised the government. Being an independent body, it could have told the government that there is good farmland in the area of the proposed airport. It could have said that the airport would create only an asphalt desert, and there are too many such deserts particularly in southern Ontario.

An independent environmental council which both the province and the federal government could consult on problems of this kind might give rise to better decisions. Instead of suggesting that the airport be at Pickering, it might have suggested that it be built in Amaranth township, near Orangeville, where the farmland perhaps is not as good as in Pickering township. We talk about pollution and preach about anti-pollution measures yet, we do not

do as we say; we make decisions such as this which will affect the Toronto area.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Full View Permalink

June 27, 1972

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF CANADA
Full View Permalink

June 26, 1972

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government House leader. Last week the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications brought in a report containing some very important recommendations for future rail passenger service in western Ontario, and in fact for all of Canada. In view of the immediate importance of this report and its recommendations, particularly to western Ontario, and in view of the fact that the House may close on June 30 and not re-open until September 28, what steps is he taking to make it possible to have a debate on this matter in the House before the recess?

Inquiries of the Ministry

Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, there is no step that I can take on my own to bring that report forward for discussion.

Topic:   TRANSPORT
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR EARLY DEBATE OF REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
Full View Permalink

June 14, 1972

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was instrumental in curtailing the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I wish to talk about a request, I placed on the order paper, with respect to which I was not given adequate replies. In three and a half minutes it will be somewhat difficult to put my case on record. The matter has to do with the second international airport for Toronto.

Some weeks ago, I put on the order paper the following notice of motion for the production of papers:

Than an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, special study reports between the Government of Canada or any department thereof and the Government of the Province of Ontario relating to the question of the second international airport in the Province of Ontario.

The notice of motion is dated April 13. After I prodded the minister a great deal, he said he was willing to accede to my request and to make that information available to this House. Not until May 24, did I obtain that reply.

The reply disturbed me, Mr. Speaker. After all, considering that the studies were said to have extended over months and even years, since the second airport would be a most expensive proposition running into the billions of dollars, I expected more than was given to me. I was told that the studies had gone on for a long time, yet what did I obtain? The minister's return consisted of a neat package of press releases, ministerial letters, and so on. For

instance, consider this release headed, "Transport Minister Don Jamieson discusses Toronto's second international airport with area Members of Parliament". It reads:

Transport Minister Don Jamieson met last Friday with Norman Cafik, M.P., Ontario (riding), Barnett Danson, M.P., York-North and John Roberts, M.P., York-Simcoe to discuss aspects of the Federal Government's plan for the development of a second Toronto international airport-

That is playing politics. Those members represent constituencies in the area. I asked several times for a complete study of the matter and suggested that the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications should sit down with the people in the areas concerned and discuss with them a project as big as this. That did not happen. However, according to the press release, the minister discussed the matter with three hon. members representing affected constituencies.

Consider the following headline carried in a Toronto newspaper, Mr. Speaker: "High-priced advice taken on airport, McKeough asserts". Mr. McKeough tabled some documents in the Ontario Legislature, in Toronto. He provided more information than the minister. According to the post office scale, the package the minister provided weighs two pounds four ounces, whereas the documents Mr. McKeough tabled weighed five pounds. Mr. Speaker, I feel that information that ought to have been made available was not made available with respect to a decision as important as the one involving the new Toronto international airport on which we will spend possibly billions of dollars.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Full View Permalink