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 2 of 90)


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

June 5, 1972

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in the following case of urgent and pressing necessity. Last week the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications held hearings in western Ontario to ascertain whether alternate, efficient comfortable bus service had been provided as promised at the Canadian Transport Commission hearings in Owen Sound in March, 1970. In view of the fact that these services are far from being as promised, bringing untold hardship to thousands of citizens both young and old, with consent I intend to move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley):

That the government immediately issue instructions to the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway to re-establish the passenger rail services which were discontinued in November, 1970, in western Ontario.

Federal authorities in conjunction with the province of Ontario and the municipalities involved immediately undertake studies which would involve public hearings with a view to determining a minimum railway passenger train network as defined in relationship to the most economic, efficient and adequate transportation system required.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink

May 24, 1972

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board as Acting Prime Minister. When the automotive trade pact was signed some years ago there was a great deal of concern over the loss of millions of dollars in tariffs. The explanation given was that this would be compensated for by the number of new jobs. If, as it would appear, many main and supporting plants could be closed down as a result of changes in the United States approach, does the government have in mind any change in the tariff structure to compensate for the loss of employment opportunities for Canadians?

Topic:   AUTOMOBILKS-POSSIBLE TARIFF AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN U.S. APPROACH TO AUTO PACT
Full View Permalink

May 17, 1972

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

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this amendment presented by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) in connection with Bill C-207, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I agree with all those who have indicated that this is good legislation. It is legislation which is long overdue. The minister has admitted, through his sudden conversion to the principle of linking old age security payments to the cost of living index, and by making an increase retroactive to January 1, 1972, that the existing legislation in this area is not adequate to meet the needs of the present day. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the minister did not go all the way in terms of retroactivity to the date on which the basic pension was established at $75 coupled with a 2 per cent escalation factor.

The history of the Liberal party in connection with old age pensions has not shown that party to be too expansive or too generous. Many of us can remember the episode in 1957 when the old age pension was raised from $40 to $46. We can also remember the drastic and well deserved results of the following election when "Six-buck" Harris himself went down to defeat, together with the majority of the Liberal party of the day. We sometimes wonder whether history is repeating itself.

May 17, 1972

Old Age Security Act

The bill before us concerns Canadians, many of whom suffered the effects of two world wars and the worst depression in world history. Many of them have become self-sufficient, and have been able to acquire sufficient resources of their own to see them through the years of their retirement. However, thousands of Canadians who have retired in the last few months are finding their life savings so badly eroded by inflation that a few dollars can make the difference between comfortable retirement and a bare existence. Had the escalation clause in this legislation been linked directly to the cost of living, the basic pension would now be $90.53. In other words, recipients will still be eight dollars short of the sum they should actually be receiving each month, notwithstanding the minister's own view that in arriving at the amount of old age security payments the cost of living is a necessary criterion.

As I say, we sometimes wonder whether history is not repeating itself. In 1957, $6 was given under this legislation.. Today, it is $8. The legislation still falls short. I realize that on July 1 an old age pensioner will receive a cheque for $97.28. However, on August 1st his cheque will be reduced to $82.88. In other words, he will get a bonus for one month. I do not know how near we are to an election, but I feel recipients of old age security payments will not be led astray by this attempt to bribe them with their own money, money which was due to them many months ago. According to the minister, this concession will cost an additional $166 million. Looked at within the whole spectrum of social security spending, which is within the neighborhood of $5 billion, this is not such a large sum. I say to the minister: Think again, and amend the legislation further, even at this late stage in such a way as to bring the basic old age security pension up to at least $90.53, the amount pensioners should be receiving had the escalation clause been instituted in 1967 when the pension was set at $75.

Topic:   OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ESCALATION OF PENSIONS, RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INCREASE IN GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT
Full View Permalink

May 15, 1972

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the farmers of Ontario have suffered a reduction in net income from $402 million to $324 million, a difference of approximately $78 million in the last year, what steps are the Department of Agriculture and the minister contemplating to improve the situation of Ontario farmers?

Topic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink