Owen C. TRAINOR

TRAINOR, Owen C., M.C, C.M.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Winnipeg South (Manitoba)
Birth Date
October 16, 1894
Deceased Date
November 28, 1956
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Trainor
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=687b21f6-290a-4780-ab34-629745fe08fe&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
physician

Parliamentary Career

August 10, 1953 - November 28, 1956
PC
  Winnipeg South (Manitoba)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 78)


June 21, 1956

Mr. Trainor:

Mr. Chairman, one particular point that struck me in this debate was the demand made by my leader for a parliamentary committee to examine these estimates, because it becomes very obvious to everybody as the debate proceeds that nobody has the slightest knowledge of what these estimates are all about. Nobody is in a position-I was going to say "including the minister" but possibly I might make an exception in his case-to know what they are all about. Therefore I suggest to the minister and to the Prime Minister particularly that it is difficult to see how this suggestion or demand can possibly be ignored, and I trust that we will have this opportunity. Those members of the House of Commons who have some conception of military and

defence affairs generally would have an opportunity to examine these estimates and present a report to the rest of us.

I think this is an extremely reasonable request or demand, and I would certainly urge it on the Prime Minister as almost a necessity; because I do not think the people of this country are going to be satisfied if they know that about half the annual budget is being passed without anybody having a critical look at it, and that is exactly what is happening under present circumstances.

If the government will not accede to this demand, I believe the people of the country will make their wishes known in no uncertain terms. My final word is an appeal-I put it on those grounds-to the Minister of National Defence to use all his influence with his colleagues, particularly with the Prime Minister, to see that this aim is achieved. I am quite certain that in the long run he will be very much the gainer.

Topic:   PIPE LINES
Subtopic:   TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES INQUIRY AS TO AMOUNTS ADVANCED TO DATE
Full View Permalink

June 18, 1956

Mr. Trainor:

I do not profess to have any qualifications on the technical aspects of this legislation. However, there are one or two observations I should like to make. It seems to me that one of the outstanding observations one could make of this debate is that members of all three opposition parties have raised questions they considered of interest and importance to their constituents. The conspiracy of silence on the government side has been equally apparent. Surely all the interests of the constituents of this country do not rest on this side of the house. One would expect that some evidence of this would exist on the government side. Still we have not heard one word from any member on the government side except the hon. member for Fort William, who was mainly concerned with justifying- I am sorry; did the hon. member for Kootenay East speak? At any rate there have been very few who have contributed anything on this important piece of legislation.

It may be, of course, that the government subscribes to the dictum of the poet in this respect that-

Topic:   S121 JUNE
Full View Permalink

June 18, 1956

Mr. Trainor:

It may be that the government subscribes to the words of the poet in this respect, that we do not like anything except what the government elects on this particular point. I do not believe the government necessarily has all the wisdom in the world in this respect, and they should call to a certain extent upon the judgment of individual members. It may be that individual members are not always correct in their assumptions, but at the same time I do not think the government are always correct, either, in their particular assumptions. One notices, for example, that there is a tendency to submit to the government's view on all these questions.

Now, I believe there should be some room for individuals who express their own ideas,, because those ideas are likely to more closely' approximate the ideas of their constituents. We have seen a total absence of this particular element in this debate. Apparently the-government has set out the idea of what shall be true. As somebody has said, it is the idea of the engineer. Engineers, and I noted this was received with applause from the opposite side of the house, are supposed to represent efficiency. Do they always represent efficiency?

Let us take a look at that. They do nof. Individual corporations employ engineers at times, and if they do not like what the engineers tell them they fire the engineers. Perhaps we should fire some of the engineers who tell us what we should do in this house. As a matter of fact I believe that the common sense of the Canadian people will come into play in this respect. It may be, of course, that the government is thinking along the lines of that idea in Gray's Elegy "Full many a Liberal is born to blush unseen and waste his sweetness in the desert air"-that is if a Liberal can blush, which one would be in some doubt about after the performance in the last few sessions in this house.

However, be that as it may, I think the minister would be justified, indeed wise if I may say so, in paying some attention to the representations that have been made from this side of the house on behalf of Canadian citizens. It will not profit the minister very much to force things through on the basis of the majority he possesses. He knows he can do it, and of course that is admitted. The

Navigable Waters Protection Act ultimate effect upon the Canadian public is not going to be good if he chooses to do so. I would advise the minister very sincerely to take cognizance of the representations that have been made to him from the opposition groups, which indicate that the people of Canada actually have some interest in this particular legislation, and he had better listen to them.

Topic:   S121 JUNE
Full View Permalink

June 18, 1956

Mr. Trainor:

-pipe lines, and I suggest that is a matter that is reserved for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Minister of Public Works has no business butting into pipe lines.

Topic:   S146 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Full View Permalink

June 18, 1956

Mr. Trainor:

I should like to make an appeal on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There appears to be a conflict of dictatorship here. This bill mentions-

Topic:   S146 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Full View Permalink