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 77 of 78)


December 16, 1953

1. What is the number, if any, of seamen previously employed in the Canadian merchant marine now serving under the flags of the United Kingdom, Panama and Liberia, respectively?

2. What is the number of seamen previously employed by the Canadian merchant marine now engaged in other occupations?

Topic:   CANADIAN MERCHANT SEAMEN
Full View Permalink

December 16, 1953

Mr. Trainor:

Do I understand the minister to say that there will be no greater delay under this new method of ascertaining the value of the goods than there has been in the past?

Topic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS ACT
Full View Permalink

December 16, 1953

Mr. Trainor:

Suppose a particular article appears at a point of entry and under this bill the appraiser has to make a decision right at once. What happens?

Topic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS ACT
Full View Permalink

December 1, 1953

Mr. Trainor:

It is because there may be more than a grain of truth in this assertion that I venture to call the attention of the house to certain implications of this policy. First there is the question of cost. The leader of the C.C.F. party is, I believe, on record as estimating the cost at $600 million annually. Such estimates are notoriously optimistic, and the actual annual cost will probably be much greater, perhaps in the neighbourhood of a billion dollars.

I recognize that economic factors are probably not a matter of much concern to the hon. member. Nevertheless I believe the

house will be interested in the economic impact of such social security measures on the economy of countries in which the welfare state exists. France is a country of seething labour unrest, and one is constantly told that French workers are shockingly underpaid. They, however, have very extensive social security benefits amounting to 43 per cent of the average payroll. This adds tremendously to labour costs and illustrates the danger of trying to transform the wage mechanism into a huge social security system. It is obvious that the French workers are paying for their own social security through deterioration of the wage structure. There is constant dispute over how an inadequate cake should be sliced, and a neglect of the real problem of increasing the size of the cake. Let us be under no illusion as to who will really pay for these grandiose plans. It is the worker himself, either through taxes, lowered wage structure, or increased costs of the necessities of life.

All this is not to say that I oppose health insurance. On the contrary, I believe it to be an urgent necessity. There is an alternative method, however, to that proposed by our friends of the C.C.F., which will provide all the benefits of theirs at a mere fraction of the cost to the taxpayer. This party has such a plan which will be presented when the appropriate occasion arises.

The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has been taking great credit for the program of health grants instituted several years ago. I do not desire to detract in any way from the over-all benefit of these grants, but would call the attention of the house to a serious defect which has become evident so far as the hospital construction grants are concerned. Under the terms of this grant the sum of $1,000 per bed, to be matched by the province, is provided in respect of new beds added to existing public hospitals, or provided in entirely new hospitals. At first sight this might appear to be a fairly generous amount. I wonder, however, Mr. Speaker, if the minister fully realizes the degree of inflation which has taken place in the construction industry, even since these grants were first instituted. The proportion that this grant bears to the total cost of a hospital bed is much smaller today than when the grant was first instituted.

This leaves a relatively large amount to be raised by the individual hospital. Moreover, long before the advent of these construction grants many of the provinces assisted with hospital construction in variable amounts. In the case of my own province the amount was 20 per cent of the total

cost. At today's prices this would represent a much more substantial contribution than does the present combined federal and provincial grant. I would urge the government to extend the grants to cover a definite proportion of the construction costs of a hospital. Beds are, of course, essential to the functioning of a hospital, but they are no more essential than are other facilities provided by the institution as, for instance, such things as laundries, kitchens, power plants, etc.

In closing I should like to compliment the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on his skilful handling of the very troublesome Gouzenko affair, and on his very concise and understandable presentation in the house.

I should like also to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on calling our attention to the necessity for moderation of language where the personalities or actions of a friendly government are involved. International good will is too precious a commodity to be jeopardized, even though it means the restraining of what we may regard as an expression of righteous indignation.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the Social Credit party has made a very fair and judicious contribution to the debate in this matter. I am sorry I cannot subscribe to the implied threat contained in the remarks of the leader of the C.C.F. party that if Mr. Gouzenko should choose to go to the United States for the purpose of giving evidence before the Senate subcommittee, he be informed that all protection so far accorded him will be withdrawn. After all, this man has rendered a signal service to Canada, in recognition of which this country has very properly accorded him and his family such protection as was within our power. Merely because he chooses to go to the United States for the purpose stated, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has said he has a perfect right to do, does not release this country from its rightful obligation. It may be that it will not be possible to assure his security while in the United States -that is not our responsibility-but the moment he again sets foot on Canadian soil our obligation to protect him is just as real as ever it was. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in this respect the national honour is involved.

Finally I should like to pose a question; and if, as I suspect, the answer is in the negative, I should like to offer a suggestion to the government. Has the government ever considered the advisability of providing a suitable residence in this country for Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, one that might be occupied by the royal family for a portion of each year at her pleasure? If not, I would 8327C-34i

The Address-Mr. Carter suggest that the exigencies of atomic warfare may at any time make such an offer imperative. Apart from consideration for her safety, however, I am sure the members of the house would hail with enthusiasm the suggestion that our gracious sovereign might be prevailed upon to live in our midst, even for short periods.

Topic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Full View Permalink

December 1, 1953

Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):

Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to add my congratulations to those you have already received on your elevation to your high office. The unanimity of these congratulatory remarks speaks for itself, and all bespeak your eminent suitability for the position.

I note that it is the fashion for new members speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to talk at length on the physical characteristics and extol the merits of their constituencies. I do not propose to fellow their example, principally because everyone knows all about Winnipeg anyway, and to those who may not already be apprised of the fact, I should say that Winnipeg South is the best part. I do not expect corroboration of this last statement from the other Winnipeg members, which is perhaps natural, if unfortunate.

I have been surprised at the number of hon. members importuning the government for assistance in the form of direct subsidies, or otherwise, on behalf of various worthy causes. I wonder if it would not be more realistic if these hon. members were to substitute the word "taxpayer" for "government" in this connection wherever it occurs in their speeches. For assuredly, Mr. Speaker, it is the taxpayers they mean.

The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), for example, desires the Canadian taxpayers to subsidize the Nova Scotia coal industry, alleging a sinister conspiracy on the part of the Dominion Steel and Coal company to keep Nova Scotia coal out of the Montreal markets. Surely he does not expect the members of this house to believe that a company in business for the purpose of making a profit would deliberately forgo a profitable market for its own product. May there not conceivably be other more reasonable explanations? May it not be that the Montreal market refuses to accept the Nova Scotia product and prefers the American? I know there are great differences in coal, and can well believe that a customer might very well prefer one variety to another. Has the hon. member considered that when natural gas is brought to the central provinces, as it will be, I hope, in the near future, his market will be still further curtailed? Does he propose that the Canadian taxpayers provide subsidies for the mining of Nova Scotia coal that cannot be sold?

Assuredly, Mr. Speaker, a halt will have to be called to this demand for subsidies to all and sundry, unless the government is prepared for the ultimate absurdity of granting 83276-34

The Address-Mr. Trainor subsidies to the taxpayer to enable him to pay the taxes necessary to pay subsidies. The answer to the hon. member for Cape Breton South in his very real dilemma does not lie in the provision of subsidies, but in a real effort to develop the industrial potential of his area to the extent that a satisfactory local market will be created for coal. Any assistance the government can give in this direction should be given eagerly.

I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to convey the impression that I am opposed to all government subsidies. They may be justified as a temporary expedient to relieve economic disaster or alleviate hardship, provided they are used judiciously; but as a long-term remedy for our economic ills they will be found wanting.

Members of the C.C.F. party have been vocal in deriding the principle of free enterprise, in particular the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), who waxed eloquent on the subject. But it is interesting to note that their show window, the province of Saskatchewan, was very glad to implore free enterprise capitalism to develop its oil resources, even to the extent of offering greater inducements than were found necessary in the case of the other two prairie provinces.

Topic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Full View Permalink