Howard Waldemar WINKLER

WINKLER, Howard Waldemar, B.A., B.S.A.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Lisgar (Manitoba)
Birth Date
March 4, 1891
Deceased Date
November 14, 1970
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Waldemar_Winkler
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=81c6273a-3e4d-4184-a386-e74f813aaac8&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer

Parliamentary Career

October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
LIB
  Lisgar (Manitoba)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
LIB
  Lisgar (Manitoba)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
LIB
  Lisgar (Manitoba)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
LIB
  Lisgar (Manitoba)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 61 of 62)


March 5, 1937

Mr. WINKLER:

I shall be glad to do so. The table is as follows:

Year Production Consumption

1921- 22

300,858,100 98,946,7761922- 23

399,786,400 127,792,1041923- 24

474,199,000 114,138,8621924- 25

262,097,000 85,658,5331925- 26

411,375,700 77,799,7511926- 27

407,136,000 101,640,5951927- 28

479,665,000 117,388.2391928- 29

566,726,000 133,750,5451929- 30

304,520,000 112,927,3911930- 31

420,672,000 139,238,2831931- 32

321,325,000 116,745.9261932- 33

443,061,000 99,034,2961933- 34

281,892,000 105,275,1971934- 35

275,849,000 101,711,6791935- 36

277,339,000 117,043,073

According to my own figures the average production in that fifteen year period

amounted to 378,558,680 bushels and the average consumption was 109,940,750. Subtracting the consumption from the production we arrive at an average exportable surplus in that period of 268,617,930 bushels. May I mention in passing that we would require a population in the neighbourhood of 38,000,000, rather than 11,000,000, to consume all the wheat we produce. If we had a population of

38.000. 000, our railway problem would probably be solved. Unfortunately this is not the case, and it is scarcely likely that many of us will live to an age when we will see so great a population in Canada. There is no doubt, however, that some time in the not too distant future it will reach that point.

With an exportable yearly surplus of over

268.000. 000 bushels in the fifteen year period, it is reasonable to expect that there will be about the same production in Canada for many years to come. That in itself presents a problem. I believe it is of the utmost importance that we should have been able to conclude a trade treaty with the mother country, with its possibilities of greater trade, we taking her goods in exchange for the commodities we may sell her. Undoubtedly the trade agreement will open wider markets.

May I add a word about secondary industry? Many hon. members from the east have suggested that in many instances secondary industry has been neglected or ignored, for the benefit of the west. It seems to me that when the economic history of Canada is written much will be said as to our industry being top-heavy and archaic. May I illustrate how an industry can thrive? In my constituency a new industry has grown up as the result of the ingenuity of a young mechanic. Most agricultural implement companies manufacture what is commonly known as a grain crusher or grinder. By a very simple invention the young man in question is able to produce in a rural community, where power costs are high but where overhead and labour are comparatively low, an article that he is able to put on the market to compete with implements of a similar kind produced by some of the large implement companies. I believe the heavy industries in the east must bear in mind that if sufficient ingenuity is brought into play they need not suffer as much as they would if, for instance, they had imposed upon them conditions such as those which obtained in the drought areas of western Canada.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

Railway Act Amendment

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

March 5, 1937

Mr. H. W. WINKLER (Lisgar):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a few of what I consider the most important reasons why I am going to support the government and vote against the amendment. I believe the return

The Budget-Mr. Winkler

of prosperity to this country has resulted in large measure from our trade relations with other countries, and further I believe the government has concluded with our best customer, Great Britain, a trade treaty that will facilitate the flow of trade in both directions. I consider it most important that trade should flow in both directions. It is conceded that if we are to sell abroad we must buy abroad, though this may not apply in all particulars to all commodities. In the case of nickel, for instance, we know that nowadays there is such a demand for that commodity that nations will take it at whatever price they have to pay, but with regard to raw materials generally we know that this dominion, producing such commodities in large amounts, must sell them in world markets, and the trade treaty that has been negotiated with Great Britain will increase our ability to sell abroad. As I have said, in return for selling we must buy and, as the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) pointed out this is perhaps one of the most important reasons for supporting the government at this time.

Rather than deal with the whole range of raw materials, the products of the forest, the sea, the mine and the farm, I shall content myself with discussing the products of the farm and in particular our most important commodity in the world market to-day, wheat.

With the consent of the house I should like to place on Hansard figures of wheat production and consumption in Canada for the years 1921-22 to 1935-36, inclusive, as supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

February 11, 1937

Mr. H. W. WINKLER (Lisgar):

As one representing a constituency lying partly within and partly outside the dried-out area, I wish to make a few remarks. The ground has been pretty well covered, but I would say that whether sunspots or trade winds or other contributing factors have created the condition which exists in western Canada and in certain parts of the United States, we are all agreed on one thing, and that is that it is a national catastrophe. Floods have been regarded as a national calamity in the United States and earthquakes have been so considered elsewhere. These calamities are spectacular, and though the calamity that we are now discussing is not spectacular it is nevertheless just as devastating.

Naturally there are difficulties in connection with the question of boundaries and the minister no doubt fully appreciates this fact. In the district I have the honour to represent there are two rural municipalities that still lie outside the dried-out area, but they are as badly affected as any in southern Manitoba. In fact, last summer I motored over most of the area in southern Manitoba and I can say that there is no area that is in a worse condition than the particular district to which I refer, namely, the municipalities of Stanley and Rhineland. These are only in part affected; nevertheless I am sure that those who have gone over that part will say that those areas are as bad if not worse than any in southern Manitoba. There has been considerable difficulty over these; letters have poured in to the provincial government and representations have been made, and the understanding seems to be that the federal government refuses to consider these areas as part of the federal relief scheme. I have before me a letter dated November 16 last, signed by Mr. Miller, the legislative assembly member for Morden, in which he says:

I have been advised by the provincial government that the government at Ottawa definitely^ refuses to extend the drouth area to take in the southern section of the municipalities of Stanley and Rhineland.

In view of that I put on the order paper last Monday a question which appears at page 631 of Hansard, and the answer clearly indicates that the Department of Agriculture regards this area as not having been requested for inclusion in the area for which the dominion government would be asked to assume responsibility. The minister has just said that the department insists on the province making the recommendation in advance. Apparently no other recommendation was found than the map submitted early in the negotiations. So I suggest that there is room

Farm Rehabilitation Act

for considerable improvement in striking these boundaries. I am confident that ultimately these areas which are so bad will have to be included, but until they are there is going to be a great deal if dissatisfaction. I suggest that the provincial government be required to make a survey, because if they do not there will be municipalities all over the province asking to be included, and if the government depend upon petitions they will go very much astray. I have only one recommendation to make, which is that this government ask the provincial government to make a survey; if that is done, such an area as I have described cannot be overlooked.

Topic:   PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT
Full View Permalink

February 8, 1937

1. What rural municipalities in Manitoba have been admitted to the federal relief area on account of drought?

2. On whose recommendation were these municipalities included?

3. Which of the rural municipalities included were recommended by the province of Manitoba?

4. Has the provincial government of Manitoba made requests for the inclusion of the rural municipalities of Stanley and Rhineland in the federal relief area?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   RURAL MANITOBA DROUGHT RELIEF
Full View Permalink

February 8, 1937

1. Are customs officers required to note the origin or make of electrical goods, radio tubes and supplies, and electrical fittings for radios, both in the case of importers of these goods, and tourists returning to Canada from the United States with such goods in their baggage?

2. Is such information contained in a report that is sent to a divisional headquarters, or department headquarters or elsewhere, and if so to what officer?

3. To whom, outside of the customs service, would any of the information in question No. 1 be available?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT-NEW BRUNSWICK
Full View Permalink