1944-07-14

Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that negotiations have been completed for a contract to supply the United Kingdom with a minimum quantity of one hundred million pounds of beef during the two-year period 1944 and 1945, and in addition to this minimum quantity all further surpluses of beef as they become available. The negotiation of this contract has the effect of assuring floor prices for beef on a revised scale.
In the case of special "Red Brand" beef and commercial beef of "Blue Brand" quality, the meat board will purchase for export to the United Kingdom an agreed quantity at prices 25 cents below their respective ceilings. If further surplus quantities of "Red" and "Blue" brand beef are offered to the meat
board, the board will purchase all such additional quantities at prices 50 cents below the ceiling.
Other qualities of beef will be purchased on the following basis: Choice and good quality cows, 75 cents below the ceiling; commercial quality not qualifying for "Blue" brand, $1.25 below the ceiling.
Accumulations of beef of lower qualities will be avoided by inclusion in the exports of substantial quantities of boneless manufacturing beef.
The above prices constitute in effect floor prices since the meat board will be prepared to buy all quantities offered to it.
If present trends of marketings continue and if high quality cattle come to market in an orderly manner, it is expected that the minimum quantities provided for in the United Kingdom contract will maintain the prices of "Red" and "Blue" brand beef at a point not lower than 25 cents below the ceiling. In any case, however, no matter how heavy or irregular the marketings may be, the producers of "Red" and "Blue" brand beef will have the complete assurance of the protection of floor prices at not less than 50 cents below the ceiling.
These new floor price arrangements will come into effect on August 21, 1944, and will replace the variable and graduated floors which have been in effect during the 1943-44 season. Under last year's arrangements, the floor prices ranged from $2.25 below the ceiling during the late summer and autumn months to 25 cents below the ceiling in the late spring and early summer months. The new floor prices will remain level throughout the year.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the Prime Minister if it is his intention to drop the order of business now standing under the heading of motions, namely, the further consideration in committee of the whole of the report of the special committee on the revision of standing orders, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Neill. Speaking for myself and myself alone, I would regret the abandonment of this order. The committee was set up in a perfectly non-partisan way; it was a good committee and it did a lot of hard work. During the debate ensuing on the report of the committee it appeared that there was objection to the proposals, but I hope
4858	COMMONS
Canadian Forces-Quebec Election
that will not- deter the Prime Minister from proceeding or endeavouring to proceed with this order of business before the close of the session. If the proposal had merit at its inception, it still has merit, and I suggest that it has.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to my hon. friend that I share his views about the importance of the work of this committee. There is no one in the house who would have been more pleased than I to see the recommendations of the committee adopted without much in the way of debate. Unfortunately, as my hon. friend knows, when the matter was before the house the last time there was a protracted debate. I was absent from Canada at the time, but on looking over the proceedings I find that the discussion occupied an entire day and that no progress was made. It was apparent to me that if the matter were brought up again the same obstruction would be encountered. I felt it would be advisable, in the circumstances, to allow the matter to stand at least until we had got along as far as we could with the work of the session. It did not seem advisable to risk having important measures held up by another protracted debate. I would think that before the present session is over we might find time to consider this resolution, so that at a subsequent session of parliament the business of that and subsequent sessions might be expedited, but I would not like to give any definite undertaking to my hon. friend at this time.



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, early this week I
directed a question to the three ministers of national defence asking them if they had taken any steps to protest or to urge the premier of the province of Quebec to make some arrangement for the taking of the vote in the provincial election those in the armed forces now outside of that province. Two of the defence ministers indicated at that time that they had not taken any such steps, and I urged that they should do so because this is the only instance, I think, of a provincial election in which that has not been done. Can the ministers indicate whether they have taken any steps in response to my urging of Monday last?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Speaking for the army, I have not

taken any further steps in connection with the matter. I have considered it a distinctly provincial matter, one in which I do not think I have any official status to interfere in any way. I felt that my proper function was to allow any considerations which may influence the provincial authorities of Quebec to have such weight with them as they think proper. They are responsible for that.
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services):	I
have given consideration to the matter, and my views coincide with the views of my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston).


Gordon Graydon: The only reason I raised the question is that the three ministers of national defence are the only spokesmen here of the men in the armed forces in such an instance, where a provincial government deprives them of their franchise; and may I pause to say I do not think any provincial government should deprive our No. 1 citizens of their franchise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit, Mr. Speaker,
that my hon. friend has no right under the rules of the house to discuss matters exclusively of domestic concern to provincial governments. He is discussing a matter which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the province and which should not be discussed in this house.
Mr. GiRAYDON:	I do not want to transgress any of the rules of the house, and I am not doing so when I ask the three defence ministers to draw this matter to the attention of the government of Quebec. I think that that is a fair request to make, and I make it again because the three ministers are the only three I know .of who can be spokesmen here for the armed forces.


Mr. SPEAKER:: There is nothing before the Chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say to my hon. friend that he has been the one in the last few days who has been objecting to having anyone here have anything to say about provincial governments and provincial elections. He should be the last to suggest that there should be any interference by this side or by those inside this house in a provincial election.


Gordon Graydon: May I just say to the Prime Minister that when he accuses me of taking a certain stand with respect to the relations between the dominion and the provinces, there is no parallel at all. When the

Naval Service Act
premier of Quebec says one thing, and this government on two occasions says directly the opposite, I think that justifies the stand I took.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Leave the election to Quebec.


Gordon Graydon: The official interrupter. NAVAL SERVICE ACT



AMENDMENTS AND CONSOLIDATION-ADAPTATION OP UNITED KINGDOM NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACT,  CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to bill No. 112, respecting the Naval Service of Canada.
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister to give a full explanation of these amendments? I understand that they have been included in the bill after certain suggestions were urged by the senate and by the department.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: My hon. friend is correct in that statement. The amendments will be found at page S18 of the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons. Three amendments were made in the senate, some of which were suggested by the department and all of which were agreed1 to by the department. The first amendement defines the phrase " Commander-in-Chief" as follows:
"Commander-in-Chief" means an officer appointed as such to the chief command of a fleet, squadron, or station, or, in the case of any station for which no officer has been so appointed, the Chief of the Naval Staff."


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that a change in the present definition, or is it creating a new definition?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It is new. It will appear in the bill between paragraphs (a) and (c) of clause 2. The phrase " Commander-in-Chief " had inadvertently not been defined in the bill as presented, and it was thought well to have a definition set out in the bill. This definition has been suggested as an amendment by the senate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is to say, there is such an officer as " Commander-inChief " but the position has not been defined heretofore.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is correct. The second amendment is purely a matter of wording. The present definition of "man" in clause 2 of the bill reads:
"man" means a person in the naval forces holding the rating of chief petty officer or below;
It was thought better by the draftsman to say:
"man" means a person in the naval forces holding a rating of or below chief petty officer.
It is merely a transposition of certain words.


Mr. ADAMSON:: You do not use the word "rating" any more?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The word is not used1 any more in the bill. It has a meaning in the service.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Do you refer to warrant
officers, petty officers and men as ratings?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: "Man" includes anybody holding the rank of chief petty officer or below, so that the two words "officers and men" would include the whole field of personnel.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It is a simplification.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. The next amendment is to section 74 of the bill, page 17. The present clause sets out that "Any person who designedly or negligently" and so on "strands or hazards any of His Majesty's Canadian ships" and so on and so on "shall suffer punishment". It occurred to us after the bill had passed through this house that there might be ships in the navy, not His Majesty's Canadian ships, but say ships chartered to the navy, supply ships or that sort of thing, w'hich might not be properly speaking ships belonging to His Majesty, and we wanted to have it clear that an officer negligently stranding or losing one of these ships would subject himself to the penalties provided by the clause. I so move.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 27, consideration in committee of bill No. 149, to establish a Department of National Health and Welfare-Mr. Mackenzie King-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On section 4-Deputy minister. Officers and other employees.
Gordon Graydon: Does this provide for the officers, clerks and employees of all kinds being under the civil service commission, or are there some exceptions?

Department oj Health and Welfare


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are all
under the commission.


Gordon Graydon: All under the civil service commission?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Duties, powers and functions of minister.
Mr. LEADER:: Before this section is carried I should like to offer a few remarks. It is an old subject to many in the house, and I expect there are a number here who think that I am more or less of a nuisance.


Gordon Graydon: Nobody thinks that.


Harry Leader: Thank you. I do not believe that individual members think so, but I am not so sure that the government does not consider that I am a nuisance. When I make that statement I include members of the government as individuals; they have the authority, they have the responsibility, and they have not taken any action. It is just one year to-day since this question was brought up in the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that he has not yet mentioned what the question is to which he refers. He has something very much in his mind, and I sympathize deeply with him in his wish -to discuss it at this time; but when he says that the government thinks he is a nuisance I would tell him that I have always regarded him as quite the opposite, and wish to -thank him for the cooperation he has given me time and again. But I have a duty in connection with the leadership of the house, which is to see that the rules of the house are observed. If, in any way, I should have occasion to interrupt my hon. friend it would simply be to draw attention to the fact that we have before us a bill which deals with the creation of a department of government, and with nothing else. It does not deal with -the question of individual diseases, a subject that would quite properly come up on some other occasion. So far as I am personally concerned, if the committee is agreeable, and I think it is, to allowing my hon. friend latitude to discuss anything he may wish, I am perfectly agreeable -to have him accept that latitude, but I would not like it to be regarded as affording a precedent by other speakers who follow him; and that is the difficulty -I have. The subject which he is bringing up is a very controversial one. I was taken much to task the other day after my hon. friend spoke, as I had said to some hon. members, not to pursue the matter any further by taking exception to what had been

said. The other side was to have been presented on the part of some, but they deferred for that reason. That is the only objection I have.


Harry Leader: I thank the Prime Minister for his kind words. It is because of lack of government action, which I am trying to point out, that I feel it is necessary for me to bring this matter before the committee again. I hate to be considered to be even half out of order; I want to obey the regulations of parliament and adhere to the rules in all cases; but I believe this is the proper -time to bring up the subject which is in my mind, namely the investigation of a scientist-some doctors would not call him a scientist-a research worker who has given the best part of his years in research work endeavouring to find a cure for cancer. The man I have in mind is Doctor J. R. Davidson, of 232 Somerset block, Winnipeg. I hope that is definite. You have the subject of the remarks I am now going to make. I hope I am not going to be too long; certainly I do not wish them to be controversial, but if it should happen that they are, I shall try to uphold my end.
As I pointed out when I commenced speaking, it is just one year ago to-day, since this question was first brought up in the House of Commons and no definite action has been taken. There has been some superficial work which has really aggravated more than it has helped the situation. We have heard from one side only, and that is as a result of the superficial investigation which was made by the medical committee of the research council. We have heard nothing with regard to the government's attitude; and because it is so vital to me I have taken it upon my shoulders to acquaint the people of Canada with the true situation, and 10,000 pamphlets have gone out throughout this dominion. I am getting hundreds of letters every day; I know that public opinion is behind me; and I dare to bring a matter up of which I am supposed to have no knowledge.
Just last night I had a telephone call from Windsor. A friend who was operated on for cancer, had been sewed up and for whom nothing could be done, wanted to get the address of J. R. Davidson of Winnipeg. The other day I read a letter from the northern part of Manitoba. I get letters by the hundred from both the western and the eastern parts of Canada; I receive some from England, some from the United States, some even from South America. So that when I make the statement that public opinion is becoming aroused, it is true. Circulars are being sent out from the city of Calgary addressed to ministers of the

Department of Health and Welfare
gospel urging them, if they have at heart the interests of the people of Canada, to back up this request for an investigation.
I am trying to be as temperate as I can, but I want to make my position clear. I said at Portage la Prairie

by the way, my speech was recorded; anyone can hear it, and I expect it is being heard all over this dominion and perhaps beyond it-that the medical committee of the national research council was developing monopolistic tendencies. I wish to prove that statement to-day. I do not want to make a statement and let it go at that; I want to prove what I say.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I know the hon. member realizes that I would be the last person to try to curtail any member's speech, and particularly his. However, we are now dealing with a particular clause of the bill, and if we are to open up a general discussion with regard to various matters not related to the bill or to the clause-the national research council and so on-there will be no end to the discussion. It is a definite rule of the committees of the house that speeches should be confined to the subject matter of the clause before the committee.


Harry Leader: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I made a statement at Portage la Prairie and I make it here, that the medical committee of the national research council is developing monopolistic tendencies, and I am prepared to prove it. If it is not the wish of the committee that I should do so, I will say no more.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is not a question of making a statement. The Chair has to be governed by certain definite rules that are laid down, and if I do not follow those rules I myself shall be open to criticism, and properly so.


Harry Leader: May I point out that subsection (b) refers to "investigation and research into public health and welfare." There is not a doubt in my mind, and I hope there is no doubt in any hon. member's mind-I do not think there is a doubt in the Prime Minister's mind-that I am in order. That is the way I feel about it, but I do not want to transgress the rules of the house, and unless I have permission to go on, in the condition I am in today I do not wish to say any more. I do not want your sympathy; we have had too much of that. It takes more than sympathy to cure this disease. I am either in order or out of order, and if you insist that I am out of order I will ask for the decision of the house.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am bound to abide by the rules that are laid down; if I do not
observe those rules I am remiss in my duty. There are other opportunities open to the hon. member. The discussion must be confined to the clause before the committee.


Mr. HOWDEN:: May I point out, on the point of order-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have given my decision. If there is-


Mr. McGEER:: A point of order oan be argued, and the point is this-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have given my decision.


Mr. NEILL:: It is customary to allow members to express an opinion before a decision is given, and I would like your permission, Mr. Chairman, to make a few remarks on the point of order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have given my decision. There are rules that I must abide by. If we do not observe the rules, then we leave the discussion wide open.


Alan Webster Neill: It is the established custom in this house to allow any member to discuss a point of order, but you gave your decision in this instance first and refused to allow anyone to discuss the point of order. That is not fair and is against the rules of the house.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not think any member wanted to speak to the point of order.


Alan Webster Neill: I did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understood the Chairman to be calling the attention of the hon. member to the rules of the house. That was the extent to which he went. The hon. member himself raised a point of order. That is still open for discussion, but as far as I heard the Chair, the Chair merely directed the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he was going beyond the rules of the house in discussing the question he did.


John Power Howden: If the point of order has not been definitely decided, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that we are considering Bill No. 149, and we have reached section 5 which provides:
The duties, powers and functions of the minister shall extend to and include all matters relating to the promotion or preservation of the health, social security and social welfare of the people of Canada. . . .
If the consideration of cancer is not something that has to do with the preservation of public health I would like to know what is.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Subsection (b) reads:
Investigation and research into public health and welfare.



Department of Health and Welfare
What the hon. member was discussing was the medical committee of the research council of Canada in relation to public health. Surely that is in order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am in the hands of the committee. If it is the consensus of the committee's opinion that the discussion shall take place, I am perfectly satisfied.


Harry Leader: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to give some evidence to prove the statement I made that the medical committee of the research council has developed monopolistic tendencies. Most members, perhaps all, have read in the Ottawa Citizen articles written by R. E. K. Pemberton. These were reprinted by permission of News of Toronto, and I quote the following:
Recent discussions in News have highlighted the fact that organized medicine, at least in the United States, can be a menace to public health. To how many will it be news that similar conditions prevail in Canada? This is the truth, and it is a truth much more harmful than merely hateful. It may mean unnecessary sickness and premature death for very many among us-perhaps you or me, or one of our children or more. Much is very wrong right here, and right now, even in Canada, even in Ontario. I write, of course, as a layman; not as a technical expert in any field . . . experts, by the way, are often wrong, and sometimes silly; it is for you and me to use them, not to be ruled by them; to weigh them against each other; to be, as democrats, their masters, not their slaves.
In a succeeding article the same writer deals with the Davidson cancer treatment at Winnipeg, and he draws to the attention of his readers the fact that the Kiwanis club of Winnipeg saw fit to appropriate $2,500 to help Doctor Davidson in his research work. He tells of a mass meeting held at Portage la Prairie, and about a resolution passed there asking for a full and fair investigation into Doctor Davidson's work. Evidently this writer, of whom I know nothing, is imbued with the suspicion, if not belief, that a monopoly does exist in the medical profession. I want to submit some evidence which I also submitted at Portage la Prairie. May I tell you that when the committee was sitting on social security-I refer to No. 22,' held on Wednesday, June 16, 1943-the medical committee of the research council was represented by Surgeon Commander C. H. Rest, the opening paragraph of whose statement reads- and listen to this evidence, because it should be irrefutable:
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: The associate committee on medical research, of the national research council, wish to lay before the special committee on social security of the House of Commons, evidence that the national research council should be entrusted with the direction of any medical research program which
fMr. McGeer.]
will spring from the application of a national health insurance act.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is sufficient evidence. Now I want to say something in reference to what I said the other day. I am quoted in the Journal as saying that the member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) is mentioned as a possible minister of this new department of health which we are creating. That is all they say about it. If they had printed all my remarks I would not have said anything about it here. With all due respect to the hon. member for Renfrew South, I wish to say that if I were making the choice of a minister for this new department of national health, he would not be the one I woujd choose. If I were to make the choice-I do not think the government will grant me that privilege-I would choose a minister from the hon. members sitting nearer to me than the hon. member for Renfrew South. I just want to say that by the way. I have no fault to find with the newspapers, but sometimes they print these little articles which do not tell the whole story. This particular article seems to imply that I would support the hon. member for Renfrew South as minister of national health. I just want to make it plain to my hon. friend the member for Renfrew South and to all hon. members that he has not my support as a possible minister for this department.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Does the hon. member confine himself to medical men? He speaks of those sitting nearer him. Have any of the rest of us any consideration in the matter at all, or is it confined merely to medical men?


Harry Leader: I let it go at that. The hon. member may have his hopes aroused, as other hon. members all over the house.
What I am about to say is said with all due respect to the hon. member for Renfrew South. He has not exhibited any desire to have Doctor Davidson's work further investigated. When this bill was before the house a while ago he said he thought that the federal government, the department of health and the national research council had gone far enough. Speaking personally he said he did not think the situation warranted the federal government or t'he national research council or the department of health spending the taxpayers' money in making further investigations. Then yesterday he said this, or words to this effect-I am not quoting, but hon. members can look it up in Hansard and see if I am wrong. If I am I expect I shall be called to order. He protested against the taxpayer deducting from his taxable income

Department of Health and Welfare
the medical fees he had paid outside of Canada. If that is not a tendency to a monopoly I do not know what it is. In fact one of the hon. members on the other side said that coming from the Liberal party, who he believed were more or less free traders, it was really illuminating. It was asking for a tariff for a certain profession.
I wish to suggest to the government that they cooperate, as this bill intends, with the provinces; cooperate by giving a grant to every province in the dominion to help them to set up some kind of clinic that can look into Doctor Davidson's work. That can be done and should be done in every province.
I mentioned a gentleman who telephoned me from Windsor, Ontario. I do not think that he would get near Doctor Davidson's office, because hundreds are being turned away from all parts of Canada, and some from the United States. You can understand that only a few of the people of Canada will have the privilege of coming in contact with the doctor. Therefore if t'he government is anxious and willing to exploit this possible cure it should help the provinces to set up these clinics in at least every capital city of the dominion. That is something I proposed before. I am deeply conscious of the fact that the Prime Minister is sympathetic, as are all hon. members of this committee, -but for God's sake let us have action. Approximately fourteen thousand people have died from cancer since I brought up this matter one year ago. The people are expecting action. That is all I have to say on this very important matter.


John Power Howden: I have heard it said that a drowning man grasps at a straw. For many long years the disease of cancer was considered, and it is still considered, largely hopeless. We never cure cancer; we cut it away, and if we cut away enough good tissue with the cancer sometimes we cut the disease away entirely and we get relief. More recently they burn it away with radium and X-ray. Fortunately the radium and the X-ray have a predilection for the diseased tissue rather than sound tissue, and sometimes the individual survives the application of radium and the X-ray, but it does not always cure cancer
There is a lot of ambiguity and misunderstanding with regard to the Davidson affair.
I will not even go so far as to call it "the Davidson cure for cancer"; but I would like to tell the story about Doctor Davidson, because I know it. I do not know whether the committee is interested in knowing about this little man, but I know about him personally and I can tell you about him. I have been talking to him personally and compara-
100-306J
tively recently, and I know most of the facts in connection with this case. Thirty-five or forty years ago Doctor Davidson was a leading doctor in the city of Winnipeg and has been ever since. He was on the staffs of two or three hospitals there. He was a trusted and leading man, and he still is a trusted and leading physician, although he is an old man now. As the attendant on the staff of the Winnipeg general hospital he had frequent cause to observe cases of new growths, cancer and sarcoma that entered the wards in a hopeless condition. In the ordinary course of his treatment in this hospital he had discovered cases that when they were fed on abundant full nutritional vitamin diet the disease was retarded or slowed up. So definite was this fact that he decided to work on it and to follow it up. At that time there was in the city of Winnipeg a prominent, outstanding surgeon by the name of Doctor J. E. Lehmann, who has since died. I got this story directly from Doctor Davidson's lips, and I think it is well that the committee should know it. A case came into the wards of the general hospital. That case was saturated with cancer that was called carcinomatosis, little cancer deposits growing in the skin of the arm, the shoulders, the scalp and the abdomen. She was full of cancer. She had been an operative case of Doctor Lehmann, and he also was an attendant of the surgical wards. When she dropped into the public ward, apparently to die, Davidson called Lehmann in in consultation to see his former patient. Lehmann said: "There is nothing you can do for the woman, Davidson. You may as well send her home to die." You see, hospitals do not like to have people dying in them. That is not what they are for. Hospitals are for curing people. Lehmann advised that the woman be sent home to die. Davidson kept her there for two or three weeks and he treated her with his idea of a high nutritional diet. Let me tell you what it is. It is chick embryos that have been incubated for thirty-six hours. He takes the fresh egg and he incubates it for thirty-six hours, and then he takes the chick embryo, the beginning of a new life and feeds them to the patient. Thirty-six of those embryos were fed to that woman every day for three weeks-not for three weeks all the time-while she was in the hospital. She appeared to recover, pick up strength and improve. She was sent home, and good word came back to the doctor from her at home. After eight months she came back to the hospital and presented herself to Doctor Davidson. He saw her, and behold, the carcinomatosis had disappeared, the little lumps of cancer in the abdomen, on her arms,

Department oj Health and Welfare
her back, her head and so on, and the lumps in her integument had apparently largely disappeared.
I know that there are a lot of sceptical men who would laugh at that. I would just as soon take Davidson's word as anybody else's. He called in Lehmann to look at the woman and he said, "I thought you were dead." She said, "No, I am very much alive, thank you." Lehmann said to Davidson, "I think you have got something; you had better go ahead and work on it."
That was the beginning of experimentation with rodents. Doctor Davidson has definitely established two principles. He has definitely established that he can retard the advance of cancer by a high nutrition diet. That is something definite; that is a principle. Let me explain the experimentation with rodents. They take a mouse and shave the hair from the back of its neck. Then they put a little spot of tar on the shaven place, and the mouse scratches away at that tar until he causes an ulcerating sore, which eventually becomes cancerous. As I told this house previously, Doctor Davidson experimented with two families of mice, one on ordinary nutrition and the other on high nutrition. He discovered that the mice fed on the high nutrition diet did not develop cancer after they had tar put on the back of their necks. Then he went a step further; he decided to experiment with the serum of the healthy families of mice, on the unhealthy families of mice, and actually discovered that when the unhealthy families of mice were injected with the serum from the healthy families, their cancerous sores cleared up. So that another principle was established. Those two principles cannot be denied by the research council of Canada or anyone else, because they have been definitely proven and shown.
Before leaving that point, the hon. member for Portage la Prairie has recited in this house the testimony of a great many people concerned with this matter. The other day I received a letter from a lady whom I do not know, who is not a patient of Doctor Davidson, and who is not known to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. She is a Mrs. Florence N. Farwell, of Toronto, and she says:
In the last issue of Diet Digest an article appeared on cancer written by Dysen Carter telling of Doctor Davidson's work on cancer.
I think I can be of help, as my sister developed cancer and went right back to natural foods. It took us eight years to conquer the disease, but we did it. I am enclosing an article which will tell you a little of our struggles during those eight years, that is if you are interested in one's experiences and researches of her own life.

On another page I have a statement from this woman, who claims to be the sister of two doctors and who was told by her medical adviser that there was nothing for her but an operation. She decided against that, preferring death, and proceeded to give herself treatment by nutrition and diet. That woman is now living and well. Let me read just one paragraph from her letter:
When I developed cancer the doctor said it was a carcenoma cutis. As I did not know what he meant I looked in the medical dictionary and found the meaning of carcenoma cutis to be "a malignant cancer." I was stunned. Where could I turn for health? The doctors here said "operation", but I could not bring myself to consider that form of treatment, and my own doctor brothers said, "to leave it alone and live quietly and you may live a few more years." I told them that I could not sit quietly by and let it eat my life away, so, taking my life in my own hands, my sister and I went to work.
I am not going to read the rest of the letter, but it was in 1920 that she was told she could not live more than two years. This is 1944; she is still alive, and has done nothing but follow a strict diet. Apparently she has cured herself of what would seem to have been cancer; at least her brothers were ready to believe that it was cancer, and her medical adviser stated it was cancer. Here we have another instance along the same line as Doctor Davidson's idea, indicating that a high nutritional diet with abundant vitamins is antagonistic to the development of cancer. All right; let us go that far. If we have not actually established those two principles at least we have had them brought prominently to the attention of the people at large, so for God's sake let them hang on to them. As I said a moment ago, a dying man grasps at a straw. If there is anything at all in it; if there is anything to be followed up, let us follow it up.
But what are we doing? What investigation have we had? There has been none. I believe a Doctor Meltzer and a Doctor Campbell, both of Manitoba, were delegated by the Manitoba medical association or the Winnipeg medical society to investigate Doctor Davidson's cancer experiments. They followed up some of the earlier experiments with mice, and reported that they thought there was a good deal of merit in Doctor Davidson's work, but they could not substantiate his findings. That was their report, and there has been no investigation since. With all due respect to. the national research council I know they did not investigate Doctor Davidson's work, because I have been talking to Doctor Davidson about the matter and no one spoke to him personally about his work. They did send him a questionnaire: what did you do about this,

Department oj Health and Welfare
what did you do about that, and so on, a matter of some ten or fifteen questions. Doctor . Davidson answered a few of the questions but he said there were a few he could not answer because he was not able to keep the data, and perhaps was not sufficiently versed in the sort of information they required. An investigation of that kind is not what we want. Here we have the testimony of fifteen or twenty people who declare that they have been benefited- some say they have been cured-by Doctor Davidson's treatment of cancer. I will bet you there are hundreds of people with cancer all over Canada who would jump at the chance to be given that treatment. Why, we should establish small depots in hospitals here and there all over the country and get all people afflicted with cancer to come along and be treated in this way; I will bet there would not be a square inch to spare in any such clinics that might be established.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope I have not bored you to death or needlessly taken up the time of the committee, but for heaven's sake let us take some decent action in regard to this matter, so that we may relieve people dying of cancer. That is all I have to say.


Mr. McIVOR:: Mr. Chairman, you have heard from a farmer and from a student of medical science. Now you will hear just a brief word from a student of the queen of sciences, theology. I think that will give you a good cross-section of the intelligence of this house. We do not want to find fault with the research council or to hurt any individual. 1 introduced this matter in the house a year ago, and all we ask is that the findings of Doctor Davidson be preserved. I do not care whether that is done by a committee of the research council or by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, whom I trust absolutely. Let us make some progress, that is the point. Doctor Davidson is one of the finest doctors in greater Winnipeg. I am sure he knows his stuff, to put it in everyday English. There is no sham about him.. We must see that his findings are preserved and handed down, for Doctor Davidson is over seventy, and he is not as young as some of us who are around that age. I am sure the Prime Minister and particularly the Minister of Pensions and National Health will not allow this matter to be ignored very much longer.
Mr. MeNEVTN: Would the Chairman permit me to ask a question which may be answered either by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie or the hon. member for St. Boniface? What assistance, if any, has been given by the government of Manitoba, through its department of health, in connection with this matter, which I recognize as all-important?


John Power Howden: If that question is put to me, so far as I know Doctor Davidson has had no assistance from the government of Manitoba.


Harry Leader: I might reply to the hon. member by saying that at one time the government of Manitoba did expect the dominion government to make a grant in order that the medical faculty of the university of Manitoba might undertake an investigation. That investigation was not to be a sham. It was to cost money, because they were going to summon witnesses. It was the intention to call people who had taken treatment from Doctor Davidson and had been helped or cured, and to call other patients who had not been helped. It was going to take some money, but they expected to get this grant and they were prepared to go on with the work. The premier of Manitoba, with that in mind, said that it would not be within their responsibility to make a grant until this investigation had taken place. But the investigation has not taken place. I want to say in the shortest possible way that I do not think any action is going to be taken. I hope I may be pleasantly surprised and find that I am wrong in that assumption. If this government fails and if the Manitoba government fails, they will have to answer to the people; I am sure of that.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that certain members of this committee are ready to lead a discussion on the question of cancer cure. I can give my whole-hearted support to that. Our endeavour should be to see that the people of Canada are given the results of any investigation that can be carried on in this direction. What I intended to speak about this afternoon was in continuation of what I said a little while ago when this bill was under discussion and when I supported the general principle. I mentioned at that time that in my opinion it was a great pity that section 5 of the bill did not state definitely in one of its subsections that there would be in this new department a group of officials whose sole duty would be to care for the health and welfare of children. Of course the Prime Minister, who is sponsoring this bill, will say that under the general provisions of section 5 the health of children would automatically be cared for. I must insist that child welfare is a specialized subject and should be dealt with by specially qualified officials who would devote their time to that service alone.
I do not think any hon. member of this house will disagree with me when I say that in war time the nation's best and first care should and does go to the armed forces. Our slogan is everything for the fighting front and

Department oj Health and Welfare
for the men who fight, and rightly so. Can we ever forget that during the last war we lost around 60,000 of our men, who were killed in battle, in four years of war, but that during four years after the last war we lost no less than
70.000	of our children, who died before they were a year old.
Upon different occasions and at different times hon. members of this house have risen to urge that the natural resources of Canada shall not be wasted, that we should preserve them for the national good. If we continue to allow this criminal waste of young Canadian lives as we have in the past, I say we are not worthy of the good earth which we inhabit; we are not worthy of the sunlight or the fresh air or the rich stores of food with which this land is blessed. Canada will never be great among the nations of the world if we continue to neglect to give the greatest consideration possible to the care of our children, our greatest national resource in times of peace.
To-day the armed forces are given all that it is possible for us to give. We give them adequate food, proper rest and sleep, good fresh air and exercise, medical treatment when needed, and mental training. That is only right, because these armed forces are defending the honour of Canada among the nations of the world; they are fighting to preserve the freedom not only of ourselves but of all mankind. That is in war. In peace should we not recognize that it is to our children we should transfer our greatest care?-for they are the army of peace.
I have tried to gather together the most recent figures available from- the Department of Pensions and National Health having to do with the care of women and children. Some of -these figures fall far short of the point where they give confidence to the nation that the best is being done at the present time, although some of us are apt to make allowances because of the war situation. Here is what I found.
In these days, to more than 279,000 families in Canada, in a single year the birth of a baby is the most important event of the year. Out of that number of families, in more than 22,570 the death of the mother or the loss of the baby brings tragedy. In 1942 there were 7,127 stillbirths, 14,637 infant deaths under one year, and 806 mothers who died. Each year more than 800 mothers die from causes connected with childbirth, .leaving more than 2,000 children motherless. Each year more than
7.000	babies are stillborn and more than 7,600 die in the first month of life. In addition an unknown number of women are injured in health, and children are handicapped in growth

and development, because of conditions associated with maternity.
In Canada about 20,000 confinements take place annually without the services of a doctor. In some provinces one birth out of every six is unattended by a physician. Out of every thousand births-these figures are still for the year 1942, the most recent I could get-25 children are stillborn and 54 more die in the first year of life, while 3 mothers are lost. In 1942, 2,842 Canadian babies died from premature birth. It is quite logical to assume that simple incubators would have done much to save the lives of many of those babies. We lost 2,048 babies from pneumonia, 380 from influenza, 1,249 from diarrhoea and enteritis, and 964 from congenital debility. The loss of life from whooping cough was 559; from diphtheria, 256; scarlet fever, 128 and measles, 130. The figure for measles covers children of all ages. There is no doubt that with proper care and the use of preventive measures a great proportion of this stupendous and unnecessary loss need not have occurred.
I would say that the group of officials in this new department charged with the special care of children should see to it, first, that just as we do for soldiers in the army we should provide for children, irrespective of the rank or position of their parents, those certain essentials which are necessary to build strong and healthy citizens.
First, and this is important, we should see to it that when men and women are about to become parents they should be examined to see if there are any hereditary diseases. This department should carry on work in all parts of Canada to see that mothers receive adequate food and rest and medical attention during the period of pregnancy and at the time of birth. These services should be the same for rural areas as for urban areas by the provision of travelling clinics.
Where mothers are working there should be edequate time allowed from employment without the loss of the job. There should be pay allowance for some weeks before and after the birth of the child. We want our birth rate to go up. We want children who are bom and raised on the soil of this country to grow up in the traditions which we cherish. We must not discourage working mothers from having children by penalizing them with the loss of their jobs. They should be permitted to carry on their work whatever it happens to be.
In a recent survey made in all plants in Canada where the united automobile workers' union is operating it was shown that 86 per cent of the women now working in war plants want to continue working after the war is

Department oj Health and Welfare
over, for one reason or another. Of the women who answered the questionnaire, 60 per cent were married, 45 per cent single and 5 per cent widows. Seventy-five per cent of all the wives of men in the armed services who answered this questionnaire wanted to continue at work. We must recognize the right of women to continue in the industrial field if they wish to do so. I see no reason why men should determine what women should do. Women should have the right as citizens to continue to work if they feel that they have reasons for doing so.
I believe that such a branch should set up and correlate with other sections of this department channels of social services whereby every child in Canada shall receive adequate supplies of milk, fruit and other food requirements as supplements wherever they are needed. That is not forcing anything upon anybody; it is merely giving them the opportunity to avail themselves of these things where they are necessary. This of course most usually would be done, I suppose, through pre-school creches and through the school lunch plan.
Again the branch could arrange for special clinics to deal with children's diseases, for we have seen that, contrary to popular belief, many infectious diseases of childhood are fatal. The education of mothers could be done through this branch, and certain aspects of child psychology and the care of special types of children could be dealt with adequately. Special open-air play and organized sports centres for little children could be organized; for quite often the little children do not have the opportunity for free play which they should have, because of the presence of older children on the playgrounds. All these and many other activities could rightly come within the purview of such a group of officials of this department or in correlation with other branches of this ministry.
We have had a slogan in war time: Everything for the fighting forces; everything for victory. Now that peace is coming I would like to have as the peace-time slogan of our nation, "Everything for our children and the coming generation." I am not overlooking for one moment the importance of the rehabilitation of our returned men and the responsibilities we have to them and to other sections of our society who may be in need of attention. But I do feel that the investment of public money is something which has to be most carefully considered. I ask the members of this house, as I did when I spoke previously: where is there any natural resource in Canada
in connection with which every investment made by the nation would bring as great a return as would come from proper care of the nation's children? Who can estimate the loss to Canada of those young lives so needlessly lost in the years that have gone by. What fine minds, what ability, what character as a nation we have lost in these young ones who might have made not only to Canada but to the whole world a contribution of inestimable value. Can we afford to run the chance of losing a Mendelssohn, a Madam Cure, an Einstein or a Canadian Shakespeare? How do we know that amongst those who were not born alive, or who died before reaching the age of one year, we did not lose some immortal Canadian who might have given, not only to us but to the whole world, of the riches of their minds? Because of our lack of concern for the health of mothers and the preservation of the life of mothers and their children, much has escaped us that can never be recaptured. Do not let us lose any more! Let us see to it that we have for them everything that is possible.
I wish the government had included a provision for such a thing as I suggest right within section 5 of this bill. If the government had drawn up such a section, it certainly would have received unanimous assent from all sides of the house. Often when amendments are introduced by an opposition member or even by some member on the government side of the house, they are automatically voted down because they are regarded as indication of a lack of confidence in the government. To-day I do not want to speak as an opposition member. I do not even want to speak as the representative in this house of North Battle-ford. I just want to speak as a woman. There are only two women members in this great chamber. The question that I have raised is one that is dear to the heart of women all over this country. I believe that there is not a woman anywhere but would agree that her heart was bound up in the welfare of the children of this nation. I speak not only for myself but for the women of Canada. I say also that I would try to speak on behalf of those many little mouths which have been stopped by death through carelessness and lack of care in Canada, and which, had they the power to speak, might have spoken more eloquently than I ever could on this and many other matters of vital importance, and might have given the leadership to us that we so badly need.
I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a political question. It is not even a question of asking for a further expenditure of money. Therefore, sir, with your permission
4868	COMMONS
Department of Health and Welfare
I wish to introduce an amendment, moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Cartier, as follows:
That section 5 be amended by adding the following as paragraph (j):
(j) the setting up of a branch of child welfare to deal specifically with all matters relating to the health and general welfare of children, some administrative officials of which branch shall be women.
I hope this amendment will have support from all sides of the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, in view of the amendment I think I should speak on it first and then deal with the matter raised by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie.
May I say at once that I appreciate the contribution made by the hon. member for North Battleford to the discussion of the prenatal, natal and post-natal care of Canadian children. But if the hon. member will look at section 5 of the bill she will find in the first two or three lines that the duties, powers and functions of the minister "shall extend to and include all matters relating to the promotion or preservation of the health, social security and social welfare of the people of Canada over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction." My hon. friend will realize that there are many matters in relation to child welfare over which the parliament of Canada and the government of Canada have no jurisdiction.
One would infer from some of the remarks of my hon. friend, beautifully expressed as they were, and very sympathetically-and I agree with their general tenor-that there was no provision at the present time in the department of health in regard to child welfare. There is a separate division of child and maternal hygiene, and that division will be continued. It is one of the ablest divisions to-day in the department of health. My hon. friend will find at page 48 of the report on the work of the Department of Pensions and National Health a comprehensive description of the functions and duties and scope and responsibilities of that branch of the department. No finer official work has been accomplished in the health field of Canada in the last twenty years than the work of Doctor Couture, who is at the head of the department His publication entitled "The Canadian Mother and Child" is famous all over Canada. We have issued a hundred thousand copies of that publication in English and in French. Every day of my life I receive from humble homes throughout Canada applications for that publication, and letters of thanks when it has been received.


Gordon Graydon: Everyone in the chamber will endorse that statement, I believe.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am grateful to my hon. friend for his remark. I want to remove this afternoon a twofold possibility of misapprehension. One is that the department of health is not paying attention to this important phase of child welfare, as far as child welfare comes within the competence of this parliament or of this government. Our hearts are all with the ideals expressed by the hon. member for North Battleford. Every hon. member wants conditions improved. I have been looking at the comparative figures relating to Australia and New Zealand, and we in Canada compare with them very well. We are far ahead of some other countries in regard to infant mortality and live births, and so long as we have men like Doctor Couture in charge, so long as we have a sympathetic government, and a kind-hearted parliament, as we have here, I have no doubt that Canada will go ahead from year to year in this most important field.
While I am on my feet I wish to say a word or two with regard to the very moving appeal of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. He made one last year which had a deep impression upon me.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister one question before he goes on? Regarding the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for North Battleford, which consists in the addition of another subsection to the bill, "the setting up of a branch of child welfare to deal specifically with all matters relating to the health and general welfare of children, some administrative officials of which branch shall be women,"- the qualifying words at the beginning of section 5 would eliminate the minister's argument, I think, with respect to the question of jurisdiction. After all, the setting up of this particular branch as suggested by my hon. friend would involve only these special matters which actually come within the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament. The minister seems to indicate in his argument that the hon. member is asking parliament to legislate on some matter which is not within its competence. I do not think it could be so construed, because the first sentence or the first paragraph of section 5 precludes any possibility of the kind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have only heard the amendment read; I have not had it before me in writing, but as I recall it, it refers to "all matters" relating to child welfare.

Department of Health and Welfare


Gordon Graydon: Within the dominion
jurisdiction.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If it means that, we have that organization now, and that organization will be continued specifically as a branch of the new department of national health and welfare, as we have it now in the Department of Pensions and National Health. The amendment is therefore either unconstitutional or unnecessary- whichever my hon. friend chooses it to be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to raise a point of order for a moment. It may help to clear up this matter. My understanding of section 5:
The duties, powers and functions of the minister shall extend to and include all matters relating to the promotion or preservation of the health, social security and social welfare of the people of Canada. . . .
-is that it is quite broad enough to include everything which would relate to child welfare over which this parliament has jurisdiction. If the amendment which my hon. friend has moved is something additional to what is there implied, for example, the creation of another branch, for which provision could not be made under this section as it is worded, such an amendment would involve an expenditure of public money and would be out of order. It is not within the competence of a private member to bring forward an amendment or a motion which involves an expenditure of public money. It is well I think to draw this to the attention of the committee at once. I do not raise the point for the purpose of trying to preclude discussion on the importance of the federal government interesting itself as fully as it may with matters pertaining to child welfare. It has been repeated over and over again from different sides of the house, that we should not in this federal parliament seek to invade the jurisdiction of the provinces; and it is well known that many, if not, indeed, all of the provinces regard child welfare as coming specifically within their jurisdiction.
I do not wish to raise any question of jurisdiction, but what I would say is this. The creation of this department of national health and welfare, contemplating as it does very close association with the provinces, will help to remove many difficulties which now arise out of jurisdiction. On these questions of child welfare, it is to be expected that what, in the end, will best serve the interests of the provinces and the dominion, alike, will be furthered by having a federal department which can keep in touch generally with all of these matters, and the duty of which will be to help coordinate them with the provinces,
and in that way avoid overlapping as well as ensure that there will be no omissions of essential services.
I would ask the Chairman to rule on the question as to whether this amendment is in order. I contend that it is not, if it contemplates additional expenditure other than is intended to be met under this particular measure.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I would say first to the Minister of Pensions and National Health that I had no intention whatever of leaving the inference that I was not aware of such provisions as are already being made with regard to child welfare under the department which now exists. The last time I spoke on this matter I mentioned the book for mothers and children and recommended it very highly. But I feel that unless we definitely and specifically state that a certain group of officials within this department shall have the sole assignment of these matters relating to child welfare, it may be that in the general scheme we shall not have just what I would envisage. On the other hand I do not wish to have any group of officials in this department overriding the rights of the provinces; that of course would be wrong. But we find a great deal of inequality among the provinces, and I would hope that such a group of officials in this department could do something to equalize the chances for mothers and children in the various provinces.
I will quote a few figures to prove that inequalities exist. In 1942 the number of infant deaths per thousand live births, by provinces, was:
British Columbia	 35
Alberta	 38
Ontario	 40
Saskatchewan	 43
Prince Edward Island	 50
Manitoba	 51
Nova Seo-tia	 58
Quebec	 70
Newr Brunswick	 77
In some of the smaller and poorer provinces the opportunity or the likelihood of a child getting good care is not as great as in other provinces; and I believe that some correlation on the part of officials could do something to eliminate that condition.
The Minister of Pensions and National Health has said that so far as our infant mortality rate is concerned we do not stand badly in comparison with other countries. Let me again quote figures to show how we do stand in that regard. In 1942 the number of deaths per thousand live births was 54, which is a record for Canada. I will say this, that ever since 1926 the mortality rate has progressively decreased, yet the number of

Department of Health and Welfare
deaths per thousand live births was 54, as compared with these figures in other countries: United States 40'4; New Zealand 28-7; England and Wales, 49. So that the Canadian death rate is considerably higher than that of these other countries. We still have need to continue and to do more than we are doing for the preservation of the lives of our children.
I did not envisage by this amendment the expenditure of any further moneys. The purpose of the amendment is merely that within the provision made for this department of health we should have certain officials whose efforts should be directed specifically to questions of maternal and child welfare, that they should carry on under the department, using only such sums out of the general funds of the department as might be allocated to them. They should be specifically given that work and their job should be to correlate their efforts with those of the provincial health department in an endeavour to bring about a general betterment of conditions and to establish greater equality of opportunity in the preservation of life in the various provinces.


Gordon Graydon: I fancy that the object of the hon. member for North Battleford will be met by treating this not as a means of interfering with dominion and provincial jurisdiction-because I would be the last to suggest that anything of the sort should be done, for I think there has been too little consultation and cooperation between the dominion and the provinces in this matter of health and welfare to begin with. If that is the objection that the government has, and if it feels that it is not covered by the beginning of the section, I suggest that if the government has in mind accepting the intention of the amendment it might readily be accepted in this form, "that there be set up a branch of child welfare to deal specifically with all matters relating to health and general welfare of children within the jurisdiction of the dominion, some administrative officials of which branch should be women." There cannot be any suggestion that there is an increase of expenditure so far as this amendment is concerned. All the hon. member does is to emphasize by the amendment the necessity for special attention being given to child welfare within the purview of and under the roof erected by this department itself, because she says "some administrative officials of which branch shall be women." May I ask the minister whether there are at the present time administrative officials of this particular branch who are women? I can readily understand that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Pensions and National
FMrs. NielseH.]
Health, neither of whom is even married, might concede that the question might properly be brought before the house by the hon. member for North Battleford, who is a mother.


John Power Howden: Does not the hon. member think that these matters will be largely taken care of if and when we adopt the national health legislation?


Gordon Graydon: When are we going tc adopt the national health legislation?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Before I give my ruling, a question was asked the Minister of Pensions and National Health by the leader of the opposition, and perhaps he will answer it now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe there are, though I have not the details at the moment. However, there is no objection in the world to having women there. It is fitting that they should be there, though it need not necessarily be put on the statute book.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Speaking to the point of order, the Prime Minister suggested that the amendment proposed by the member for North Battleford would involve additional expenditure. It seems to me that under the terms-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg the hon. member's pardon; I did not say it would involve additional expenditure. I said I thought the purpose of the amendment was already covered by what was provided for in the bill, but if it was intended to go beyond that, it would involve additional expenditure. If the amendment meant the creation of another department not contemplated by the bill, it could not for that reason be moved by a private member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, the apprehension .that it might involve additional expenditure was the basis on which the Prime Minister raised the point of order, suggesting that it was not within the competence of the hon. member to move the amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point was that if the hon. member thought it was necessary to create an additional branch of government, she was proposing something that in her mind was not already covered by the bill and something, therefore, that would require additional expenditure. As such she could not make an amendment of the kind proposed, because it would involve additional expenditure, and would have to receive the approval of the governor general before the house could consider it. That is merely following the rules of the house. My real point.

Department of Health and Welfare
however, is that provision for all the member has asked for is already made in this bill. In fact, at the present time, as has been shown -the hon. member said she had not known it-there is in the Department of Pensions and National Health a branch dealing with child welfare, and this bill takes over all the functions that are in the present department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It strikes me that the Prime Minister is confusing two arguments.
I was trying to deal with one at a time.


Mr. CLAXTON:: He is putting them in the alternative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is using two arguments. Either there is already such a department, or, if the hon. member thinks there is not, this motion would involve in her mind an additional expense. The point I wish to make is that if (j) were added as proposed by the amendment it would only give authority to set up such a department, and that authority would still depend upon a grant of money enabling the minister to carry it out. It seems to me that what we have here is similar to what we have in a good many motions, namely, an abstract statement of something that might be done, provided that the money is voted on another occasion. If the money were not voted for this or for the items under (b) in connection with investigation into research, that work could not be carried out. The amendment on the basis suggested by the Prime Minister does not contravene the rules of the house.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order, it has been stated by the Minister of Pensions and National Health and the Prime Minister that section 5 covers entirely what is intended in the amendment submitted by the hon. member for North Battleford. On that score alone the'amendment should be nullified. If, on the other hand, it would mean some increase of expenditure, then the amendment on that ground would be out of order. I would refer the committee to standing order <50, Beauchesne, second edition, page 164, citation 551:
It is a fundamental principle that no resolution or amendment to increase a charge upon the people can be moved with the Speaker in the chair; it must be initiated in committee by a minister on behalf of the crown.
In my opinion the amendment would involve additional expenditure, and moreover, as the Prime Minister has stated, all that is asked for in the proposed amendment is already covered m section 5. For these reasons I rule the amendment out of order.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to go back to the subject which was introduced at the beginning of the debate by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, supported by the hon. member for St. Boniface. Perhaps this hour will go down in history as one of the most momentous in the life, not of this session only but of this parliament, altogether transcending in importance even the question of the war. For while the war is a terrible disaster, involving a terrible loss of life, it does not go on for ever, whereas this dread disease will continue for ever unless a cure is found for it, and it will take an ever-increasing toll. I think the house owes a great debt to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie and the hon. member for St. Boniface for having introduced the subject. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie spoke with the intensity of a man who was himself a victim; yet I realize just what it cost the hon. member for St. Boniface to take a stand opposite to that of many of his colleagues in the house.
I think it cannot be denied that this man Davidson has, what they call in the vernacular, got something. Take these two hon. members of parliament. I have known them for many years. They have established a reputation for their probity and intelligence. Are we to suggest that they are crooks or humbugs, that they do not know what they are talking about? One of them is a medical man who has enjoyed a long career, and the record of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, who went to, I suppose, the highest authorities in the world, the Mayo Brothers, is well known. It is common usage for some doctors to say that when So-and-so says he was cured by this treatment or that, he did not have cancer; it was just a mistake in diagnosis, he only thought that he had it, or something of the kind. But when men and women, as recorded by the hon. member on a previous occasion, have gone to and been certified by men like the Mayo Brothers to be definitely suffering from incurable and inoperable cancer, then surely we must agree that the resulting recovery was due to something more than idle chance.
Doctor Davidson has spent a long time in that city and is well known. He built up a practice for himself and engaged in the ordinary practice of healing people. He spent his own time and money in developing what perhaps came to him originally by chance in the line of cancer research. Are we to suggest that this man is a crook? If so, then he ought to be exposed. If his methods are good and his statements are true, or even if there is the shadow of a possibility of his being able to

Department of Health and Welfare
produce a remedy, certainly he ought to be surrounded with every comfort and men to learn at his feet. Far better to do that than keep him curing children of mumps in order to make a living.
Why say that we cannot afford to spend a little of the taxpayers' money on this? Look back into history. I do not want to attack the medical men. That would be very foolish when I am trying to get their support in this matter. It is a notorious fact-I do not know why it is so-that history tells us medical men are, in the dictionary sense, not in the political sense, extremely conservative. It has to be demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt, not in hundreds of cases but in thousands of cases, before they will admit the possibility of any startling discovery. That was true of the man who discovered anaesthetics, and the man who discovered the use of vaccine in smallpox, and later on, Pasteur. They were not exactly prosecuted, but they were sneered at. It was said that they were cranks, and it was impossible that it should be so. I read just the other day a story to the effect that in Boston a number of years ago they proposed to prosecute a man because he had been advocating the selling of shares in a ridiculous company which proposed to operate what is now known as the telephone. An editorial in one of the papers said how ridiculous it was to think of such a device, that such a device could not possibly succeed; and even if sound could be sent over a wire, of what practical use would it be? There is a man who was not crucified, but he was prosecuted because he had a little greater vision than perhaps other people.
Davidson was sent a questionnaire, a real official questionnaire, the same as you get when you apply for a passport. They want to know what your wife's father-in-law mother's name was, and so on, bearing strictly upon whether you can get a passport to go to the United States or not. When you have it all filled out and get it certified by a notary public they write to the notary public and say: "Jones said that you signed that paper. Are you a notary public, and did you sign it?" That happened to me. Doctor Davidson got the questionnaire and I suppose-I did not see it but I got the gist of it-they went thoroughly into the situation. Perhaps they asked him: "When did you first begin the investigation of this particular case, or of that particular case? Was it on a Tuesday or a Monday?" The doctor, being a busy man and having to make his own living, and being near the end of his life, replied possibly more curtly than he need to have done. To some particular questions he answered: "I did not keep the 
data. I did not presume twenty years ago or ten years ago that I would be subjected to this investigation, and I did not keep the data; but I do know that such-and-such results have ensued." The answer then was, "We do not feel we are justified in recommending that public money be spent." That was the recommendation, and yet we are squandering it by the millions every hour in the prosecution of destruction.
This afternoon someone passed a remark- I did not get the exact wording of it-at the expense of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. The committee smiled-smiled in this day and generation at this tragedy. There should be no doubt as to whether we need to investigate this thing. If Doctor Davidson has anything at all, let us pursue it to the utmost. This man is going to die. He is an old man, and he is going to carry his knowl-** edge and information to the grave with him. Then we shall look at each other and wonder why. Somebody will blame somebody else, and ask, why did we not do something? I know it will be said: What have I to do with it? What do I know about it? He is only an ignorant layman anyway. I am not dealing with medical matters as a medical man. I am dealing with them as a layman. If we do not continue this discussion, someone else will get up, as did the hon. member for North Battleford, and introduce another subject, and that will be the end of the presentation made by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie; but if we talk long enough the government will say, of course, that a private member cannot introduce any proposal looking to the expenditure of public money. If that is to be the case, the opportunity will be gone and we never know when it may be recovered.
Parliament is going to adjourn shortly, and perhaps a parliament of new .men will come back. Some of the present hon. members may not be here. In the meantime this man will die. It is said that God helps those who help themselves. I have a suggestion to offer to this committee. If the government in their narrow-minded fashion will not hold this investigation, how about our doing it? There are 245 members here. If we each put up $50 that would be enough to keep the thing running for a year. Some of us could not afford to put up the $50, but others could easily put up more. I suggest that we take it on ourselves. I should , be glad to put up $50 in cooperation with other hon. members in order to help this thing out in the meantime. We will not stand on the order of our going but we will start something, and we will do it.
I am sure the press would endorse' it. If the

Department oj Health and Welfare
members of the government saw that we were willing to attempt it, perhaps they would take an interest in it and investigate it.
This is something much bigger than just a petty amendment to a bill. It is a question that means the lives of millions of people in the future. To what better use could we and the government put our money than that of having this matter investigated? If this man is found to be a crook, I will not begrudge the money; it will be well spent in finding out the facts. I am not suggesting that he is a crook. The people who made the recommendation against him did not suggest anything of the kind; they simply say he is not proceeding along the old standard lines. They say he did not answer the questions in the exact way they were drawn up, and therefore they do not recommend the spending of public money. I suggest that we have the courage of our convictions, and if the government will not do anything, let us do it ourselves. It would be a fine gesture, and we should be giving a lead to the house and the country in doing something which would be more justified than a lot of the measures we have been debating this session.


Mr. McILRAITH:: I desire to make reference to paragraph (e) of section 5. In order that there may be greater clarity I think I ought to read the section as it now stands in the bill. Section 5 reads:
The duties, powers and functions of the minister shall extend to and include all matters relating to the promotion or preservation of the health, social security and social welfare of the people of Canada over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, particularly the following matters:
(e) the supervision of federal public buildings and offices with a view to conserving and promoting the health of the civ-il4 servants and other government employees therein.
If the subject matter dealt with in paragraph (e) had not been set out particularly, the point I desire to make would have been covered adequately by the general provisions of the early part of the section, but since it has been particularly mentioned I feel that I should make some reference to it. This is a very narrow way of expressing the problem that we hope will be dealt with. It would seem to limit the minister's jurisdiction to the actual buildings in which public employees work and would appear to exclude such matters as recreation, nutrition and so on. I am sure most of us hope that the matter of the recreation of our citizens will be taken up much more extensively in the post-war era than has been the case heretofore. Already the em-nlovees of the dominion government in
Ottawa have a recreational association of their own which is doing splendid work in this respect. The programme envisaged and undertaken by this association promises to be most helpful, and I think has been advanced sufficiently to indicate its beneficial nature Certainly it is an important part of the social welfare of the people of Canada. It is my hope that, as we go on, the government, and particularly this new department and its minister, will take active steps to advance that work with respect to government employees. I do not desire to elaborate on that subject at the moment, but I wish to emphasize its importance.	[DOT]
There are other, similar subjects to be dealt with, such as nutrition. In future years I hope the government will extend its activities in those fields of public health and nutrition. Nevertheless the clause as it now stands H expresses the authority of the minister in very narrow terms. If there is no legal objection- and I see none according to the rules of the house-and no objection on the part of the government I would suggest that the words "the supervision of federal public buildings and offices with a view to conserving and promoting" be struck out and these words substituted: "the conservation and promotion of", and that the word "therein" at the end of the subsection be deleted. It would then read: "the conservation and promotion of the health of the civil servants and other government employees." I think that would more adequately describe what is intended to be covered by this subsection and we would be left in the position that it could not be argued at some future time that the jurisdiction of the minister was limited to the narrow question of the supervision of public buildings.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend no doubt has observed, the clause to which he has just referred is in the existing act as subsection (e) of part 2. As has been stated several times, that act was passed some twenty or more years ago. I think the hon. member has rightly drawn attention to the circumstance that as it now stands the section is narrow and restricted and doubtless would be improyed if the words he has suggested were substituted for those now appearing. I am quite agreeable to asking my colleague the Minister of Pensions and National Health to move as an amendment what my hon. friend has suggested; to substitute for the words "the supervision of federal public buildings and offices with a view to conserving and promoting" the words, "the conservation and promotion of" and to strike out the word "therein" at the end of the subsection. Then

Department oj Health and Welfare
subsection (e) would read: "the conservation and promotion of the health of the civil servants and other government employees."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


Mr. HAZEN:: I do not wi^h to oppose this amendment, but at present the section covers "the supervision of federal public buildings and offices" for certain purposes. Perhaps this is not the correct place to bring up this matter, but I must say I was surprised the other day, when I went into the east block, to discover that it had no adequate modern fire prevention appliances, particularly no sprinkler system. It seems to me that if we are going to supervise or promote the health of civil servants we should also look after their lives. It may be said that this is properly a matter for the Department of Public Works, but I suggest to the minister that he consider the advisability of installing a sprinkler system in each block, because in my opinion conditions are not satisfactory as far as fire hazards are concerned.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I would not want to oppose the extension of power suggested in the amendment, but it seems to me that the amendment lacks something in reference to the supervision of public buildings by the ministry of health. In my humble opinion this government has no cause to be proud of the situation in regard to ventilation, fire protection and general health conditions in the public buildings of the city of Ottawa.


Gordon Graydon: Even in this chamber.


George Russell Boucher: Such buildings as the Langevin block, the east block and many of the temporary buildings, with their poor ventilation, would not do credit to any employer, let alone the dominion government. As a matter of fact, conditions even in this house, during these warm days, do not contribute to the comfort, well-being or even the mental equilibrium of hon. members. I believe the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Ottawa West is exceptionally good, but it Should include some part of the original subsection, to cover the supervision of public buildings in regard to matters of public health. Right now, with this hot weather, we hear many complaints in regard to ventilation from civil servants who are working under conditions of congestion. I have had some particular eases brought to my attention, one of which I might mention. An employee of the government entered the service in 1938 with a first-class health certificate, but when he attempted to join the army in 1942 he was discovered to have a lung condition which was diagnosed as

tuberculosis. He went to the hospital in Ottawa, where I believe he still is, where it was discovered that he had contracted his tuberculosis by contact while in the government employ. After a considerable time he was able to get a pension. On investigating the case I found that the conditions under which he was working were, to say the least, such as would make the contraction of tuberculosis quite possible. In other words, the ventilation was quite bad.
We hear complaints nearly every day from civil servants working in the temporary buildings, particularly those along the north side of Wellington street. For security reasons it is necessary that the windows be locked at night, and when the staff come to work in the morning they find their rooms have been closed without being properly ventilated. The result is that the rooms are overheated. This new department should have the special responsibility of supervising the working conditions of government employees. The government should be a model employer, and should provide healthy working conditions rather than the haphazard system we have at the present time.
I suggest, that the amendment is a good one, but it should carry with it some special direction as to the supervision of public buildings and offices for health purposes.


Mr. REID:: Do not overlook the ventilation in some of the rooms in this building.


George Russell Boucher: I felt that I should discuss you and me last, rather than first.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think we all agree that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ottawa West is a good one, particularly since it shifts the emphasis in the language of this section. As the section was worded, it would seem to put public buildings before the health of the people. With the rewording of the clause we have the health of a certain group of people brought out in the forefront. My reason for rising is to suggest that what is now proposed in this amended section for civil servants and other government employees ought to be provided for other groups of people, indeed for the people of Canada as a whole.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will look at the commencement of section 5 he will see that that is provided for.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have studied the beginning and all of section 5 a number of times, and I have also reread the speech which I heard the Prime Minister deliver when this

Department of Health and Welfare
bill was last before the house on June 27, in which he tried to answer the arguments that had been made that there was not much that was new in the bill. The Prime Minister gave the story of the opening up of the Department of Labour many years ago and he told us of what had come from that small beginning. He tried to suggest that here, too, we had a small beginning which might grow into something great later on. I think it is becoming quite clear as we continue to discuss this bill that there is nothing new in it, that it is simply an administrative shuffle.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We are discussing an amendment dealing with paragraph (e) of section 5. and the amendment should first be dealt with before we go on to a general discussion of the section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I bow to your ruling, although I think that what I have to say is relevant. I shall make my remarks at a later stage of the debate.


Mr. BRYCE:: I want to take this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the minister some letters and recommendations I have received from my constituency.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I must tell the hon. member for Selkirk that we are dealing with an amendment to paragraph (e) of section 5 and we should dispose of that first.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the view expressed by the hon. member to my left in connection with the fire hazards that exist in the east block. I was over there some fifteen years ago and I had occasion to go up to.either the second or the third floor. Someone took the trouble to show me the conditions that existed and they were-I cannot use the appropriate word because you would rule me out of order. Along the middle of this corridor immediately under the flooring was a big wooden box about four feet wide and, I suppose, about eighteen inches deep. It was wood, not tin. This ran along the whole length of the corridor and this was the means by which the building was heated. I said to the clerk who showed me this, "You will have the place burning down." He said, "That is what we expect because this comes right from the ground floor and the draft that would be created would be enormous." It had been there for fifty years and you can imagine how quickly it would go up. I was young and innocent politically at the time and I took it up with the proper department.


Gordon Graydon: That would be quite a little while ago.


Alan Webster Neill: It was; I have learned a lot since then. I was told that it was not feasible to change it, that it would cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix the upper storey and it was not worth while, that it would be better to let it burn down and build a new building. I said, "What about the men and girls who are in there?" Perhaps there was a certain amount of logic in the answer I was given, because they said that the people were never there at night, that if a fire should break out in the daytime it would not make much progress before they would have an opportunity to get out. It was not as though they were sleeping there at nights or living there. I am not sure that the west block is much better. The condition of these buildings must have been known to some department for some length of time, but the answer I got was that it would be cheaper to let this one bum down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ought, I think, to thank hon. gentlemen opposite for their solicitude for the lives of members of government, because it is in the east block that we assemble day after day, and in particular for myself as my offices are located there. I do agree with what has been said about the condition of the east block. That building is greatly overcrowded. As to the atmosphere or quality of the air in some of the buildings that have been referred to, if hon. members could have shared with my colleagues and myself the humidity of the council chamber one day last week when there were sixteen or eighteen of us in that small space thej' would realize the necessity for some improvement.
I should perhaps mention that the government had anticipated the need with respect to the departments at present housed in the east block before the beginning of the war, and plans were made for the erection of another building which would house the Department of External Affairs, the Prime Minister's office and the privy council. Those plans are in existence now. They would have been proceeded with but for the fact that the war rendered impossible proceeding with the construction of that particular building. It may not be adding anything essential to the discussion to mention these things. I did so because I believe there is a real necessity for a close examination of existing conditions in practically all public buildings. Things have become worse than ever under war conditions. As soon as the war is over I hope that some of these situations may be immediately relieved.


George Russell Boucher: Does the Prime Minister not think the reference to buildings in the

Department oj Health and Welfare
section which is. being amended by the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Ottawa West should be retained?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the words of the amendment, "conservation and promotion of the health" and so on are so broad that it would cover the supervision ol public buildings. Supervision rather suggests something to be done by the Department of Public Works. I agree with the hon. member who has proposed the amendment that the emphasis ought to be more on health conditions.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Scottie Bryce: I wish to bring something to the attention of the minister as a result of representations that I have had from my riding. They all emphasize the value of preventive medicine. We have heard a lot about cancer to-day. Some members of the medical profession have asserted that eighty per cent of cancer is curable if treated in the early stages, and I would ask that the minister give this his consideration. People in the riding of Selkirk are very much concerned about it. The state of health in Manitoba is not very good. We have one person in that province dying every ten hours of cancer and one person dying every twenty-four hours of tuberculosis.
I want to support what the hon. member for Portage la Prairie and the hon. member for St. Boniface have said regarding Doctor Davidson. I have living in my constituency a lady for whom all hope was given up. Then she took treatment from Doctor Davidson and she is living to-day, after three years. So that again I appeal to the minister to do what he can in the field of preventive medicine. The hon. member for St. Boniface spoke of trying everything, like a drowning man clutching''at a straw. I feel very strongly on the subject of cancer. We have many people in Manitoba who when they cannot do their day's work and suspect that something is wrong go to see a doctor, and the first thing he tells them is, "If you had only come earlier I could have done something for you. I cannot do anything now." Preventive medicine will help cure that situation and I earnestly appeal to the minister to lay emphasis upon it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was starting to say a few minutes ago, when we were dealing with the amendment which has just been passed, that I believe clause 5 of the bill should have had something new written into it so far as powers are concerned. As the bill stands, while the idea of shuffling the departments around and bringing related matters under one

ministry is a good one, really that is all we are doing in this bill, namely, providing an administrative reshuffling. Already during the debate, to-day a number of new services have been proposed, and one amendment has been ruled out of order, but they suggest some of the powers and functions and duties which I think should have been provided for under clause 5. May I name some that I have jotted down?
First of all there is the subject which my colleague the hon. member for Selkirk has just mentioned, preventive medicine; second, powers in connection with the training of medical personnel; third, powers to coordinate our medical services and see to it that they are properly distributed throughout the country according to the needs of our people, particularly those in the outlying areas. Then, too, I think there should be included in this clause powers with respect to the building of additional hospital facilities. I believe also powers with respect to the subjects mentioned by the hon. member for North Battleford should be included here in more positive terms, namely, powers to deal with child and maternity care.
I would add that in this day and generation it seems to me that some real initiative should be taken in the matter of nutrition. We have heard a good deal said to-day about the possibilities of the nutritional treatment of cancer. It is also well known that there are tremendous possibilities of improving the general health of the whole community by research in the field of nutrition with a view to improving the diet of our people. We know as a matter of fact that under the most trying circumstances during the period of intense attacks upon Great Britain the health of her people has been maintained, and this enabled them to stand the strain of the war, largely because of the work which the British government has done in the field of nutrition. It seems to me that in the post-war period we ought in the name of health to be taking the initiative in this field.
My whole point is that if this bill is to be more than just an administrative reshuffling, we should have something new added along the lines that I have proposed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will examine the introductory part of clause 5 and then examine paragraph (a) he will find that every single thing he mentioned is already covered by the bill. Take, for instance, preventive medicine. That is now a function of the department and it will be retained in the Department of National Health and Welfare. The training of medical personnel is not altogether within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament, as my
4S77

Department oj Health and Welfare
hon. friend knows. The coordination of medical services and their distribution is definitely a provincial responsibility, but is being carried out in war time through the federal government by means of the medical assignment board. Ordinarily it must be done in time of peace in cooperation with the provincial authorities.
The provision of additional hospital facilities relates itself, of course, to any national scheme of health insurance.
Child and maternal care is amply taken care of now in the department.
In regard to nutrition, there is a special branch of the department, nutritional services, which has been carrying on excellent work, particularly in the last year or two, throughout the dominion. It has received the commendation of every single province.
Every one of the services mentioned by my hon. friend that comes within the jurisdiction of the federal authorities and of this new department is provided for in clause 5 as now drafted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not set them out in the bill?


Mr.   OLAXTON@: For this reason among others, that it is far better draftsmanship and far more comprehensive to set out the purposes in general words rather than in specific words because, when you start to enumerate things, you are almost bound to leave out something or else set out a class of things which will be found to be. inadequate with the progress of medical science and with the development of cooperation between the dominion and the provinces. For that reason enumeration is always dangerous. General words are far more sweeping unless you have an elaborate enumeration.


Mr. GILLIS:: I am afraid that I have to agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I had thought that this bill was going to mean something new, but as I see it now it is merely transferring everything of a civilian nature in the Department of Pensions and National Health to this department and assigning veterans' affairs exclusively to another department. I agree absolutely with the purpose for which the department is being formed, but we are not going to make much progress if all that is involved is a reallocation of functions between different departments.
The parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister is right to a certain extent in saying that it is sometimes dangerous to try to be too specific in legislation, but on the other hand if all our legislation were couched in
general terms you could not pin anyone down to anything and as a result you would get nothing done. It is a very odd way of shifting responsibility. In this field of social security generally we are setting up a lot of departments, and unless we are specific about some things there will be a tendency on the part of one department to shift to another things which should be their own responsibility. I thought the hon. member for North Battle-ford made a very strong case this afternoon for the setting up of a branch in this department and holding it absolutely responsible for the better care of our children in all its phases. This is a matter about which we should be specific. While we have a department-we realize that-and this new machinery is taking over its functions, let it not be forgotten that the minister's department has been in existence for the last twenty years, and the figures cited by the hon. member would lead anyone to believe that the job which has been done is far from satisfactory.
In the next place, I believe that we have fallen down in the field of research in preventive medicine. Although the minister's department has included for some considerable time a branch of research into industrial diseases and so forth, its operations are largely confined to the laboratory. Its work has not got through to the people. As I visualize the new department, unless the discoveries which have been made in the laboratories are made available to the people we shall have accomplished nothing more than a mere reshuffling of machinery.
The matter raised by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie a year ago in this house, and again this afternoon, is of great concern all over the world. I thought he made a very strong case. He is a living example of the absolute necessity for an investigation, and I say, an investigation by the dominion government. We are merely shelving our responsibility by throwing it into the lap of the medical profession. The medical profession have something to sell, and so long as the rules of the game are as they are, it is their prerogative to sell it; but it is the responsibility of the government, particularly the health department, to make available to the people anything which will alleviate misery and distress. That is their function. If Doctor Davidson of Winnipeg has something of value to the people of Canada, it is the responsibility of the health department to investigate that without any reference to medical societies throughout Canada. There are competent medical men within the department who should examine it and report direct to the minister.
4S7S

Department of Health and Welfare


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have not the authority.


Clarence Gillis: Somebody should cut that
red tape once and for all in a matter of this kind. It is making the department look rather ridiculous. The matter has been raised in this chamber time after time; hundreds of people are suffering, and this discovery may afford them relief. I could not understand the position if I were outside the house, and I believe that ninety per cent of the people cannot understand it.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Why have we not the
authority?


Clarence Gillis: That is what I cannot understand.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Surely we have the authority to do that.


Clarence Gillis: In the matter of silicosis,
which is quite a prevalent disease, jurisdiction has been had by the department for many years to examine into methods of treatment. I am not quarrelling with them on that matter at this time; I know that during this process of fighting the war many things must be left in abeyance for the time being.


Harry Leader: May I interrupt to say
that there ought to be an authority which can try that thing out and pronounce whether it is any good or no good.


Clarence Gillis: I am absolutely in accord with that. It should be the responsibility of this department; the authority should be theirs, and if something stands in the way it should be removed. There is no doubt about that, and there is no trouble about passing an order in council.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Put it in the bill.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, or put it in the bill. I mentioned some time ago the possibility of making available a serum which would give great relief to thousands of people, particularly ex-servicemen across Canada. It is known as A.C.S., and according to the reports we have received it is working miracles in Russia. I understand that there is some available in the United States for experimental purposes. I wrote the minister the other day about it. I am not going to press the question, but I am doing what I can to find out about the availability of supply.
There is no use in developing medical science unless its discoveries are made available to the people. The purpose is to relieve misery and suffering. If we are going to develop a lot of things to relieve pain and then lock

them up in a laboratory somewhere or sell them at a price which is beyond the means of the average individual, we shall not have accomplished much.
Further, to segregate problems of a general nature from those which relate to the veterans of the last war and this war, without the intention of expanding under the new department our work in the field of national health, will not be of much value. If the minister is handicapped by certain limitations from pushing his work for the health of the Canadian people as it should be pushed, he should let us know, make appropriate proposals in this house, and have the house grant him the necessary authority before the present session closes. As the hon. member for Comox-Albemi has pointed out, a number of hon. members who are here to-day and have discussed these matters for the past four, years will not sit in the next parliament, and it will take the new house perhaps four years to understand exactly what the problems are. Now is the time to do these things. I do not believe anyone in this house is in disagreement with any other member on matters of public health. Everyone is prepared to support the government to any extent they want to go with respect to making medical science available to the people of Canada,


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend raised two questions in his remarks. He referred to a certain serum which was discussed in this house some time ago. I think I informed him at the time that we had taken every possible course in regard to having seme supplies available for Canada, and we were informed at that time through the usual channels that there was none available. Since then I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the minister to Canada of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. We are getting in touch directly now with regard to what can be done, and what can be done will be done.
As regards the question which came up last year and wTas again raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, concerning Doctor Davidson, the inference has been left by certain speakers to-day that the Department of Pensions and National Health took no action with reference to his request. No one in the house knows better than the hon. member who introduced this matter that the department has done everything that could humanly have been done. I believe that he saw all the correspondence in our department with reference to it. Immediately the matter was raised it was brought by us to the medical research committee; that is, the associate

Department oj Health and Welfare
medical committee of the national research council. The chairman of that committee is one of the best-known surgeons and medical men in Canada-Doctor Best, who was associated with Doctor Banting in the discovery of insulin; and members of that committee-
I am not speaking as a medical man; I am only a layman-are some of the most brilliant scientists in Canada to-day. Before his death Sir Frederick Banting went thoroughly into this whole question and, I believe, discussed it with Doctor Davidson personally. In any event his opinion was that this was not a proper scientific formula.
An hon. MEMBER; Will the minister tell me whether this treatment has been tried out by any person other than Doctor Davidson?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 1 did not say so at all. I do not think my hon. friend understood what I was saying. Then the associate medical committee of the national research council, as was said this afternoon, sent out a questionnaire. Their finding was that the formula was not scientific. Whether that is correct or not I am not competent to say. The opinion of medical men in the house varies in regard to the most important questions, but there should not be and there is not any difference of opinion with respect to the desirability-


Alan Webster Neill: What did the minister say about the formula?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was not a scientific formula.


Alan Webster Neill: So the people can go on dying.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is an unfair remark. I am not opposed to anything that can be done towards finding a formula for the cure of cancer, and I believe that everyone in this house is of the same mind in that regard. The question came up again; I endeavoured to obtain an investigation in the province of Manitoba, through the university of Manitoba, and they were approached by the department. I took the matter up and was told by the Department of Justice that we had no authority to investigate such questions since they were entirely within the provincial sphere. I have the written documents in my files to that effect. When, therefore, it is said that nothing has been done by the Department of Pensions and National Health, I assert that I did everything that was within our constitutional power. Take the province of Ontario. For years they have been carrying on cancer research, and any province in Canada can
properly, within the ambit of the constitution, cany on cancer research; but the dominion authority cannot, except by cooperation or invitation, step into the provincial field either in the matter of cancer or in the matter of any other malady, and carry out an investigation on its own.


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister sure that he is right in that regard?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Except in certain specific matters, health is essentially a provincial concern under the British North America Act.


George Hugh Castleden: That is the act which prevents the dominion authority from canying out investigations.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the province.
Mr. CASTLEDEN; What would prevent the dominion from doing something through our own national research council in Ottawa?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was done by the national research council in Ottawa, and, according to the evidence I have from them-as my hon. friend knows, it comes under another department, the Department of Trade and Commerce-they investigated the matter and rejected it. Whether their finding was right or not it is not within my competence to say, but that is the situation.
If hon. gentlemen wish to pursue the matter further, the only course would be to have the British North America Act amended so as to give us the power to go into the province for research work such as this.


Gordon Graydon: May I make a suggestion? Every layman in the house finds himself somewhat confused about this matter because we know so little about it. We are all agreed that if there is something in this treatment, if it is good, it should be made available to the general public, because cancer is a disease that concerns the Canadian people of all mature ages. There is one way, however, by which the matter can be dealt with without any of the difficulties which the minister mentions with respect to the constitution. There is Deer Lodge hospital, Winnipeg; there is Christie Street hospital, Toronto, and there are many other military hospitals in the country. Cancer is not confined to civilians.
It is a disease that has afflicted many of those who have been discharged from or are at present connected with the armed forces. If * my understanding is correct, one of the things which those who support Doctor Davidson's treatment desire is that he shall be given an opportunity, in some hospital ward, to have

Department oj Health and Welfare
his experiments carried out in a practical manner. I suggest to the minister, so far as constitutionality is concerned, that he would have the power as Minister of Pensions and National Health to have this done in any of the military hospitals in Canada. I do not know whether this is practical, and I have hesitated all along to pose as in any degree an expert in this matter, because I know there are none of us laymen who are experts. I have heard some laymen in debates like this speak as though they were experts, but for myself, I do not pose as one. At the same time, I should like to make sure that nothing is being overlooked because of the point of view of the constitution, for I do not think red tape should be allowed to stand in the *way of further experimentation toward the end of helping humanity.


Harry Leader: My name having been mentioned, I should like to make a few remarks with reference to what the leader of the opposition has just said about Deer Lodge hospital. I have had some correspondence with the department with reference to a particular case in which Deer Lodge plays a part. This man, through injuries received in the last war, developed cancer, and he is now getting treatment for it in that hospital. The treatment, he thinks, is doing him no good whatever and he is taking treatment from Doctor Davidson, but the department refuses to continue his pension, I believe, certainly not to pay medical expenses if he goes to Doctor Davidson. It is not because it is Doctor Davidson; I am aware of that. It is simply a matter of red tape, which insists that these men shall have the attention of a doctor selected by the department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who said that-the doctors of the department?


Harry Leader: Said what?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That he could not consult Doctor Davidson.


Harry Leader: It was not the doctors of
the department. I do not know whether the minister is aware of this case, but certainly the man was refused treatment. I will not say that it was the department that said it; perhaps it was said at Deer Lodge hospital. At any rate, that is the situation. There is red tape that must be cut and a new arrangement must be made before we can get definite results. The minister mentioned my name and said that I knew what the government had done. There is truth in that, because I have kept myself posted on the progress that has been made in the investigation of Doctor Davidson's work. What the minister says is

true. His department has tried to do something, but, as he has himself said, they are powerless on account of the British North America Act. Well, this parliament is supreme; if it is not, we are a nonentity. This is the last court of appeal in the dominion and, if authority is required to change the British North America Act, I am sure Great Britain would be very glad to accede to our request. I am not afraid that if a vote were taken in this house to-day every member would vote that we should find some means of getting around the British North America Act so that the dominion might be enabled to make a grant to the provinces to carry on this work.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: I had hoped, when this bill was first introduced setting up a separate department of government whose responsibility would be the national health and welfare of the people, that it would mark the beginning of a new day in Canada so far as the health of the nation was concerned. As I have listened to the debate this afternoon, and observed the readiness of the minister of pensions and the Prime Minister to give way to constitutional and other difficulties and to allow them to prevent progress, as has been evidenced in this debate, I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this bill means nothing more than, the reshuffling of departmental machinery and that the hope of those who had believed that this would mark a new beginning in matters of health is likely to be disappointed.
Certainly two things are needed if this new department is to be effective. In the first place the government must be prepared to ask parliament, and parliament must be prepared to vote more money for this Department of Health than has been either asked for or voted in the past. The health of this country has suffered because we have been more ready to spend money on almost any material object than on human welfare. In the matter of research we have been ready to spend money on industrial research, on the improvement of machinery, on the improvement of our live stock in the field of agriculture. We have been ready to spend money on research into anything except human welfare.
In the second place I suggest that the minister and his associates who head this department accept the general principle that the health of Canada is a matter of concern to the Canadian parliament, regardless of the British North America Act or any other act. When the provincial governments, whose authority it is to safeguard the health of the Canadian people, have not been doing it, and there have

Department of Health and Welfare
been statistics presented to this committee this afternoon to show that they have not been doing it, then it is time that some steps were taken whereby the federal government can not only provide more money but more leadership-leaders who will recognize the importance of national health and find ways and means of cooperating with the provinces to give that leadership where it is required and to provide the necessary funds to augment those that the provinces are themselves able to provide in order to improve the health of the Canadian people.
Unless this new department is set up with the objective, that from now on the federal government is to maintain a greater interest, and play a greater part in improving the health of the Canadian people than has been done in the past, then we are just wasting our time in discussing this bill.
With regard to the matter brought up by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, I am rather disappointed that the federal government, having had this matter in their hands for twelve months, have been unable to find any way in which they could provide the means for testing the merit of this experiment. I am not impressed by the fact that this matter was sent to the national research council's medical branch and rejected. I am not unmindful of the fact that when,Pasteur first gave his discovery to the world the greatest medical scientists and members of the medical and scientific profession of that day scoffed at him, and that he had to fight his way up alone in opposition to the best medical science *of that day in order to establish his claim. I am satisfied that if Doctor Banting had made his discovery as a practising doctor in the backwoods somewhere, that discovery would not yet have been recognized by the medical profession of this country. It was fortunate for Canada and the world that the man who made that discovery was employed by one of *our provincial universities and had some *official recognition before that discovery was made. I think the members of the medical profession will agree that it is extremely difficult for any member of that profession who is not a recognized specialist, who does not hold some official position in a university or in a medical association, to get recognition for any discovery that he believes he has made.
It seems to me that this government has solved many more difficult.problems than the finding of some means whereby funds could be made available to prove whether this experiment is sound, whether it has anything to offer humanity. The point is that afflicted people all across this country are anxious to
be assured that no possibility has been overlooked in finding a remedy for this disease, cancer.
I aim sure that the committee will approve any measure the government may take to lend assistance in this field. During my short stay in the house I have been surprised at the number of occasions on which the government has persisted in disregarding what was the obvious desire of the members' of the house. I have witnessed a number of such instances where matters before the house seemed to have the obvious approval of all private members; yet the government has refused to budge an inch, no matter how the members appealed to the government. I believe we are bringing democracy into disrepute. If we are to allow trivial obstacles, red tape, if you wish to call it that, to retard progress; if we are to have a government continuing to disregard the obvious dfesire of the majority of the members of the house, there is no surer way of bringing democracy into disrepute than by following that procedure. I would ask the minister to reconsider this matter. I cannot believe that the minister cannot find any way or means of making funds available for an experiment to be carried out at some of the hospitals, either under the direction of his department or with the cooperation of the provinces, in order to find out for all time whether this experiment has in it anything worth while or anything of any merit. In pursuing this object has the minister investigated the possibility of cooperating in this field with the health officers of Manitoba, or are we to understand that the federal government has no authority under the British North America Act to vote money for research into a matter of public health? Apparently the statement just made by the Minister of Pensions and National Health would indicate that under the British North America Act the federal government has no authority to vote money for research into such matters. I believe that the government has authority to vote money for research in the industrial field, and if it has not authority to vote money for this other purpose, then steps Should be taken at once to secure for this government the right to make grants of money for research into matters of public health.


Brooke Claxton: The minister did not say we had not power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for York South has brought my name into this discussion on matters of jurisdiction. I made no reference at all this afternoon to the matter of cancer, which was under discussion, and I want to make it perfectly clear
4SS2

Department oj Health and Welfare
that when the hon. member says I have been seeking in any way to prevent the greatest possible research into that or any other disease he is not correctly stating the situation. I believe he will agree with that.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for bringing the Prime Minister's name into it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my hon. friend. I Should be very sorry indeed to have this discussion conclude without placing myself very clearly on record as to where I stand on this matter of health. I have not introduced this bill in order that nothing or as little as possible may be done in the way of improving the well-being of the people of this country. The purpose of this bill, and the reason why I as Prime Minister have taken it under my. own segis, is to make it apparent that the government is very much in earnest about going just as far as we possibly can in the matter of helping to improve the health and welfare of the people of Canada. But I ask hon. members to look at the beginning of the debate and see the line that was taken against the government on the motion for second reading, if indeed not before that. The whole line of attack on this measure on the part of some hon. gentlemen opposite, was that we were seeking to invade the jurisdiction of the provinces, that we were seeking to centralize everything in the federal government. Let us be honest and see what are the effects of arguments of the kind. Hon. gentlemen know that at [DOT] the present time election campaigns are being carried on in three provinces in this country. We know that each of these provinces is going to assert its rights as. against any authority which would seek to invade them. Already in each province this argument is heard: "They are endeavouring at Ottawa to centralize everything there."/1 have had to be particularly careful in presenting this measure to make it perfectly clear, in order that the measure itself may not be prejudiced, that we are not seeking to centralize matters in Ottawa, nor are we seeking to invade the jurisdiction of the provinces./ I have made it very clear, I think, that the only way real progress can be made in matters of research and the like, where there is a debatable jurisdiction as between the provinces and the dominion, is to have a department of health at Ottawa that will be in a position to associate closely with it representatives of the different provinces, to go into these questions and between them work out some method of coordinating the different services being rendered by the provinces and the
[Mi Mr -kenzie King.]
dominion, in such a manner as will prevent overlapping and at the same time guard against anything in the nature of omission of necessary services. That is one of the reasons why I am most anxious to see this particular department established.
I have been in parliament for a good many years. When I came here first I was not unlike a good many other hon. members who have come into this house for the first time; I inveighed very strongly against any question of jurisdiction being permitted to interfere with anything we wished to do. But the longer I have been in this House of Commons the more clearly I have seen how very careful we have to be if, because of disregard for matters of jurisdiction, we do not want to make the last state of the condition we are striving to improve worse than the first. These matters can be met effectively only in a right and proper way. I recall very well what I am sure is in the minds of a good many hon. gentlemen opposite at this moment ; how the leader of one of the parties opposite introduced in this parliament a lot of social legislation and, in the words of one hon. member who spoke this afternoon, said, "The great majority of hon. members are in favour of this, so why should we not do as we wish?" That legislation was introduced and placed upon the statute books, but what happened? The matter was appealed to the supreme court, which held the whole body of legislation ultra vires. I ask my hon. 'friends whether that was helping social order in the country, or whether it was the sort of thing that was calculated to provoke social unrest. For that reason, if for no other, I feel that it is part of the duty of a government to anticipate all possible consequences of the kind, f So far as this measure goes I would feel that in the matter of research into various diseases, this bill affords the government an opportunity to go just as far as our jurisdiction will permit. I am not at all sure that our jurisdiction will not permit us to go much farther than some people have thought, but at this moment I am not going to say that we have jurisdiction to do a particular thing and that we are going to do it, and to-morrow have the press of the country come out and say, "The federal government has undertaken to invade the jurisdiction of the provinces in the matter of health; behold, this is only the thin edge of the wedge. They are doing it now in rega'd to public health and welfare; next they will do it in regard to something else, and then something else." That is why the measure has been carefully drawn to make clear that as far as we have jurisdiction we can do anything in the way of research to prevent disease

Department of Health and Welfare
and help improve public welfare, but that there is no intention to go beyond our jurisdiction. The bill says:	


The duties, powers and functions of the minister shall extend to and include all matters-
Not some matters, but all.
-relating to the promotion or preservation of the health, social security and social welfare of the people of Canada over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiotion. . . .
That section is intended to give this new department the widest possible scope in matters of research and the prevention of disease, the only limitation being the degree of jurisdiction. I draw particular attention to this point, to which attention has not been drawn thus far. This clause, which has been taken from the existing legislation on national health, cointains reference to two matters not included in the present act. It adds social security and social welfare. The existing act only extends to "all matters relating to, the promotion or preservation of the health." This legislation includes matters relating to social security and social welfare. Under social security, as I pointed out the other day, will come the administration of family allowances; and under family allowances will necessarily come matters pertaining to child welfare and the like. It is therefore perfectly clear that under this legislation we should have the fullest possible authority to go into these questions affecting the well-being of children, families and the like. Then, to carry the matter a step farther, the section continues:
.	.	. and, without restricting the generality
of the foregoing, particularly the following matters;

I shall skip the first paragraph and go on to the second:
(b) investigation and research into public health and welfare.
I would regard the question of cancer as something immediately pertaining to public health and welfare; and under this section as it is now worded, unless some obstacle is discovered by those whose duty it is to interpret the statutes, I can see nothing that precludes this federal government from investigating that particular disease if it decides to do so. I happen to have in my folder here something I obtained from a newspaper only yesterday. I was surprised to see it in another connection, but it bore so directly on what was in my own thoughts that I put it aside in case it might prove to be an appropriate quotation to use to-day. Reference has been made to Louis Pasteur. I think I hold' as great regard as any one in this house for the work of Pasteur. I
believe humanity has had no greater benefactor than Pasteur. I therefore quote these words, which are his own:
Take interest, I implore you in those sacred dwellings which one designates by the expressive term:	Laboratories. Demand that they be
multiplied, that they be adorned. These are the temples of the future-'temples of well-being and of happiness. There it is that humanity grows greater, stronger, better.
I hope that one of the effects of this measure will be that we shall realize in this country, as we have not realized heretofore, the importance of laboratories and the work that is carried on in laboratories. I want to see the work of research extended, and I believe it will be extended and expanded very fully under this particular measure.
Do not let anyone say that the government is seeking to evade doing anything that should be done. If jurisdiction permits it, I think this question of cancer ought to be investigated by a federal department or authority. If jurisdiction does not permit, then I shall be prepared to join with those who will work to obtain an amendment to the measure which will give us the necessary jurisdiction. I think we ought to have it. That is my position.
I am not at this moment, however, going to embarrass the enactment of this measure by committing myself to any specific matter which will give ground to those who are interested in defeating the measure by permitting them to say that we are invading provincial jurisdiction and are trying to centralize everything in Ottawa. That I hope will make clear, not only my position but the position of the government and the position of the Liberal party.
My hon. friend says that the majority in this house are always in favour of this or that, and that the government is continually opposing what the majority wants. May I tell him that he belongs to a minority. He mistakes it for a majority. The majority are on this side of the house. Where has the government opposed what the majority has wished? We have not opposed any measure that the majority wished to have. If we had, we would not be here. We are as anxious as anyone else in this house to further all the measures for social welfare and human well-being we possibly can within the time that is at our disposal so to do.
I regard this measure as one of the foremost measures to permit the doing of those things which are necessary for improving the health of the people.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
4S84

Department oj Health and Welfare
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Alan Webster Neill: The right hon. the Prime Minister, speaking before six o'clock and answering an hon. member on this side of the house, said that there was a certain subsection of this section which was sufficiently wide in its terms to cover all research and consequently it might cover research into cancer. But I could not help noticing that he qualified his statement by a reference to jurisdictional conditions. The minister of pensions, speaking shortly before, said the very opposite. An hon. member was speaking and the minister challenged him to name the authority under which the federal government could act in a matter arising within a province in connection with medical research, and he quoted the justice department as having given a definite decision to that effect, founded on the British North America Act, in a particular case that had arisen in one of the provinces.
There is not much trouble in getting somebody to cooperate with you if the other party is solely obligated to making the expenditure and you are willing to put up a part of it. You will generally find that most individuals and municipal governments and provincial governments will not mind cooperating with you if you offer to pay part of the obligation which is wholly theirs. That is the situation in this case. If the minister wants a precedent I refer him back seventeen years ago when the old age pension question was before the house and we got a definite ruling from the justice department in writing, just as the minister has now, that the dominion government could do nothing about old age pensions because, according to the British North America Act, it was solely under the jurisdiction of the provinces. That held the thing back for one or more years. The same situation is here exactly. We know that in spite of that judicial ruling seventeen years ago millions of dollars have been spent since by the dominion government in cooperation with the provinces for old age pensions. It shows that where there is a will there is a way. While ostensibly there is this constitutional difficulty, it could be got around. If we offered to pay part of the cost or put an item in the estimates for research, the provinces would not kick about it.
I will approach the matter from another angle. The minister asked where you could get authority to justify it. I submit that the authority is in the will of the people of Canada. If the minister put an item in the estimates for this purpose, nobody in this

house would object to it, and certainly the provinces would not either. The amount could then be used for research into cancer in general or into Doctor Davidson's treatment in particular. There is a maxim or postulate in constitutional law-perhaps it is only a tradition-that the people under a democratic form of government always get what they want if they want it badly enough or if enough of them want it, and if this question went to a plebiscite there is no question what /the public would want. They would not stand on a matter of form or be deterred by any red tape. They would say: "Do something about it." If an item were put in the estimates there is no question that it would go through, and it could be used to help any research into cancer or, if found advisable, to aid in Doctor Davidson's research.
I am reminded of an anecdote, and the minister of pensions will be able to tell the Prime Minister what collops are. It is a favourite Scotch dish. The Duchess of Atholl wanted to hire a maid and so she went, as housewives do, to a friend of hers who had employed a particular woman and inquired about her. The other lady, who was also Scottish, said that the woman was an awfully decent lassie, a fine girl, a decent lassie. She kept repeating how decent the girl was. Decent has a different meaning in Scotland from elsewhere because there it applies not only to morals but to the general background of a person. It means a reputable person, a person you would like to have dealings with in your home. Well, this lady kept repeating that the woman was a decent lassie, perhaps because the maid was none too expert in the culinary art and she did not want to hurt her too much. Finally the duchess lost patience and said: "Damn her decency. Can she make good collops?"
We have been told this afternoon that the board turned down the application of Doctor Davidson because he did not submit "scientific" formulae. Let us drive a worthy spear through red tape and medical tradition by saying: Damn the formulae. Can this man cure cancer? That is the point. If he can or thinks he can, let us have an investigation.
I want to say that the hon. member for Portage la Prairie has made a very gallant effort in a worthy cause, and I am extremely sorry that the matter has been postponed for at least a year. But we can all agree that the hon. member has done his best in a very deserving cause.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I spoke on the question of cancer a few days ago and do not wish to repeat. The medical profession in Canada is

Department of Health and Welfare
most anxious to find any cure it can possibly get for cancer. No one is resisting anything in the way of improvement in treatment of cancer. A few years ago in Alberta a great many people were going to a certain place where they thought they could get a cure for cancer. The provincial government finally sent men from the university in the north to that place in the south to investigate the whole layout. They did so and decided against it. The people then were satisfied that no benefit could be received and they stopped going there. We do not want to raise false hopes in the breasts of people who are in a hopeless condition with cancer, and that is why I feel that some organization should investigate this question thoroughly and bring in a finding in this particular case for the satisfaction of the public.
Mr. GRAYDON; There has not been any reflection on the medical profession by anybody, has there?


Frederick William Gershaw: Probably not, except that it was mentioned that they had something to sell. The minister has been very sympathetic. He has taken the matter up with the medical board of the research council, and apparently they have decided against it. I spoke to the minister and he was kind enough to refer the matter to the Rockefeller institute. In the state of New York there is a heavily endowed institute with many specialists and experts who have been making investigations along these lines for years. I am glad that the minister got in touch with them in regard to this particular case. It seems to me that the evidence produced here should be referred to men in Manitoba on the ground who arc capable of investigating and possibly after that something further could be done. But that seems to be the immediate step.
I wish to emphasize that cancer is curable by well standardized methods if it is caught in its early stages. Cancer of the lip, of the face, of the breast., of the cervix-places which are accessible to X-ray or radium or surgery- can be cured, and a great deal is being done in Canada by cancer associations from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Pamphlets are published, articles printed in the magazines, and people urged on all sides to get advice if any little sore does not heal, because according to present knowledge the hope of complete cure is very good, almost perfect, under those circumstances. I want to praise and pay tribute to those people throughout the country.who are devoting time and money to spreading news of the curability of cancer and urging people to take precautions while there is yet time. I
again appeal to the minister, in view of the new evidence which has been given, to take further action along lines which will bring results and satisfy the public. We do not want people to be going without help when help can be obtained; we want help to be given in a big way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One point
should be made perfectly clear. From the discussion here to-day it may be assumed throughout the country that, because of decisions given as to jurisdiction, the dominion government is preventing Doctor Davidson from making certain investigations which might be made at the instance of government authority. .What I cannot understand is this: Doctor Davidson having the reputation which he has, hon. members from Manitoba believing in him as they do, why the province of Manitoba itself does not undertake the work of research in relation to cancer and retain Doctor Davidson for the purpose. It should be made perfectly clear that the province of Manitoba, if it wishes to do so, can undertake all this woj;k of research so far as Doctor Davidson is concerned. In Ontario the provincial government has undertaken similar kinds of research.
To show at least the sympathy which the federal government has had with research in a case where success has been proven, I recall very well that, when Doctor Banting had found a cure for diabetes with insulin, I myself had placed1 in the estimates and headed a discussion in this house to have Doctor Banting given a life endowment of 87,000 a year, and it was so voted by this house. That surely is an indication of the sympathy which the federal parliament has with the work of research where it has reason to believe that matters have proceeded sufficiently far to justify making a special grant and special endowment. If the province of Manitoba were to have Doctor Davidson undertake to make a research into cancer at the instance of the province, and he were as successful in his subject as Doctor Banting was in his, I for one would be prepared to ask this house to adopt toward him by way of endowment the same course which it adopted toward Doctor Banting.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
On section 15-Coming into force.
Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister indicate, even approximately, when this may be expected to be brought into effect?

Salaries Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should think, very soon. The. desire is to have the department established at an early day.


Gordon Graydon: Will it be proclaimed before the dominion-provincial conference which will deal with these matters as well as others?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say at what particular date the conference will be held, but I hope to see this department established very shortly after the adjournment of this parliament.


Gordon Graydon: Is it the intention of the government to provide in the case of a department such as this a parliamentary assistant, or just a minister alone?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will have to receive consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
.SALARIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Salaries Aot to provide that the salaries of the Minister of Veterans' Affairs and of the Minister of Reconstruction shall be ten thousand dollars, respectively.	.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Gordon Graydon: This raises a point which ought to be cleared up. When the bill providing for a department of reconstruction was before the house the explanation given by the right hon. gentleman was that the minister in charge of this portfolio would not be a new minister, but one who had already a portfolio and a special position in the cabinet, and that this portfolio now to be created would be a sort of roving portfolio for the purpose of correlating the reconstruction work of the various departments of government, That being the case, I fancy there arises at once in the minds of hon. members the question why there should be a salary attached to the department of reconstruction, unless one man who is to receive the appointment is to be paid two salaries, and I know of course the government has not that in mind.
While I am on my feet with respect to this matter I would ask the government, as I

have done before, whether consideration has been given to the question of combining under one minister some of the other, lighter departments of government, so that there will not be more members of the cabinet than there are now. This will add two more salaried ministers to the cabinet, and I think there is a general feeling that in some of the lighter portfolios there might be a doubling up so that this would not be required. I should like the Prime Minister to enlighten the committee on those two points.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it were possible to foresee all the circumstances it would be quite easy to give my hon. friend a concrete and definite reply. In a word the position is this. As he has stated, it is the intention of the government that the minister who will be appointed minister of reconstruction will at the outset be one of the ministers of the crown who already is a minister of another department. How long that situation will continue I am unable to say. It would depend among other things on the duration of the war. There are, for example, two departments related immediately to the war, the departments of war services and munitions and supply. Each of these will cease to have important functions to perform once the war is over. They will gradually be eliminated and in that way two existing departments will disappear. If the minister who happened to hold either of these portfolios were the one appointed as minister of reconstruction it would be necessary to provide a salary for the portfolio of minister of reconstruction because, as soon as he ceased to be the minister of the department that had been eliminated, there would no longer be a salary for him to receive. I cite those two but, in doing so, I do not mean to imply that it will necessarily be the minister of either of those departments who will be appointed minister of reconstruction.


Gordon Graydon: Neither would be barred though?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might be
either, or both, or neither-I should not say both.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It could
not be both. That is taking in too much territory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the explanation. The government has no desire to have a larger number of ministers than necessary, and where the public interest will be served by having departments combined the government will follow that aim.

Salaries Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: The situation is that there will be no new additions to the cabinet. The minister of reconstruction is to be one or other, but not both, as the Prime Minister indicated, holding a portfolio in a department that now exists. As regards the minister of veterans' affairs, is that to be a new portfolio, or is the- present minister of pensions to be transferred to that department?


Gordon Graydon: That is an embarrassing question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a matter of good behaviour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister of reconstruction is not to have a large staff? I rather gather from the Prime Minister that they are patterning this portfolio after that held by Lord Woolton in the old country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the beginning.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest that the cabinet is already too large and ought to be reduced. We have more cabinet ministers in Canada to-day than ever before in the history of the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not
think so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to see fewer cabinet ministers and better ministers and have them paid better.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what
we should all like.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Prime Minister did not do me the honour of being in the house on Wednesday last when I brought up the question of indemnities of private members. I will not rehash anything I said then except to say that I deplore the treatment which the public of Canada has given to its public servants in the way of meagre salaries. In my view we have too many cabinet ministers and those that we have we do not pay enough. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister should raise their salaries now, but this country ought to look forward to the day when it will pay its Prime Minister and the working members of the cabinet decent salaries commensurate with the ability necessary to fill the position and with the labour involved in filling the position full-time, especially having regard to the very heavy weight of taxation which now rests upon us. It is not creditable to this country that a cabinet minister should have very little more than $500 a month to live on after paying income tax, and if he
100-307J
happens to have, some private means I suggest . that possibly, like private members, he finds his entire public remuneration wiped out in taxation. I am not speaking for myself, because there is nothing I would loathe more than to be a cabinet minister at my time of life. I have no ambitions and therefore I am speaking for posterity, if that is the right word. I think we ought to do something about the matter. We ought also to do something about judges' salaries. Perhaps this is out of order, but I make this observation, that in the smaller provinces we ought to have fewer and better judges and pay them better. As regards the larger provinces, I doubt whether you could get first-class men to accept positions on the bench at the remuneration now paid. That is in line with the observations I made in respect of cabinet ministers.
I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister should do anything now, but the whole position should be reviewed. I spoke strongly on Wednesday afternoon urging that the discussion which took place in the house over the plight of private members be reviewed. I did not suggest to the Minister of Finance that there should be in any degree an increase in indemnity, but I did suggest that some relief not only might but should be given. I quite appreciate the force of one statement he made in reply, that it would not do to give tax relief to members of the House of Commons at this time when there are frozen salaries in other walks of life and other people are suffering equally from the high burden of taxation. That argument is an impressive one and carries great weight in my mind. But we should do something for the members of a new parliament, and I doubt if the members of a new parliament, I doubt if the government in power at the beginning of a new parliament, would not feel embarrassed in raising salaries or indemnities immediately after an election. The time to do that is now, to take effect at a future date. I offer these observations to the Prime Minister in the utmost good faith and in the interest of those who will come after us and not of ourselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the sake of information and in the interests of equality among our hon. friends in the cabinet, may I inquire whether the car allowance is automatic or whether it requires another resolution? It does not appear in the estimates.


Mr. STIRLING:: Certainly it does.
Salaries Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have just checked the book and it appears with "S" in the left-hand corner.


Gordon Graydon: It is statutory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say offhand, but my impression is the car allowance is automatic. It is in the estimates for ministers of the crown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I point out to the Prime Minister that I am looking at page 9 of this year's estimates. The first item reads:
Minister of Finance-salary and motor car allowance.
In the left-hand column there is a capital "S" in brackets, which stands for "statutory". In other words we never discuss it. The amount is $12,000. The resolution now before us calls for a salary of only $10,000. I would not want any of these men to have anything less than any of the other men.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is not automatic my hon. friend may count on a supplementary estimate being submitted to meet what he has in mind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the explanation is that the salary of $10,000 is statutory and that the $2,000 is voted. The way the estimates are made up may be a little deceptive.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the Prime Minister would check it up before the extra $2,000 is brought in?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall look into the matter, and if what is being provided now for salary and what is provided in some general estimate for car allowances do not put all ministers on an equality in that respect I shall endeavour to see that they are put into a like position by a supplementary estimate.


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that I think there is some point to the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but this is only the resolution stage. The bill will come later, and the Prime Minister will have an opportunity of including that if it is necessary. If it is not necessary, then it does not have to be put in.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 160, to amend the Salaries Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TAX CONVENTION ACT, 1944 CANADA-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-RATIFICATION OF CONVENTION SIGNED AT OTTAWA, JUNE 8, 1944

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue) moved the second reading of Bill No. 159, respecting a certain tax convention between Canada and the United States of America.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to ask the minister some questions not so much with respect to the provisions of the bill itself as to the convention which is attached to and forms part of the bill, but perhaps not in this order. The short title is not important. The second section approves the convention and I wish to discuss for a few moments some of the articles of the convention.


Mr. GIBSON:: We shall come to these articles one by one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If we
approve section 2 we approve the convention. Perhaps we might leave that to the last and take up section 3. Will that be all right?


Colin William George Gibson: We can do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 stands.
On section 3-Inconsistent legislation.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Section 3
provides:
In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this act or of the said convention and the operation of any other law, and in particular the law relating to the taxation of the succession to property, the provisions of this act and the convention shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, prevail.
If we turn to article VH of the convention, which is found on page 6 of the bill, we find the following:
1. With a view to the prevention of fiscal evasion each of the contracting states undertakes to furnish to the other contracting state, as provided in the succeeding articles of this convention, the information which its competent authorities have at their disposal or are in a position to obtain under its revenue laws in so far as such information may be of use to the authorities of the other contracting state in the assessment of the taxes to which this convention relates.
I suggest that in view of that article and section 3 of the bill the principle of secrecy which now surrounds income tax returns of

Tax Convention Act
Canadian citizens is thrown entirely into the discard, and the principle is being violated on public authority.


Colin William George Gibson: That same section is in the income tax convention too.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know it is. It was put in a while ago. I protested
then as I protest now. The provision of secrecy which we have had in the income tax act ever since the first act was passed in 1917 remains inviolate so far as the Canadian public is concerned. I do not know what the provision of the United States statute is, but they certainly have not the same degree of secrecy with respect to income tax returns in the United States as we have here, because from time to time we see in flaming headlines the salaries and incomes of so-called important people in the United States published, I think, to satisfy the curiosity of the public more than anything else. I object to the dissemination of information by the government of this country to a foreign government, because I know that you cannot have secrecy. If the principle is good-and I know there are some people in this house who have approached consideration of this subject matter with the theory that the secrecy provisions of our law should no longer be operative-it should be respected. I have always objected to that theory.
I think that what is my private business is not the business of any of my fellow-citizens. I have always appreciated that there was secrecy so far as Canada is concerned in respect of income tax and that sort of thing, save and except, of course, the fact that a certain number of trusted officials have to know what the income returns show. But I strenuously object to the invasion of that principle by international arrangement. We deny that principle to the Canadian public; we give it to a foreign government. That is a bad thing. I suppose the minister will answer by saying that the intention is to guard against the evasion of taxes; that would appear to be the object of the article in question. Nevertheless I do not think this is a good principle to introduce into a treaty with a foreign sovereign state, and I wish to register my objection to the invasion of a principle which I consider should be held inviolate.


Colin William George Gibson: Most of the information
that would be required by the United States would be in connection with their own taxpayers. They would not be interested in the Canadian assets of a Canadian citizen.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I
suggest that the convention should contain
that limitation. The government of a country, such as the United States or Canada, should and of necessity must have this information with respect to its own nationals, but they are not limited to that, and to the extent that it does not contain this limitation the treaty is defective. I object to it, and I do not think the convention should go as far as it does. If it were limited to this country giving the United States government information about United States nationals, and conversely to the United States giving this government information with respect to Canadian nationals, there could not be so much objection. Perhaps that might be a salutary thing to have in a convention, but this is far wider than that.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, it is wider.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This will leave the door wide open, and if that was the intention of the convention it should have said so in express terms. It does not say anything of the sort.


Colin William George Gibson: No; it says:
... in so far as such information may be of use to the authorities of the other contracting state. . . .


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, who is to judge-the authorities of the other contracting state?	_


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is my principal objection to this convention. While I am dealing with the convention, perhaps the minister could tell me something with respect to article III, which provides:
Sha res in a corporation organized in or under the laws of the United States of America, of any of the states or territories of the United States of America, or of the District of Columbia, shall be deemed to be property situated within the United States of America.
That is to say, no matter what may be the situs of the shares they are deemed to be situated within the United States. Conversely:
Shares in a corporation organized in or under the larvs of Canada or of any of the provinces or territories of Canada, shall be deemed to be property situated within Canada.
Then article IV states:
1. The situs of property shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the contracting state imposing the tax, except as otherwise provided in this convention.
If I understand that, it means that the situs of property, other than shares in the companies mentioned in article III-


Colin William George Gibson: And real estate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, of course, real estate has always followed the situs. I am not dwelling on that.
Fax Convention Act


Colin William George Gibson: We deal with real estate in article II, with shares in article III and with all other property in article IV.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Real estate, of course, is exempt. Has it not always been the rule that real estate is dealt with in the country in which it is located? Is there anything in here which would affect real estate in connection with ascertaining the value or the return? I know that for succession duty purposes it would affect the quantum of the tax. That would not apply here, I suppose, because the rental values would be assessed in the country in which the real estate is situated. I think that is the general rule, and always has been, but article III alters the effect of international law, does it not?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes. There were different methods of treating the handling of shares in the two countries. If the United States had any justification at all they claimed that the shares were located in that country. Even if the unsigned certificate were in that country they claimed that it was taxable in the United States.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was our attitude?


Colin William George Gibson: Well, the matter was dealt with in various ways. If the stock could be effectively dealt with in this country we held that it was taxable in this country. In the case of companies having only one share transfer register, it depended upon the location of that register. Sometimes a company had two transfer registers, and then we had disputes, particularly if the share certificate were not in the jurisdiction in which either share register was located.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
would be the position prior to this of a share the situs of which, we will say, was Bermuda, with a stock register in New York and another in Montreal? What was the situs of that share previously, and what will it be in future?


Colin William George Gibson: Of course if it were registered on the Montreal register and not in the New York register there would be no question at all. It would have to be registered on one register. It would generally be located where the register was.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the situs would be in Montreal?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now there will be no anomalies arise under this convention, and perhaps it is all right. I wonder why it has not been extended to other classes of securities, such as registered bonds. The

minister is aware, of course, of certain decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in the National Trust Company against the provincial treasurer of Quebec, in what is commonly called the Sifton case, where the securities, being specialties, were locally situated in the province of Ontario. The Quebec government sought to tax them because they could only be unregistered in the province of Quebec. Has consideration been given to the situs of that class of property?


Colin William George Gibson: They were all taxable at their location at the time of death.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is, the situs was where the instruments themselves were actually located?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yet the province of Quebec claimed and still claims that because they can be dealt with effectively only where they are registered, they are still taxable in that province.


Colin William George Gibson: This is the same law both in Canada and in the United States; we are agreed on that point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You have agreed on that point?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Mr. MARTIN:: I suppose there is no question that the phrase "any other law" in section 3 of the bill means any other law within the provinces or anywhere else? It reads:
In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this act or of the said convention and the operation of any other law, and in particular the law relating to the taxation of the succession to property, the provisions of this act and the convention shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, prevail.
I suppose "any other law" does not mean any law passed by this parliament, but any law passed by any of the provincial legislatures or this parliament, particularly in regard to the taxation of succession to property.


Colin William George Gibson: This means any inconsistency with the Dominion Succession Duty Act. This would override any of the provisions of our federal succession duty act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It may be a question of draftsmanship, but it says:
In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this act or of the said convention and the operation of any other law. . . .
Why could it not be the law on succession duty in the province of Ontario, for instance?


Colin William George Gibson: Well, the common law is affected by the convention.

Tax Convention Act
4S91


Richard Burpee Hanson: It seems to me that the inclusion of the phrase "and the operation of any other law" would appear to be an attempt on the part of this legislature .to abrogate the law of a sovereign province. For instance, the province of Quebec might pass the law-remember shares are civil rights -which would run foul of this convention and this treaty. The minister does not mean to tell me that the passing of this bill will override provincial law with respect to property and civil rights?


Colin William George Gibson: This is dealing only with taxes, so that this would apply only to laws affecting dominion taxes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is contemplated by the words "any other law"?
' Mr. GIBSON: The common law as to situs of property. That is dealt with in this and it would override any other decisions or-
Mr.HANSON (York-Sunbury): Why should not the section say that? The terms here are very wide and you do not know what interpretation may be put upon them. If it is intended to relate only to any other law relating to the situs of property, then should it not say so?


Colin William George Gibson: That was an example.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What other possible thing could it relate to?


Colin William George Gibson: It is really all-embracing to make sure that the convention will be operative in respect of any law that is in existence dealing with dominion taxation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It goes farther than dominion taxation because it operates on the situs of property.


Colin William George Gibson: For taxing purposes only.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Article I covers it. It reads:
The taxes referred to in this convention are:
(a)	for the United States of America: the federal estate taxes;
(b)	for Canada: the taxes imposed under the Dominion Succession Duty Act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are not talking about taxes; we are talking about the effect of the overriding provisions of this convention. We are not talking about taxes in section 3; we are talking about the effect in law of the convention. I had intended to refer to that before the hon. member for Essex East rose. I suggest that the words "and the operation of any other law" are too wide. You cannot legislate here to override laws relating to the situs of property passed by a province. I lay down that general proposition
Mr.,GIBSON: I quite agree with that, but for the purpose of the Dominion Succession Duty Act we can lay down what property is to be taxed. That is all we are doing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In so far as the tax is concerned, but here you are passing a general statute. Have the law officers of the crown considered this section?


Colin William George Gibson: This has been submitted to the Department of Justice and has been approved by them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no doubt that is true, but has this particular feature been called to their attention? Have they reviewed it fully? After the statement, "in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this act or of the said convention and the operation of any other law", the section goes on to state, "and in particular the law relating to the taxation of the succession to property". That should be limited to the taxation by the dominion of the succession to property. You cannot pass a law here that relates to the taxation, by the province, of the succession to property, and that is what is being attempted here. The provisions of this section are too wide.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 3 is not attempting to override provincial legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the effect of the general language.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The section states that if this convention is inconsistent with any other law, and if we assume that that includes provincial legislation, then the provisions of this bill and the convention shall to the extent of the inconsistency not prevail.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Shall
prevail.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I have not heard the whole discussion, but I am wondering if the hon. member for York-Sunbury and1 the minister would feel that the problem they are considering now would be solved by adding after the words " any other law," the clause that we found in section 5 of bill No. 149, which was considered this afternoon and which reads, " over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Would that not solve it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think it would. I am pointing out that this legislature cannot deal 100 per cent with the whole question when it must limit itself to its own jurisdiction.
Tax Convention Act


Arthur Graeme Slaght: If inconsistencies in the Ontario succession duty act cropped up they might pass something that did not conform with this convention.


Colin William George Gibson: This does not deal with the Ontario succession duty act.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: It says, " any other law."


Richard Burpee Hanson: It deals with the succession to property.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The phrase I had in mind was, " over which the parliament of Canada has jurisdiction." If it is needless we should not put it in, but I believe it would clarify beyond question the point that has been raised.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I urge the minister to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Parry Sound.


Colin William George Gibson: Property and civil rights is a matter for the jurisdiction of the provinces, and if we put that in they might say that that is a matter over which the dominion parliament has no jurisdiction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You have taken jurisdiction under section 91 over the succession to property in your succession duty act. You have the widest possible powers of taxation. I am not raising this point just for fun or for'the purposes of obstruction; I do so because I really think there is objection to the form of the section as drafted. In the light of the discussion I think the minister would be well advised if he reviewed the situation. I am not going to labour the point any farther. I believe we have made our position quite clear. If you try to override provincial statutes you will run foul of Mr. Duplessis and a lot of other people.


Colin William George Gibson: Whatever we would be overriding would be only for the purposes of avoiding double taxation between Canada and the United States, not to change the general law of this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The object might be excellent, but the language is not appropriate. I think the suggestion offered by Ihe hon. member for Parry Sound is a sound one. That phrase is included in the health act, and I think we should limit our attempts at taking jurisdiction to the constitutional powers of the dominion.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: There is now pending in Ontario some important legislation in connection with the Ontario succession duty act as to the right of taxation of mining shares where a resident of New York dies owning mining shares in an Ontario company and

there are transfer offices of the company in Toronto and in New York. Important questions are pending now as to the right of the province to levy a tax upon shares where the deceased died in the United States and was a resident of that country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a
vexed problem.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: It is in my view.


Colin William George Gibson: I would not want to limit this in that way because it might limit us more than is desirable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I would take advice on it.


Colin William George Gibson: I cannot agree.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You cannot hoist yourself by your own boot-straps and you cannot seize jurisdiction just by putting it in an act of parliament; you must have inherent jurisdiction under the constitution. I would play safe and limit it to the constitutional powers of the federal authorities, but I am not going to argue the matter any farther. I think you will run into trouble if you do not do as has been suggested.
There is just one other point I want to refer to under section 4 and then I shall be through. What are the orders and regulations which the minister has in mind and which are, in his opinion, necessary for the purpose of carrying out the convention? Powers to make orders and regulations should not be so general as this. They should be limited in scope and extent. But this is wide open, within, of course, the terms of the convention. I should like to know what orders or regulations the minister has in mind which, in his opinion, may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the convention.


Colin William George Gibson: That really refers to the administrative work of carrying out the convention, the preparation of forms, for instance, and providing for whatever other action is necessary to carry out the convention's terms.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then why not say, "necessary for the due administration of the convention"? That has a narrowing effect. Under this section the minister has very wide powers to make any kind of regulation he likes so long as it is made in carrying out the convention. If it is meant to be purely administrative, why not say so?


Colin William George Gibson: It is really the same type of form that we have in the bill respecting the income tax convention. It is more or less a routine section.

Tax Convention Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: I took the same objection then. It is no answer to say that because we did it in a previous statute we are going to do it in this. On principle that is no answer at all. Because you have done it over a period of thirty or forty years even does not constitute an answer. Bad legislation should not be placed on the statute books at all, and I think this is bad draftsmanship. The powers to make rules and regulations should be limited strictly to the purposes of the administration of the act. Some minister may come along and say: I have power under section 4 to make a regulation that goes beyond administration.


Colin William George Gibson: Only "for the purpose of carrying out the said convention."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I realize that it must be with this subject-matter in view. That is all that that means. I deprecate the practice that is becoming more and more prevalent in departmental legislation of giving these extraordinary powers to ministers to legislate, because that is what it is. I shall never cease, so long as I am a member of this house, to raise my voice against this delegation of power except for purely administrative purposes, and the language of the section is not within the ambit of that statement.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I cannot share the view of the hon. member in that respect. Let me put it in this way. The minister who makes any regulation under the authority of section 4 must confine himself to the necessities of carrying out the convention which we are about to approve as law. The minute he made a regulation which stepped outside of the purpose "of carrying out the said convention", he would be travelling outside section 4.


George Hugh Castleden: He may make such regulations as are in his opinion necessary. It is only his opinion.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: In all these matters where a minister is given power to make regulations to carry out a statute-and I suppose we have a dozen like this-it is always a matter of opinion by the minister, advised by his advisers, as to whether a particular regulation that he thinks ought to be put into effect is one which comes within his authority given to him by statute. So that I would not be alarmed because it is a matter of opinion.


George Hugh Castleden: But he is the sole judge.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: But the courts will set him straight if he makes a regulation that he has not the right to make. You run that risk, I say with all respect to my hon. friend, whenever you authorize the making of regulations by order in council to provide the machinery for carrying out a particular piece of legislation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I am in agreement with a certain part of what the hon. member for Parry Sound has said, but he will agree with me that this is a delegated authority and that the powers are wide open within a certain ambit. Should they not be restricted? That is the only point I am raising.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: What sort of language would the hon. member restrict it to?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would restrict it by express words, "necessary to the administration of the convention". But I am not going to do the drafting.


Colin William George Gibson: We are restricted by the wording to carrying out the terms of the convention.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think so. It says, "in his opinion, necessary for the purpose of carrying out the said convention." They may find that the convention lacks something which they want done, something outside the ambit of the convention.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: We could well drop out the words "in his opinion", and make it definite.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is another question I should like to ask. Who is going to attack any of these regulations? That is a poser. The subject is not going to attack them unless they are clearly without. jurisdiction. Once you give power to an executive to legislate, and that is what we are doing here-


Colin William George Gibson: Somebody must have
authority to make regulations to administer these laws.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not necessarily. I can remember that when the discussion over the mobilization regulations was taking place in the house I pointed out that the government was taking power to legislate under a general authority, whereas on a previous occasion the regulations were brought down and submitted to parliament. That is the way it ought to be done. We are too prone in this country to-day, as they have been in days gone by in England, to delegate authority to legislate to the executive. It is the principle I am contending for. I know that in war time there must be a relaxation of the rule to a degree, but there certainly is a principle involved. I am not going to labour the point. I suppose that this will go through if I were to stay here until to-morrow morning, and I do not propose to do that on a hot night. I have pointed out what I consider to be a weakness in the section as drafted. I think the principle is bad and



Tax Convention Act
the minister would be well advised if he restricted his powers to pure matters of administration of the subject matter of the convention.


Douglas King Hazen: These regulations do not have to be printed in the Canada Gazette or tabled. In similar statutes I have noticed that provision is made that the regulations must be printed in the Canada Gazette and also be laid on the table within a certain number of days after parliament meets. But these regulations will just be hidden away. Nobody will know what they are until they spring at the people right out of the blue.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Unless
publicity is given to them how is a lawyer to know what the law is?


Colin William George Gibson: I quite agree that there must be some publication.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I think the point is well taken.


Douglas King Hazen: If I may read from the bill we had before us this afternoon, bill No. 149, an act to establish a Department of National Health and Welfare, section 10 reads:
Regulations made under this act shall forthwith after approval by the governor in council be published in the Canada Gazette and laid before parliament within fifteen days after they are made if parliament is then sitting, and, if not, then within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.


Colin William George Gibson: I should like to read section 58, subsection 2, of the Dominion Succession Duty Act:
(2) The minister may make any regulations deemed necessary for carrying this act into effect, and in particular may make regulations:
(a)	prescribing forms and providing for the use thereof;
(b)	prescribing the amount, form and manner in which security shall be furnished;
(c)	prescribing what rule, method and standard of mortality and of value, and what rate of interest shall be used in determining the value of annuities, terms of years, life estates, income, and interests in expectancy; and
(d)	authorizing the commissioner to exercise such of the powers conferred by this act, as may, in the opinion of the minister, be conveniently exercised by the commissioner.
These regulations are provided for in the succession duty act and they are published in the Gazette.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By authority of statute?


Colin William George Gibson: Not by the authority of
statute, but the succession duty branch does do that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By custom?


Colin William George Gibson: By custom.


Douglas King Hazen: But there is no provision in this bill before us?
Mr. GIBSON; No. There is no provision for it in the Succession Duty Act either, but it is the custom to do that.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); The minister will observe that while the Succession Duty Act provides in the opening paragraph for general powers of order and regulation, yet the effect of the whole section read together is to limit the powers of the minister to the particular subject-matters enumerated, and I think he would find that the court would hold him to that. At least that would be my interpretation of the section. I think the minister ought at least to publish these orders and regulations.


Colin William George Gibson: I can assure my hon. friend that we do that as a matter of course; we publish them in the Canada Gazette.


Douglas King Hazen: I do not think we should
depend on "matter of course." There should be a provision in the bill itself so that we shall know that it will be done. I move:
That another section be added to this bill to read as follows:
"Orders and regulations made under this act by the Minister of National Revenue shall be published in the Canada Gazette and laid before parliament within fifteen days after they are made, if parliament is then sitting, and if not. within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof."


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Would it not be well to
put in the word "forthwith"?


Douglas King Hazen: I intended to put that in.


Colin William George Gibson: That could be added to
section 4 without creating a new section.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes,
that is a matter of form.


Colin William George Gibson: I have no objection to adding that to section 4.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Golding):: Will the amendment be put in writing?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member has not had time to put it in writing. We will do so if you demand it. Will the minister go back and give the same consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Parry Sound, to put in the words, "within the jurisdiction of this parliament," where he suggested it?


Colin William George Gibson: No. I do not think I
would be willing to do that.

Tax Convention Act


Douglas King Hazen: Has this convention been
approved and declared to have the force of law by the government of the United States?


Colin William George Gibson: No, it has not been approved yet. It has been signed of coarse. But it is before congress.


Douglas King Hazen: Does the minister know the
approximate date when it will be approved?


Colin William George Gibson: I understand that congress
has been adjourned until the 1st of August.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If congress does not approve it, what then? Is there a provision in the convention for approval?


Colin William George Gibson: Article XIV states:
1. This convention shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Should wre not add a clause to this bill that it will be brought into effect when it is promulgated by order in council?


Richard Burpee Hanson: After ratification by the United States.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Suppose congress never
approves it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
believe that the proper consideration has been given to this whole matter. This may never be ratified by the United States; yet it is the law of Canada. Somebody has slipped.


Colin William George Gibson: It comes into effect after
it has been ratified by both countries.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It is deemed to have come into effect in 1941.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It says it shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged as soon as possible. The convention shall be deemed to have come into effect on June 14, 1941; and the minute this bill passes the Canadian parliament it is binding on Canada, and it is not binding on the United States until it is ratified by the United States Senate. It is in the form of a treaty. It looks to me like very loose workmanship.


Colin William George Gibson: Article XIV covers it. It
does not become operative between the two countries until it has been ratified by the legislative bodies of both countries.


Grote Stirling: It does not say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, it does not say that. Paragraph 2 of article XIV states that it-
. . . shall be deemed to have come into effect on the fourteenth day of June, 1941. It shall
continue in effect for a.period of five years from that date and indefinitely after that period, but may be terminated. . . .
And so forth. It must be ratified-"shall be ratified", it says. It is binding on us the minute we ratify it.


Colin William George Gibson: A treaty cannot be binding on one country unless it has been ratified by both.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is the law of Canada, unless you say otherwise. What we have done with previous treaties, I think, is to say that the treaty comes in effect as of a certain date when ratified by both the contracting parties. That is the way it ought to be drafted.


Colin William George Gibson: This is in exactly the same form as the previous one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I say the previous one is faulty for the same reason.


Mr. BURTON:: Just why is the date, "fourteenth day of June, 1941", set as the date upon which the convention is said to come in force?


Colin William George Gibson: That is when the Dominion Succession Duty Act was first brought into force. It goes back to the origin of that act.


Douglas King Hazen: If a person domiciled in Canada dies leaving an estate of $30,000 consisting solely of shares in Standard Oil of New Jersey, what dominion succession duty would the estate have to pay in this country?


Colin William George Gibson: That comes under article VI. If a Canadian dies leaving an estate in the . United States?


Douglas King Hazen: Yes.


Colin William George Gibson: First of all, Canada would tax the whole estate of the man, as he was a resident of Canada. Then Canada allows a proportion of the tax which is paid in the United States: it is worked out under the formula in paragraph 2 (b).
I should like to say a few words on article VI. It provides first of all that there shall be a credit; then it provides that the credit shall be proportional; and then, in subparagraph (c) of both paragraphs 1 and 2 it is provided that the proportion shall be limited. In this case, in view of the fact that the value of the United States property liable to taxation in Canada and the value of the property taxed in the United States is the same, Canada would allow the entire tax that has been paid in the United States as an ofUset. If that did not amount to the full Canadian tax there would be a balance to pay.
Tax Convention Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: An offset
against the Canadian tax?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the purpose of the convention is good on the whole. What I have been criticizing or rather suggesting is a certain deficiency in procedure and so forth. I approve the convention because I think it will ease things for certain people, and I am all for easing taxation as far as I can-that is, double taxation. I am for eradicating double taxation; I want that understood.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Orders and regulations.
Colin William George Gibson: I have this amendment to propose, that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following words:
Such orders and regulations made under this section shall be published in the Canada Gazette and laid before parliament within fifteen days after they are made, if parliament is then sitting, and if not, then within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
193. Canadian travel bureau service, $77,950.
Gordon Graydon: This item, coming as it does in the civil appropriations for the Department of National War Services, involves what I might call one of the major peace-time industries and a very important one both from the national and from the international point of view. I refer to the tourist trade of Canada. The Canadian travel bureau service is one which, prior to the war, had functioned in a way that was generally acceptable to the people. Up to the time the war broke out, the tourist trade in Canada had assumed year by year greater and greater proportions. Encouragement was lent to it by the dominion government, the provincial governments, and in certain sections of the country by municipalities where the tourist trade was one of the major sources of revenue of the people in that particular district. During the war-

time period, of course, tourist travel had pretty well diminished to a point where only a skeleton was left of what it was in pre-war days. It was one of the war's casualties so far as peace-time activity is concerned. That was particularly the case with respect to tourists coming from the United States and other countries. The reciprocal arrangements which existed in pre-war days whereby our people went south and their people came here had to be temporarily suspended and practically abandoned.
I have found, and I think the minister has found, that as the war reaches the point where it is at least nearer to its climax, if one may put it in that way, the attention of the public begins to be focused a little more on the peacetime activities which will follow. It is essential that in any move we make so far as reconstruction or making plans for the peacetime period are concerned we never let our eye wander off the ball, so to speak, as far as the winning of the war is concerned. Yet I think there is always in the back of the minds of the people this thought. It has cost us a lot in men, money and materials because we were unprepared for war. There are many people who believe that had we been prepared for war at an earlier time perhaps there would not have been any war, but I will leave that to those who know much more about international complications than I. However, it does rest with us when this war is over-and I pray and I think we all pray that that time may not be too far distant, although most of us have fears that perhaps we are not as near that time as some would have us believe-the responsibility of making sure that the peacetime period is prepared for so that we shall not have the helter-skelter arrangements that were necessary for us to make in the preparation for this war. That responsibility rests upon the government and upon the people. The helter-skelter arrangements that we had to make in preparation for the war were not confined to this country. The whole democratic free world found itself in the same position in trying to convert its peace-time activities and enterprises into a war-time economy.
I think I shall have some corroboration and support from hon. members of the committee when I make this statement. When peace comes there will be a desire on the part of people generally to do some travelling that has been accumulating in their minds during this period of great stress and strain. I suppose there is scarcely an hon. member in this committee who has not given some thought-and he does not have very much time for leisure- to what kind of travelling he is going to do as a means of relaxation when the war is

Sup-ply-War Services
over. That, of course, is in the minds of people generally. When this war draws to its close the tourist trade no doubt will assume greater proportions in this country than ever before. I do not often indulge in prophecy, but were I so tempted I would say that the tourist industry of Canada before the war will look puny and insignificant alongside the tremendous business that this country will do when the days of peace come. This means that we must be prepared. We cannot expect to reach this period unprepared and still do our duty to our nation and to those from other lands to whom we are acting as hosts. Therefore I welcome at least the approach to the problem as is indicated by the increase in the estimates in this civil appropriation.
I am not in a position to say as to whether or not the money which has been increased by some 123,000-it seems small-is put in the right place; but in any event it does indicate that there is a consciousness on the part of the director of the Canadian travel bureau services that in the future there will be an expansion in a business which was a very important one to us in the past. When this country is making its preparations for the tourist trade I am hopeful that it will make sure that the preparations are of such a nature that they will fit into the place which we trust this nation will fill in world affairs. I am hopeful that as a nation we shall see to it that we put our best foot forward in this business. It means a lot to the people of Canada. It started out as a business which was a sort of sideline; it then developed into a business of major proportions.
When we talk about the planning for reconstruction in the years to come I think those plans will not be complete unless the reconstruction of the tourist business of Canada is fitted into that general programme. No doubt the minister of reconstruction will have a goodly share in the plans for the period that lies ahead; but I wish to point out to the minister and to the government that they ought to be in a position now to tell us something about the plans. I am going to ask the minister to describe in some detail the plans which this government have already laid out with respect to this portion of our country's reconstruction programme, because this is a programme which can be worked out quite a distance ahead. Some programmes, such as the reconversion and changing over of industries from war time to peace time, must of necessity be delayed because conditions may arise in this country which may interfere seriously and perhaps change the plans altogether. But that does not apply to the same extent to the tourist trade, because the
general basic factors I think ought now to be fairly well known to the government. It is true that there may be some influences and factors which will be changed; but the minister has received briefs from various organizations; many people have given a great deal of thought to the matter of tourist traffic after the war and what it will mean to this country, and I hope that the minister will come along with a programme for this country for the post-war years. In the details given for this item I notice that the amount for advertising and publicity has been increased this year by some $15,000, while the amount allocated for publications has been increased from $3,000 to $6,000. Other than the cost of temporary assistance I believe those are the most noticeable increases in the item.
I wish to impress upon the minister the necessity of drawing up this plan at an early day, for this is something the government can get at now. I believe the programme laid down in this connection will occupy a position of great importance as far as our national economy is concerned in the future. One of the things that will be very important in connection with the promotion and advancement of the tourist industry will be the means of transportation. I suggest to the minister that we are entering an era of air travel. Those who lived in the nineties saw the transition from horse-drawn to motor-driven vehicles. I think we who were brought up in the automobile era will live to see t'he day when automobiles will be largely displaced by aeroplanes, helicopters and other forms of air transport. So that I think it is very important that in making plans for the tourist traffic we should take into consideration the new types of conveyances that will bring people to this country. I suggest that the country most far-sighted and most advanced in getting tourists to visit it, and in providing the most comfortable and convenient forms of transportation within it, will have a great advantage over other countries in competing for this valuable business.
I suggest to the minister that we must also complete our highway system by constructing the links necessary to do away with the deadends that exist at the present time. It is a national duty and obligation to prepare in every way possible for this tourist trade. We shall have to consider our highways more than we have considered them in the past. We shall have to see that proper facilities for landing, refueling and repairing planes are provided. Let us not be caught unprepared for this new era, as we have been caught so often before, for I am sure even this government can see the development that is coming.
Supply-War Services

I am going to ask the minister, if I may, to unfold the details of the programme which I am sure the government must have in hand concerning this great business in the post-war years.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I have just a word to add in connection with the important item now under discussion. I believe the leader of the opposition is to be congratulated upon the vision he has displayed and his real grasp of the situation in regard to the task which lies ahead as far as Canada is concerned in connection with the development of our great tourist industry. The constituency I represent is particularly interested in that industry; through the hand of fate, and through an extraordinary occurrence some nine years ago, that constituency has probably had as many visitors from across the line as any other constituency in Canada, so that my people are deeply concerned with this matter. I believe the minister is to be congratulated also upon his thorough grasp of the situation, although he took over this task only a comparatively short time ago. The committee may not know that early in December of last year he called a conference in the city of Quebec to which were invited the officers in charge of the tourist industry in all nine provinces. A report of that convention was issued; I have read it from cover to cover, and it shows that not only this government but the provincial governments are awakening to the increasing importance of this industry.
There is another factor to which I might properly refer. I believe the minister is fortunate in having as director of the travel bureau Mr. Leo Dolan, who has occupied that position for some years. Hon. members may not recall that some three years ago there was a meeting in California of representatives of the United States, Canada, and the twenty-one South and Central American countries for the purpose of forming an international travel association. Canada was represented by the director of our travel bureau. At that meeting Canada was accorded the signal honour of having Mr. Dolan elected as the first president of the association, for a two-year term.


Gordon Graydon: A good choice.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: A very good choice. He carried on his duties for the two-year term, and then attended the next meeting of the association, which was held in Buenos Aires. I believe his efforts, and the prominent position he has occupied, have started Canada off on the right foot in regard to the tremendous future development that, we may expect in |Mr. Graydon.]
this connection as far as our good neighbours of South and Central America are concerned. Therefore I believe the government has a full appreciation of the importance of this industry. I want to endorse everything that has been said by the leader of the opposition in reference to not slackening our efforts, so that we may be prepared for the future when peace comes.
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services):	Mr. Chairman, may
I thank hon members who have spoken so far for their eulogies of the work done by the staff of the travel bureau and their acceptance of the desirability in the national interest of building up as quickly as circumstances permit this industry which before the war meant an expenditure in Canada in one year, the highest of which I have record, of $185,000,000, which expenditure dropped as the war went on to below $100,000,000.


George Hugh Castleden: Is that American
dollars?
Mr. LaFLECHE: American dollars. I think I am safe in saying that before the war the tourist industry in Canada was worth more to our national economy in the way of foreign exchange than our great timber operations. This comparison gives us an idea of the great importance of the tourist industry to Canada. I trust there will be no objection to my taking a few minutes to place on the record some information which I think this committee should have and which should prove of interest to the public.
The reasons for this estimate are to keep alive during the war interest in our tourist trade and to protect our heavy investments in highways, railways, bus systems, steamship lines, air lines, hotels, eating places, popular resorts, the gasoline and oil distributing trades, the tourist trade generally and foreign exchange. There is one item of great importance internationally, that of good will, and there is also the question of the nation's health in mind and body. While we want visitors to come to Canada in large numbers when circumstances will permit, I should like to see the Canadian public travel and enjoy themselves in order to keep up their morale and improve their physique and health. [DOT]


Gordon Graydon: On the present gas ration?
Mr. LaFLECHE: My hon. friend has brought up a subject of which perhaps he knows more than I do. At the present time it has been considered by many authorities interested in the tourist trade in Canada that it would be untimely to attempt at this time of war to stimulate tourist travel generally.

Sup-ply-War Services


Gordon Graydon: I think that is the proper policy.
Mr. LaFLECHE: It was my intention to call another meeting of the advisory committee on the tourist trade which I created not long ago. The nine provinces are represented on this committee. As soon as the invasion broke out I decided that it would not now be proper to call in these representatives, and early last month I wrote them as follows:
It had ibee.n my intention to invite the members of the national tourist advisory committee to a meeting some time in July. However, in view of the situation which has developed in Europe, it seems advisable to postpone the meeting.
Upon reflection, I hope you will agree that it is not wise to assemble the committee at this time. At this moment when the hearts and minds of Canadian people are focused upon the course of the invasion of Europe, such a meeting might not be understood. It may be that our forces in France will have dealt a crushing blow to the-enemy later in the summer. If such be the case-and God willing we all hope it will be so-it may be possible to assemble the committee late in the fall.
In the meantime it would be very much appreciated if you would care to express any thoughts you may have to Mr. D. Leo Lolan, executive director of the committee. It might be well at your convenience, if you would make known your views to Mr. Dolan as to the points you believe should be discussed by the members of the committee when they meet.
We had replies from nearly all the members of the committee. A report on the consensus of the opinion expressed in those replies reads as follows:
In connection with the letter issued by the minister, under date of June 17. to the members of the national tourist advisory committee, I beg to make the following report.
We have now received replies from practically every member of the committee. These replies indicate unanimous approval of the minister's action in not holding a meeting of the committee at the present time. Further, the members have indicated their desire to agree with the minister's proposal that we should meet late in September or October.
The leader of the opposition asked that I outline the plans for the future, and I shall do my best to satisfy him on that point. It is the opinion of many persons in Canada directly interested in the tourist trade, such as hotelkeepers, resort owners and other people in the trade, that immediately after the war is ended we shall not be relieved of the traffic rush which exists to-day and that therefore that it would be inadvisable to attempt to increase the passenger traffic. At the moment our trains are filled with passengers, and of course as far as road travel is concerned we are hampered by the scarcity of gasoline and rubber. I hope the rubber situation will be corrected very quickly, owing to the synthetic plants
that are now going very well, but gasoline is another matter. However, that is one of the things which will be in greater supply I believe as soon as the peak of the war has been reached and passed victoriously.
As to the future, I shall be. glad to send my hon. friend a copy of the report of the proceedings of the national tourist business meeting held on my invitation at the Chateau Frontenac, Quebec city, November 29 and December 1, 1943. About 250 Canadians and Americans interested directly in the tourist trade met to discuss matters of mutual interest, and I believe they were in unanimous agreement on all subjects. It was my pleasure to address the delegates and outline to them what I considered the principal features of a successful tourist trade. I invited them to give these their attention and to work along the lines I suggested. .
The committee sat and passed resolutions, which resolutions will be considered by the advisory committee when it meets. I am anxious to meet these gentlemen because they are all keenly intent upon advancing the prosperity and happiness of Canada. They appreciate the value of this industry to the national economy, and they can do an immense amount of good in creating international good feeling because many of them are hosts to many visitors who come to enjoy Canada's climate and beauty.


Gordon Graydon: How many are on that committee?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	There are sixty-one
members.	*


Gordon Graydon: How are they chosen, geographically?
Mr. LaFLECHE: They come from the nine provinces. I attempted to find persons to act on this committee who would represent not only a province but also the larger tourist regions such as the Laurentian resorts not far from here. If I picked my own province it is not because I did not do the same thing with the other provinces. In this matter I have had the full support of all provincial governments, municipal governments, boards of trade, resort associations, tourist associations, hotel-keepers associations, the steamship companies, the railways and the air lines-indeed everybody. This is one matter in which I am very happy to say during this war time I found unanimity.


Grote Stirling: Are the fish and game associations throughout the provinces represented?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Yes. If it please the committee I would be very happy to put on
Supply-War Services

Hansard a list of the members of this advisory committee. I would read it, but there are sixty odd names, and with the consent of the committee-1 will place it on Hansard. The list is as follows:



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL WAR SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Government Travel Bureau
The following is a complete list of our National Tourist Advisory Council as constituted by provinces:
Major-General the Hon. L. R. LaFleche, D.S.O.-Chairman.
I). Leo Dolan, Executive Director.
Prince Edward Island
Hon. J. Walter Jones, Premier of P.E.I., Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Mr. B. Graham Rogers, Supervisor, Prince Edward Island Travel Bureau, Charlottetown. Mr. Justice A. E. Arsenault, Charlottetown.
New Brunswick
Hon. Dr. F. W. Pirie, LL.D., Minister of Lands and Mines, Fredericton, N.B.
Mr. D. W. Griffiths, Director, New Brunswick, Government Bureau of Information and Tourist Travel, Fredericton, N.B.
Mr. James D. McKenna, Saint John, N.B. Mr. T. C. Macnabb, Regional Superintendent of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Moncton, N.B.
Nova Scotia
Hon. Harold Connolly, Minister of Industry and Publicity, Halifax, N.S.
Mr. A. J. Campbell, Director, Government Bureau of Information and Publicity, Halifax, N.S.
Mr. Jason Creed, Mill Village, N.S.
Mr. John M. Campbell, M.L.A., Baddeck, N.S. Mr. A. I. Lomas, Halifax, N.S.
Quebec
Hon Adelard Godbout, Premier of Quebec, Que.
Mr. Maurice Hebert, Director General, Province of Quebec Tourist Bureau, Quebec.
Mr. C. W. Honey, President of the Laurentian Resorts Association, Ste. Adele.
Mr. Kenneth T. Dawes, President, Montreal Tourist and Convention Bureau, 1010 St. Catherine St. W., Montreal.
Mr. Frank Levesque, President, Province of Quebec Hotel Association, 1434 St. Catherine St. W., Montreal.
Col. Wilfrid Bovey, Member of -the Quebec Legislative Council and an outstanding educationist, McGill University, Montreal.
Ontario
Hon. Leslie M. Frost, Provincial Treasurer, Toronto, Ontario.
Mr. D. R. Oliver, Director, Ontario Travel and Publicity Bureau, Toronto.
Mr. Geo. A. Martin, Secretary, Muskoka Tourist Development Association, 204 Richmond St. W., Toronto.
Mr. Arthur Widnall, Supervisor, Fort William Civic Tourist Bureau. Fort William.
Mr. T. H. R. McNally, Manager, Toronto Tourist and Convention Bureau, Toronto.
Mr H. A. MacLennan, Past-Pres. of the Canadian Hotel Association, Toronto.
[Mr. LaFIeche.l
Mr. Len Hughes, Pres., Northern Ontario Tourist Trade Association, Trout Mills, Ont.
Mr. C. C. Manore, Secretary, Blue Water Highway Association, Sarnia.
Mr. W. J. Wilson, Thousand Islands-St. Law-enee River Rideau Lakes Association, Gananoque.
Manitoba
Ii,>u. J. S. McDiarmid, Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, Winnipeg.
Mr. H. E. Beresford, Director, Manitoba Government Travel and Publicity Bureau, Winnipeg.
Mr. C. A. Tanner, Managing Director of the Manitoba Hotel Association, Winnipeg.
Mr. C. D. Shepard of Winnipeg.
Mr. Frank J. Schlingerman, Winnipeg.
Saskatchewan
Hon. W. F. Kerr, Minister of Natural Resources, Regina, Sask.
Mr. S. J. Latta, Publicity Director, Saskatchewan Tourist Bureau, Regina, Sask.
Hon. C. M. Dunn, Branch Manager Mutual Life, Regina, Sask. (Former Minister of Highways.)
Mr. fi. S. Forsythe, Fish and Game Commissioner, Regina, Sask.
Mr. Stephen B. McEachern, Secretary-Manager, Saskatoon Board of Trade, Saskatoon.
Mr. L. J. Longpre, Saskatchewan Motor League, Regina.
McIntosh, C. H., Manager, The Royal Bank of Canada, Prince Albert, Sask.
Alberta
Hon. Ernest G. Manning, x-remier and Minister of Trade and Industry, Edmonton.
Mr. D. E. C. Campbell, Publicity Director, Publicity and Travel Bureau, Edmonton.
Mr. Chas. Grant, K.C., Edmonton.
Mr. R. A. Godson, President of the Alberta Motor Association, Edmonton.
Mr. James Brewster, Banff, Alberta.
Mr. S. W. Cameron, Sec'y-Treas., Alberta Motor Assoc., Edmonton.
British Columbia
Hon. E. D. Carson, Minister of Trade and Industry, Victoria, B.C.
Mr. E. G. Rowebottom, Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry, Victoria, B.C.
Mr. Rowe Holland, Chairman of Vancouver Parks Board; Director of Vancouver Tourist Ass'n., Vancouver. B.C.
Dr. G. H. Worthington-1st Vice-President of the Canadian Association of Tourist and Publicity Bureaus; Past President, Vancouver Tourist Association and Evergreen Playground Association. Vancouver.
Mr. M. Leo Sweeney, President, Vancouver Tourist Association. Vancouver.
Mr. Geo. I. Warren, Secretary-Manager, Victoria & Island Publicity Bureau, Victoria. B.C.
Mr. J. Murray Gibbon, General Publicity Agent, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Montreal, P.Q.
Mr. W. S. Thompson, Public Relations Counsel. Canadian National Railways. Montreal.
Mr. C. C. Bonter. Passenger Traffic Manager, Canada Steamship Lines Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.
Mr. R. G. Perry, Passenger Traffic Manager, Provincial Transport, Montreal.
Mr. H. J. Symington, President of the Trans-Canada Air Line, Montreal, P.Q.
Mr. E. H. Frappier, President of the Hotel Association of Canada, Montreal, P.Q.

Supply-War Services
Mr. A. McD. McBain, representing the Canadian Bankers Association, Manager, Foreign Relations Dept., Bank of Nova Scotia, Toronto, Ont.
Mr. R. A. Gibson. Director, Lands, Parks and Forests Branch, Department of Mines and Resources, Ottawa.
Mr. A. L. Jolliffe, Director, Immigration Branch, Department of Mines and Resources, Ottawa.
Mr. P. L. Young, Executive Assistant, Customs-Excise Division, Dept, of National Revenue, Ottawa.
The list is not closed. I shall be very happy to name other members to the advisory committee, should there be good reason to do so.
Gordon Graydon: I am afraid I have drawn a blank so far as getting information with respect to the government's plans for the tourist industry. The minister may have overlooked that part of my question. We have now had quite a long period of inactivity so far as the Canadian travel bureau is concerned. We are now in the sixth year of the war, and during this period of relative inactivity in the tourist trade it seems to me that the government ought to have prepared some constructive programme to be placed before this committee with respect to the policy which is to be followed in the post-war period with respect to the tourist trade.
I rose to find out what plans the government has made, because there is criticism across the country to the effect that we talk a lot about reconstruction but that when it comes down to having plans ready we do not get much more from the government than statements that inquiries are being made and advisory committees are being set up. Advisory committees are all to the good and I am not intending any reflection at all on the personnel of the advisory committee. But anyone who talks to those in the tourist industry knows they are not entirely satisfied that we have proceeded far enough or vigorously enough with a tourist programme for the post-war period. Whether the minister realizes it or not-and I fancy he does-the tourist business is something that ought to occupy a major part of his attention at this time. But we seem to go blithely along talking about reconstruction in the post-war period and here is a definite part and parcel of the reconstruction programme. This is one case-perhaps there are others-where a programme should have been prepared for developing and promoting the tourist industry in this country. This committee ought to have before it now the tourist programme which the government proposes to inaugurate in the period of peace. I think I am not asking the minister too much when I ask
that. I think I am but reflecting the thoughts of a great many people engaged in the tourist industry who are not sure that there has been any more than words and talk with respect to this part of the government's activities in the reconstruction period. I do not want to seem unduly critical of the minister. What I am saying is rather a reflection of the complaints and criticisms that I have heard myself with respect to the programme or lack of a definite constructive programme with respect to the tourist industry in the postwar period.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I am indebted to the hon. leader of the opposition for having spoken so frankly. In return he will not mind if I speak equally frankly. The hon. gentleman tells this committee that his words reflect the opinions that have been brought to his attention. May I tell him that I am in direct communication with the tourist trade all over this country, and I have not heard one single word or suspicion of a thought such as the leader of the opposition has expressed to-night.
The words which have been used by the leader of the opposition to describe the thoughts of those with whom he has been in contact are not what has been said to me. May I tell him that the suggestions contained in the report have been adopted and followed and applauded by the tourist trade of Canada. A moment ago I read a letter which I wrote to the advisory committee on June 17, and gave the consensus of leaders in the tourist trade in Canada, approving my suggestion and sharing my hope that we could meet in the fall. I cannot conceive that that is of the nature of the reaction described to us by the hon. leader of the opposition, because everything that I know and everything that I have heard is definitely to the contrary.
A moment ago I said that I would send to the leader of the opposition a copy of the report of the proceedings of the national tourists' business meeting which was held in Quebec last winter. May I also table a copy of that report this evening, with the consent of the committee. In that leport the hon. gentleman will find my suggestions, which I Was told at the time cover a very wide field and, if I may say so myself, cover it well. He will see there the programme. He will see mentioned there things of vital importance to the tourist trade and to the national economy of Canada.
We have set up an advisory committee and I shall get them together as soon as war conditions make it seemly and possible. In telling the leader of the opposition that, I
Supply-War Services

hope that I have given him a very full reply, unless he wishes me to read this report of some nearly fifty pages, and I do not think that he would want me to inflict that upon the committee.


Gordon Graydon: I quite understand that. May I ask whether the report which the minister is now tabling sets out the government's tourist policy for the post-war period? I am trying to find out what the government's tourist policy is. If the minister says that the government's policy is contained in the report we shall be prepared to peruse it and see if it is adequate.
Mr. LaFLECHE: May I point out to this committee that the people who own and operate the tourist trade of Canada know their own business, and all that the government can do is to give them encouragement and assistance and leadership. That is the way my department has proceeded in this matter. At this meeting in Quebec city I did not lay before them a government policy; I laid before them my considered thoughts as to what they should do with their own businesses and I promised to help them to the full extent of my capacity. As an earnest, but only as an earnest, the estimate for this year shows a small increase of $23,000. It is not so small when one remembers that last year the total estimate was only $54,000; I have increased it by nearly fifty per cent. It is nothing compared with what we shall require when we can go "full-out" in encouraging the tourist industry of Canada after this war is over. It is an earnest, an indication. I stated what I wanted to see in Canada, and my words are to be found in this report. If my hon. friend wants me to read the whole thing I will, but really I would blush with shame if I had to do so; it is too long.


Gordon Graydon: I am having difficulty, I think, in making myself clear to the minister on this point. I take full responsibility for that. What I am trying to find out, and I think what I am entitled to know, is the policy of the government on this subject. The minister now indicates that the report he is tabling is not necessarily the government's programme but rather a symposium of ideas of the government represented by the minister, and others who are in the business. I know something about what the men in the business think about these things, because from time to time I am in contact with them. I am anxious to know, and this is the time, I think, when we are entitled to the information, what is the policy of the government with respect to this reconstruction period. The

tabling of a symposium of remarks at Quebec city is not sufficient to indicate the government's policy. Practically every minister of the government from time to time is asked for his policy on matters relating to his particular department, and as a matter of course he gives it. We may not always agree with it, but at least the policy is there. I do not think the minister is doing himself justice by merely saying that the government policy is still in the air and that the best we can have is a summary of the ideas of several people in the business whom he addressed and with whom he was associated in his work. I may not be quite fair to the minister on this; I want to be, because I am not trying to put him on the spot or embarrass him; but he ought to give us something more than he has done so far as the policy of the government on post-war tourist trade is concerned. I may be entirely misinterpreting his remarks, but I should like him to clarify the position.


Mr. WOOD:: Before the minister answers
that question may I say that I am interested in the attitude the leader of the opposition takes with regard to this and other departments of government, when he asks them to define their post-war programmes. - I have often marvelled at the insistence with which opposition groups make this kind of demand, when in my view the formulating of plans for the post-war period is dependent upon the results of the peace conference, which in turn will depend a great deal upon who sits at that conference, the ideals which are promoted there, and how they affect the people of the various countries involved. It is unfair to insist that various ministers should state a special and particular programme. One has to face facts. You cannot mark out a blueprint which can be applied five years from now. This war is not over. We do not yet know who will sit at the peace conference, whether nationialism or internationalism will rule, whether the Atlantic charter will be implemented. One of the greatest contributions to the promotion of tourist trade prior to the war was the reciprocal arrangement for the admission of $100 worth of goods duty-free at the border, which induced millions of people from the United States to patronize our market. Is the leader of the opposition prepared to say that we shall implement the ideals of the Atlantic charter in having freer trade, not only in tourists-


Gordon Graydon: Well, we have some
plans about that for use when we get in.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why defer them that long?

Supply-War Services


George Ernest Wood: I am afraid they are rather
remote from being implemented.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member himself seems to be pretty uncertain about things.


George Ernest Wood: I am certain that this country of Canada cannot survive with a closed-door policy, and our future in this respect is likely to depend a great deal upon the attitude at the peace conference, what programme is decided upon there. I feel that the minister would be wise not to commit himself to anything. I think, of course, that he is wise, and that he is not going to do it. Sitting here as a humble back-bencher, I often listen to these men who seem to have knowledge superior to my own, and as they get on a high and lofty plane and talk about the quality of their contributions, I marvel that they should be so sure of their future proceedings when it is so plain that they do not know what can be done. We shall have to [DOT] face realities when the war is over.
Mr. LaFLECHE: It may be that I did not understand the leader of the oposition; it may be that he did not understand me or catch what I said a moment ago. I take it he wants to know the policy of the government. Well, I have already given it. Our policy is designed for the protection of widespread and heavy investments in highways, railroads, bus systems, steamship lines, air lines, hotels, eating places, popular resorts, gasoline and oil distributing trades, trade generally, foreign exchange, and international good will, as well as the nation's health of mind and of body. Behind that I stand and to that end I have worked. It will not displease the leader of the opposition to learn, perhaps for the first time, that I gathered together those who own these businesses, and therefore cannot be regimented and told what to do, except to invite them to think of the future and to be prepared for it, and to offer them assistance in carrying out the policy I read a moment ago. I think that sufficed, and perhaps all the better because nothing like it had ever been attempted before I did it. If the leader of the opposition were to read this report which I am tabling, and of which I am sending him a copy, perhaps he would realize that there is more to it than he seems to believe.


Gordon Graydon: I had a special interest
in this because I was in the district in Quebec at the time when this took place.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Why didn't you come?


Gordon Graydon: I was not invited.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	Well, had I known-


Gordon Graydon: May I say that, so far
as the work of the minister in this respect is concerned, while I criticize where I think criticism is required, I think the minister merits commendation for bringing in practical people to advise him and to discuss these many matters with him. While perhaps in the early part of my remarks I was critical in regard to certain things I thought ought to be done for the improvement of the industry, nevertheless I think some other members of the cabinet might follow the minister's example and get the views of the average person in business instead of taking the views of someone who has never been in business at all. They might take a leaf out of the minister's book. It would make for harmony and better relations and would be more effective in the prosecution of any policy that might be adopted. I hope the minister will take this as a compliment from one who is not inclined to give compliments unless they are deserved.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I thank you, kind sir.


Mr. FURNISS:: I represent the most popular summer resort in Ontario, and I am wondering where the leader of the opposition finds reason for anxiety over the future of the tourist business. My information this summer, more than a month ago, was that every tourist house in Muskoka was booked up. I have not' had a single complaint. They are enjoying the best summer in the tourist business since 1929.


Gordon Graydon: You have no objection to my trying to continue it?


Stephen Joseph Furniss: Not a bit. The hon. member takes very great delight in visiting some of the resorts himself. I do not think the impression should go out that the tourist business is suffering from any lack of interest on the part of the travel bureau. Last summer I had some complaints in regard to rationing and so on and I went to the department. They assured me that they would feed all the people who went to Muskoka last summer and thereafter I had no complaints; nor have I had a single complaint this summer. I think the future of the tourist business is as bright as ever it was and I believe it will so continue after the war.


Grote Stirling: Now that there has been a slackening in the restrictions on foreign exchange, has the minister noticed the beginning of any movement in the tourist business from the United States to Canada? I notice that one of the air lines in the United States has been advertising cheap rates on its planes as far as New Brunswick. One line goes from
Supply-War Services

the United States to Eire, and since priorities rule in the transatlantic passage, I would gather that there were vacancies on those planes, because they are advertising cheap rates as far as New Brunswick. I must presume that would be with tourist intent. I wonder if the minister or his department had a hand in that arrangement. If so, has it also a hand in similar arrangements in other parts of Canada with regard to tourists coming from the United States by air in small numbers?
Mr. LaFLECHE: I had heard, I believe, of the case mentioned by the hon. member, but I understood that it was an isolated one. As regards the new regulations in connection with financial matters between the two countries, I have not the statistics, but for some considerable time the trend of thought on the part of travel authorities has been to keep passenger traffic at the present level and not to attempt to increase it. I do not think they are ready to take on a heavier load than is being carried now-not as a general rule.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
19-t. National film board, including the motion picture bureau, $678,806.
Mr. GRAHAM:: I thought this was an opportune time for me to bring to the attention of the minister a thought I had for some time. In my opinion we should be making more and more use of the national film board to educate the public in a visual manner regarding the task and function of government. Our system of government is a democratic one. That, of course premises a partnership between the people and those in public office, and the activities of government have expanded to such an extent that I am quite certain one of the real dangers to the democratic way of government is a growing apart of the people from their own government. The amounts that governments now handle, the amount of the budget and the range of activities, are so immense that the average person on the street is inclined to think of government as some agency completely apart from himself and from the things which affect his life and in which he has a vital partnership.
Government, after all, is but the agent chosen by the people to conduct their business, and I am much alarmed as I notice the chasm that separates the people's mind from the activities of government. One of the things we must do is to realize that such agencies as the national film board can interpret government to the people and help them to be fully informed of the details of different regulations and laws that affect them in their daily 
life. I often think that the many pamphlets and other forms of literature distributed do not accomplish the purpose intended. I know they are excellent in form and material, but there are'many people who have not the time or interest to peruse all the different forms of literature sent out by the various departments.
During the war some of the films produced by the national film board to bring home some lesson of war, and the practical necessity of some regulation or rule or restriction, have shown the ability of the board to present these things in a vivid manner that quickly brings to the person seeing them the purpose of some particular regulation and the manner in which it is beneficial to him as a citizen of the country. Therefore I believe in Canada that more and more must be considered and solved if we are to make democracy what it should be, a matter of close interest on the part of our people. Knowing the ability of this national film board-and I say to the minister that I highly compliment that particular board on its ability to produce in a visual form government pictures of very great interest, and, in my opinion, of very great technical skill-I think it is an agency that Canada could well be proud of. and that we should use it a great deal more than we have been doing in order to perform the national duty of interpreting Canada and its activities to the people of this country.


Mr. JAQUES:: Would the minister explain to the committee the activities of the film board? Personally I know very little about it.
I should like to know just what it does.


Mr. WRIGHT:: May I ask another question of the minister, and1 he could answer my question while he is answering the question of the hon. member who has just spokem. The item on page 138 of the estimates reads as follows:
" Development of international circulation of films." I think that is a very important thing.
I am glad' to see it there. As I understand it, the film board is sending Canadian films to other countries, giving them a visual demonstration of some of the things we have in Canada, such as our natural resources, our manufacturing abilities, some of the things we have to trade and some of the beauties of our Canadian scenery to encourage tourist traffic. Would the minister give us some details of what has been done with respect to the exchange of films with other countries along these lines.
Mr. LaFLECHE: I may get a little mixed up here, among the three hon. gentlemen. The hon. member for Swift Current suggested and urged that the national film board bring to the

Supply-War Services
people of Canada in greater measures the workings of governmental departments. May I explain to this committee that during the war the national film board has been doing a very great deal of work for the several departments. It has been very busy doing work for war purposes, and war purposes has had, as it should have, the priority. But in the programme I bring to the committee this evening I should like to say that the majority of films which have been produced up to date by the national film board are of a specific departmental nature and in a very large majority having to do with the prosecution of the war. The need has become evident of films of a more general national nature for use in Canadian schools and by Canadian groups, and to bring to the world the realization of Canada's development.. The need for such films for distribution abroad has been brought to the attention of the national film board by many trade commissioners and other Canadian representatives aboard. I think that explains to the hon. member for Swift Current what has been done, and the policy of the national film board. His words will be very carefully noted and given all possible consideration.
Another hon. member asked about the foreign distribution of films made by the national film board. May I acquaint this committee with the following information. During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1944, 525 sixteen millimetre and 169 thirty-five millimetre prints were sent to twenty-seven different countries, territories of the British empire and other places outside of Canada, not including the United States. Distribution is effected) generally through offices of the Canadian high commissioners, embassies, legations, consulates and offices of the Canadian government trade commissioners. They are our contacts in these foreign countries. In addition to the above-mentioned' media of distribution, we have an arrangement with the British ministry of information for the circulation of our films in the United Kingdom and fifty-two places abroad in the British commonwealth, empire and other countries. We also have an ar-rangemeent with Sterling Products International Incorporated, with head office in Newark, New Jersey, in the United States of America, for the circulation and showing of selected films through their agencies and sixty-nine mobilecine sound units in fourteen Latin American countries. I suggest that .the hon. member will obtain information from that statement which will interest him very much indeed. If the names of the countries are desired I can put them on the record, or read them into the record.


Percy Ellis Wright: It would be all right if
they were placed on the record.
Mr. LaFLECHE: With the consent of the committee I shall table a list of the countries I mentioned a moment ago. They are as follows:
Number of prints sent, by country or place, for the past fiscal year 1943-44, is as follows:
Place 16 mm.		35 mm.
Argentina		21	
Australia 			li
Melbourne 				34	
Canberra 		19	
Sydney 		23	
Vacuum Oil 		9	
Tasmania 		6	
Brazil 		20	
British West Indies 	8	15Chile 	18	1Colombia 	4	Cuba 	12	Egypt 	24	England 	36	49Russia	4China 	2St. Pierre et Miquelon	54Greenland 	6	6Iceland 	7	India	10	14Mexico	Filmotecas 	11	T.C	20	Newfoundland 	33	New Zealand 	2Auckland 	22	Wellington	27	Panama 	10	Peru 	9	Puerto Rico 	13	South Africa	7Dept, of Educ	1	Johannesburg 	23	Pretoria 	17	Capetown 	4	Messrs. Sterling Products Int. Inc.	Chile 	9	1Dominica 	1	Colombia 	10	Nicaragua 	1	Uruguay	2	San Salvador 	2	Costa Rica	1	Venezuela 	6	Ecuador 	3	Honduras 	1	Guatemala 	1	Peru 	4	Mexico 	26	
-
Total		525	169
Another question was asked, but it escaped my memory. Would the hon. member repeat?


Norman Jaques: I asked the minister to give the committee a general description of the activities of the national film board. I have
Supply-War Services

to confess I know nothing aibout it. I should like to know something about it because I am interested in it.
Mr. LaFLECHE: The break-down of the vote is on broad lines and answers the hon. member's question. I shall read it, and then I shall give as many details as are desired. Apart from the question of staff which is always necessary, we have items for national film programme, national film programme rural circuits, a very interesting development, I may say; the development of international circulation of films. I have already said something about that. Supplies, materials, printing and stationery; acquisition of equipment and travelling expenses. I believe that the hon. member wishes information about the work performed by the national film board. I shall read from the National Film Board Act of May 2, 1939. The duties of the commissioner, which in a sense cover the activities of the entire staff, are as follows:
The commissioner in carrying out the duties imposed upon him by this act shall at all times be under and subject to the directions of the board and shall
(a)	advise upon the making and distribution of national films designed to help Canadians in ail parts of Canada to understand -the ways of living and the problems of Canadians in other parts;
(b)	coordinate national and departmental film activities an consultation with the board and the several departments and branches of government work;
(c)	advise as to methods of securing quality, economy, efficiency and effective cooperation in the production, distribution and exhibition of government films:
(d)	advise upon and approve production, distribution and exhibition contacts and agreements in connection with film activities of the several departments of the government and, in respect of .these, act as intermediary between such departments and the bureau and between such departments and commercial firms;
(e)	advise upon all departmental expenditures in the production, distribution and exhibition of films;
(f)	represent the board in its relations with commercial newsreel and non-commercial film organizations;
(g)	advise .as to the distribution of government films in other countries;
('h) coordinate and develop information services in connection with government film activities.
Those are the authorities.
Now, if I may, I should like to answer to an even greater extent the question put by the hon. member. I have here a list headed, "National film productions completed during the fiscal year 1943-44." There is no better
[Mr. Jaqiies.l
way to answer the question put by the hon. gentleman than by giving him the names of the films completed under the authority I have just read. Again this is a very long list, and while I have no objection to reading it I am afraid you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee would think I was taking too much time. Therefore with the permission of the committee I shall be very happy to put this list on record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Douglas King Hazen: May I ask a question in regard to the item for temporary assistance. I notice that last year the estimate was $25,276. First I should like to know if that money was all spent. There has been a marked increase this year, to $65,152, or an increase of $39,876. I should like the minister to tell the committee why there should be such a large increase. Then further down I see an item for short-term employment, for which $29,000 is appropriated. What is the difference between temporary assistance and short-term employment?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	The increase in the
amount provided for staff reflects but the estimate of the increased need for this fiscal year. The hon. gentleman asked whether the entire amount voted last year had been expended, and the answer is yes. I would point out that the work of the national film board has increased very greatly and is still on the upward trend. The peak will be reached as the war ends; at least the war has caused a very great increase in the production of the national film board. The hon. gentleman asks the difference between temporary employees and short-term employment. Temporary employment is equivalent to what is generally understood in the civil service by the term "temporary civil servant." Do I make myself clear in that respect?


Douglas King Hazen: That is temporary assistance?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	Yes; temporary employees are what are. regularly understood in Ottawa when one speaks of temporary civil servants.


Douglas King Hazen: 
Douglas King Hazen: How many more persons do you expect to have employed under the item for temporary assistance than you had last year?
Mr. LaFLECHE: In the estimates for the fiscal year 1943-44 the sum of $28,424 was recovered from production and other projects. However, because of the many difficulties involved in the matter of an equitable distribution among the various projects, it was the considered opinion of the officials of the film board that this amount be not included and shown as recoverable for the year 1944-45. Consequently the cost of all temporary personnel employed in administration is included in the civil estimates. The increase of $39,876 for the temporary staff is made up as follows: transfer of C. S. Bagley; transfer of Erva Hodgins; transfer of A. Cloutier; new positions, Jean MacMillan, Frank Curry, Muriel Gogo; increases to Lucian Chartrand and Lucille Quevillon. Then there is the recovery from production and other projects for the fiscal year 1943-44, which is not included this year.


Douglas King Hazen: As I followed the minister, he mentioned six people who were not employed last year, and two other persons who received increases in salary. If that accounts for the $39,000 they must be receiving rather large salaries. Am I correct in my figures?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	The salaries are as
follows:
C. S. Bagley	 $3,600
Erva Hodgins	 1,200
A. Cloutier	 2,820
Jean MacMillan	 1.380
Frank Curry	 1,252
Muriel Gogo	 1,080
Lucian Chartrand (increase)		60
Lucille Quevillon (increase)	 60
The recovery from production and other projects for the fiscal year 1943-44, which is not included this year, amounted to $28,424.


Douglas King Hazen: I am not clear on this yet. Those figures do not total $39,000. I should say they come to only $10,000 or $12,000, roughly.
Mr. LaFLECHE: If the hon. member adds them he will see they come to $39,876, but that includes a bookkeeping entry of $28,424 covering the recoveries. You will find that that balances to a dollar.


Mr. PERLEY:: I notice on page 138 of the estimates where the details are given that there is an increase in a number of these items. The national film programme is more than doubled, but I notice that in connection with the rural circuits there is no increase over last year. Would the minister explain what is covered by that item and why there is no increase ?
Mr. LaFLECHE: Since March, 1943, the number of rural circuits financed completely by the national film board has remained at the maximum figure of fifty-four. I may say in passing that that is largely due to a lack of demand for additional circuits. The number of circuits financed jointly by the film board and various cooperating organizations has increased from fifteen to thirty-one. This makes a total of eighty-five, which is an increase. This means that well over 1,500 rural points are served regularly each month.


Douglas King Hazen: Are there rural circuits in
each province?
Mr. LaFLECHE: There are. If local or regional authorities care to band together and appoint some one to look after it locally and if they communicate with the national film board, every effort will be made to extend to that new region a rural film circuit.


Ernest Edward Perley: Can the minister give us the number of rural circuits in each of the three prairie provinces?


Douglas King Hazen: In all the provinces.
Mr. LaFLECHE: The number of circuits does not indicate the number of places served, since one circuit would serve many places. The circuits are as follows:
British Columbia	 5
Alberta	 11
Saskatchewan	 19
Manitoba	 10
Ontario	  15
Quebec	   15
Nova Scotia	 5
New Brunswick	  5


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 17, 1944