1945-09-14

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I had intended asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). However, in the absence of the minister, perhaps the Prime Minister would answer. If the answer is not immediately available, we could have it later.
According to the orders of the day we shall shortly be considering a government bill in respect of war expenditures and demobilization. Before that is proceeded with we should have before us the public accounts for the last fiscal year. I would ask the Minister of Finance to table the public accounts and the auditor general's report for the fiscal year ended March 31 last, at the earliest possible time.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I can assure my hon. friend the reports will be tabled at the earliest moment after they become available. I shall direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to the question, for further reply.


John Bracken: Would the Minister of Finance mind answering the question I asked in his absence a few minutes ago? '


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The leader of the opposition was good enough to send me notice of the question which he asked, I believe, before I came in to-day, regarding the tabling of the public accounts and the auditor general's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1945. The statute, the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, provides for the tabling of these documents on or before

October 31 if the house is in session, and if the house is not then in session in any year within one week after the house begins to sit thereafter. We have been trying to get ready to comply with that provision of the act, that is to have these reports ready by October 31. They certainly cannot be ready before that, and I am sorry to say that I am afraid it will be physically impossible to have them ready by that date. I am told that there is a shortage of help in the printing bureau, there is a great press of printing work, and I may have to resort to some expedient or take some measure to give ourselves a little time, even then. However, I gather it does not make very much difference, so long as we cannot get it before the discussion, whether it is October 31 or a little later.



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Arising out of the answer given by the Prime Minister to the question asked by the leader of the opposition I should like to know if the government will again consider the setting up of a war expenditures committee to study war expenditures as well as the activities of the War Assets Corporation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would mention to my hon. friend that there will be a public accounts committee. With respect to setting up further special committees at this session, I shall be glad to see that his suggestion is considered,
[DOT] but I am not in position at the moment to give a reply.



WATER CONSERVATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Will the minister make a statement to the house at an early day telling us when he expects to proceed with the construction of the St. Mary river dam, part of the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project in southern Alberta?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The project mentioned is receiving the attention of the Department of Muni-

Cattle in Toronto Stockyards
tions and Supply. I am not sure that I shall be able to announce the date of commencement at an early day. However, I shall do so as soon as I can.


John Horne Blackmore: Is the work likely to commence this fall?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it will not commence this fall.



MERCHANT SEAMEN

[Stage Direction]
SPECIAL BONUS FOR SERVICE IN DANGEROUS WATERS s.s. "prince edward"
On the orders of the day:	.
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens):
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Through the minister the government has announced that it will pay a special bonus amounting to ten per cent of total earnings for service at sea to any seaman who has served on a Canadian ship for at least six months in dangerous waters, since September 10, 1939. My question is this: Are the seamen of the S.S. Prince Edward who had been sailing in the Northumberland straits in complete black-out and with an escort of planes on occasions when submarines were sighted to be entitled to this special bonus? I ask this question on behalf of Prince Edward division No. 127 of the Canadian brotherhood of railway employees and other transport workers.
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: I received the hon. gentleman's question shortly before coming down to the house. I made inquiry from the director of merchant seamen but I have not before me sufficient information to give him a reply now. I shall attempt to give him this early next week.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Muntions and Supply. The president of the board of trade at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, informs me that several hundred men who have been employed on the building of gun mountings have been notified by the minister's department to discontinue work and they are receiving notices of dismissal. There .are eighteen gun mountings in process of manufacture, five being for Canadian needs. It is desired that these guns be completed, if at
all possible, pending the supplying of other employment. Can the minister make a statement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no personal knowledge
of the situation at New Glasgow. My hon. friend will appreciate that the Department of Munitions and Supply is merely the agent for the armed services. When instructions come from the armed services to cancel an order, we cancel it. If the information received by my hon. friend is correct and the order has been cancelled, the Department of Munitions and Supply would not be in a position to change the situation.


CARRY-OVER IN TORONTO STOCK YARDS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I should
like to ask a question of 'the Minister of Agriculture relating to the question I asked yesterday. In view of the statement made by the president of the Toronto stock yards that the statement of the Minister of Agriculture yesterday regarding the weighing capacity of the Toronto stock yards was in error, will the minister now give assurance that further excess holdovers of live stock will not be allowed to accumulate which result in depressed prices to producers?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I wish to thank the hon. member
for having sent me a copy of his question. I have checked the report of the president of the live stock association at Toronto. His statement is to the effect that while there were 5,700 cattle on the market on Monday the weighing capacity is 4,000 instead of 3,500. That corrects my statement to the extent of making the weighing capacity 500 more than the figure I gave yesterday, which was based on an eightehour day.


Mark Cecil Senn: He says "in excess of."


James Garfield Gardiner: But even the president's figure of weighing capacity leaves 1,700 cattle that could not have been weighed. I have the statement I made yesterday before me and here is what I said, as reported on page 131 of Hansard:
I can say that there often is a carry-over on the Toronto market at the beginning of the week but I do not think it is usually due to the fact that there are no buyers.
Cattle accumulate over the week-end. There is always a very heavy run of cattle on the Toronto market on Monday, or at
Meat Rationing

least there usually is, and the result is the weighing capacity is not sufficient to weigh the cattle on Monday. Monday of this week was no exception to other weeks. There were 5.826 cattle on the Toronto market, on Monday which means that there were over 1,800 that could not have been weighed even taking the statement made by the president of the association.
The proposal we have made in order to remedy this situation-this proposal was in a document I was quoting from yesterday- is to have Mr. Fletcher himself go on the radio, along with one of our men, and make an appeal to the farmers in the area who supply cattle to Toronto to spread their cattle more evenly over the week than they have been doing in order that the marketing capacity will be, sufficient and in order that buyers can take them as they come. In order to indicate the importance of this I should like to give the numbers that have been marketed on that market during the last six weeks. They are:
Total cattle
Week of-	sales
August 9	 4.616
August 16	 5.696
August 23		 7.884
August 30		 8.829
September	6	
6,938September	13	
8.082
It will be obvious to hon. members that if those cattle were spread over the whole week the weighing capacity and purchasing capacity of that market could be utilized to much better advantage than by simply trying to rush all cattle in on Monday. The highest number here is 8,829, and if you are going to put 5.800 of those on the market in one day it is obvious that the facilities sufficient to handle cattle in that manner cannot be maintained on an economical basis in the city of Toronto. The suggestion is to have them spread their cattle over the week and we have asked the president to go on the radio along with our man and make that appeal to the farmers. We think the proper way to deal with the question is to ask and secure the cooperation of all parties to make the best possible use of the existing facilities.


MEAT RATIONING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if representations have been made to him 
that large quantities of cooked meats have been spoiling because of the rationing and will consideration be given to removing certain kinds of cooked meats from the ration list.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No representations have been made to me, but I saw an item in the press referring to meat pies, if I remember correctly.


Angus MacInnis: I have another wire from British Columbia.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will bring that situation to the attention of the rationing authorities and see if any solution can be found to the problem presented.


SMALL PACKERS-TRIMMINGS
[Stage Direction]
On t'he orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Yesterday the Minister of Finance was good enough to say that to-day he would answer the rationing question I raised with regard to provision for meat trimmings which are processed for sale in the larger centres of population, and unsold meat such as meat pies. Will the minister clarify the situation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not understand yesterday that that was the complaint of the packers who sent in the telegrams. I think the best way to clear the matter up is for the hon. member to send me a copy of the telegrams and I will see what answer I can suggest to them and what the ' situation is.
I made inquiries so -as to put myself in a position to answer my hon. friend's question of yesterday, and I was informed that the meat rationing regulations provide for trimmings by naming coupon values for them when sold by anyone at wholesale or at retail. Trimmings are usually processed into sausage,' bologna, cooked meat, and so on, and the consumer coupon values of these processed meats are more favourable than coupon values of fresh or processed meat cuts. That is the statement of the rationing authorities. Apparently it is not working very satisfactorily, according to the questions which have been asked to-day and the items that appear in the press, and there may be some possibility of an adjustment of coupon values or something of the kind.


Joseph Henry Harris: The minister has . already had the copies of the telegrams, but I will give him the originals.

* War Criminals-Japanese


WAR CRIMINALS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: I have
two questions to put to the Prime Minister, and as they are closely related I ask the right hon. gentleman to permit me to put them together. The first is:	The Prime Minister
made a statement yesterday as to the trials of European war criminals but he did not cover the case of Japanese war criminals. Will he please clarify the situation in this respect and in particular will he state whether the procedure in trials of Japanese war criminals is to be the same as that which he outlined yesterday?
The second question is: According to statements recently appearing in the press, Canadian prisoners of war in Japanese hands have said that the most brutal of their captors was a Canadian-born Japanese. The individual in question is alleged to have been born or to have resided-I am changing the wording slightly-in my constituency of Kamloops, British Columbia. Will the Prime Minister please inform the house whether this person will be tried by Canadian court martial?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister)':	My hon. friend sent me
notice of his question. To the first question I would reply that the question of the trials of Japanese war criminals is now under discussion by the nations which participated in the war in the Pacific, preliminary to its being presented to' the united nations war crimes commission. It is probable that arrangements will be made to have Japanese war criminals tried by military courts.
With regard to the second question, I should like to direct my hon. friend's attention to the rules that govern the asking of and replying to questions. Possibly it would be of interest to some hon. members who. are not familiar with the rules if before attempting to answer this question I were to read the rule which governs the asking, of questions. Beauehesne's "Rules and Forms", standing order 44 set forth is as follows:
Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from ministers of the crown relating to public affairs; . ." . but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same.
This rule, of course, applies to any question -that is asked on the orders of the day instead of being handed in to the Clerk to appear on the order paper.
May I say to my hon. friend that both questions might have been handed in to the Clerk rather than asked on the orders of the day, because they are not of such an immediately pressing nature that the time of the house on the orders of the day should be taken up with the question -and answer. But I am very happy to make the answer I have done to his first question.
Let me read the second question, as my hon. friend has himself stated it:
According to statements recently appearing in the press, Canadian prisoners of war in Japanese hands have said that the most brutal of their captors was a Canadian-born Japanese. The individual in question-
My hon. friend has changed the next words from "was born, as a matter of fact," to read: -is alleged to have been born or resided in :ny own constituency of Kamloops, British Columbia. Will the Prime Minister please inform the house whether this person will be tried by Canadian court martial?
In the first place, I do not know who this person is who is referred to. May I say that I think my hon. friend will see, and the house will see, that the question as it is worded has been drafted not so much for the purpose of obtaining information as for the purpose of supplying to the country certain representations which may or may not be true. My hon. friend must assume full responsibility for the accuracy of the statements that are appearing in the press before I can begin to answer his question.
That would be the first thing. But apart from that, what the hon. member has stated in his question is not necessary at all to obtain the information that he is really seeking from the government, which is whether or not the trial of war criminals will be by Canadian court martial, even if they happen to be Canadians.
Let me read what May's "Parliamentary Practice", 12th edition, has to say in support of whait I have quoted from the standing orders. It is quoted by Beauchesne, in his second edition, at page 113, as follows:
The purpose of a question is to ootain information and not to supply it to the house. A question may not contain statements of facts unless they be necessary to make the question intelligible and can be authenticated; nor should a question contain arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets or controversial or ironic expressions.	,
The house will recognize that the question does contain alleged statements of fact, statements however which are not necessarily authentic. I think also that the question is so phrased as to give rise to some controversy.
Housing

I hope that my hon. friend will not think that I was not anxious to answer his question, but it is important that the rules of the house should be observed in these particulars. I would emphasize again that where a question is of the kind that has just been asked, it should be placed on the order paper rather than directed to the ministry on the orders of the day. A further reason for having it placed on the order paper is that the Clerk himself would see whether the question was properly worded or not, and if it were not properly worded he would direct the attention of the member to it privately.
I have spoken of this matter, not by way of criticism, but rather by way of explanation so that hon. members may not unintentionally disregard any rule of the house.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is there a government order forbidding or limiting the sale of building materials to war veterans in the Ottawa district or elsewhere in Canada, first, under private contract, and second, under the Veterans Land Act?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I received notice of the question just before I entered the house. The answer in both cases is in the negative.



QUESTION AS TO THE FREEZING OF PLUMBING MATERIALS IN PARTLY CONSTRUCTED HOUSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Henry Harris: May I receive a reply to my question on the wartime prices and trade board order regarding the priorities on plumbing fixtures, either from the Minister of Finance, or from the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to whom the Minister of Finance referred the question yesterday? He has had twenty-four hours' notice, and perhaps I can now have an answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The question was asked yesterday whether there was an order freezing plumbing fixtures. The answer was no, is no, and always will be no, I think.


Joseph Henry Harris: I should like to ask the Minister of Reconstruction if the order of the wartime prices and trade board giving priority to ten items of plumbing fixtures is IMr. Mackenzie King.]
to-be rescinded or is to stay in effect and have the effect of freezing the plumbing supplies on houses which are partly finished until such time as this priority is lifted.
Mr. flOWE: I am sure my colleague who administers the wartime prices and trade board will take the second question under advisement, and reply.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence for the army? Is he aware that a large number of desirable and experienced personnel who would otherwise consider remaining in the Canadian armed forces are now being discharged daily owing to lack of information as to the future size and conditions of service in the permanent forces to be maintained by this country? Will the minister make a statement on this subject?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I wish to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that he is not simply asking a question but rather is giving information to the house. I would appreciate very much the cooperation of every member in abiding by the rules of the house.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with your ruling, but with your permission, as the hon. member did give me notice of his question, perhaps I might be permitted to reply in view of the fact that the question was so framed as to purport to give information rather than to seek it.
In reply I would say that the conditions of service in the permanent force will, of course, be announced in due course. Some time ago the conditions of service in the interim force were made public, and they are now in the hands of commanding officers in all districts both here and overseas. We have not forced the demobilization of any man who has evidenced a desire to continue -in the armed forces.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members
for Halifax have been inquiring about the Longshoremen's reserve labour pool, and' I now wish to table copies of order in council

The Address-Mr. Claxton
P.C. 5980 passed on, September 11, providing for the abolition of this pool on November 3, next.
This revokes the stabilization of longshore labour order of June 25, 1943. Members are aware of how important Halifax was during the war and the necessity for the quick turning around of ships in order to rush supplies to Europe.
Under order in council P.C. 3511 dated April. 30, 1942, a controller of loading operations was appointed at Halifax to supervise more efficient organizing of the working force there. What turned out to be a most effective means was the establishment of a central dispatching agency, through which longeshoremen sought and were assigned to jobs. Then came the setting up of the labour pool to assure that there would always be men on hand to handle the uninterrupted stream of war materials passing through the port.
I may say that the pool has worked out very satisfactorily in heading off labour shortages and assuring that cargoes were loaded and unloaded promptly and Atlantic convoys not delayed.
Recently I was in Halifax and conferred with employers and union leaders concerned because an undertaking had' been given by me that no change would be made in the labour arrangements at the end of the war without such consultation.
I cannot speak too highly of the cooperation which has been extended to the government by both the employers and the port workers. Carrying on under adverse conditions and under great pressure, they combined to do a vitally important war job in a splendid way.
I think it is true that the unglamorous jobs of the war are not sufficiently known t* the general public. Perhaps the rest of Canada has heard very little of what the longshoremen at Halifax and other ports did during the war, and it should be known that their efficient and conscientious service was a most important part of our war effort.
Consideration is now being given to conr tinuing the hiring facilities for longshoremen, up to now carried on by the dispatching agency, as a permanent function of the national employment service.



DAYLIGHT SAVING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):: On Tuesday last, in answer to a question by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), I stated that it was proposed to revert from
daylight saving to standard time at a date subsequently to be announced. The present intention is to revert from daylight saving to standard time in Canada as and from two o'clock a.m. Sunday, September 30 of the present year.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, September 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. M. Benidickson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bracken, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr.Coldwell.
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker,
' may I first join those who congratulated you on your appointment to the highest office in this house. I do so for two special reasons, the first of which is our long association and friendship, which goes back long before either of us had the honour of election to this house; the second is that I happen to represent a Montreal division, and I am sure I express the satisfaction of all citizens of Montreal of all races at your election at this time. I feel, too, that their satisfaction will be equalled by that of members in all parts of the house in the way in which you have begun your duties and in which we are sure you will continue to carry them out.
In addition to congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address and many of the other speakers who have taken part, may I especially refer for a personal reason to the election and speech of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Baker), because of a friendship which goes back a good deal longer than seems possible when one realizes that he was young enough to serve the country during this war for the length of time that he did.
There is another member, too, to whom I should like especially to refer, namely, the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) with whom I have had a friendship going back more than twenty years, with whom I have been associated in many good causes, and with whom I hope I shall continue to be associated in working for the good of Canada, he in his way and I in mine. Most hon. members in most parts of the house will agree that his speech was reasonable and fair. We on this side of the house say that particularly, not only because of the reasonable way in which it was delivered, but also because his views on the two concrete matters with which he dealt, namely controls and taxation, were almost exactly in accord with the policies of

The Address-Mr. Claxton
the government as laid down in the white paper and in the proposals of the government of Canada to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction.
Might I express, also, sir, a special word of welcome to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum). She said that she was the sole representative of her sex in the house. I think there are 244 members in this house who will say that that is not strictly accurate, because most of us could not have been elected without the support of the women electors of our constituencies. What is more correct, perhaps', is that she is the sole example of her sex in this house; and I hope that time will cure that condition.
I should like to express the hope that she as a woman as well as a member will take a special interest in the affairs of the Department of National Health and Welfare, concerned as it is with matters pertaining to the health and welfare of the people of Canada so far as those matters lie within the jurisdiction of the federal government. May I indeed invite the attention of all hon. members to these matters. This is a time when social security is very much to the fore, and I hope that hon. members in all parts of the house will not hesitate to bring to the attention of myself and the officers of the department matters relating to its business.
Not long ago I wrote a letter to all members of the house expressing that hope and I am glad to say that we have not been flooded with complaints. I really mean it when I say that the work of this new department can be greatly assisted, facilitated and extended if its affairs become a matter of general interest and members on all sides really take an active interest in our work for the health and welfare of the people of Canada, and give us their support.
The organization of the department has proceeded and we were in the position to begin the payment of family allowances on the day planned, namely the 18th of July. Since then, in fact, by next week over four million cheques will have been issued to
1,300,000	families in Canada. I wish I had time to put before the house and before the people of Canada some of the letters that we have received in acknowledgment of these cheques. People m all parts of Canada, in every kind of circumstance, 'have sent in the most moving letters saying how this cheque will be spent for the welfare of the child, how it will mean clothing, dental care, camp, education, more health, more nutrition for the members of the family.
It is quite a temntation during this debate to follow hon. members of the opposition in 
some of their remarks, but to-day I thought it would be better to deal with the dominion government's proposals to the conference on reconstruction, particularly, if I have time, as they relate to health and welfare. The proposals there put forward with regard to social security were not new. They were foreshadowed in the speech from the throne delivered on January 27, 1944. Many of them were implemented by legislation during the session of 1944 and then they were referred to again in the speech from the throne on January 31, 1945.
Before I go on to deal with them, however, I should like to make one or two short observations. Some hon. members have expressed concern over matters of demobilization, reconversion and housing. Every member of this house is concerned with such matters, just as everyone in Canada is concerned with them, and everyone in every other country in the world is similarly concerned over such matters. But I believe that as the facts are laid before hon. members during this session and as they reach the public, it will come to be recognized that the people of Canada have less cause for concern over these matters than the people in any other country in the world.
We must count the blessings that we have in this country when we consider that we are in a world that has been shattered and shocked by six years of war, with its unparalleled destruction of human life, of property, of means of transportation, of channels of trade and habits of association, destruction possibly of moral standards that will have to be slowly built up. When we consider the position of Canada and contrast it with that of practically every other country we should count our blessings. We should consider our resources, consider our capacity to produce food, minerals, consider manufactured goods, which has been built up during the war, consider the skills that our people have added unto themselves during the war and their ability to meet every challenge war has made.
Recognizing this, hon. members will not be surprised that Canada to-day has the standing that it has in the eyes of other countries. It almost takes attendance at a conference of other nations such as that of San Francisco or Bretton Woods or UNRRA or the food con-, ference, meeting the representatives of other nations and hearing what they have to say about our country, hearing the admiration and respect they express for our country and its people, for us Canadians to realize that things are not so bad after all.
Then, too, it is fair to say that while the war effort has been the work of the Canadian

The Address-Mr. Claxton
people working in a great partnership, it has been possible to develop administrative knowledge and the skills that are necessary to lead and direct that effort. That is perhaps shown most dramatically in our control of prices, our prevention of inflation, brought home by the fact that to-day the Canadian dollar buys more than its equivalent in any other country.
Some people during the war have exploited the difficulties and even the disasters of war for purposes of their own. We must not fall into the habit of exploiting the difficulties- and they are real-of the period of transition over to peace as if peace itself were a disaster. Let us look at the facts and let us develop them here. Let us blow away some of the smoke of battle, some of the smoke of the election, and some of the smoke-screen that has been developed from time to time.
Remember this, that the celebration of victory over Japan took place on the 15th of August, a month ago to-morrow, and that the surrender of Japan took place on the 2nd of September, two weeks ago to-day. When wTe consider that and then look at the problems of demobilization and reconversion and get the facts as they will be developed in this house, the Canadian people will not have cause for anything but confidence in the future.
From the point of view of demobilization I may say-and this is a fact that very few Canadians appreciate-that we have demobilized something like 400,000 men and women of the armed services since the outbreak of war. We know what we are doing. We have demobilized 100.000 since V-E day on the 8th of May.
From the point of view of housing, this house will receive assurances that every house for which materials can be made available is being planned and built. From the point of view of conversion, I think the relative figures of employment as they will be brought before the house will show that we are to-day as far advanced as any other country, if,not farther.
The fact is that we in Canada have a Canadian habit which is a good one, that of judging our "Canadian practice by the best that can be found anywhere else in the world. The remarkable thing is that we can usually measure up to that standard.
The government of Canada, far from being caught flat-footed with its plans for reconversion, presented in the week of the atomic bomb and the Russian declaration of war its post-war proposals to the provinces. Some hon. members seem to forget that Canada is not a country of one government but a country having one federal government with nine
provincial governments. The needs of our people can be satisfactorily met only if all the governments cooperate in arriving at satisfactory arrangements to meet the needs, not of government, but of the people of Canada and of every part of Canada. Then, an arrangement, having been arrived at, it should be carried out in a spirit of cooperation and goodwill, with the recognition that what seems to have proved to the advantage of one or another instrument of state is really working to the advantage or disadvantage. of the people, of people like ourselves. ,
I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that the dominion government's proposals to the Conference on reconstruction would receive a good deal of attention during this debate.
I think they met with general satisfaction. These proposals are responsible. They were put forward by the government after months of study. A subcommittee of the cabinet was set up in February, not February, 1945, but February, 1944, to plan the work of preparation for the conference. Fifteen intergovernmental departmental committees were established, and practically every department of the government was brought into the work of preparation at one time or another. Then, too, we asked the provinces more than a year ago to send their financial experts to Ottawa to work with us in a spirit of cooperation in order to arrive at statistics and figures which would be on a fair and comparable basis. I am glad to say that the representatives of the provinces came here; they worked loyally together and arrived at a book containing figures which must be the basis of any study on this subject, and that has been substantially agreed to by the provinces represented. There has been no dispute about that. After the proposals 'had been passed through the expert stage they were considered day after day by a cabinet subcommittee and then day after day by the cabinet itself. They represent a considered and responsible plan.
These proposals are practical; they contain detailed economic and other information, and the detailed economic studies to support them have already been made. Engineering studies necessary to carry out the work contemplated there are already completed or are so far advanced that no work which may be decided upon need be held up for lack of adequate plans.
These proposals are liberal; they provide for greater security and greater opportunity for the individual than 'has ever been presented to the Canadian people and ever presented to the people of any other country.
These proposals are comprehensive; they provide in their entirety a rounded and com-
The Address-Mr. Claxton

prehensive programme for high employment, income and security. No other country has entered the post-war period with the physical advantages and the formulated objectives and completed plans for a better and more secure life than Canada. These proposals afe bold and imaginative; they are in keeping with the leadership which Canada has made in economic and financial matters during the war and which have been copied by so many countries.
Canada has been the first country to set forth a practical post-war policy for the maintenance of high employment and income. We hope that the proposals will be accepted. We cannot afford delay in working out satisfactory and acceptable arrangements. The ' transitional problems of reconversion dealing with export markets and the like will be sufiiciently difficult without the added complication of uncertainty on the part of the dominion or the provinces as to what the financial and other arrangements between them are to be.
Finally, these proposals are the only comprehensive programme of post-war reconstruction put before the Canadian people. They constitute a broad pattern. The proposals themselves are contained in the document headed, "Proposals of the Government of Canada". They are supported by a number of reference books dealing with various subjects.
This document, which I should like to discuss at length but have not the time to, deals with national problems and objectives, transition measures, and finally the dominion proposals under the heads of: "public investment policy", "social security", "financial arrangements", and "conclusion".
Dealing more specifically with social security, may I say that the only comments on the social security proposals so far made in the bouse relate to old age pensions. These social security proposals are based on the idea of trying to achieve three main objectives. The first is humanitarian, to give the Canadian men, women and children a better chance for health and welfare and security than they have ever had. The second is economic. They are intended to provide purchasing power which will provide a steady flow of funds with which the Canadian people can purchase the things they need and help to maintain employment and national income. Third, they are national; they deal .with the Canadian people as the people of a nation, and they treat everyone alike.
To deal more specifically with health, the health proposals include matters which I can mention briefly under four heads: (1) A grant for planning to the provinces to assist them
fMr. Claxton.]
to plan their health measures. (2) They include health insurance proposals which are designed to meet the needs of the provinces, of the people in the provinces .in every part of Canada, and which are also designed to meet the criticisms that were directed at the proposals previously put forward, with features of flexibility so as to meet the most urgent needs first. (3) They include proposals for health grants to the provinces for purposes of preventive medicine under some eight heads. (4) They provide for financial assistance to the provinces and their institutions for the construction of hospitals.
These proposals have been discussed, and while they are subject to amendment in detail, I think I can say that they have been framed so as to meet with general acceptance by the people of Canada, and by the people most concerned in this field.
Then there are the proposals with regard to old age pensions. First, it is proposed that there shall be a national old age pension of $30 a month, payable by the federal government to everyone over seventy years of age and, second, a contribution by the federal government on a fifty-fifty basis to the cost of old age pensions, payable on proof of need to people between sixty-five and sixty-nine years of age, to be administered by the provinces.
As I said, the only criticism directed against these proposals by any hon. members in the course of this debate was to the proposal respecting old age pensions. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) made some remarks in that connection, but he did not make any positive suggestion. Then, three other hon. members have proposed that the rates be increased; that the age be lowered; and I think all three of them also proposed that taxes be reduced as well.
In considering social security measures we must be realistic, and agree only to what is in the real interests of the country as a whole, so that security will not be bought at the expense of productivity, the basis of all wealth, so that the generosity to some will not amount to unfairness for the many.
Tlie suggestion by one hon. member was for a pension of $50 a month, payable at the age of sixty years. I have asked my officers to calculate what that would cost, and they tell me it would cost $850 million a year, based on the estimated population of Canada in 1948. The proposal made by the federal government in its proposals to the provinces for a national pension of $30 a month payable at the age of seventy years to everyone, without proof of need, is estimated to cost $200 million.

The Address-Mr. Claxton
These proposals now put forward by the dominion government are as generous as we can make them, while at the same time keeping the whole plan in balance, and workable. We have reached a balance in our estimates; the plan hangs together, and can be made to work. But, neither it nor anything else can be made to work if wre create appetites that cannot be filled, and then arouse people's fears that we cannot meet things we never intended to do at all.


Mr. KUHL:: That is not what you said about the war.


Brooke Claxton: My hon. friend has spoken for five years in the house about the war, and about the possibility of doing this and that. He has been answered on numerous occasions by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and others. At the present moment I am dealing with social security, and I should prefer to finish, without entering into a discussion with my hon. friend at this time. However, I should be glad to discuss it with him at some later day. On this occasion the time left to me is short.
These proposals are put forward for consideration by the provinces. They are in their hands, and no doubt are being studied by provincial officials. We hope and trust, from [DOT] their attitude shown at the conference, that they are studying them in the light of the observations made on the concluding page, and in particular in the concluding paragraph where we find this:
The dominion government asks careful and mature consideration of these proposals, which it is anxious to discuss fully and freely with the provincial governments. It asks that they be considered in the light of the responsibilities which each government has to the people. Let no other advantage be considered than the advantage of the people of Canada.
They were put forward in that spirit and with that hope.
As the session develops, in the discussion of the estimates and on other occasions, I should like to lay before hon. members and to develop the proposals of the Department of National Health and Welfare for the extension of services within the field of the federal government. I can announce to the house, as has been announced to the public, that subject to the approval of parliament, the government has authorized the construction of a national laboratory within which to concentrate and coordinate activities in the field of research in public health. We have also announced a health service to the civil servants of Canada, and we hope to be able to extend services in other directions.
All this is part of an effort to meet the real need's of the Canadian people. I believe
that, with unemployment insurance already in force, with unemployment assistance as proposed, with family allowances, as they are now paid-on a more generous scale than in any other place in the world-with health insurance, health grants and other health measures, together with old age pensions and pensions for the blind as they are put forth in the proposals, taken together with the measures already in force in the provinces, or proposed by the provinces, Canada will lead the entire world in matters of social security.
But the basis of this must be the w'ork of the Canadian people; there is no other basis. Here in the House of Commons during this session we have an opportunity of meeting the challenge of peace, as we met the challenge of war. That great partnership must not be dissolved. We won the war, and with it our freedom to be and to do. We must fight to extend the areas of freedom-freedom from want and freedom from ignorance. We must fight and work together, so that we may make the utmost use of our human and material capacities, thus giving our men who are coming back from overseas that Canada of which for so long they have had a true vision.
Reference was made by one speaker to the need for action and leadership. We have had action during the war. During the war we have had leadership-leadership, I suggest, unparalleled in the history of Canada. Under the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) Canada has accomplished wonders it never dreamed possible. It is no accident that for twenty-six years he has led the Liberal party, and has been Prime Minister for a period longer than any other prime minister now in office anywhere in the .world. It is no accident that this government alone, among governments in democratic countries, is the government which was in office at the beginning of the war and has remained in office at the end of the war.


Mr. COLD WELL:: What about New
Zealand?


Brooke Claxton: Not with the same Prime Minister. But this government cannot do the job alone. I believe hon. members in all parts of the house will feel that they, will truly represent the spirit and wish of the Canadian people if, without bitterness or partisanship, we work together to make Canada the country we ail know it can be.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, a great many congratulatory remarks have been made since the beginning of this session and I should like to associate myself with all the congratulations which have been extended. Particularly I should like to con-
1S4
The Address-Mr. Fulton

gratulate the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bridges) upon his election and his appointment to the high office he now occupies. I had the great pleasure of flying back from Prestwick, Scotland, with him. We had a somewhat similar experience, to that undergone by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Baker). One would almost have been inclined to think that had it not been for the fact that there were government candidates coming back in that plane the government had somehow adversely influenced the weather because we were forced up to 23,000 feet, an even higher height of democracy that the
15,000	feet to which the plane in which my hon. friend was flying was forced. Perhaps that may be taken as indicative of the fact that Canadian democracy is capable of rising to absolutely untold heights.
Next I should like to refer to an incident which took place in this chamber this afternoon and to apologize to you and to hon. members of the house for having been the occasion of having taken up so much time apparently to no good purpose. However, I should like to make my motives clear. I was under the impression that I was asking a question of national import. I recall that in my question I made reference to statements by Canadian prisoners of war in Japanese hands. I though that was a question of national importance. I made reference to their ill treatment by a Canadian-born Japanese. I thought that was a question of national importance. Perhaps we regard it more seriously in the province and the constituency from which I come than may be the case in the rest of Canada. I hope we shall be able to show the rest of Canada that even as we regard their problems as being important to us, we would like them to help us in solving this very real problem.
The third matter I should1 like to take up is the fact that- I was called' definitely to task for introducing a matter of local importance in an oral question asked in this house. I referred to the fact that the Japanese referred to was alleged to have resided in my constituency of Kamloops. Perhaps I was guilty of infringing the rules of the house and I would ask hon. members to excuse me and put it down to the inordinate pride in his constituency of a new member which did not permit him to wait until the customary time to make his maiden speech even though he was down to make it that same afternoon.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, in addressing the house this afternoon I cannot forget that I have but recently returned from overseas. You

will therefore understand that, while I intend ever to serve the best interests of all Canadians, both French and English-speaking, the interests, the welfare and the ideals of our armed forces will necessarily be foremost in my thoughts.
Let me emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I have a special esteem for our French-Canadian friends who have served in the armed forces, and especially for those who were members of the glorious Royal 22nd Regiment, with which I had the honour of being associated for a long time in the First Canadian Division. May I pay a tribute to the record of that regiment which compared favourably with that of any other unit, whatever may have been the language spoken by its members.
Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the noblest motives for which we fought was the hope that our Canada would become a truly united country. Personally I have a keen desire to understand the thoughts and the ambitions of the French-Canadian people. We fought overseas for the same cause; it is my hope that here, in peace time, we may continue to work jointly with that object in view. I wish that we may work sincerely together, on both sides of this house and in the different parts of Canada to remove every trace of bitterness and misunderstanding.
I ask my good French-speaking friends not to judge my sincerity of purpose by the poor way in which I speak French. I hope to improve my knowledge of that language through study and practice, until my French equals in quality the friendship I hope will arise between us.
(Text): In speaking to-day on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I feel it is only fitting to say at the outset that I humbly thank God that I am here to make this speech and to serve my country, Canada, and to continue to serve my king whose representative delivered that speech. It was only in May that I returned from Europe after the end of the war there. I feel most humbly and with a certain awe that it was only due to God's grace that I am back at all. At the same time the very fact that I am back gives me the greatest determination to use my time to serve my country and my people to the best of my ability, and particularly to keep faith with those who were not so fortunate as myself, who have not come back as yet or perhaps who are not coming back at all; to keep faith with them, to build this Canada into the country they had in mind to preserve when they went over to fight for it. So I ask God's further help and guidance that even as He has preserved me, so I may be helped and inspired never to break

The Address-Mr. Fulton
that faith, but always to serve my country and its citizens in parliament or out of it as they deserve to be served.
I think the keynote of my speech is the words "as they deserve to be served." -As a member of His Majesty's armed forces it was my inestimable privilege to see the heights to which the Canadian people could rise when called on to serve in a great cause. No questions were asked, no mention was made by those average Canadian citizens of the sacrifices that might be involved, although many of them gave all that they had in that service. Canadians showed themselves possessed of a high measure of unselfishness, possessed of extraordinary ability to cooperate to secure a worthy end. These same abilities were shown at home by the people of Canada for the same reasons. They were Canadian people engaged in tasks which they believed to be worth while.
Now the points which I am trying to make here are two:
First, these performances, these qualities, call for a reward of the highest order. No questions were asked when the people I have described were being called upon to make their efforts and their sacrifices. No questions must be asked by this country and this government when they are called upon to see that these people get the reward which they deserve.
Second, the qualities shown; and the. efforts made reached their finest peak when leadership was given, which was a spark to set those qualities blazing. The Canadian people are fully as capable now as then of the same qualities. They were in the past, they are now, and they will be in the future, and for ever. But the leadership must be there, and it is because I have no confidence, and a great many others of our people-too many to be laughed off-have no confidence that this government will give that leadership or is giving it that I am speaking to this motion this afternoon.
I think hon. members will agree that this view is justified if we make a brief review of the government's past and present record in a few more important particulars. The first of these is the matter of what I might call fair dealing with the people of Canada, and by that I mean that policies should be adopted because they are honestly believed to be in the best interests of the whole country, and not because they are designed to gain votes in any one or more parts; that that policy should be given to the house and the people fairly and squarely, and that the people should be told all the facts all the time-not one set of facts to one section of the people
and another set to another. What I have in mind here is, of course, chiefly the government's man-power policy. I want to make it perfectly clear to hon. members that I am not simply raising a ghost of the past and trying to draw further bitterness from it. What I am concerned to do is to examine and establish the facts of yesterday in order to draw from them lessons for to-morrow.
I wish to warn the government, and for our own part here to pledge our efforts to this end, that that sort of action which characterized the period of the man-power policy will not be tolerated by us on this side of the house, or I think by any members of the house nor by the people of Canada. I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was justified in the remark he made in referring to the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), that it sounded to him as though the leader of the opposition was simply repeating the same sort of thing that had been repeated ad nauseam in the period leading up to the election. I would remind the Prime Minister that he lost a considerable number of seats in the election.
I would remind him and other responsible ministers that the remarks which were made by people in possession of all the facts about the man-power situation were not without their effect upon the country. They were not without their effect in my own constituency of Kamloops, and I feel it is my duty to go on record, probably for the last time, to say what I feel about those facts.
The truth of the situation is that last November when the Prime Minister and the . then responsible Minister of National Defence in this house were assuring the house and the people of Canada that there was no shortage of reinforcements, the men overseas, and I speak particularly of Italy, were at that time being overworked to the point of exhaustion on account of the lack of reinforcements. I ask hon. members to imagine the thoughts in the minds of a Canadian soldier, say a French-Canadian soldier, to whose fighting qualities I have already paid tribute, who was called upon to carry more than his fair share of the burden in the battle line because there were not sufficient reinforcements to relieve him, either replacements which would be ideal or the replacements which would be operationally correct. When these replacements or reinforcements did not exist, what was the effect on the mind of that soldier when he read the statement of the Prime Minister and the responsible minister of defence at that time that there was no shortage of reinforcements? It had a very
The Address-Mr. Fulton

bad effect, one which I can assure hon. members I shall never forget. Those statements which were made, in the light of the facts as they existed at the time, have impressed themselves^on my mind, and not only on my own mind but on the mind of a great many other Canadians, in such a way that we shall newer be able to forget that that is just the way, in our view, that politics ought not to be conducted.
I ask hon. members not to forget those facts when accepting assurances or listening to promises of legislation or action by the Prime Minister and his government, when many members of the government to-day are the same men who sat there and made those statements in the house when men overseas were in desperate need of reinforcements.
If further justification were needed, Mr. Speaker, for referring to this man-power question I think it is to be found in the fact that the government policy in that respect is responsible for the extraordinary situation facing the country to-day with respect to repatriation and demobilization. The government has adopted strange and devious methods to try to get around that situation, and I think it is time the real reason for those methods and the facts behind the situation were outlined to this house and the country.
It may be said that the present regulations with respect to demobilization, which were attacked by my hon. friend the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), are in some respects an effort to make the best of a bad job. I shall say nothing about the places where they only make a bad job worse, as was said by the hon. member for Nanaimo and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt). What I want to draw attention to is the fact that the government, finally yielding to terrific public pressure for the release of personnel to fill essential jobs, has issued instructions for the immediate release of personnel regardless of their point scores. This, of course, operates to the prejudice of overseas personnel. It cannot help but do so because the overseas personnel could not be brought back fast enough. So in an effort to safeguard their rights, the regulations provide that the low-point personnel in Canada who are released can only be released to return to their former jobs; they can only be given long-term leave-not discharge. This is a complicated and confusing procedure and is only an attempt to make the best of a bad job. dhe proper method, the fair method, of course, would be to bring back the high-point overseas personnel and discharge them first. The answer of the government is that this is not possible owing to lack of shipping facilities. Reserving our right to criticize that statement,

and I shall refer to it shortly, I say that we will for the time being accept that answer. But what I want to point out is this: The fact that overseas there are only high point personnel, while back here in Canada there are only low point ..personnel with little or no overseas service, is the result of the government's manpower policy. It is as a result of that policy that that bad condition has been brought about. The proper course would have been to keep the reinforcement stream flowing, to keep men as they were called info the army or any of the armed forces in Canada proceeding overseas, ready when necessary to replace casualties, and available as indicated to take the place of men with two or three years' front line service. That, I submit, would have been the proper course, and then those old long-service veterans could have been brought back in the same stream of shipping and would be back in Canada now, ready to accept their discharge. That would have been the proper course. Then none of this dallying, confusion and prejudice would exist-none of those circumstances which are so irritating to all and which characterize the present regulations. These characteristics I submit, are part and parcel of the government's every polic3', and there is in that government no promise and no likelihood of action. I ask hon. members to bear this in mind in voting on the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition.
As I say, for myself I hope and believe that this is the last time that I shall refer to the man-power question. Sufficient bitterness was created throughout this country, and my efforts from now on will be devoted to trying to heal that bitterness and to understand the opposite point of view. Rut I want to make it perfectly clear for myself, and I believe sincerely I may speak for the whole of our party, that we are not ashamed of our stand on the man-power policy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What was the stand?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like here to point the lesson which is to be drawn from the facts to which I have just referred, by a reference to statements which were made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Speaking with reference to remarks made by the hon. member for Nanaimo the Minister of National Defence implied that instead of criticizing the present demobilization difficulties we should be praising the government because they have brought back so many men from overseas and demobilized them. The Prime -Minister did the same thing. He said that we have- brought back 120,000 men since V-E day to demobilize them. I should like

1ST
The Address- Mr. Fulton
to read the words of the Minister of National Defence as reported in Hansard, page 101:
The hon. member-
Referring to the hon. member for Nanaimo.

made some reference to the reduction in the point score from an original figure of 150 or 160 to 130. One reason for the reduction in the point score is that since Y-E day we have repatriated from overseas over 120,000 of all three services.
The inference there is that those men were brought back since V-E day as part of a repatriation and demobilization programme.


Douglas Charles Abbott: They were.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes? I took the trouble to telephone the minister's office and asked how many of that 120,000 were personnel who came back as volunteers for the Pacific force. The answer was that in the army, of 75.000 personnel repatriated, 25,000, or one-third, had volunteered for the Pacific force and been brought back on those grounds, and that it would be fair to say, although no definite figures could be given, that the figure of one-third represented the proportion of the whole number that had come back as volunteers for the Pacific force. So that out of 120.000,
40,000	came back as volunteers for the Pacific force. That was an operational commitment; and actually, of that number, the majority are short-service personnel who had recently proceeded overseas and had volunteered there for the Pacific force. So in fact we have brought back a large number of personnel who actually would not have been eligible for discharge on a pure point score; yet the minister and the Prime 'Minister tried to take credit in this house for having brought back 120,000 for discharge, when actually out of that number 40.000 were brought back for an entirely different reason.
I should like to refer next to the second paragraph of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, that this house regrets that His Majesty's ministers have failed to provide adequate measures for reconversion from war to a peace-time economy. This was no idle motion. We on this side honestly feel that the government of this country has forfeited the confidence of the people in this respect. It is all very well for the Prime Minister and certain other ministers to sit over there and shake with laughter and scoff and say, "Oh, but we won an election three months ago. When you mention these things you really must be wasting our time because after all we won the election three months ago." I am not given to strong language, but I rather feel that that attitude smacks of hypocrisy, when we consider that at that
very moment there was in this House of Commons a labour delegation some hundreds strong who were here because they did not have confidence in the government, and because they were out of work. They were not agitators, they were not bad citizens; they were just ordinary average Canadian citizens who had come up here to see their government to try to get some reassurance that the jobs which they had been promised would actually be forthcoming. Those are the reasons why they were here, not because they wanted to find any minister in his golf club, but because they came to the House of Commons to see him, where they ought to see him, because they wanted action; and they were not even seen by the government. They were, however, seen the next day. They were received on the day they arrived by a delegation from the other parties represented in this parliament. I think that the reception of that labour delegation was typical of the state of affairs in this country to-day..


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, if I may-


Mr. GREEN:: Oh, let him alone.


Humphrey Mitchell: Wait a minute. I ju3t want to tell the truth-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: From my point of view. I wish to say to my hon. friend, in a friendly way, that that delegation was met by the government.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: A couple of days later.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, the next day.
Mr, FULTON: I said it was met the next day.


Humphrey Mitchell: But prior to that the chairman of the delegation had been wired. I am sure my hon. friend does not want the impression to go out to the country that the government do not meet delegations. We were very glad to meet them. We met the two congresses.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was certainly the impression in the minds of the delegation. I admit that the delegation was met the next day by the government, but I simply say that I think the reception of the delegation in the vicinity of this parliament was typical of the situation throughout the country. They were spoken to and addressed by a C.C.F. member of parliament who said, "What you want is a new social order." That is what he said they wanted,-not jobs, not homes, not meals, but a new social order. They were addressed by a member of the Social Credit party, who said,
1SS

The Address-Mr. Fulton
"What you want is a new kind of money." They were addressed first, however, by a member of the Progressive Conservative party.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member does not want to misrepresent what was said. Not a word was said about a new kind of money. If the hon. member knew a little more about social credit he would know better than to say that. What was said was, a new source of money.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I accept the correction-a new source of money. What was said by the Progressive Conservative member who addressed that meeting was, "Gentlemen, I have just received your proposals and I shall study them at the first possible opportunity. I intend to take immediate action on those of which I approve." On that day there was no action and no representation from the government. I think that is typical of the situation in this country to-day. I looked at their signs carefully and these people did not ask for a new social order or a new source of purchasing power. They asked for jobs, for a continuation of present wages. I do not remember exactly what it was, and I do not want to lay myself open to a charge of misquoting, but they wanted jobs and security. They want that now, and this party is the only one that proposes to take action to give it to them now. The government met them the next day, but only after their hands had been forced, and that again, I suggest, is typical of the situation.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is unfair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggested to the
minister-


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I am in error in making the suggestion, it will be open to the minister to correct the impression later. It was a suggestion that that was the impression that was left in the minds of the people.


Humphrey Mitchell: Once your story has gone through the country; once you have got your story over.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to refer further to some remarks made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) in dealing with the question. His remarks I think are typical of the government's attitude on the question. At page 60 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
I am frank to admit that difficulties attend other countries, as" well as our own; and the fact that \ye have now in a number of localities a situation of surplus labour is perhaps not all that one might desire.

I suggest that it is very far from what one might desire. I regret very much that my remarks appear to have been misinterpreted, but I am anxious to impress upon the ministers the fact that, like the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt), the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), and the leader of this party (Mr. Bracken), as well as most of the members of this house, I want some assurance that action will be taken now. We certainly know that the situation is not all that might be desired, but we feel more strongly than that and we want to know whether or not the government feels more strongly than that. I am pointing *out to the ministers that their actions have not to this date inspired in the minds of the people of the country the belief that the government does feel more strongly about is than that. That is the only point I am trying to make.
When we come to the third paragraph of the amendment as moved by the leader of the opposition, criticizing the lack of action on housing, again I say it is very difficult to understand the attitude of members of the government when they- sit there and say, "Well, after all, we won an election three months ago and you are really wasting our time coming here and talking about housing because it does not matter." I do not care, nor do the people of the country care, whether the government won an election three months ago. What the people want is houses, and so far, I maintain, they have received no assurance from this government that they are likely to get houses very quickly.
This housing problem is one that affects my own. constituency in the same degree, though not exactly in the same measure, as it affects the constituencies in Vancouver, one of which is represented by the member for Vancouver-Burrard. who made the strongest plea for government action in this respect. I will not attempt to go over his observations again, but I bring them to the attention of the government and ask them whether they are now prepared to give the country that factual and actual assurance which it desires, that houses will be provided. There has been a statement from the Minister of National Health and Welfare, a reassuring statement, as to the government's intentions with respect to social security, but the problem of housing has not been tackled. All we have is a measure of disagreement as to whether or not refrigerators and plumbing are frozen.
One other question with respect to housing which I should like to bring to the attention of the house is this. As I have said, the

1S9
The Address-Mr. Fulton
responsible ministers of the crown have failed to give that assurance which they are called upon to give the people. The question of housing was mentioned by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). At the time he was making his remarks I had a certain feeling of disagreement with him and lack of support for his views. Somebody near me informed me that the member for Mackenzie was the gentleman who at one time made a speech in this house opposing the sending of beer to the troops in Italy, and I knew then that I certainly had no sympathy or support for his views. I do not know quite what was the official government pronouncement or policy on the question at the time the hon. gentleman was stating his opposition, but I assure him that he need not have worried in the slightest, because, whatever the government said about it very little beer got to the troops in Italy and I felt that he was wasting his time on that occasion as much as he was working to no purpose on this.
It will be recalled that the hon. gentleman devoted considerable time at the beginning of his speech to a criticism of the then premier of Manitoba for his failure to solve the allegedly desperate housing situation in Winnipeg, and devoted an .equal length of time in the latter part of his speech to a bitter criticism of the suggestion that anyone but the federal government is responsible for housing measures, attacking this party for suggesting that anyone else might be entrusted with solving the housing problem. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot attack the provincial government for not taking action, you cannot attack its leader for not taking action, and then attack that same gentleman, who is now leader of this party, because he suggests that somebody other than the federal government might take action.
The responsibility is clearly a nation-wide responsibility, a responsibility that devolves upon municipalities, provinces and the federal government and private enterprise. What we ask for on this side of the house is action and leadership from the government to coordinate the efforts of all those who are only waiting and anxious to do what they can to solve the problem.
I am running short of time, and I realize that so far I have made but passing reference to my own constituency of Kamloops. I hope that hon. members will realize that this is not because I am not proud of my constituency of Kamloops, British Columbia, but because at the moment I felt, as I still feel, very strongly and very much disturbed about certain national problems which are as common to my
constituency as they are to the rest of the Dominion of Canada. That is why I put these problems first, without making any reference to my constituency. I know that the people of Kamloops feel possibly no more seriously, but certainly no less seriously and no less strongly about these problems than the people of the rest of the Dominion of Canada, and they have asked me as their representative to come down here to see if I can do something in this house, working in conjunction with all other hon. members, to solve them.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that some of the criticisms directed at the government by hon. members of the opposition have been severe.
I do not agree that they were bitter, although they have been severe. This is simply because we feel that the problems which confront the country are terribly serious and action is not being taken to solve them. In all these things we fear we see a lack of sincere determination. What we call for is action: These are difficult but not _ insuperable problems. The Canadian people have shown what they were capable of in war. They put forth that effort in order to preserve Canada as a better place. Now we must make it that better place they had in mind; and it can be done with intelligent direction and action.
As a member of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition I realize it is not my duty and function merely to criticize. For myself I can promise that whenever the government shows signs of action, of producing a solution of the Canadian problems, based on honest effort to solve them in the best interests of Canada, and whenever they introduce any legislation for the purpose of implementing such solution, they will find us honestly and sincerely cooperative. But whenever we see signs of dallying and delay, when we see a danger that Canada's welfare and the potential realization of our highest ambitions will be frustrated by any other consideration or by lack of sincerity or lack of confidence in action, then we will exercise our constitutional prerogative of criticism and opposition. We will not allow the confidence, the high reward, the ideals and expectations which the Canadian service men and citizens have earned by their valour'and endurance in this war to go unfulfilled, because we feel that they can be fulfilled if action is taken now.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: I rise to take part in the debate which is lengthening out and perhaps getting better as it lengthens. If that is the case, I shall be sorry if I do not live up to the standard which has already been set by pre-
The Address-Mr. Leader

vious speakers. I have quite a lot to say this afternoon and I hope that I can get through in the allotted time.
I am not going to take up the time of the house by offering congratulations to the different hon. members who have been elevated to rather exalted positions, but I want them to take it for granted that they have my very best wishes in the work which they will be called upon to do. I should like to address a few remarks to the younger and new members of parliament, and perhaps it will apply to the older members as well-I know it certainly applies to me. First, I wish to say that it is a great honour for anyone to be the advocate and the representative of his district in this great dominion of ours. When you think that you were chosen out of perhaps forty thousand other citizens in your district you can understand that you have quite a weighty responsibility, and while it is an honour it carries with it huge and consistent responsibilities. My advice to the younger members is to take stock of themselves once in a while. That is what I do, and then let them ask themselves, what are we here for? As I said, it is a great honour and' a great privilege but it carries with it great responsibilities. I do not want to tender anv further advice than that, but I think it is good advice to give to the younger men, and the older ones, including myself, always remember the people back home.
My main reason for rising to-day, Mr. Speaker, is to deal with a question which has been up on previous occasions. I think I have addressed this house four times on the matter which I intend to reintroduce to-day. It is something that is left over from previous sessions, and therefore it might be called a matter of unfinished business. Perhaps some hon. members have already guessed that I intend to bring once more before the house the matter of Doctor Davidson's research work in endeavouring to find a preventive or a possible cure for cancer. What I wish to impress upon the house to-day is the necessity, if we are to clean up this matter once and for all, of the government of Canada taking upon their own shoulders or in cooperation with the provinces the responsibility for a clinical test of not only Doctor Davidson's work but of every other medical practitioner in Canada, there may be others who have worked as hard and as long as Doctor Davidson of Winnipeg, and who may have some clue that, if followed to its logical conclusion, would lead to something that would benefit mankind.
Hon. members may think this subject is monotonous. Well, at the risk of having them 
bored, may I say that I believe it is a worthy cause. In my opinion, if I have done nothing in my thirty years and more of public life but press for more research work in regard to cancer and other ills that affect the Canadian people, then I would be content to leave this as my only reason for being in parliament.
Cancer, statistics tell us, is second on the list as a man-killer; but in actual suffering and untold sorrow and huge expenses it is away out in the lead, and it is increasing. Therefore it is a matter that is worthy of consideration.
Perhaps the house will bear with me if I outline briefly some of the activities which I attempted in previous sessions in this house on this very important matter. I believe in Doctor Davidson and in his work. While I do not claim I am cured of cancer, neither does Doctor Davidson. But I know he has helped me. Not only do I believe that; I know it. Therefore, if the remarks I am about to make to-day come from my heart, hon. members will understand the feeling I have for other cancer victims who might be in the position in which I am, and would have a chance for a hope of recovery.
I asked our government if they could help Doctor Davidson in his research work by making a grant so that he might carry on his work. He has no money, and very few friends in the medical profession. I knew what he did for me; I knew of dozens of others who *believed in Doctor Davidson. I said his work was worthy of a grant, and asked the government of Canada if they would assist Doctor Davidson financially if, after making an investigation, they thought his work merited assistance.
As hon. members know, that matter was referred to the medical committee of the research council in Ottawa who, after a farcical investigation, advised the government that no money should be granted to Doctor Davidson. He never wanted a dollar. What he pleaded for was some young medical men from across Canada who would come to his office, listen to his story, understand his investigations, and carry on where he will leave off in the very near future.
His one ambition was to hand over what he has found to the medical profession of Canada, in the hope that it would be of some benefit to humanity, The money was denied him. At times I might be accused of being somewhat too aggressive; perhaps stubborn would be a better word. However, I asked the government if they would institute a more comprehensive investigation into Doctor Davidson's work. I know that the government

The Address

Mr. Leader
was concerned in the matter and that the then minister was in deep sympathy with the project. The result was that they asked the province of Manitoba if it would cooperate with the federal authorities in making an investigation, on the understanding that the federal government would make a grant.
To make a long story short, officers of the crown decided that the making of a grant to any province for health purposes was not within the jurisdiction of the federal government, with the result that the investigation fell through. Following that, the government of Manitoba undertook to conduct an inquiry of its own, with the result that a cancer commission was appointed.
After about ten months of investigation they decided-the report has just been published -that Doctor Davidson's work did not warrant a -money grant. The verdict was against the doctor and his work. I should not say that it was against Doctor Davidson personally, because the commission did add that, although its report was negative, it did not in any way reflect upon the integrity and good faith of Doctor Davidson.
Yes, and it comes to my mind that there was another investigation, before that of the commission to which I have just referred. I believe it was the secretary of the railroad associations of British Columbia who undertook a private investigation in regard to this doctor's work. With that in mind this secretary journeyed to Winnipeg and, while there, met many of the doctor's patients.
In a letter written to me recently this gentleman expressed his disappointment regarding the report, and the fact that the commission saw fit to find against the doctor and his work. He pointed out that he remembered vividly those eight hopeful patients he had met while investigating in Winnipeg, that he could still see the light in their eyes, and their hope of renewed health. He cannot believe that these people are either dead or doomed. The idea behind it all was that he expected their cases had been reviewed by the Manitoba cancer commission.
Some hon. members have, from their places in the house, stated that Doctor Davidson's treatments have been investigated on previous occasions. Well, I have mentioned one of those investigations, namely that carried out by the medical committee of the research council, an investigation which was nothing but a farce from beginning to end.
May I be permitted to cite an authority higher than some of those who have set themselves up as critics of Doctor Davidson and his methods. I shall quote in a few moments from page 4S64 of Hansard for July 14, 1944.
These will be the words of Doctor Howden, who was then the member for St. Boniface. He believes in Doctor Davidson, and that this doctor has something which, if properly explored would benefit humanity. Hon. members who were in the house at that time will remember the story that the then hon. member told, the story about the lady in the hospital in Winnipeg. It had been stated that the doctors could do no more for her, because she had cancer, and. that following this pronouncement Doctor Davidson had taken her case, given her his treatments and brought her back to the hospital for examination. I do not know whether at that time Doctor Lehmann, to whom reference was made by Doctor Howden, was president of the hospital, or consulting physician. However, this is what the then hon. member for St. Boniface said in his speech on that occasion:
He called in Doctor Lehmann to look at the woman and he said, "I thought you were dead."
Remember, these are Doctor Howden's own words. Then the quotation from Hansard continues:
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."
So I am telling the house to-day that Doctor Davidson was advised by the medical profession to carry out this work.
The work of this doctor was assisted earlier not only by the medical association, but by the late James Richardson, by -the Winnipeg Kiwanis club, and by other organizations the names of which do not come to my mind at the moment. The quotation- from Hansard continues:
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 in 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.
The Address-Mr. Leader

I want to get back to the cancer commission again and direct the attention of the house to the fact that I put on Hansard on June 27, 1944, letters which I had received from twelve patients. They all claimed that they had been benefited by Doctor Davidson's work. One would need to look at the evidence submitted to this cancer commission before one would know how they dealt with these several cases. The following item is clipped from the report:
^Note: Of the 376 names listed in exhibit
VIII,	twenty-three are listed again in exhibit
IX.	The twelve cases cited by Mr. Harry
Leader in House of Commons debates are also included in exhibit VIII.	.
As I say, I do not know what conclusion the commission came to in regard to these people, but I want to tell the 'house that I have kept track of these patients. I wrote to them and, while they did not all answer, six or seven answered and I have the letters here. I know the house does not want me to take up time in reading them, but they all state that they were either helped or cured by Doctor Davidson. When I wrote to them last spring they replied that they were well on the road to recovery and yet, when we come to read the report of the commission, we find that they were classed as non-cancerous. I wish I had the time at my disposal to read these letters, but they are available should any hon. member want to see them. Surely the old biblical saying of a prophet having no honour in his own country is true in Doctor Davidson's case. The commission made the following finding:
Five other cases are unusual. Their numbers are 19, 32, 60, 88 and 113. All had been definitely cancerous and all took Doctor Davidson's treatment. Apparently they all were cured, so far as the time lapse permits of that statement. However, in none of these eases can credit clearly be given to the treatment under investigation because other treatments had been applied shortly beforehand. These included surgery,_ X-rays, radium and electro-cautery, either singly or in combination.
No credit allowed to Doctor Davidson at all.
I am sure hon. members have in their minds the same question I have in mine, the question that was in the mind of a lady to whom I was talking not long ago: if these people were cured through the regular channels of the medical association, why did they go to Doctor Davidson? According to the cancer commission they went to Doctor Davidson after they had been treated by other sources and apparently were cured. Is that fair? I ask that question of every hon. member. I will give the answer: it is not fair to Doctor Davidson, and I think hon. members will agree with me.
I come now to a case which I never wanted to bring before this house. The record will 
show that I had arranged for two other hon. members to bring up the case of Doctor Davidson in this house after I had gone home to continue my treatment with him. That was two years ago. No real action was taken, so I deemed it my duty, even though a layman-I can speak from practical experience

as a public man to tell the story of my own condition to hon. members in the house and people throughout the country.
As I said, hon. members will have to look over the evidence before they get the full picture of even my case. However, I recognized it when I saw it in the report. It is the sixth case referred to as No. 70, and I quote:
. The sixth case (No. 70) has a very low grade tumour. To quote Mayo clinic-"it is a very low grade tumour and slow growing type of cancer and we know of instances where patients have lived from twelve to fifteen years after it had been found to be just as extensive as yours was.
There is some hope in a statement of that kind and I am glad to have that hope. If it is the will of God that I should live many more years I shall be truly thankful. But they could have said this, and this is what came direct from the Mayo clinic: Leader's case was impossible after' careful exploration of his abdomen. There was no guesswork about that. They said they could not attempt a colostomy operation, which might prove a matter of life or death for me if I were threatened with a bowel obstruction. They said my case was impossible and they could do nothing for me The commission did not quote that, although they had the full story. The Mayos wired me. asking me if they might send it to them. I told them to send it by all means and let me have a copy. So they got it and this would appear to be a hopeful sign. I ask hon. members to think of that because of what is coming next. The commission continues:
Also his own doctor writes'-"I have prescribed morphine for pain on several occasions this past summer (1944). There may be subjective improvement but objectively there is no evidence of retrogression of the tumour." Your commissioners do not consider this case as cured or even arrested, as the attending physician clearly points out that the tumour and some of its accompanying symptoms have . shown no improvement after two years' treatment and the continued need of morphine to allay the pain shows that the disturbing factor has not been arrested.
In the first place there is a promise that I may live for many years; next, my goose is cooked. It reminds me of the song that Gracie Fields sometimes sings. She is referring to a refractory or lazy husband and she says, "The old man is dead but he won't lie down." The worst factor in regard to my case is the fact that the secretary of the commission told many patients as she visited

The Address-Mr. Leader
them that Harry Leader was very ill and that he had to take the strongest drugs to deaden the pain. She made the picture as bad as she possibly could.
I am afraid I am going to exceed my time, but that will be in the hands of the house. Information was presented by my doctor in Portage la Prairie. I want to say here that he is a clever young man. I would place my life in his hands any day as a medical practitioner who is following a careful and capable father. But he did not know all the circumstances. He prescribed the medicine all right but he did not know whether I took it. I am going to give the house some information in regard to that. He prescribed what 'I later found out were morphine pills. The number is 55200 and the prescription was filled on July 26, 1944. I never took one of those pills. They were morphine pills. My wife told me that she had stronger pills for me, but I did not want to take them. I did not know they were morphine, but I thought I could get along without them. That was July 26, 1944, and the commission's report was printed I think on August 2, 1945. In other words, about fourteen months afterward, the report comes out that I have to take the strongest drugs to deaden the pain.
Now I want to give the complete story. The next prescription was No. 48521, filled March 16, 1945. Another prescription, No. 47526, was filled on the same date. That would be just about six months ago. I have not taken a pill since. Those were sleeping pills. There was another pill which I have learned had codeine in it. I took those pills more to put me to sleep, not to deaden pain although there were times when I suffered intensely. But I have not taken any of those pills for six months. And the real morphine pills which had been prescribed for me, I did not take one of them. Another doctor from Portage was sent out, substituting for my own doctor, and I really had pains at that time. That was perhaps fourteen months ago, and in the fall of last year. He gave me morphine, a hypo, and left some pills with my wife. She admits she gave me three, all in a very short time, because I was suffering intensely. This bears out the fact that some of the morphine pills prescribed for me I never took at all, and the others I have not taken for six months. Yet the lady doctor, the secretary of this cancer commission, Doctor Lautsch, has gone up and down this country, not building up their morale, not giving them hope, but telling suffering cancer patients, when they asked how Harry Leader was getting along, that he had to take these drugs
constantly to deaden the pain. When I showed this to my doctor he said, "Isn't it true?" I said, "Yes, Jack, it is true but I did not take the prescriptions." Then he said, "The conclusion of the commission is not fair. A better word for 'constant' would be occasional", and I agreed with him.
I have an affidavit here, and I am going to tell the house from whom I got it. I got it from Mr. Stubbs, a member of the provincial legislature of Manitoba, one of the members for the city of Winnipeg, a man who is deeply interested and entirely sympathetic to the work of Doctor Davidson. He made a speech in the Manitoba house not long ago and produced affidavits from some of these patients and presented them to the house. He has a keen legal mind, is a skilful debater, and I believe a man of integrity. Does the house wish me to read all of this affidavit or just that portion of it that deals with my own condition and the fact that the secretary of the cancer commission had made these statements to other patients throughout the province?


Major James William Coldwell: Read what you think is necessary.


An hon. MEMBER.:: Put it on Hansard.


Harry Leader: I will read part of the affidavit of Victoria Wilson, of 367 Kensington street, St. James, Manitoba. She made a sworn affidavit before a notary public on July 3, 1945, and from it I quote:
That the said Doctor Edith Lautsch-
That is the lady doctor who is the secretary of the commission.
-interviewed me for about an hour and a half and made lengthy notes. She talked a great deal about Doctor Davidson, his patients, his methods and his treatments. She made the definite statement that there was nothing in Doctor Davidson's supposed cure for cancer; that his serum treatments did more harm than good by postponing operations which ought to be performed at the early stages of cancer.
7.	That the said Doctor Lautsch asked me whether I thought that Doctor Davidson had helped me. I replied that I certainly thought he had; that I had been greatly benefited and my health much improved since coming under his care and taking his treatments and gave him the credit for it.
8.	That the said Doctor Lautsch said, among other things at the said interview, that it had been proved that some of Doctor Davidson's patients whom he claimed to have cured of cancer had never had cancer at all; and that out of about 400 of his patients over 300 had died.
9.	That the said Doctor Lautsch further said she considered Doctor Thorlakson one of the best cancer doctors in Winnipeg, that she would

The Address-Mr. Leader

recommend me to go to him, except that he was so strongly prejudiced against Doctor Davidson.
There are some good features in the commission's report. If I have not already done so, I want to say now that I believe that every man on that commission was a man of integrity. I only know one of them personally, and that is Doctor Savage, the chairman. I know he is a capable pathologist. He is a man of integrity for whom I have the utmost respect. The other members are medical men whom I do not know personally, but I ascribe nothing but honesty to their motives. But when we remember that these men are steeped in the old orthodox doctrines of medical men it will be understood that there might be a little prejudice there, and while I am willing and glad to admit their absolute honesty, it may be that their reasoning is not so good as it might have been. Here is another extract from the report which gives us an inkling that there is really something to Doctor Davidson's treatment, because it says:
Approximately seventy per cent of the patients living at the time of the investigation claimed subjective improvement and gained weight at least for a time. Many testified that they felt better than they had for years, in spite of evidence that the disease was extending.
Mr. Speaker, are we to continue to combat the greatest scourge of mankind, the disease of cancer, by following the old orthodox methods? Is it not time we looked around for something that might prevent cancer? This was Doctor Davidson's ambition since he started this work. Curing cancer was only a secondary consideration. He was advised, as I said, by at least one medical practitioner to carry on his work, and his idea was to find a preventive for cancer. If you can prevent disease you do not need a cure. Just think of what they have done with diphtheria, typhoid fever and smallpox, and imagine what they are going to do in the future, both our older doctors who remained home in Canada and those who are overseas. Great improvements will be instituted with regard to all diseases, and I am looking for some great improvement in regard to cancer.
But I am dealing with the commission, Mr. Speaker, and I want to give you one of the conclusions to which they came:
2. That no public money be voted to aid further experiments of the general kind carried on by Doctor Davidson with mice unless it be for an extensive and prolonged programme of experimental work conducted by an adequate personnel.

That is exactly what Doctor Davidson has been asking for; not a dollar of public money, not a donation, although he has received some, and was glad to receive the help. But he asks for a clinical test. There is the ray of hope; there, gleams out the fact that if the dominion government will play ball with the province of Manitoba a clinical test will be made. Why should there not be? They are making them in other lands. I read the other day that a pathological institution, I think it is the university of Cleveland, Ohio, is now carrying on a clinical test in regard to a serum discovered by some Russian. This investigation or test is going to be carried on over a three-year term, and they are getting $30,000 to help conduct the test. We want something like that in Canada, and this matter will never be cleared up until we get it. I received a letter from the minister of health of Manitoba, who stated in the concluding paragraph that if the matter is to be carried on further he will be glad to lend his cooperation in whatever action is taken. We expect action, and I think we are going to get it. If you will permit me sir, I will read a statement made in this house by the Prime Minister himself. Speaking on July 14, 1944, as reported in Hansard, at page 4885, he said:
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 wdiich he has, hon. members from Manitoba believing 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 work 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 placed in the estimates and headed a discussion in this house to have Doctor Banting given a life endow'ment of $7,000 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

Housing
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.
I want to advocate here to-day, as I have on previous occasions, that we spend more money for medical research. I think we spend less than $50,000 a year on medical research- which certainly is no compliment to the ability of the Canadian parliament. I think we should spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on research work, and in this connection may I quote the statement of the authoritative journal of the American medical association:
The only hope of solving fundamental problems of cancer lies in research.
I will support any amount of money the government sees fit to grant in cooperation with the provinces, which the Department of National Health and Welfare allows them to do at the present time, for the work of Doctor Davidson and other men who have given their lives to this research.
In conclusion I wish to say that this is not the end. We must have finality in this matter. Casualties of the war have ceased, but the death toll of cancer victims goes without an armistice. I do not believe the Canadian people are satisfied with conditions as they are. They will insist that something substantial, perhaps radical, be undertaken to combat this terrible disease. It seems to me that if we do not undertake this we shall break faith with those 14,000 people who died from cancer last year; we shall dash the hopes of the 50,000 people who are now suffering from cancer in Canada; the death toll will go on, and over 14,000 people will die from cancer next year, with j, constant increase in the years to come. I believe that the people will demand action, and that the government will fufil their duty. This is not a partisan matter, and I ask every hon. member on all sides of this house to support me in the appeal which I have made this afternoon.
On motion of Mr. Knight the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 5.43 p.m.
Monday, September 17, 1945.