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