Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all noted with interest this afternoon the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that nothing would please him better than to be here at ten o'clock tonight. I understand that he is busy and not able to be here. I trust that the minister who will reply for him will be in a position to give a clear answer to the question which I have posed on two or three occasions.

The question I asked the Prime Minister last Thursday, which was not allowed on orders of the day and is therefore on the late show for tonight, had to do with the statement made on two or three occasions by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) to the effect that medicare payments would begin on July 1, 1967. In the light of that assertion by the minister, therefore, I have asked the government to give us an indication as to the date by which medicare legislation would have to be enacted in order to make this possible.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me make quite clear what it is I am trying to get at. I am not posing a legal question or, as Mr. Speaker suggested last Thursday, seeking an interpretation of a statute. After all, there is no statute yet with respect to this matter. What

February 21, 1966 COMMONS

I am trying to do, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not be surprised at my trying to do this, is to pin the government down as to when it is going to act on this important measure.

There is not the time to go over the history of the Liberal Party with regard to health insurance or medicare. It dates back to a period before the Minister of National Health and Welfare was born. In fact for 47 years we have been waiting for action on this matter. More particularly in the last few years the Liberal Party, under the present Prime Minister, has been talking very aggressively about medicare. Last July we had four pretty good principles laid down and we were told these would be the underlying principles of the medicare legislation to be introduced by this government. It was, of course, promised categorically in the last election campaign, and it was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne on January 18 of this year.

But in this session, when we have tried to get a clear statement from the Prime Minister or from the Minister of National Health and Welfare as to when this legislation is going to be before us, we have been given a very general kind of answer. We are told it is hoped it will be brought before us at this session. We are are told the government's position is still the same as it was in the Speech from the Throne, that it intends to go ahead with the legislation.

I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare is here. He knows that for the government's own sake this is not good enough. This kind of general promise that it will be done if possible, this general statement that we hope to have it done, that is the kind of thing that leads to one session after another going by without action taking place. The minister knows how difficult it was to get him to introduce the labour code. When he did bring it in there were two things omitted, the fair wages and hours of labour amendments and a safety code. He knows how difficult it was to get the government to bring forward the Canada Pension Plan. I submit that what we need from this government, for the sake of the people of Canada, what the government needs to do for its own sake, is to give us a timetable and tell us when it intends to put medicare on the order paper. The government should tell us whether it is its intention that this session shall continue until medicare legislation is enacted. If not, let us all know that it is just so much talk.

DEBATES 1577

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when answering for the Prime Minister on this question, not to skirt around it, not to talk about the legal difficulties of fixing a date so many months ahead of July 1, 1967. I ask him to take this house, to take the country, into his confidence and tell us precisely what the government's plans are with respect to medicare. Surely the government itself must have a plan for getting it on the order paper some time in 1966 and for getting it passed by some specific date in 1966.

[DOT] (10:10 p.ra.)

We hear a great deal from the government house leader about the desirability of planning the session and timetabling our work. The time to plan things and to timetable our work is not when we get into some crisis. The time to do it is in advance.

Therefore, I give the Minister of National Health and Welfare tonight a golden opportunity. I hope he will seize it and will tell us when medicare will be put on the order paper, and by what date the government feels it must be passed in order that the promise to have it in effect by July 1, 1967, can be implemented without fail.

Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain to the house and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the Prime Minister wishes to express his regret concerning his absence this evening. He had indicated earlier in the day that he would like to be here, but it is now impossible for him to be here to reply to the question directed to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

The hon. member asks the specific question, when it is expected the legislation on medicare from the federal point of view will be placed on the order paper. Naturally it would be impossible for me to make a clear declaration on that point this evening. Nor do I think it is a crucial question because it is the firm intention of the government to adhere to the four principles laid down by the Prime Minister last July at the federal-provincial conference.

The communique issued after the recent conference of federal-provincial ministers of health includes the following two paragraphs: In discussing medical care insurance, several provinces accepted the federal proposals and indicated their readiness to commence programs by July 1, 1967. Certain provinces, however, were unprepared to make definite commitments at this time.

February 21. 1966

1578 COMMONS

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion The Minister of National Health and Welfare again expressed the adherence of the federal government to the announced four principles, and its objective to commence federal contributions to provincial medical care plans on a nation-wide basis by July 1, 1967.

That is the statement that I made at the federal-provincial conference, and it still represents the policy of the government.

While it would be desirable to get this legislation through the house as quickly as possible, it should be borne in mind that from the federal point of view the legislation affecting medicare will be relatively simple because it will take the form of enabling legislation providing for payments to provinces within the framework of the four principles which have been enunciated by the Prime Minister.

It would of course be satisfactory and desirable to have this legislation on the order paper and to get it passed-certainly it would be my wish-as quickly as possible. However,

I have in mind that as Minister of National Health and Welfare I have certain prior commitments to the provinces with respect, first, to the Canadian assistance plan, which was targeted for April 1, 1966-

Mr. Knowles:

We have not seen that yet either.

Mr. MacEachen:

-and also with respect to the health resources fund payments, which are to extend back to January 1, 1966.

Mr. Knowles:

We have not seen that either.

Mr. MacEachen:

These are two health and welfare items of legislation which must come first in this session, as I regard them as important legislation which is to be undertaken in the field of health and welfare.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. I must advise the minister that the time allotted to him has expired.

[Translation1

Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier-Maski-nonge-Delanaudiere):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) to my proposal concerning the dangers of smoking.

On May 15, 1963, Doctor M. R. MacCharles stated at a convention of the Canadian Medical Association, that excessive smoking was the main cause of lung cancer and that this disease was incurable.

The committee made up of 17 doctors, including cancer specialists, unanimously agreed that the situation had reached such alarming proportions that a wide publicity campaign should be launched among the public.

In January 1964, Dr. Luther Terry, a well known American physician, published a report which had been prepared by a committee of experts and stated that there was a direct link between smoking, on the one hand, and lung diseases, respiratory ailments and heart troubles, on the other. The report further said that cigarette smoking was such a serious health hazard that it was the duty of the American government to take appropriate steps in that connection.

According to statistics, Mr. Speaker, each day, 450 boys and girls ranging from 11 to 17 years of age start smoking. We all know that when a child develops that habit, it cannot do without smoking after two years.

In 1963, lung cancer made 2,500 victims in Canada and that figure is increasing at a fantastic rate from year to year.

While medical science is waging a lost battle to save those lives, the tobacco companies spend millions of dollars a year to increase their sales among adults and to entice a new generation into acquiring the smoking habit.

Although over $150 million are spent yearly for publicity purposes in North America, a very meagre sum indeed is spent in Canada to protect the public against that danger.

If the situation continues, according to a Canadian Medical Association report, cigarettes will be responsible for the premature death of nearly 100,000 children now attending Canadian institutions.

No one wants to deprive anyone else of smoking pleasure, providing he is aware of the risk involved but when the risk is hidden as in the case of cigarettes, persons should be warned by positive measures as in the case of certain drugs labelled with the word "poison". I ask the government, in the interest of the nation's health, to require the tobacco companies to label cigarette packs with the words: "Beware. Smoking may be harmful to your health".

Kon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of the hon. member in this

February 21, 1966

important subject, which has been a matter of continuing concern to the department and to the present minister.

The hon. member directs our attention to a practice established in the United States of placing a warning sign on cigarette packages saying that smoking may be a health hazard. He suggests that action be taken in this country to follow this practice in the United States. A great deal must be said for the desirability and the efficacy in reaching the intended objective suggested by the hon. member; however, the authority of the government to do this, and jurisdiction under which this legislative action might be taken, will have to be examined.

I can tell my hon. friend that this very matter has been the subject of discussions with the industry, and that it is presently receiving the attention of the Department of National Health and Welfare. The department will take whatever decision on the point may be appropriate.

[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):

This afternoon when I addressed my question to the minister I did so for the purpose of clarifying the policy of his department. I have received a letter from one of the pension advocates which is disturbing because it suggests that a procedure is now being followed completely different from the procedure followed in the past. I asked in my question this afternoon if there had been a change in the policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs, a change which the minister had failed to announce in the house.

I wish to be fair to the minister. This does concern only one particular case. However, I assume that if there has been a change in the policy followed, pension advocates are no

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion longer able to answer the letters of members of parliament. If the minister has adopted such a practice he is preventing the efforts of members of parliament to obtain justice for veterans and their dependents, whether from their constituencies or elsewhere in Canada.

I wish to be brief. Did the minister, or someone else in authority, issue instructions to the pension advocates who are supposed to present cases on behalf of the veterans that they are not at any time to answer letters from members of parliament, but that they are to refer those letters to the deputy minister of the department, or to the departmental secretary? If so, what was the reason for issuing such a directive?

Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):

My answer can be very brief. No such directive has been sent. Certainly none has been sent by me. I would like to know what particular case is involved here. I have no knowledge of any case where a pension advocate was told not to answer a letter from a member of parliament. If there is a case, I would like to know about it and if the hon. member would let me have the letter I would look into the matter and reply to him.

I am sorry I could not reply to his question today. I think he understands the situation; the question was ruled out of order. I would have been glad to answer it, though I could have done no more than I have done this evening. I hope this reply will satisfy the hon. member.

Mr. McIntosh:

Did the minister instruct anyone in his department to give this directive?

Mr. Teillet:

No, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday. February 22, 1966