Grant Hill

[Canada Health Act, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a question for the health minister.

One of the planks of the Canada Health Act is accessibility. Accessibility is measurable. The waiting list for cataract surgery one year ago in Ontario was three and one-third months, with 4,065 people on that waiting list. Today the waiting list is four and a half months, with 4,662 patients on the waiting list. How does that fit into reasonable access?

[The Family, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this statement is a personal one reflecting on my family. Anyone who has raised children knows the highs and lows of family life, the joy of a newborn's first cry, indeed the heartbreak of a teen's major mistake. My wife and I have raised seven children and an aboriginal foster son. I miss them a lot as I stand today in the House.

The family is as powerful a force today as it has ever been and it deserves recognition and protection.

To families in every region of Canada, I salute you. To families in disarray, I anguish with you. To my own family, each of you is the reason for my existence, the focus of all my efforts when I am far away in Ottawa.

[National Health Care Forum, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces are the major players in health care. They deserve formal status. Will the minister give up her co-chair to allow the major stakeholders official status?

[National Health Care Forum, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Thursday the health minister was asked to give a more formal role to the provinces in the national health care forum. The answer was not likely. Tuesday the Prime Minister said that he was much more flexible.

My question is for the health minister. Can we have today's version?

[Bill C-7, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, physicians and other scientists in Canada are very concerned about the government's proposed legislation, Bill C-7.

Criminal law must be very clear and concise because of the serious penalties for breaking the law. However, this legislation is vague and broad. Through provisions for as yet unnamed substances to be added to the schedule of controlled drugs, health professionals dealing with innovative active chemical ingredients may be liable to serious legal penalties which are not clarified in the act.

Furthermore, by intertwining criminal law with regulatory law, regulatory inspectors effectively acquire criminal search and seizure powers.

Physicians and other scientists support attempts to better control the non-medical use of drugs. I call on the government to put forward serious amendments to Bill C-7. We must ensure that physicians are not hamstrung by bad legislation in their attempts to provide quality health care to Canadians.

[Established Programs Financing, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, the answer does not satisfy the Canadian public. The funds are dropping and continue to drop as a percentage of health care funding.

Our party has been criticized for slashing and burning in terms of social programs. Our party would cut theme parks in Shawinigan, cut limousines to ministers, cut fancy health programs for members of Parliament and cut pensions for members of Parliament, to look after health care.

Will the minister put her money where her mouth is?

[Established Programs Financing, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the health minister.

The federal component of health care funding has dropped and continues to drop. It is now in the neighbourhood of 22 per cent of our health care spending.

Will the minister agree to open up the Canada Health Act to bind the federal government to a specific percentage of health care funding?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity to break new ground today and I hope the parliamentary secretary will be listening carefully.

I will start by saying that I am in agreement with the government on this portion of Bill C-17. I will be speaking to the portion on unemployment insurance. When I hear that Reformers are always negative and do not have any constructive alternatives, I particularly would like to explain why I am in agreement with the government on this issue.

We are talking about unemployment insurance program reform. I agree that unemployment insurance does need reform, in fact it needs more reform than is proposed. Of course the government is going through a social program review which will allow that to take place.

I referred to the red book on this particular issue and looked for what I could expect from the Liberal government during the election campaign. What I understood from the red book was that the Liberals would work with the provinces to redesign social assistance programs, so sorely tested in recent years, to help people on social assistance who are able to work to move from dependence to full participation in the economic and social life of the country.

During the election campaign I had a fairly specific proposal to place on the table for the unemployment insurance program review which reads: "The Reform Party supports the return of unemployment insurance to its original function; that is, an employer-employee funded and administered program to provide temporary income in the event of unexpected job loss". It was a fairly specific proposal. It is fairly obvious that is more specific than the proposal I had from my opponent on the other side.

Frankly I was hammered on this and other social program issues during the election campaign. I was hammered as being uncaring, as being a person who was involved in slash and burn cutting with no compassion. I must admit those allegations hurt me a little because I entered the national arena of politics for compassionate reasons.

In my line of work I felt government mismanagement had a specific and significant impact on my life and my work and the life and work of those whom I had treated. I came here for compassionate reasons. I strongly believe that if our social programs are continually eroded by fiscal mismanagement that we will not have social programs and compassion will be very weak.

Last week I had an opportunity to talk with a number of grade 12 students in my constituency. Reformers have decided that to represent our constituents better we are divvying up our time and one week when the House is sitting we are actually in our constituencies. I took that week to talk to my grade 12 students.

I had a number of messages to give them. The one specific message I had to give was that our government and our country is in debt and in serious trouble. I went through the figures: that we are overspending $110 million a day; that we are half a trillion dollars in debt; that over 30 cents of every $1 is spent today on interest; and that every social program is in jeopardy, including their educational needs and wishes.

The figures were not particularly meaningful to those grade 12 students. I rethought my proposals as I spoke to them and tried to put them into a frame of reference they could better understand. The one thing which seemed to strike home was when I said that every single one of them who sat in front of me owed the federal government a brand new pickup truck.

I was specific when I said: "Each one of you owes the federal government a pickup truck. It is a two-wheel drive pickup truck, not an extended cab. It does not have electric windows, no options whatsoever. It has an am-fm radio. It does not have any trick wheel covers on it. It does not have radial tires. It is a basic, brand new pickup truck. That is what each one of you owes the government".

Then I asked: "If everything comes about that the government today is proposing during its mandate, where will you be at the end of that mandate at the next election?". Each one of them and every single Canadian will then owe to the federal government a pickup truck with an extended cab, alloy wheels and radial tires. This truck will now have an am-fm radio with a CD player and electric windows. It is still a two-wheel drive pick-up, not yet a four-wheel drive.

These youths asked me: "What are you saying to us? How long can this go on?". It cannot go on forever. It was like saying to them: "Suppose you pump gas at a gas station and make $100 a week but every week you spend $115. How long could you go on?". Obviously, it cannot go on forever.

The message I took to those grade 12 students is that my generation and we in this House are mortgaging their future. The grade 12 students in Macleod asked me to bring their message back to the House of Commons: Stop mortgaging the futures of the youths of Canada.

I went through the Bill C-17 proposals. I went to the summaries of the proposals suggested by the minister. It is always interesting to read the summaries.

On unemployment insurance the summary on page 5 of the minister's document indicates: "Changes will require claimants to work for longer periods in order to be eligible for the same number of weeks of benefits. For example, a claimant with 36 weeks of work and living in an area of 12 to 13 per cent unemployment is entitled to 50 weeks of benefits under the present schedule. In order to have the same entitlement under the proposed schedule the same individual will have to work for 52 weeks". That is 36 weeks has changed to to 52.

The summary on page 13: "The proposed changes to UI will improve the linkage between work and benefits while enhancing adequacy and fairness in the provision of income support. The changes will contribute significantly to job creation by providing premium relief beginning on January 1, 1995". It is interesting and every Canadian should pay attention to this: There is a linkage between providing premium relief and job creation. In this document the Liberal government is saying something I say very strongly.

I had a personal intervention in my constituency office earlier this spring. A seasonal worker came to see me griping about the unemployment insurance changes being proposed by my colleagues. He was griping because he had been on unemployment insurance and would have to work longer to get the same amount of benefits. It was a criticism of the whole process.

He asked me what I thought as a Reformer about the Liberal unemployment insurance changes. I asked him what he would think if I told him I did not think a seasonal worker would soon have unemployment insurance benefits if we continued going the way we were.

I told him: "You have told me your story about how you worked very hard as a seasonal worker. You spent your summer on a road paving crew last year. You worked overtime and made $45,000 during the good time of the year. Then you went on unemployment insurance. You told me you went on unemployment insurance by choice".

He had told me he did not really have to be on unemployment insurance; he could easily have obtained a job with a transport company. He had a class 1 licence and the company was dying for him to come and work. However for the convenience of his family which I can understand, he chose to stay home during the winter to be closer to his wife. Therefore he would not be driving some place far away in the U.S.

He chose to do that because unemployment insurance was there for him as an individual who had made a significant amount of money during another portion the year. The principle of his being able to choose that over working when a job was available to him is something we must address or we will not have unemployment insurance.

I support the direction of this portion of Bill C-17 and I say that with no rancour whatsoever. As it is one of my committee responsibilities, I will push toward a significant change in the principle of unemployment insurance so that it becomes what it originally was.

I will end today with the message that came from my grade 12 students in Macleod, that the Government of Canada stop mortgaging the future of our youth.

[Health Care, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister has stated over and over again that she believes in one tier health care in Canada. To quote her: "You should have access to treatment according to need instead of the size of your wallet".

Could the minister explain why people can jump to the front of the line if their wallets contain a card identifying them as members of Parliament?

[Health Care, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, politicians in Canada are well looked after by the health care system, thanks to the extravagant extended benefits plan enjoyed by political and bureaucratic elites. Maybe that is why the Minister of Health thinks that medicare is free.

Will the minister admit that health care has two tiers, one for regular people and one for the political elite?