Grant Hill

[Health Care, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

In my home province of Alberta there are some creative alternatives to the problems of the health care system. For example, the world renowned private Gimbel Eye Clinic provided cataract surgery to 3,500 people last year. That is one-quarter of the cataract surgery done in Alberta.

In her zeal to enforce the three-decade old Canada Health Act does the minister propose that 25 per cent of cataract patients line up in a longer line?

[National Day Of Mourning, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, politicians are well known for sitting behind mounds of paper and bureaucracy dispensing advice to others. Seldom do they step outside their hallowed halls to feel the pain and also the joy of aching muscles and blisters from a physical day of hard work.

In my view it would be far more appropriate today if we had a framer, a mason, a steeplejack, a buggy operator, a labourer or a roustabout to offer a tribute in these halls.

I personally recall a powerful young mechanic severely injured by a propane blast that took his sight in one searing instant, leaving him disfigured and blind, his years of training made useless, his life's experiences suddenly only memories, his world a shambles.

Cliff and his wife never complain. In fact they are happy to have one another's love and support. Occupational health and safety are important. To Cliff and all his injured colleagues I dedicate this national day of mourning. To those less fortunate I offer a simple prayer.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the rhetoric is great and I do hope the member is telling it exactly as it is. However, I feel and I sense that there is an ownership taken of a bill as soon as the member switched to the other side. I wish that were not the case. It does not seem fair to me that the bill can have changed so much in this short period of time.

I read both of them, they are not significantly changed. My sincere hope would be that this is in fact the way this Parliament would work. I cannot say this any stronger than I have already. When it went to the committee stage when those members were in opposition there was a howl and a scream of it being rammed through. I am not at all comfortable as I sit over here to see that same process take place. I am speaking of this loudly and I will watch with great interest.

I would also refer back to the member. If this is to be a co-operative Parliament would the member not look very carefully at the proposal to take this to justice? This is not, and I cannot say this strongly enough, a health bill. This is a justice bill.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest before question period to the member for Dartmouth. I must compliment him. I believe the member is an accomplished orator and some of the words and phrases he used I found a little stinging. My ears are still stinging with the rebuke of the hon. member.

I was particularly interested when he spoke of the partisan nature of the House, partisan in the sense that we should look at the intent and purpose of legislation and be able to look well beyond narrow party bounds.

I found this fascinating in regard to this bill. I would like to state categorically that where Bill C-7 speaks of controlling drugs and substances it gets the wholehearted support of the Reform Party. For the member for Dartmouth, I cannot say that strongly enough.

I want to go on from that statement but have it remembered through this discourse. Not so long ago Bill C-85 was in the House and the member and his colleagues were sitting on the other side. I would like hon. members to judge the partisanship that was registered about Bill C-85 at that time.

The member said that the present bill is simply codifying regulations. What did the member and his colleagues say about it not yet a year ago? I have gone back to the committee minutes and have a few of them here.

The member from Winnipeg, a colleague that I value, said the following: "The subject has not been given any media attention yet. I understand it was given first reading almost a year ago in June 1992. To rush through it within a couple of months will not speak well of Parliament at the least".

The same member said: "I do not want us to give any wrong impressions to the Canadian public about this very serious bill. It needs serious study". That is not partisan apparently when spoken by member of the opposition who was a Liberal.

I go on. This comment was not made by a Liberal but another member of the committee and in response to a specific question. "My understanding was that the bill would be passed to second reading on the understanding that we give it a thorough examination in committee. I agreed to that with one speaker and we agreed to that within our party. Then it gets into the committee and we are rushing through it to beat-" and there the member used an unparliamentary word, "-and for what, so Madam Sparrow can take on the Reform Party, is that it? I don't understand. We'd be nowhere?".

These comments go on, comments made by my colleagues on the other side of the House now. I cannot say this strongly enough. If the bill is flawed enough to cause them to create a great stir in committee, surely the bill is flawed enough today to listen to constructive-I say this loudly to the member-criticism of this bill.

Maybe the member will look down at his feet and say constructive criticism cannot come from a member on this side. Surely it can come from a member on this side. It went on. Members spoke about really getting worried. Here is a commit-

tee with the government side trying to ram through the legislation. It even talked about putting closure on.

This bill took months and months in the previous Parliament. Surely it should not hurt to take a few hours of debate in this House that would be listened to. I am almost at a loss of words to listen to how partisanship could only happen on this side of the House.

I wanted to go over other comments made by people who appeared in front of the House. They were by S.J. Usprich and J.R.M. Solomon when reviewing this bill. These are not parliamentarians. They are individuals commenting on this bill. They said that this was a poorly drafted, intentionally over broad and vaguely worded piece of legislation. I agree.

I wanted to talk about some things in this bill that are good. It is traditionally suitable to only complain. I wanted to say what things I agreed with from the specific aspects that I am going to talk about. These are the medical aspects.

With the attempts to curb abuse of designer drugs and look alike drugs I agree. Stimulants, depressants, hallucinogenics, these drugs have proliferated in the laboratories of our country and our laws do not and have not kept up with those problems.

There is legislation in this act to prevent double doctoring. There is a huge black market in prescription medications. One of the easiest things for people to do is shop from doctor to doctor, getting the same prescription filled over and over again. The only way we have of preventing that is for our pharmacists to have access to the computers and to be able to catch that.

Double doctoring is a significant problem, an issue that I agree with fully. There are other things that would help this. Triplicate prescriptions will help. The use of computers at all pharmacies will also help but there are very specific provisions in this bill that are very vague and broad.

I heard a member from the Bloc speak about the things that an individual could inspect as they came into the practitioner's office; for example, open and examine any receptacle or package, examine anything found in that place, examine any label, take records, books or other documents, seize and detain, reproduce any document.

It was not so long ago that I had one of my colleagues say to me that patient confidentiality was being eroded in our country. Patient confidentiality is very important. Concerning the woman coming in to speak with her physician about sexual abuse when she was young, asking if these records are confidential, will anybody be able to look at them, the answer if this act is brought in will be no, your records are not confidential. That is a problem.

I thought I would take a light hearted look at a bit of the bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo in this bill. We talk about bureaucratise. The governor in council may, by regulation, designate any regulation made under this act as a regulation. In other words, we can make regulations about regulations to regulate whatever we want, including regulations. That is nonsense.

The act is also full of very specific definitions of the subjects and the substances covered in this bill and then goes on to say the governor in council may amend any of the schedules by adding to them or deleting from them any item or portion of an item. That does not fit with the exactitude that an act like this requires.

In our country I believe criminal justice needs a thorough review. This bill should be part of that review. Gun control issues need a thorough review. The Young Offenders Act needs a thorough review. Victims' impact statements need a thorough review. Let us listen to the Liberal members who sat on committee a year ago and said that this act needs a very thorough review before it goes to second reading.

Whether or not the government is willing to take this to the justice committee or the health committee, I personally feel that it should be in the justice committee. I listened to the Solicitor General in this House agree to that. I also heard one of the justice committee members saying he felt that this should go to justice.

I would ask the members to recollect again my comment that in terms of the criminal justice issue with this act we are in total agreement. The bill is poorly crafted, poorly worded and has flaws in it that are almost too great to address in committee. I would ask the government to review very carefully this aspect of this act and to put it to the justice committee as we suggested.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could make a comparison between Bill C-85 and Bill C-7. Could she comment on how similar these two bills are?

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member has dulled his partisan tongue. If he had not dulled it I expect we might need an ambulance over here.

I would like to ask the member, since he spoke so eloquently about non-partisan comments on this specific bill, would he reflect back to the 34th Parliament upon the comments made by the Liberal members of the committee when they were reviewing this bill. I am sure he will know about that.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

I hear a cry for more. That is the way the hon. member was talking about closure then, referring to another comment. He sits here deadly silent now. He does not dare discuss this issue now because he knows what he said then was right. This is talking about someone else from the other side who had crossed and had the same problem with closure.

I want to make it very plain, the use of time allocation and closure is wrong. It is draconian. They both limit the debate on issues to a time period convenient to the government. They are like a calm and beautiful sea: very appealing to the senses, but a rocky reef lies just beneath the surface. I wonder what it is about crossing from this side to that side of the House. Suddenly the issue seems to be very different.

I also have a great deal of difficulty listening to some of the arguments from members opposite saying that we should swallow the soup of this bill because in it the bill allows us to limit the number of parliamentarians. That one part of the proposal I wholeheartedly endorse. I do not think Canada needs more than 295 parliamentarians. I promise if my colleagues brought a bill to us which said that one thing, they would have wholehearted concurrence from this group of Reformers.

However when it is brought with a soup full of other things, one does not get concurrence. Referring to that one issue in this bill does not make the soup palatable because the soup contains the strychnine of closure. That is not correct. I repeat: Bring to us a bill that says Parliament will not need to grow. Bring to us a bill that says Parliament can shrink and support will be immediate and forthcoming.

This brand new Parliament gives us the opportunity to change the way Parliament functions. We have the opportunity in this Parliament to say no to things like time allocation. We have an opportunity in this Parliament to say no to party meddling in boundary changes. We have an opportunity in this Parliament to say no to wasting $5 million of taxpayers' money on an exercise that need not be stopped completely. It could be modified. We have an opportunity with new parliamentarians to say no to this type of politics.

In my riding there are problems with the boundary adjustments which are fairly major. However I would rather lose the next election because of boundary changes that were not proper. I would rather lose that election than be saddled with a parliamentary process like this one.

I take this opportunity to express these things in the strongest way I can. If the issue of closure and time allocation was right when they were on this side of the House then it is right when they are on that side. You cannot change the colour of your underwear when you cross the floor. You have to have some basic principles. You cannot change the colour of your hat because you have gone from this side to that side. You have to have basic principles. It is not good enough to just espouse vocally from this side of the House to that side of the House. There must be some principle. We cannot have it both ways.

I speak against this bill, this closure and this process and I do it as strongly as I can.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise in the House today and do something unusual. I wanted to compliment the Liberals across the way. I wanted to compliment them on the red book.

In my view the red book is an unusual process in Canadian electoral politics. The red book is a departure from the standard fare of Canada's process. The red book actually lays out in front of all Canadians some promises which the party said was its platform and upon which its members would present their issues.

I wanted to compliment them as well on their motives. I believe theirs are pure motives. They do have the best interests of Canada at heart.

While we may have philosophical differences, the fact is we basically want the same things for our children. We want a good education and good jobs for our children. We would like safe streets for our kids and we would like safety nets if our children have serious problems in their lives.

The government has a role to play in those goals. Our government probably has lost some popularity in Canada. I reflect upon some poll results I read the other day. In terms of occupations, politicians were on the bottom rung just being beaten by lawyers. I wondered how we could improve the image of politicians.

I actually explored the red book wondering what my colleagues were attempting to do in terms of improving the image of politicians. I found that a Liberal government would take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government. That is on page 92 of the red book. I went a little farther and found that MPs would be more able to draft legislation. There would be a parliamentary review of some senior Order in Council appointments. I thought that was good stuff. My compliments for those things in the red book.

I did find some inconsistencies. I am sure members did not think the compliments would last forever. There is a disadvantage to first being in opposition and subsequently occupying the government benches. The disadvantage is there is a visible and vocal record. That record is on the use of closure by time allocation.

I refer to some documentation that expresses what the members opposite said not so very long ago: "This government is trampling on the rights of Parliament. A Liberal government would never do such a thing. This is a complete breach of parliamentary practice. It is a shocking display of the inability of the government to come to grips with the fact that it was elected to be responsible to this House of Commons. It was elected to do so and it is not being responsible. It is trampling all over this House".

It goes on: "One thing we are labouring under tonight is a closure motion. I could not go along with that bill without expressing my distaste at the activities of the government. It is a disgraceful performance. The government is obviously fearful of bringing its legislation before Parliament and having it exposed to the light of public scrutiny. If I had introduced legislation of the kind the government has, I would be embarrassed as well. I want to again say in the strongest terms that by using closure in this debate the government has shown complete contempt for democracy".

This is quite a fat document. I could go on but maybe I should stop.

[Health, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I really wanted a progress report that would give us some idea of what the report was.

[Health, March 23rd, 1994]

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

On Monday we heard that Dr. Doug Kennedy was going to Toronto to get us some information on blood samples from the Red Cross. A progress report, please.