Grant Hill

[Elections Canada, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, chief electoral officers represent Elections Canada in every constituency in Canada. They are supposed to be unbiased and impartial.

When I found out that the Liberals were breaking another campaign promise by systematically turfing out the old officers and replacing them with their pals, I did some checking.

All the old officers were fired. None had been offered the job and none saw the position advertised. The new officers had no special skills and were just well connected to, guess who, the Liberals. This breaks another red book promise to return integrity to politics.

Reform's solution is simple: advertise openly and make sure you hire the best person. The chief returning officers should not be political hacks, period.

[Health, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, melatonin burst on the alternative medical scene with a flourish. Produced naturally in the brain of humans it has claimed to have benefits for jet lag-something MPs know about-and aging, which no politician needs worry about.

The health protection branch in Ottawa says this natural product has not been studied enough to guarantee that it is safe. No evidence of direct harm, mind you, after millions of doses.

Its solution is to ban the sale of melatonin in Canada. However, it allows the purchase of three month's personal supply from the U.S. Recently health food stores in B.C. have been charged for this infraction.

If melatonin is really unsafe, ban it. If it is okay to buy melatonin from the U.S., let it be sold by Canadians. We thought jobs, jobs, jobs meant jobs here at home.

[Criminal Code, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer to the House a personal experience today on how section 745 has affected my life.

Fourteen years ago, one block from my home at a convenience store a young woman about the age of the young pages we have with us in the House was abducted. Her disappearance from that convenience store that night put my small community in a state of panic. No one knew what had happened to Laurie Boyd. She had disappeared.

The panic our community felt was something that touched me personally. My wife was afraid to leave our home and travel the short distance to Calgary. My daughter who was about the same age, within a year, was afraid to walk to school.

Laurie's body was found by a good friend of mine and it was unrecognizable. I was the personal physician of the Boyd family. I knew them well. I had treated them, counselled with them and looked after them in sickness, and so I anguished personally with them over their loss.

There were rumours in Okotoks about what had happened, rumours that some criminals had an undercover police car and a police light they were using to attract and murder individuals. There had been two murders in our community.

One of my colleagues in High River hospital had a patient that tried to commit suicide. Under the effect of the drugs he had tried to commit suicide with he confessed to the two murders. He and his partner were then apprehended. The story of the murder of Laurie Boyd is something I will never forget, the story of how they enticed her to go to the back of the convenience store and clapped her in a van. They took her out to an abandoned gravel pit, forcibly raped her, promised her they would let her go, stabbed her repeatedly with a screwdriver and then poured on her dead body gasoline and made her unrecognizable.

I guess I will never forget it because with the family I went over that specific issue in my mind, in my eye and in counselling with them. When the court proceedings went through the horrible crime, these two beasts-and I say that word harshly but that is how I felt-received the most serious penalty anyone could receive in Canada. They were guilty of premeditated, first degree murder. I and the family felt some small satisfaction in that penalty. Life without chance of parole was the sentence from that judge.

The Boyds then went on to try to recreate their lives, Trevor the son, Darlene and Doug. We stayed in close touch and they did rebuild their lives.

I then found myself as an MP some years later. I had a call from my old friend, Darlene. She said: "I have to talk to you, Grant". She came to my office and said: "Tell me this isn't so. Tell me that Jim Peters cannot get out in 15 years. Tell me that section 745 is not true". I said to her: "Darlene, it is true but there is hope. There is a member from another party who has a private member's bill on the table and it received support in the House of Commons to go to committee. There is hope that 745 will be tossed in the dustbin of history. It is at the committee stage. I am pretty sure that because of the unanimity that exists in the House the bill will be passed and we will see 745 gone. The one remaining beast, as the second one killed himself in prison, will not get out".

Darlene said: "Thank you, Grant. Thank you for that reassurance. Thank you for that advice". It was not too long after that when she came back and said: "I hear that private member's bill is not going to make it. What should I do?" "Well, Darlene, campaign for the abolition of 745", was my advise.

Darlene Boyd resurrected the trauma in her life to do just that. She personally was responsible for the names in the Calgary Sun , the chorus of people crying for the abolition of 745. She has travelled at her expense throughout Canada to get 745 abolished.

I have to stand in public and say to her: "Darlene, I am sorry. I think the government of this day will not do what must be done. Section 745 in my view should be abolished but I do not believe that it will be abolished with this government".

What happened to the other members who with me said the bill from the member for York South-Weston should go to committee and should be considered carefully? What happened to those individuals who agreed in principle with abolishing section 745 of the Criminal Code? I have listened to some of them speak here and they say Bill C-45 is enough and that it will still provide a glimmer of hope. I have heard them say it does not bother the victims' families to go through this.

My message is simple and clear, as I have counselled again with the Boyd family on this issue. The individual who tore their lives apart, who will have his hearing in February, has torn their lives apart again.

I know the justice minister has compassion in his heart for Jim Peters. Jim Peters, who perpetrated this crime and who was sentenced to 25 years without chance of parole, a major sentence in

Canada, is being treated with leniency. Darlene Boyd and her family are not. I believe that is wrong.

[Petitions, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today that specifically ask Parliament to enact Bill C-205 introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West. It is a bill that would prevent criminals from profiting from the heinous crimes which they have committed.

These petitions are from people in my constituency of Macleod and I am proud to present them.

[Krever Inquiry, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Krever has investigated Canada's blood transfusion system for two and a half years. His mandate is to find out how so many innocent Canadians were handed a death sentence from a simple blood transfusion.

Today Krever is an expert in blood. He is independent, he is unbiased. Yet this government has undermined and subverted Krever at every turn; undermined him in court; subverted him with big changes to the system before his report and without his input.

Reform challenges the health minister and his colleagues. Let Justice Krever speak. He will surely recommend that accountability rests squarely on the shoulders of the health minister. Come to think of it, maybe that is what this minister is afraid of.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, definitely I want to reply with vigour.

The issue which the member has missed completely is whether there is some risk with hemp. There is a risk with hemp: detection of the illegal plant. This should not have come through the back door. It should not have come through the Senate. It should not have come through as an amendment. It should not have come through quietly. It should have come through openly. The member sitting across the way knows full well that did not happen. I am disappointed and I believe the Canadian public will be disappointed.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8 has been a complex and long lived bill in this House. It was the first bill I was the watchdog for, so I have watched the process very carefully.

Reformers had one big concern with this bill in that the bill gave very broad powers to the minister and to the bureaucracy that would have affected the health food industry. The clause that caused us the most concern said that the minister could deem any depressant, stimulant or hallucinogenic and include those in the schedules.

I am proud of Canadians on that issue. Canadians with a little bit of help decided that was not suitable. The health food industry has stimulants, depressants and hallucinogenics. Our office was a bit of a focus for what I consider to be a campaign against that clause in Bill C-8. There were petitions, faxes and a huge amount of interest on the bill and we were able to get that clause kicked out. Our efforts were rewarded.

There is still a problem in the bill in that the regulatory powers of the governor in council still allow anything that is deemed to be in the public interest to be inserted in the bill. Although that is better than the minister deeming, it is not what I consider to be an open and democratic way to include things in a bill.

I looked over the amendments. I found them to be pretty standard amendments, crossing t s and small changes, until I found a very significant amendment to the bill, an amendment that was spoken of in a press release yesterday. I received these amendments at 10 o'clock last night. It is difficult to look at amendments when one does not have the bill and the amendments, but there was something brand new in the bill which had not been debated in public.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned that hemp is now being facilitated by Bill C-8. I listened in the committee to testimony about whether or not hemp should be included. There were witnesses who talked about hemp as a product for agriculture in Canada. There was no significant approval at that point in time for this direction to be undertaken. A senator, along with other members of the other place, has inserted one very, very tiny sentence in the bill, that "mature cannabis stocks that do not include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches and fibre derived from such stocks are not included in the schedule".

I always thought that if we in Canada were going to have a change in direction it should have public scrutiny. This change in direction has not had public scrutiny. What possible problem would there be for a brand new agricultural product to come on the scene in Canada?

Why do the people concerned with marijuana legalization want so badly to have hemp included? I have never had anybody admit this to me, but I believe and will state on the public record, the reason for this is that the normal cannabis plant can be hidden very easily with the hemp plant early on in the growth stage. Detection at the early stages of cannabis sativa of the inadmissible cannabis plant is very, very difficult. As mature plants they are very distinguishable, but the young plants are not.

I have listened and discussed with those individuals who argue strenuously for hemp. I have tried to figure out whether their only motive was to have another good agricultural product in Canada. I do not find that argument persuasive, but if the argument were persuasive I would have loved to have had this debate publicly.

I believe this was an attempt to sneak this clause past the Canadian public and I use the word sneak advisedly. I go back to my original opposition to the bill, which is that the regulators could very easily include things in the bill that might not get broad public Canadian support. There is no public scrutiny of possible problems.

For the Canadian public who are watching, I say this amendment should have come before the health committee with broader public debate rather than the very quiet press release yesterday and presentation by the parliamentary secretary today. I am not happy at all.

With that issue on the table, I want to mention one other very significant inconsistency in the government's policies. I am going to use a health product as an example of how inconsistent the policy is. Melatonin is the health product.

Melatonin in the past few years has been used for a number of things. It was touted as a fabulous drug for aging, to keep us all young, the fountain of youth. It was touted as being very useful for jet lag, something parliamentarians have some problems with. Because melatonin is a natural product, it has not had the usual number of clinical trials.

Our Department of Health determined that melatonin did not have proof of safety and so it should be banned in Canada. I am fine with that. If there is no proof of safety, do not use it. But then we allow the private individual in Canada to purchase a three months supply in the United States and bring it into the country which seems totally inconsistent to me. Melatonin, if it is not good for us should be banned. If it is okay for us, we should be able to buy it in Canada.

The health food business is going to be impacted by Bill C-8. I am still opposed to the bill because of these broad regulatory powers. I am disappointed in the sneaky issue on hemp. I will now be quiet.

[Petitions, June 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have petitions that requests Parliament to repeal section 745. These petitions add to the 32,000 names I have presented directly to the justice minister. There are 4,274 names in this group today.

[Tobacco Products Control Act, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's comments on tobacco. We share some opinions on this subject.

Going back to my training in medical school, the very first patient assigned to me was a fellow in a veterans hospital. They would not turn us loose on just anyone and I was turned loose on this wonderful fellow who had emphysema. He and I became fairly close. I spent lots of time with him and even went in on the weekends to talk with him. He had been a heavy smoker and really had that disease directly as a result of tobacco.

As we became closer and related one to the other, it was obvious he was coming close to death. During his last few lucid moments he said to me: "Do not let the kids start to smoke". I will never forget that. It had an impact on me throughout my medical career.

I look at legislation and the efforts of the government in that light. What will those efforts do in relation to keeping the kids from smoking? Looking back at the record on smoking in Canada we see it is pretty good. The prevalence of smoking has been going down for about the past 25 years. It has been dropping at a nice steady rate. Almost 50 per cent of Canada's population used to smoke and it is now down to pretty close to 30 per cent.

However, that nice smooth flow downward has had a tick upward. The tick upward can be directly related to a change in tobacco prices in Canada. I know the price was changed to try to cut down on smuggling. However, the price sensitivity for our youth caused them to smoke more. In one year, we lost five years of a drop in smoking prevalence. That is a record which I do not think my colleague across the way should be proud of. It is one he should hang his head on. I hope he can right that loss of five years of prevalence drop we had in one year.

Bill C-24 is designed to bring back the labelling that could have been lost with the change in the judicial action on the Tobacco Products Control Act. This bill is a status quo bill except that the warnings will be attributed, if the tobacco companies agree, to Health Canada.

What about the blueprint? The blueprint was presented to the Canadian public with a significant amount of fanfare. The previous health minister, not so long ago in December last year held a major press conference wherein she announced the blueprint. I remember well she said: "I have new information that will withstand any court challenge, new information that will prove that advertising of tobacco products really is bad news".

I thought that was great. I wrote to the health minister literally that week asking for the new data. If I remember the words that I used, I said that I would like to become a slobbering supporter of the blueprint. Possibly my choice of words was a little flippant but what I wanted to say was that I would love to be an enthusiastic supporter of the blueprint.

Nothing came. There was no reply. I could understand if the minister had said that she did not want this information to be used for political purposes and that she would release it at the appropriate time. I can understand the minister saying that it was in process, but I did not get a response.

The new minister came along. I sent the new minister my congratulatory letter. It is polite in Parliament to write a letter to the new minister. I said: "Congratulations for your new responsibilities. I hope we will have a long and productive life together and an interesting interchange. Please could you provide me with the new data that was suggested at the press conference, this exciting new data that will withstand a court challenge? I want to be an enthusiastic supporter of the blueprint".

I did get a response, after about three months. It was not immediate. I did not get the reaction I had hoped, but I did get a personal response from the minister who said: "We can meet together possibly in late June to go over the data so that you can understand. This is complex." At least there has been some response.

I read in press reports today that there is some problem with the blueprint while the government is finishing its homework. I am puzzled by this. Usually when there is a major press conference, usually when there is a big time announcement, usually they have done their homework first. The current minister said: "It would be foolhardy to move forward without having done our homework. Unfortunately it was not done when I arrived".

I am puzzled. This is a government with massive resources, a government with research capabilities par excellence. I have gone into the data and cannot and have not yet found the information that was promised to me. I have done my own research. I do not have those huge research capabilities. I wonder, going back to that press

conference, was the homework really done or was it an announcement to make someone look better?

The parliamentary secretary has eloquently talked about the health warnings, the addictive nature of smoking, the health problems and that it is highly complex. I wrote these words down as he was going through his address. There is a powerful lobby of printers, artists, the tobacco companies and the health interests. There are big bucks involved and lots of money involved with taxes. Indeed it is a complex subject. Still on tobacco products in Canada we warn of the health risks.

I am also puzzled because recently Bill C-222, by the member for Mississauga South, was before the health committee. This bill was also about health warnings, different warnings on booze, on alcohol. I could go through the list of issues that are related to tobacco and apply them to alcohol: addictive nature, health problems, highly complex, powerful lobby, big bucks. I think those things fit with the alcohol industry.

The member for Mississauga South put forth compelling evidence that fetal alcohol syndrome where there is an innocent bystander could well be affected by health warnings, yet the health warnings were scrubbed on alcohol. The previous minister in this case was strongly supportive. I do not know if the present minister caved in to pressures outside the health interests. I can only presume that. In the press release that came from the department the principle of this bill was supported but the mechanism was uncertain. It is a subtle change in wording but I am not convinced. If labels work for smokes, labels should work for booze.

If Bill C-24 passes intellectual scrutiny as the parliamentary secretary so eloquently stated, then Bill C-222 concerning warning labels on alcohol in reference to fetal alcohol syndrome should also. I ask my colleagues across the way, where is the consistency?

[Volunteerism, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today is my opportunity to pay a public tribute to volunteers in Canada. In particular, I focus on volunteers in the field of health.

My job as the Reform Party health critic has taken me to many Canadians hospitals and clinics. Invariably I have been greeted by cancer clinic volunteers returning their unselfish labour, time and talents to our health system. Many of them are cancer survivors. Some, sadly, have lost loved ones to this serious disease and have been comforted by knowledgeable volunteers themselves. With compassion and love, volunteers sit with lonely patients dying of AIDS, supportive and caring.

On Saturday I watched a telethon conducted by volunteers to raise money for the children's hospital in Calgary. Millions of dollars were raised for the research and treatment of our precious youth.

To volunteers in Canada I simply give to you my heartfelt thanks.