Grant Hill

[Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-315, put forward by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, proposes to improve the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information obtained by corporations. I wonder why he is interested in that. Is privacy important?

As our society advances, new technologies are available to us. Let me talk about two of those new technologies. One I favour is a technology called a smart card. A smart card is designed to have

information encoded on it to prevent abuse of our health care system. Abuse of our health care system is something that most Canadians would like to see addressed. A smart card would allow the individual to present themselves to their physician. The card would be encoded, recent medical information would be accessible which would prevent double doctoring, double testing. In fact, it would prevent some overspending of significant amounts of money. A smart card sounds like a good idea for that purpose.

Let us take that idea one step further. I have seen cards used in the grocery stores where an account can be debited very quickly. I heard someone say that those cards could be made smaller and implanted under the skin. It could have a significant amount of personal information on it. It would be scanned, some numbers punched in and bills could be paid that way.

I also heard it said that the little implanted chip would allow a satellite locating system to know someone's location at any time. Now you could never get lost. That is the final step in the use of the smart card for those of us who are too dumb to figure out where we are.

Are there pitfalls on the issue of privacy with these new computer technologies which are available to us? Are people aware and concerned about computer technology? I believe they are. I can give two recent examples. Ontario is bringing out an omnibus bill in which one of the concerns is the issue of privacy of information. The omnibus bill looks as though it will make information more available to legislators and there is been an outcry about that issue.

Bill C-7, recently passed in the House, had significant components which related to privacy. There were a number of very public concerns about the information being made available. I believe this bill has some component of public concern to it and the interest is reasonable.

When can we go overboard with information that should not be made publicly available? That is my question. When do we go overboard?

I would also like to step back a bit and say that there are times when I do not think information is made publicly available which should be made available. I would like to use two examples.

Across from an elementary school in my riding is a house called the drug house. The teachers say that drugs are sold from that house. They have watched this going on for eight years.

I went to meeting with the RCMP, the mayor and some community activists to find out what could be done about this drug house. Apparently people arrive at the house, quickly go in and out, having made their drug deal and off they go. It is known to the police and the principal and it is now known to the MP. Surely this can be stopped. This is not a great thing to have across the street from an elementary school. Also the junior high school is not far away.

The RCMP told me their hands were tied. My reply was that surely they could go to a justice of the peace and say that there are reasonable grounds to suspect and search this house. I was told that the rights of the individual in that house would be trampled on if we did that. I said that surely the rights of the kids in that elementary school would take precedence. I was told: "No, doc, that is not the way it works. Our legal system has put the rights even. The kids and the people in that house have even rights". I was puzzled by that. I do not agree with that.

I have another example. A man raped a young woman, was caught and sentenced to jail. She in her wisdom wondered whether he could have infected her with a disease. She went to the court and asked that the rapist have a blood test because she was living in fear that she may have AIDS. His reaction was: "No chance. My rights of privacy say you cannot touch me".

I say wait a minute, if the rights of the victim collide with the rights of the criminal, and in this case they do and she has a legitimate need to know, whose rights should take precedence? The victim's rights take precedence over his.

When I tell that to students in high schools, you should see how upset they get. I challenge members opposite to ask students in high schools whose rights should take precedence, his privacy or her need to know. They will say very quickly whose rights should take precedence.

There is another side to the privacy issue, the charter of rights and freedoms, which today does not talk about responsibilities and puts those rights side by side. It needs an adjustment.

In a previous conversation there was talk about banks. Banks have information that is profoundly private. Banks want to get into the insurance business. There has been quite a lobby in that regard. They have a monopoly in the banking interests. They now want to get into the insurance business. Since Reformers are really interested in free enterprise, why would I be concerned about banks stepping into the insurance business?

If they are to step into the insurance business they had better be willing to open up the monopoly they have in other businesses. They had better let the insurance companies in there. They had better let the insurance companies have access to Interac. They had better let the insurance companies have access to the private information on an individual's account, where they spend their money, how they spend their money. It is a very unfair advantage if they are competing with the private insurance business.

On the issue of privacy where the banks are concerned great caution needs to be exercised. There is a need for Bill C-315 by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. There is a need for a look at privacy in relationship to the electronic age we are in. I would like it considered very carefully.

I suppose the government should bring in its own bill which would get the stamp of approval of the government. The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin might well be a little disappointed that his bill did not get in, but probably he would accept that change is needed. I will watch with interest for those changes.

[Fisheries, December 8th, 1995]

You are exhausting.

[Health Care, December 8th, 1995]

Simply, Mr. Speaker, what changed the parliamentary secretary's mind?

[Health Care, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a physician:

Governments which willing undertook the responsibility for funding medicare when there was political mileage to be gained are now reluctant to accept the concomitant financial burden. They try to weasel out of their promise.

The honest alternative would be for governments to confess to the public that they no longer can, or wish to fund medicare.

Those words should be eerily familiar to the parliamentary secretary. They are published words of hers in a 1990 B.C. journal of medicine.

[Health Care, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary to the health minister is a physician from B.C. Some of her colleagues have just built a brand new clinic there. It is innovative and something to be proud of.

Because of her minister, however, that clinic is unavailable to B.C. residents; only to foreigners. Does the parliamentary secretary have any difficulty telling her neighbours waiting in line in pain they cannot access that clinic because of her minister's policies?

[National Unity, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is at a crossroads. We face a profound crisis in the unity of our nation.

I vigorously seek for all politicians to return to the people's agenda instead of the political agenda. The political agenda in Ottawa seeks central power; the people's agenda services closer to home; the political agenda, decisions made by cabinet insiders; the people, decisions made by free votes that express their will; political, big expensive regulatory bureaucracies; people, the minimum intrusion that is possible; political, government will look after our needs; people, leave the tools in our hands and we will do just fine.

The crossroads for Canada looms before us. I am optimistic and enthusiastic. The people always prevail.

[Food And Drugs Act, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking today on Bill C-337, I would like to start by telling a story about Johnny. Johnny was a little fellow who was adopted into a family. This family had enough resources to take on Johnny's responsibilities. They welcomed him with love and care into their home. He had come from a family that had some problems, a broken family.

As Johnny grew he was different from the natural children in this family. His growth was somewhat stunted. He was smaller than the other kids. They thought perhaps it was heredity. When he was old enough to start learning things he seemed to fall behind the other children in the home. He was a very active boy. He had a very strange habit in that he could climb the door frame right to top of the door. He got himself into most peculiar spots in the home. He would climb up on top of the cupboards.

As he got a little older Johnny was hard to control in the sense that he would run away from home and the family would have the police out looking for him. He could be gone for three or four hours and be impossible to find. One day he left home, crawled into a camper down the laneway and found some matches. He built a little bonfire in the camper and lit the camper on fire. This was a neighbour's camper, a most unpopular item.

Johnny loved wildlife. When he was outdoors he was extremely interested in the frogs, the turtles and the insects. He was really happy when he was outdoors.

I am going through his life now. As he got older and became a young teenager it was quite obvious Johnny did not have the mental capabilities of a normal teen. He was stuck somewhere back in preschool in terms of his educational capabilities. He became somewhat aggressive and difficult to handle. He ended up having to become a ward of the government, a ward of the province in which he lived. He had to leave the home that had provided him with love and attention. He had to be looked after by other individuals.

Johnny is now old enough to recognize that he will never hold a productive job. He will always be a responsibility of the government, a responsibility of the province, a responsibility of the individuals who care for him.

It turns out that Johnny's natural mom drank heavily. Johnny was a victim of fetal alcohol syndrome. His mom had so many problems that her life was not complete without alcohol so she drank heavily. Johnny has an incurable problem. His life is completely affected by that early childhood, the time when he was in the womb.

Fetal alcohol syndrome is totally preventable. Early development with alcohol presents birth defects, retardation, hyperactivity, all the things we saw in Johnny. It is totally preventable. All we need to do is make certain that young moms and even older moms when they are pregnant do not drink heavily.

I would like to compare fetal alcohol syndrome to German measles, rubella. How do we treat German measles? We inoculate all women who will become pregnant or could become pregnant. We warn pregnant moms during the first trimester of their pregnancy not to come in contact with German measles. We do rubella tests on them to make certain they have immunity to rubella. We educate and in the instance of rubella we do not have to legislate.

Is legislation necessary in this instance? Bill C-337 calls for putting a warning label on all alcoholic beverages, a warning label that says that consumption of alcoholic beverages can impair a person's ability to operate machinery or an automobile and may cause health problems or birth defects during pregnancies. When should we legislate personal behaviour? When should we legislate what an individual may do in society? We should legislate when there is a third party who has no choice. In this case, with foetal alcohol syndrome, there is a third party with no choice. The infant in the womb has no choice. Legislation in this instance has merit.

I compare this issue to smoking in a public place. In an enclosed place where others are affected by the smoke of a smoker there is a place for legislation.

Reformers generally want to have as small a government and the least intrusive legislation possible. However, in the case of foetal alcohol syndrome legislation may be warranted.

Is this label the way to go? If I were thinking how best to warn women most likely to be affected by foetal alcohol syndrome I would not put a worded label on the bottle, I would put the profile of a pregnant woman on the bottle with a big red X across it. I would direct my efforts toward those women most likely to drink heavily, some of whom are illiterate. In many cases native women are affected by this problem. Some of them would not understand a worded label.

How would I implement such a change? I would first say to the alcoholic beverage companies that legislation would not be necessary if they would comply voluntarily. There is a strong public sentiment for good corporate relationships. I challenge those companies to listen carefully to this debate. Legislation would not be necessary with the proper labelling for foetal alcohol syndrome on bottles. They have shown some willingness to comply by their anti-drinking and driving campaigns. It would be profoundly reasonable to comply on this campaign.

This bill is some evidence that Parliament can co-operate. Reform members are quite keen to see health measures of a preventive nature promoted in Canada. Consequently we will support this bill to the committee stage at this level quite strongly. We are supporting it on my behalf because of my wish for little Johnny to be happy.

[Indian Affairs, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister made a promise in the House, a promise he has failed to keep. Rank and file natives have kept that promise for him while the minister, his officials and band and council on the reserve sit in their ivory towers. Once again, who in this weak-kneed government is going to stand up and stop this environmental pillage?

[Indian Affairs, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a few bad apples on the Stony reserve west of Calgary have resumed illegal tree cutting. Grassroots natives have shut down the logging trucks the minister of Indian affairs said he would shut down.

Who will stand on the government side today and justify this environmental mess?

[Medicare, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, medicare is important to all Canadians.

Medicare deserves a federal health minister who can adapt to major inevitable changes, like new technology, which will be expensive; like a population that is aging, which will also be expensive; and like government debt, with a federal Department of Health spending $1,200 per person per year on debt service and just $268 per person per year on health.

We need a keen, adaptable minister with fresh ideas. What do we have? We have a minister out of her depth, who is fining the provinces for the delivery of health care that does not match her interpretation of the Canada Health Act.

Medicare deserves better. Canadians deserve better. Federal fines for medicare mean failure.