Grant Hill

[Health Care, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the national forum on health is an abject failure, but there is a meeting going on right now that might bear some fruit. The provincial health

ministers are meeting in B.C. Is the government going to listen to constructive suggestions coming from that meeting?

[Health Care, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, another issue of importance on the Canadian agenda is health care, even in Quebec.

The Liberals made a promise in the red book to have a national forum on health care chaired by the Prime Minister. Could we have a progress report, please?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell talk about how he had only given a fair share to the pension plan and he expected to get a fair amount back.

I wonder if he could respond to a question. We had a financial expert come to our caucus to talk about what we should do since we were opting out of the plan. His first piece of advice to the Reform Party as a professional financial adviser was: "Don't opt out of this pension, it is the best pension plan in Canada".

Would that change the member's mind about his comments that this is a very fair pension plan?

[National Registry Of Drugs And Implanted Medical Devices, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the motion is fairly broad and the mover actually took some pains to narrow the focus of her motion. I am going to do the same. I have respect for the mover. The member for Yukon has a significant and specific interest in this subject.

The hon. member did take the time to focus on silicone breast implants and went on to say that this motion would be a voluntary motion where physicians and patients would voluntarily comply, that it would help with notification and the tracking of those individuals who had medical device problems.

If we look carefully at the issue of silicone breast implants we could say that a registry of these devices would have been a help in tracking those women who had them implanted. As it turned out it was consumer groups that took up the slack, women who had advocacy groups set up to take that information. Today that is still the case. Whether a government registry would have been the most cost efficient and best mechanism for this, I am not convinced. I leave that as a question I cannot answer.

As the member spoke about silicone breast implants, she suggested that it was the FDA in the U.S. that was really the instigator of our regulatory process here in Canada. Because this is a subject of great personal interest to me, I went back and researched very carefully the genesis of this problem. I am not sure I agree with the member on this specific issue. Let me tell this House what I found on silicone breast implants.

One of the very first individuals in the world who expressed concern about silicone breast implants was a scientist of our Canadian HPB. This scientist went to the manufacturer of the Meme implant and found manufacturing techniques that he said were completely unacceptable for a device to be implanted in the human body. He came home to Canada and made that public

over a fair portion of time. I have copies of his original memo saying that he had grave reservations and he advised the HPB to discontinue the certificate of compliance for the Meme implant.

What happened to that scientist? He was fired. The HPB, through pressures that went beyond the scientific data, fired him. That scientist, a Canadian, was not at all convinced that he was wrong and he went to the FDA in the United States and asked if it had any concerns. He was personally instrumental in getting the FDA to move toward the moratorium that subsequently was established.

If members who were not part of the debate in this House on the breast implant issue want to go back and look at a fascinating series of documents, I invite them to do that. It sounds like a spy story with manufacturers making claims, the health minister making promises, the regulators involved in the middle and finally, a big moratorium established. Most people know the subsequent events of the manufacturers having been accused of some inappropriate behaviour and lawsuits are now on the table.

I go back to the regulatory process. A scientist in a very good department said there was a problem and he was fired. What has happened to him since? Has he been honoured in Canada? Has he been elevated on a pedestal as a hero of the regulatory process? Not a chance. Today that scientist is still vilified by his record from HPB.

I think that someday Dr. Pierre Blais will stand in this Chamber to be recognized for his contribution to the health of women in this country. Someday he will be recognized for the visionary scientist that he was, the man who put his reputation on the line, who put his avocation on the line, who said that it is more important to tell the truth than it is to go through a process of saying that it is okay.

I direct all my comments to: Is our regulatory process in Canada effective and efficient? Is it the best regulatory process? Politicians, and I include myself in this group, should only be certain the regulators are doing their job.

I have watched with great interest BST. What is happening to BST? It has become a political hot potato. Forces from three different directions are coming at us on BST.

I simply say that when members of Parliament start to think they are scientists, that they are regulators, they are stepping beyond their purview. We, as politicians, should be making sure the regulatory process is perfect, as best as it can be. When the scientists make their decision to make certain that new data, new information is readily available to them, then politicians should get out of the regulatory process.

I considered this motion carefully. I have not decided fixed in my own mind that all the things this motion asks for would be suitable for Canada. I do believe that a registry of medical devices makes good sense and I will limit my support to that.

[Health Care, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this plan is actually called waiting list insurance. If a person has to wait more than six weeks for surgery, the company will pay to take them to the U.S. to have it done.

Instead of handing us rationing and rhetoric will the minister admit that reasonable access is a thing of the past in Canada?

[Health Care, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, medicare waiting lists are now so long that an American firm is selling insurance here. This is a disgrace. Health care delayed is health care denied. Can the health minister explain why medicare waiting lists are so long?

[Free Votes, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker.

There are strange things done when the midnight sun Has set in the month of June, By politicians old who set as their goal To make us sing their tune. There's little time left, so let's be deft And invoke tight party rule, For we know what's best and ignore the rest And oh, can we be cruel. If a pesky MP says, "This bill's not for me", That's a sticky situation, Like a ton of bricks, we'll stop those tricks, And revoke the nomination. But the citizens of this land we love Have had it up to here, With the ancient way this game is played, Oldtime politicians should fear. For when a member of this House Votes against the party, They solemnly stand for a new type of land That the voters say is hearty. There soon won't be space In this marvellous place, All the members to try Who have stood with pride And been muscled aside But have said to the old ways, goodbye!

[Petitions, June 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have a 25 signature petition asking Parliament not to enact legislation to amend the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

I agree with this petition.

[Firearms Legislation, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when the Canadian Medical Association first looked at this bill it supported its objectives. When it went through the bill thoroughly, it said it was unconvinced about registration. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Yukon all say the same. It is a nice way of saying the bill will not work.

Will the justice minister admit in the House that Bill C-68 on gun control is unravelling?

[Firearms Legislation, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's doctors are experts on saving lives. Bill C-68 is designed to do the same. Today the Canadian Medical Association said that it is "unconvinced that the registration provisions in Bill C-68 will be effective in reducing suicides or homicides".

The justice minister says he will consult the experts. Will he listen to Canada's healers?