Grant Hill

[Government, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker:

When the last election battle Was engaged the red book won The promises all there to see In plain talk they were put down A new way to do politics Make commitments that you'd keep The public would be reassured And go right back to sleep The problem's not the deficit Don't get hung up on the debt Just get everyone back working Jobs, jobs, jobs we need, you bet We'll save our social programs

And replace the G.S.T. The infrastructure program will Bring work for you and me To show we're really serious We'll give special attention To a symbol that the public hates We'll reform the M.P. pension But history won't be so kind The red book makes me choke a bit It gave us a brand new political phrase We now know the hypogrit

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will reflect on the position I took in my town hall meetings. I signed a document in front of my constituents saying that I would not accept the current MP pension. Those witnesses signed as well. I found that to be a different way to handle this issue rather than a tired old promise about the MP pension plan.

I was lucky enough, and some would not consider it so, to be elected to this position. I went to the department of supply and services my very first day here and said that I did not want to take part in the MP pension plan. I told the young man that I had made a promise to my constituents. The MP pension plan was not fair and I wanted to withdraw from it. He told me I was crazy, that it was a lot of loot. I agreed that it was a lot of loot, but asked how I could withdraw. He told me I could not withdraw. I did not want to participate so I asked him what I should do. He said that the money would be taken from me, but I could sign a document saying that I would not participate in the MP pension plan.

That is what I did. I wrote down that I did not wish to accept the MP pension plan and asked that the contribution not be taken off my paycheque. The young fellow told me that I was the first MP in Canadian history to withdraw from the MP pension plan.

I reflected on his comment that I was crazy, that it was a lot of loot. Why would a sensible person in my position withdraw from the MP pension plan? Am I a bit loony? Am I independently wealthy? Can I say this is insignificant to me?

In my lifetime I have raised seven children on one income. In 25 years of practice in medicine I have saved $80,000 toward my retirement by putting money into RRSPs. That money is the only money I will draw when I retire. I need a pension.

I asked my constituents: Do you think that an MP should get a pension? Universally they said you bet, but all it needs is to be fair. When I asked what they considered to be fair, they simply said: "You put up a buck and we will put up a buck. It goes in the pot and when the pot is empty you are done". That is what Reformers are asking for.

I ask my Liberal colleagues in their caucus meetings to think about the discussion which took place on this issue. New members of Parliament faced people on their doorsteps as I did. There are 100 brand new Liberals who know they are wrong on the MP pension issue.

This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue that reflects integrity. Why has government lost integrity? I have gone over statements that were made over the last 15 years, back to 1976, concerning the budget. "Now that the recovery is well established and private spending is rising, it is equally appropriate these record deficits should recede". That was a statement by Donald Macdonald.

Michael Wilson: "When the government came to office we encountered a debt problem of massive proportions. The buck was passed to us. Well, the buck stops here". On we go to Don Mazankowski: "We will substantially reduce the deficit". All the while the deficit was climbing, going to the ceiling. Finally, we get to the government of today which says exactly the same thing.

Is there integrity in these Chambers? We are told that MPs will be eligible for pension at age 55. I got my calculator out and calculated the average age of MPs in the House. It is 49.4 years. Think of it. We will not have to wait long.

I went home and asked the people in my riding, the butcher in Pincher Creek, the pharmacist in Blairmore, the grain farmer in Vulcan, the housewife in Fort Macleod, the retired doctor in Claresholm, the stockman in Nanton, the nurse in High River, the barber in Okotoks, the teacher in Bragg Creek, the elder on the Siksika Nation: What do you think of the newly reformed pension plan. They replied this pension plan is wrong.

I started my intervention today by saying I wanted to thank the Liberals opposite, and I do. I want to thank them for giving me the opportunity of telling my constituents that if I choose, I can run in Macleod for the rest of my days on this issue alone. I have been given the platform that tells people there is integrity in some parts of the House of Commons.

As I did for the pension plan when I arrived, I will be withdrawing my name from this pension plan, as will my colleagues. I wish to say loudly and clearly to the House that I would like a fair pension. I would like to be able to look my constituents in the eye and say: "You put up a dollar for me and I will put up a dollar which will go toward my retirement". That is fair, that is just, that is equitable, that is proper. I will not take this pension plan.

In every forum, think of it for the next election. Line up the candidates and ask whether they will take the MP pension plan. As was said when I campaigned: "Oh, no". There is a group who will not take this pension plan but will reform it. How will they reform it? With 100 more Reformers here, a transmission across the floor and then the MP pension plan will be reformed and reformed properly.

Once again, thanks to Liberal strategists, thanks to senior cabinet ministers, thanks to the class of '88, thanks to all those who did not listen to the new Liberals, thanks to the old time politicians and thanks to the Bloc for making Reformers the only individuals in this Parliament with integrity on this issue. Thank you very much.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will approach this issue in a slightly different way than my colleagues have. I thank the members opposite for providing an issue that will guarantee my re-election in Macleod.

As I campaigned this was a significant issue. I tried to figure out in my community why this had become so symbolic of what is wrong with government. I tried to figure out why this was a flash point for the public at home for me.

I found that during the campaign when the question was asked of all the members who were running in my area what they thought of the MP pension plan, the incumbent said nothing. The Liberal candidate said: "I will not take the plan". The NDP candidate said: "I will not take the plan". I found myself aligned with those two individuals.

I looked for a different way to say to those potential constituents of mine that I will not take the plan. I wrote in public a letter to my constituents: "I, Grant Hill, the Reform Party candidate for the Macleod riding, do hereby state that I strongly oppose the current MP pension plan. I will not accept this pension if I become eligible for it and I will do everything that I can do to reform the plan and make it fair".

Then I had the people of my constituency witness it. I went around to my public meetings. I am sure members opposite would like me to table this document. I am willing to do that.

[Health Care, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, along with the Reform Party, all provinces are now asking that Ottawa define core health services. This is imperative. The provinces want to know where the government stands on health care.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if the government will open up the Canada Health Act to define core essential services?

[Canada Health Act, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were asked last week whether they think health care is affordable. Ninety per cent said they think health care will deal with fewer services in the future than now. Even the Prime Minister said medicare must return to basics.

Reformers say let us make these changes in the open with consultation rather than by default and with stealth.

Again, will the Prime Minister open the Canada Health Act to open review?

[Canada Health Act, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Keith Banting, a social policy expert, said: "This government's fiscal policies are eroding the Canada Health Act by stealth". These harsh words join a chorus who agree with Reform: Tom Courchesne, the Canadian Medical Association and others.

Will the government openly table changes to the Canada Health Act to preserve medicare?

[Firefighters, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, firefighters and paramedics respond when we call 911 for their help. They rush to our aid with little regard for their own personal safety. Sometimes they are injured. Sometimes they are infected. They approach Parliament this week with a simple request: "Inform us if we have a risk of infection". This proposal will not produce new testing, will guarantee patient confidentiality and would never result in someone going without the help they desperately need.

In a sense the firefighters are calling 911 to the Minister of Health but she has put them on hold. They deserve better. I call on the health minister to act now.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Lethbridge said, there is a common ground between Quebec and many other parts of the country. On this issue where it speaks specifically about withdrawing from areas of provincial responsibility we do have common ground.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I can frankly say that I have not had any such consultations. In my part of the country the general consensus is that the federal government is too intrusive and has lost its moral authority. The $1,522 debt that it has discharged on every person in Canada has left them without the ability to do what they have traditionally wanted to do. Therefore there is no sense of that in my part of the country at all.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address this problem.

I had an opportunity to meet with some graduates in my constituency last Friday from three classes of high school students in three different areas. I asked each one of these classes, "Why do you think health, post-secondary education, and welfare are being reviewed in Canada today?" They said to me: "We think this is a political agenda. This somehow is something the politicians must do."

When I explained to them I took from some brand new federal documents from StatsCan the following figures. These figures are a fascinating indictment of some of the things we have tried to do in our country. Servicing the federal government debt will cost $1,522 per person in 1994-95. The federal government in 1994-95 will spend $268 per person on health and $168 on post-secondary education. That is $1,522 compared to $268 and $168.

The students in those three high school classes said to me: "Isn't that the problem then? Isn't that the problem for Quebec? Isn't that the problem for Alberta?" My answer is yes, that is the problem.

It would be very easy to be an opposition member and point fingers and blame the Liberal government. I do not think that is helpful.

In the same report it goes on to say-just in case those in Quebec think they can point the finger only at the federal government-that the provincial debt in Quebec is the highest in Canada, at $8,413 per person.

These figures go on to show all the provinces lined up in terms of their debt. The next closest is Nova Scotia, with $8,405, all the way down to Alberta, at $1,404 per person. I invite members to look at these documents. They are publicly available.

It is not sufficient to stand back as an Albertan and say it is the problem of the federal government. This is a Canadian problem, a problem far too big to be pointing fingers at.

I have had occasion to try to determine who is leading the debate in Canada. My big interest is health care, and I find that the public is far ahead of the politicians in this debate. The CBC has just done a four-part program on the future of our health care system, something that is unheard of in Canada. At the end of their four-part program it did a survey and asked Canadians if health care, the way it is set up today, is affordable. This question was not asked in a political sense; it was asked to practical, commonsense Canadians: Can we afford health care the way it is set up today?

Before I go to the answer, 57 per cent said health care was the most important government social program. I agree. However, about 90 per cent of Canadians polled in that survey said they expected medicare would cover fewer services in the future; 45 per cent predicted all necessary services would be retained;

another 45 per cent said only the most essential services would be covered and that most people would have to pay for much of the other health care needs.

When Reformers stood in the House last Thursday to initiate the first debate on health care in the House literally in years, an old time parliamentarian said to me: "Is it not interesting who should initiate this debate on health care? There has not been such a debate for years." When we stood in the House and initiated this debate, the press said you cannot talk about this, it is a sacred program; you cannot talk about changes to health care. However, the public in Canada says otherwise. I think the public is ahead of the politicians.

Can we trust the government to do what is right? Can we trust the party opposite, the government of the day, to do what is right? I do not believe that we could hope for anything but. On health care, this government will do what is right. Canadians value this program so strongly that no one could get away with doing what is wrong on health care. Can we trust the government to move in the right direction on health care reform?

I listened to the Prime Minister say he felt that health care needed to return to basics. When my province asked for a definition of the basics, the hands went up and the answer came: "No chance for that". A senior medical practitioner in Quebec said virtually the same thing. And this is new information. It comes from the senior general medical practitioner in Quebec who said there needs to be a change in the way health care is delivered because "the Quebec public health care system is on the brink of bankruptcy." Those are Dr. Clément Richer's words, not mine.

Is the rhetoric sufficient on social program review? It is not. Are promises that were made in the red book 18 months ago sufficient on social program reform? They are not. Quebec is asking and I believe the Bloc is asking to be treated fairly under the new proposals. I support them in that request. They deserve to be treated fairly as does every citizen in Canada. Shall we blame, argue, point fingers? My advisers say no, we need to find solutions.

The motion the Bloc has presented is well intentioned, however, it does not point to any solutions. It seems to me to be pointing fingers. Members of the Bloc should look at Quebec's own debt. Look at the $8,400 worth of provincial debt. Consider that with the $18,000 of debt which is federal. The two go hand in hand and are extremely important.

I ask the question, what will keep Quebec in Canada? Surely that is my desire. Quebecers need the freedom to nourish their culture and their language. They need authority over areas of provincial jurisdiction. I feel that Quebecers looking at Canada as most Canadians look at Quebec, equals working toward a common goal. The rhetoric will die out. Practicality will win out.

I listened to the Minister of Health ask on Thursday, how would Reformers coerce the provinces into following national standards, and I shake my head. The provinces do not need to be coerced into following social program review. They need to have the tools. They need to have the information. They need to have the co-operation. They need to have the work of every single man and woman in these chambers.

It is a privilege to be a member of this House. When parliamentarians argue and gripe and frown and grimace at one another it sometimes detracts from the importance of the job that we do here. I dedicate my service to try to make sure that we have good social programs in Canada, programs that will survive the economic crisis we are in. That service is too important to be denigrated by arguing.