Grant Hill

[Justice, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, commentators will note that the minister did not tell us what is her personal position. Interestingly, before coming to parliament the justice minister wrote:

An increasing number of commentators now suggest that joint custody may simply perpetuate the influence and domination of men over women.

Is that the reason the minister will not state her personal position on joint custody?

[Justice, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has just become the champion of consultation with the provinces. It is interesting she did not consult very much on gun control with the provinces.

On the issue of joint parenting, this is the opportunity for the minister to stand and say what is her personal position on joint parenting.

[Taxation, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Deputy Prime Minister missed what I said. I did not say there were disparaging comments about Alberta. I said that the Prime Minister mused about an export tax on energy.

The Deputy Prime Minister could make this very simple if he would just stand and say that there will be no such export tax on energy. This is his opportunity.

[Taxation, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Prime Minister did insult the Americans.

Yesterday he terrified Albertans by musing about a national energy program, such as export tax on energy.

Here is an opportunity for the Deputy Prime Minister to stand and say that there will not be any NEP, such as export tax on energy, period.

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite was in municipal politics as he said during his intervention. I would like to ask him a question about his time in municipal politics.

I also spent a little time on my town council. Whenever there was an issue that arose in which I had any influence at all, such as property I had owned, or an interest in a roadway or possibly a company that I had some interest in, I always stepped aside and did not vote on or discuss issues like that in the municipal arena.

Did the hon. member ever have the same opportunity to step aside and not vote on an issue in municipal government? Does he see, and I would honestly like to know, a difference between the municipal level and the federal level? I think there is a difference. I do not see nor hear that same approach here.

Did the member have the opportunity to not vote on an issue that he might have had an interest in? Does he think that the same ethical standards should apply in the federal parliament?

[Youth, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, UNICEF Canada had an interesting consultation just over a year ago. It consulted with the youth of Canada to find out what they thought were the most important rights for them. They brought in Elections Canada, and although the results have not been well publicized, I think they are very interesting.

Here is what the kids said were the most important things: first, family; second, food and shelter; third, health; and fourth, education. Then they went on to things like rest and play, protection from harm and non-discrimination.

However number one by a huge majority was the family. I think this deserves to be celebrated. While adults may push in other directions, the youth of Canada have the important rights figured out and in my view in the proper order.

We as adults can learn a lot from our kids. I applaud them. From the maritimes to B.C. youth are our future.

[Blood Samples Act, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill which has significant merit. I should like to give an example from my own life of what the bill would mean.

I had an opportunity to hear a story which troubled me so greatly that I told it to probably 1,500 high school students over my time in parliament. The reaction of the kids in high schools when I tell them this story is dismay.

A young woman was attacked, traumatized and hurt by a sexual predator, a rapist. Luckily her assailant was captured fairly quickly. That capture resulted in his being in custody. The young woman had some medical background and knew she was at risk for infection. She asked the officers who had made the arrest what provisions would be made for the individual to be tested for the diseases that she could be infected by.

The officer said that if the individual agreed, they were fine. The individual did not agree. She said that her rights as a citizen who had been attacked were impacted upon by the individual's rights as a perpetrator.

I have told that story to young people in and outside my riding. I asked them this question. When the rights of the victim and the rights of the rapist collide, whose rights should take precedence? I have yet heard one single youth say that the rights of the rapist should be equal to the rights of the poor victim.

I take that as an endorsement from young people who are not sophisticated in legal matters. They are not lawyers but they have common sense. That common sense is one that I recommend to my colleagues across the way who say they support the concept of looking after the good Samaritan but follow that with a but. That but means the support for firefighters, paramedics, police officers and good Samaritans. It is not going to cut it in the groups I speak with.

I wish to give a more personal example. For those watching television, I have been a practising physician for 25 years. I came to parliament with very specific goals. One evening I was coming home from the hospital on a slippery road and I came across a severe motor vehicle accident.

Prior to my reaching the accident, a young RCMP officer had arrived on the scene. I knew him and I enjoyed his company. We played sports together. The victim of the accident was trapped in the vehicle. He did what he could to get her out. In order to successfully pull her from the vehicle, he cut himself on the broken window. In doing so, his blood came in contact with an open wound on the accident victim's forehead. He told me that he was in trouble because he thought that he could be infected.

Under normal circumstances, we would ask the poor victim to give a blood sample and everything would be fine. There is a period of time when the antibodies are not evident if someone was recently infected. However, somebody like that would never be recently infected. This victim refused. This took me aback. I could not imagine why that would happen.

She happened to confide in me the reason why she refused. She said that when she was young she had done some things with illegal drugs that may have infected her. She said she could not have that known because it would affect her ability to work. It would affect her ability in the community. It would also affect some of the things she did. The victim left the police officer exposed. In my mind, at that instance she completely forgot about a good Samaritan.

Would the bill have an impact on many individuals? It would not. It would have an impact on those individuals who for whatever reason would not willing to be forthcoming with their medical histories. Usually these individuals would be criminals or people with vindictive attitudes. Surely my colleague across the way with his but would not want those individuals when their rights collide to take precedence over the victim.

The bill is such common sense that it should be supported by everyone, even those individuals who say that it is an invasion of privacy for the individual who is the victim. In a case where it is an individual who benefits from the good Samaritan activity, there is an invasion of privacy. Is it an invasion that is too great? In my view it is reasonable, constrained and balanced.

I have watched private members' business since 1993 when I came here. I have watched which proposals from private members that get voted on freely. For those watching in the gallery, the bill will be voted on freely in the House when it finally gets to voting time. Occasionally the government will support a private member's bill that comes from across the way or from its own members, then send it to committee and have it die in committee.

Very seldom does a private member's bill get passed in this place. Perhaps I understand when it is for partisan reasons, but surely there cannot be a partisan reason in terms of this bill. The member and two other members said that the proposals could be improved upon in committee if there are overriding reasons.

This makes such good sense that surely we could set aside those partisan considerations and consider it in committee. For that reason, at this point in time I suggest that we have unanimous consent of the House to send the bill to committee. It is something that happened in the last parliament. The sky did not fall. The bill went to committee and there was some discussion.

I ask for unanimous consent to send Bill C-217 to the justice committee to have it reviewed and for members opposite to improve it if that was necessary.

[Hepatitis C, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the victims of tainted blood continue to get tainted justice. After a three year investigation into the destruction of government records, the RCMP has decided there is not enough evidence to lay charges. It is the latest sad chapter in this story.

Government negligence mortally harmed tens of thousands of innocent Canadians, and how those Canadians have struggled tirelessly to get justice. Despite the obvious moral obligation, the government still refuses to do what is right and follow Ontario Premier Mike Harris' compensation of all those victims who were infected.

The Liberal government should not count those victims out yet. I have been able to work closely with them for five years. I know they will continue to fight for what they and all Canadians know is right: full compensation for their plight and justice for their cause so that such a tragedy can never happen again.

[The Family, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Monday, February 19, is a statutory holiday in Alberta to respect families. It is a day on which to take a little break from school and work. In the middle of a cold, snowy February in Alberta some kids can go skiing.

In fact, I found out today that members of my own family are skiing in West Castle near Pincher Creek. I must say I am a little jealous being here in Ottawa while they are at home in Alberta.

My oldest son, Rob, said that on Saturday he tried to modify a tree somewhat with his leg, only bruising it, I am also glad to say. It seems like he was trying to imitate my youngest son, who actually broke his leg skiing at Lake Louise over the Christmas holiday.

It is real nice to be able to stand and recognize families and all those Albertans who get to enjoy this statutory holiday in honour of the family, surely the foundation of our society.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the question of my colleague. I distinctly heard the member say that this agreement would come to the House of Commons, would be debated in the House of Commons and would be ratified here. Would he go back over that statement and say whether or not that was accurate because I do not believe it is accurate. I believe it is completely wrong. It would make this motion redundant if in fact it were accurate.