Grant Hill

[Access To Information Act, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is my opportunity to speak on private members' business which is not a choice opportunity. The member for Wentworth—Burlington is a member I have watched and I find him sensible and thoughtful. I think sometimes he is a thorn in the government's side and I always chuckle when I see that.

I would start off by saying that access to information and opening up access to information as far as an opposition politician is concerned is just perfect. I am vigorously pro the process of opening up access to information.

I would like to mention a procedural concern with the bill. The member I hope will take this in the spirit that it is intended. There was a brand new process brought in where we could hasten private members' business and have 100 signatures. Some members of the alliance signed, having gone over the basic premise of the bill, and enthusiastically supported it.

There were some changes that were made to the bill. I believe that if the member had come openly to those who had signed and said, “These changes have been made. I believe that these improve the bill. Would you reassess it and take a look at it”, there would not have been the procedural harangue and kerfuffle that went with the bill. I think the hon. member would say that honestly.

I do not believe that the member did this with any negative feelings or with any bad motives, but it really would have helped the process. Because I supported the idea of 100 signatures on an important private member's bill, I would hate to see that lost to us because of this procedural concern.

The bill has been reintroduced with 100 signatures so that there still is support of at least 100 members and it is votable. This will be an opportunity to have a debate on an issue which I think is important.

Private members' business in general has been an interesting thing to me as a relatively novice politician. Not very many private members' bills get passed. There are significant hurdles. It has been interesting to watch the changes.

The voting has changed. The cabinet no longer votes first. Voting comes down the rows which gives those who do not have cabinet solidarity at mind a little bit more of an opportunity. I have seen a little bit of a change in attitude toward private members' business because of that.

I am always fascinated to listen to the various members speak to a bill that has some controversy to it. I will watch this process with interest.

Why am I so supportive of access to information opening up? I would like to go over a couple of examples in my own career here to talk about why it needs improvement.

I will go back to the tainted blood issue. I consider that issue one of the dark days. This is not a partisan comment because the government opposite was not the only government involved in it. There was a mixed accountability line or thread for the Red Cross, the Canadian Blood Agency and the federal and provincial governments. During the meetings that went on with tainted blood, and in their minutes, some very important decisions were made.

Judge Krever in his report said that the line of accountability was partly to blame. He was hampered in his investigations because some of the minutes and processes that were undertaken during that period of time were destroyed. They were destroyed on purpose. They were destroyed by individuals whom I felt had a public trust and they have gotten off scot-free. Their names were mentioned but there was no sanction or penalty for destroying public documents that would have and could have in my estimation made the process of compensation for those victims of hepatitis C much easier for the government to have undertaken.

In that regard, in this bill I see penalties for destroying documents. That is quite significantly appropriate.

How has access to information been handled on issues where I think individuals in the government have done things that are inappropriate? Not so long ago I remember some documents surfacing that showed expense accounts were not being used properly by a minister of the government. Although one could look through the whiteout and find enough information to make suppositions, the whiteout was like a blizzard. Skiers who have gotten into a whiteout cannot see where the crowd is or where their feet are. They are disoriented. The whiteout process used on those access to information requests reminded me of skiing in a whiteout, a blizzard in the snow. There is an indication for me that access to information was not working properly.

Finally on HRDC, there was an audit that had been available to government department resources which I feel was not released publicly. Audits are public information, and with an access to information request, suddenly, that audit was made available. I presume that it would have been hard to hide. It contained some information which makes grants and contributions, that process of government activity, unsavoury. We have spent a lot of time in the House in the last three or four months on that issue. Looking back, we can find similar audits with similar complaints made for a long period of time.

Access to information requests on this same subject are now being held up. Departments are saying that the requests are too voluminous. There is a 30 day point in time when that information is supposed to be provided, but it is not being provided in that time.

Given those three examples, I say that the ATI does need improvement.

What does this bill do for white-out? I do not see anything. I am not sure what I would do about white-out. I will listen to the debate. I think that white-out, somehow, could be improved in this whole process.

One other improvement I would like to see would be an expansion to include crown corporations with regard to access to information. The member says that it is in this legislation. I have not found it in a form that I could say I am completely comfortable with, but I know the member would not mislead me, so I will presume that an expansion to include crown corporations is in the bill.

As a principle, open and accountable government is strongly supported. In practice, does this bill move us far enough down that road? I will listen to the balance of the debate.

I am pleased to compliment the member opposite for doing what I think is an excellent job regarding private members' business. I will be supporting or not supporting this bill, according to some of the concerns and comments I have just made.

[Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, a pregnant woman who drinks alcohol to excess can permanently harm her baby. Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect today are well understood by scientists and health care workers. Learning is blunted. Many youth so afflicted are antisocial. A significant number of people who commit crimes are FAS youth.

Many women have no idea about the difficulties alcohol can cause to infants in the womb. One way to educate the public would be to label alcoholic beverages. A graphic label showing a pregnant woman in profile with an x across her would be a warning even for illiterate Canadians to be cautious.

The recent murder of little Jessica Russell in B.C. by an alleged FAS victim should be a clear reminder to all brewers and distillers that they have a responsibility to act voluntarily to educate and prevent fetal alcohol syndrome.

[Health, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the statement by the health minister. His rhetoric was excellent. He talked about co-operation. He talked about protecting the Canada Health Act. He has made the statement over and over that the status quo is not good enough. I would like to go over a few of the objective facts which I do not think the minister mentioned. He probably would not like them mentioned in this forum.

In 1993 health and education transfers to the provinces were $18.8 billion. That was when the Liberals took office. Today in 2000 they are $15.5 billion, and they went down to as low as $12.5 billion. Most important are statistics regarding per capita spending under health, which under the federal Liberals has dropped. That comes directly from the health institute. We have dropped from number two in health care spending in the world. We are now number five and dropping. Those statistics are not up to date. They are about three years old.

The private share of health in Canada when the Liberals took power was 27%. It is now over 30%. Fewer procedures are covered under medicare today compared to 1993. Public confidence in health care today is at the lowest level in Canadian history. The final and probably the worst issue is that the waiting lists in Canada are longer today than they have ever been.

I am optimistic about health care because I do not believe Canadians will let health care be lost. Even some high profile Liberals have come out lately and said that the status quo was not enough. They are not willing to leave it at a statement like that. I do not agree with this, but Tom Kent said that user fees might be necessary in Canada.

What is the Liberal response to the bill in Alberta, a place where I practised medicine for 25 years? More health police, that is the commitment. More threats, that is the commitment. More protection of the system instead of the patient.

I should like to spend just a brief minute on bill 11. It is a very tentative step toward innovation, a very modest step. I believe that provinces which try to innovate, try to improve waiting lines, and try to bring in fresh new thinking should be rewarded rather than threatened.

What would I do if I were the health minister in this case? I would say to Alberta, if I did not agree with bill 11, that it has two years to prove that the bill will do something. Alberta believes that this bill will shorten waiting lines. Can we measure the waiting lines today and can we measure them in two years? If bill 11 reduces waiting lines in Alberta, I would reward the province. I would give it a big pat on the back.

The Liberal government will not be judged by its rhetoric. It will be judged by its actions. What should the government do? I should like to be constructive in this regard. Funding should not be covered in a big Canada health and social transfer, but federal funding should be specific for health so that every Canadian could judge whether or not the funding was appropriate. There should be a growth factor for inflation and for population growth.

I said before that we should reward provinces that reduce waits. Would I have health police to monitor how Alberta is doing? No, I would let the citizens of Alberta decide whether or not their provincial government was looking after medicare in the way they felt was appropriate.

I direct this comment to the health minister. I would beg the health minister to put the patient first rather than the system. If he will do that, medicare will survive.

[Labelling Of Genetically Modified Foods, May 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 230. The motion calls for the compulsory labelling of genetically modified foods and for exhaustive studies on the long term effects of these foods. This is a topical debate and one which I think should take place.

I would like to split this debate into three components. I will talk about science as it has been in the past, as it is in the present, and then I will talk about solutions.

Traditionally we had used genetic modification to improve foods, crops and animals. This was a natural process of slow selection which had few surprises. With a plant or an animal that had good characteristics we would try and bring the characteristics through the genetic tree.

As an example, I think of new varieties of garden corn which have a short growing time and which can grow in a cool climate. There are early ripening varieties. I cannot imagine anyone being concerned or feeling negative about that process.

However, even with this gradual process of improvement, we have occasionally had problems. I would like to mention a plant that was brought to North America in the early 1900s called kudzu. This plant came from China. It is a very powerful vine-type plant and there are no natural insects that prey upon it. It has no natural enemies. This plant has now taken over seven million acres of land in Texas and Louisiana. We have what some would call a fairly natural process of planting a foreign plant in North America and having it grow quite wild. There were concerns and problems even with the old mechanism of the natural, slow process of improving crops and animals.

If I could move toward science today, we now have the capability at the microscopic level of manipulating the genetic tree. We have an intervention in fact, at the molecular level, going on. We are even capable of taking DNA from one species and linking it with the DNA of another species. The difference between science today and science in days of yore is that these changes now can be quite rapid. There are some scientific concerns on this issue and some scientific debate. That is why I say that this debate is timely and worthwhile.

What are some potential benefits of this new form of genetic manipulation? I will not be exhaustive, because time is relatively short, but we could have seeds and crops that would not require pesticides or herbicides. Most people concerned about the environment would say that is positive. We could have new medicinal properties brought more quickly to the market from these processes. We could also see land that is less fertile bearing crops and being productive. Those are just some of the potential benefits. As I said, this is not exhaustive at all.

What do individuals see as potential hazards in this area? There are potential hazards if we had unsuspected effects on the human organism, on ourselves, from eating or being around such genetically modified foods. We could have wild strains, much like the kudzu plant I mentioned, overwhelming some of our natural strains, having unsuspected effects on domestic plants.

Let me give an example from the medical field of changes that are going on in our environment, in our society, which might be related to these sorts of things. If we look at population dynamics we see that young adolescents are going through changes earlier than they did some years back, specifically young adolescent females having the onset of periods earlier than they did some 30 years ago. There is some medical information that this may be related to estrogen-like compounds that are circulating in our environment. Here we have estrogen-like compounds that could come from genetically modified organisms, possibly changing the whole hormonal balance in a large population set, those of young adolescent women. This is not a theory. This is not a guess. This is actually physically happening now and we have to figure out how and why.

On this scientific debate there is some legitimate argument on both sides and we should be open to those discussions and arguments.

As to the solution from my perspective, I believe that the consumer who has a concern about genetically modified foods should have that information available. I believe that people who do not want to take genetically modified food into their bodies—a crop, a cereal or a product—should have that choice.

It is technically very difficult to label all genetically modified foods. For instance, pasta has constituents that come from various sources and a genetically modified component would be difficult to isolate. It could be done, but it would be difficult. I feel it would be better to modify genetically modified free food, rather than all those that have genetically modified components in them. In my mind, this would give those who want to make the choice the ability to do so.

I would actually propose a mechanism to label those genetically modified free foods. It would be a graphic label. The one I have chosen is a microscope with an x across it, which would show all consumers that there is no genetically modified food in that product. It would be a little similar to the marketing mechanism used for organic grains. Those who do not want to have pesticides or herbicides in their growing process could choose that strain.

Also, I would suggest that this be voluntary. This is where I digress from my colleague a little. The mandatory component is something that smacks of bureaucracy and of people telling us what to do. I favour small where small will do when it comes to bureaucracy. I would much prefer a voluntary process driven by the market. As an individual, I could then choose genetically modified free foods. That is the process I would use.

The issue of science is where I think we should try not to be political. Good science is science that can stand close, careful scrutiny. We should try not to have a big political debate on this. I have listened to some organizations politicizing this. They seem to ignore good science on the one side and only pay attention to the science on the other side. That does not make any sense to me at all.

The principle that I would use on this issue is the principle of letting the consumer know. Let the consumer be aware and let the consumer choose.

The issue of the long term studies that my colleague has suggested makes eminent sense. We saw a big debate on recombinant bovine somatotropin, the substance used for augmenting milk in cattle. rBST is being used in the U.S. It is not being used directly in Canada. What a perfect opportunity to look at the two populations. Scientists are, in fact, able to do that. I hope that those people in the U.S. who are using rBST would not be guinea pigs in this issue, but they are certainly a good case study for a long term debate.

My congratulations to my colleague for bringing this debate. I hope the House will consider it carefully. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this subject.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, one other thing my colleague from Elk Island did not mention is the impact of the underground economy on our tax system. Many people in the country feel our tax system is so unfair that they actually hide income. They put it under the table. That is part of this fair 17% solution which very few of my colleagues across the way seem to understand. If people feel the tax system is fair, they are far less likely to go through the process of hiding their income. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Health, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the parliamentary secretary should realize that the health minister is talking about an institute for comprehensive medicine down in McMaster. That would intrude upon the provincial responsibilities for both health and education.

I ask my question again. Why will the health minister not look after core medical services before he sticks his nose into provincial responsibility?

[Health, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the government's unilateral cuts to medicare, hospitals across the country have been forced to scale back core services which were supposed to be covered by the Canada Health Act.

Instead of paying his fair share, what is the health minister is doing? He is musing about adding more things which were never covered. If the minister wants to spend money, why does he not start paying his fair share for core services first?

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hepatitis C victims of tainted blood are still waiting, waiting for promised compensation if they were infected between 1986 and 1990; waiting in fact over two years while their lawyers have already been well paid; waiting for help with 40 page forms that are complex beyond belief; waiting for an explanation about why U.S. prison blood came undetected into Canada; waiting for a clear explanation from the ethics counsellor for a report that supposedly cleared the finance minister of conflict of interest but quietly admitted that the appropriate CDC minutes had mysteriously vanished; waiting without hope if they were infected prior to 1986, except that Ontario and Quebec provincial governments have given them some compensation; waiting, except for those who are no longer with us.

[Crimes Against Humanity Act, April 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I believe those definitions are not specific enough for me. I think my colleague is moving in the same direction as I am. If we are to define crimes against humanity, let us be specific. Most of us understand that these are major crimes such as genocide. Wiping out a population for political purposes is absolutely against everything I believe in. Since time immemorial we have had people who have purposes that I do not understand.

Let us not go down the road of politicization. Let us not go down the road of saying that if there were a war and a host of people were being held in an area against their will would somehow be the definition of crimes against humanity.

I talk about murder. I talk about rape. I talk about torture. I talk about the awful things that happen. Let us make sure that we stay on real true crimes against humanity rather than going to some idea that is hard to define such as mental cruelty. I have real trouble with that in my own family. I sometimes think my teenagers practise mental cruelty on me. I hope I would not be confined for that.

[Crimes Against Humanity Act, April 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I value the opinion of the member opposite. I have always found him to be a very fair and balanced individual. The positives that I mentioned of course were not allowing war criminals to escape by hiding in a jurisdiction, the definitions of the crimes and having an oversight.

The concerns I have relate to expanding definitions of some of these crimes and having an impact on cultures which do not operate like those in Canada. I do not think it would be impossible to make the bill very supportable. The definitions of the war crimes would need to be pretty specific. They would have to exclude some things that activists might go after. I do not mean to spend a lot of time on that, but issues of costs and accountability would be very well and properly laid out.

One thing I did not mention was the comparison between the ad hoc tribunals that we have had and a permanent operation. My long term hope is that this sort of thing would not be necessary, that we would be able to co-operate in an international way, and that brotherhood and wonderful values would prevail. Perhaps the eternal optimist in me is showing.

I do not think my concerns are insurmountable. I would hope that we could review these things in a good and open spirited dialogue.