Grant Hill

[Health, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is finally clear why the officials of the health department were digging around in Dr. Brill-Edwards' file. Just this morning she revealed that the health protection branch prematurely approved the migraine drug Imitrex over the concerns of its scientists.

Why does the minister allow bureaucrats to overrule the information provided by these scientists?

[Health, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister seems willing to accept this feeble excuse that the file was accessed to go after federal court document information. It is interesting that kind of information is public, open and available to all. Guess where it is available? It is available from the justice department. Amazing.

Will the minister admit here in this House today that this protected file was accessed in an attempt to discredit the reputation of this scientist because she is an irritant to his department?

[Health, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister is willing to ignore the privacy commissioner when he condones his officials' going after the private and protected file of a former employee.

Since privacy rules are not important to this minister could he let the House know what guidelines he gives his bureaucrats?

[Health, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have their feeble excuse for accessing this file too.

The fact of the matter is permission must be sought of the individual. It was not. A valid reason must be there to access the file. There is not.

The minister has a choice opportunity here. He could choose to support out of control bureaucrats on a witch hunt or he could choose to support the scientist who has allegations of truth. Which will it be?

[Health, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada officials covered up the truth.

[Health, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada officials lied to obtain the personal protected files of Dr. Michèle Brill-Edwards. This scientist is a thorn in the side of the department, with personal allegations that there are problems where profits take precedence over safety.

The minister promised us a full report here in the House. What has he found about his officials?

[Parliament, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker,

Democracy was under strain In parliament 35 For some it was a struggle To keep those principles alive. Committees without consensus Made it tough to co-operate With just one point of view heard The results were great. And major legislation Quite seriously flawed With no one who would listen It really seemed a fraud. This session could be different More difficult you see To ram bad legislation Down the throats of you and me. Fewer attempts at closure To stifle honest debate And well thought legislation Wouldn't that be great! This 36th sitting of the House It really could be choice An opportunity once more To listen to the voice Of those who chose to send us here Who expect us to deliver More than MP trained seals Whipped until they shiver. And to the backroom Liberals Stop making shady deals Reform is pushing for improved democracy And we're snapping at your heels!

[Health Protection Branch, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this minister himself is responsible for the cuts that he is now undoing.

Dr. Brill-Edwards is an expert. She says the health protection branch is unsafe. She worked there. Her colleagues agree. Now health bureaucrats are trying to ruin her reputation and smother the truth. Why is the health minister afraid of this scientist?

[Health Protection Branch, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Michelle Brill Edwards uncovered dangerous safety violations at Canada's health watchdog, the health protection branch.

I have proof here that senior department bureaucrats have unethically opened her personal, confidential files in an attempt to smear her just hours after her public disclosure.

Does the health minister condone these attempts to smear her reputation?

[Health Care, September 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, they really had quite a commitment as they chopped 40 per cent from the health care transfers. Now they come along and promise us national medicare with no clue how much this program will cost, with no clue where the money would come from. I call that clueless.

Medicare has suffered and lies wounded. Why would anybody carry on with a brand new program like this when medicare itself needs to be fixed?