Grant Hill

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-71 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 4 the following:

"8.1 No young person shall obtain or attempt to obtain a tobacco product in a public place or in a place to which the public reasonably has access."

[Business Of The House, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the tobacco legislation is so important I would like to know why there is not a single member of the cabinet present. I believe there is a rule or-

[Hospitals, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister missed one little fact from the health care forum. The Liberals are going down to $11.1 billion, but the forum said to keep the funding at $12.5 billion, which is quite a difference.

The hospital closures are a direct result of the 40 per cent in cuts. The Liberals promised to save medicare. What did they deliver? Hospitals closing.

Why does every hospital not put up a great big brass plaque which states: "This closure courtesy of the Liberal Party of Canada?"

[Hospitals, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hospital closures in the Ottawa area are a direct result of the Liberal government's cuts to medicare, in fact 40 per cent in cuts to medicare.

Why does the Minister of Health not just put up a sign on every closed hospital that says: "This closure courtesy of the Liberal Party of Canada?"

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute and clarify for all Canadians the position of the Reform Party on the procedural issues on which we decided to expedite this bill. One of the things my constituents approached me about was that sometimes a bill should be supportable. They said that sometimes things should be done in a non-partisan way.

The Reform Party decided on this issue that we would try to do everything we could to prevent procedural delays. For that reason, when I made my speech at second reading I asked for the question to be now put. That prevented any amendments being put. It was fascinating to watch what happened because mistakes were made by both the official opposition and the government side. Individuals wanted to speak, stood in their place and were not recognized.

A furore developed that was directed at Grant Hill, the non-partisan individual who moved that motion. It was done for only one reason, to prevent procedural delays. It was not meant to stifle debate. It was not meant to stop individuals who have strong positions on this bill from speaking. I want that to be clearly understood, especially by my colleagues in the Bloc who have chosen to say that this was inappropriate. I believe in the long term, a non-partisan approach to this bill will see us well served.

Also I want to comment on the sponsorship issue. I am very interested in the Grand Prix and in the future of sponsorship events for Canada. I have looked at the international realm for what is happening with Grand Prix sponsorship across the world. I have found that sponsorship by tobacco companies is literally being withdrawn in the rest of the world.

I listened to some of my colleagues. As a car racer myself, I have colleagues in this field who say that their careers will be cut short. I have listened to individuals say that there will no longer be cart races in Canada. I have listened to people say that the Grand Prix will be gone. I ask those individuals to be very frank and open because the Grand Prix in Britain no longer carries tobacco advertising on the cars. Britain is literally the heart of much of Grand Prix activity.

Cart racing is primarily in the U.S. We have two races in Canada. Cart racers in one year's time will no longer be able to carry tobacco logos on the cars in the States. In other words, the U.S. will be banning sponsorship as well. The argument is specious.

It is fascinating that the big event in my riding, the Spruce Meadows Masters, originally said that this bill would have a big impact on the event. After looking around other sponsorship was found. This bill will not kill the event, an event that was sponsored heavily by a tobacco company.

I will not categorize what I want to say as a criticism of the minister for the year's grace period. However, I make a prediction during this year's grace period that there will be battle lines drawn by powerful forces to try to put this legislation in the garbage can. The next year will see, twice in the other place, a huge advertising campaign launched that will talk about freedom, that will talk about individuals unable to make choices that Canadians should be able to make.

I am very sensitive to that. I do not think governments should intrude in areas where governments should not intrude.

On this issue for the sake of youth, for the sake of our kids, for the sake of those individuals I have had personal experience with in my medical practice, I believe this bill, imperfect though it may be and even though I believe it could have gone a different road, it is better than the vacuum we have before us.

I and my colleagues will try and make certain that we do nothing which can be misconstrued as a roadblock. We will try to criticize specific areas that could be altered. We will try to make improvements to the bill in a non-partisan way. That is the approach that Reformers have taken on this important health issue.

[Krever Inquiry, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talks about co-operation with the inquiry. Listen to the story that comes out of the commissioner's attempt to get at the facts on the shredding.

The first thing the department did was try to block him in court with a legal challenge. The second thing the department did was lie to him to say that the documents did not even exist. Now the commissioner has to go back. He is inquiring about why it blocked him.

The victims simply ask one thing: why is this government continually blocking the truth for them, not for me but for them?

[Krever Inquiry, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister blurted out yesterday that the shredding of sensitive documents from the blood committee was wrong. Those documents happened to cover the period of time, 1982 to 1984, when the Liberal government was in power.

Victims of this tragedy want to know why the shredder was rewarded with a golden handshake instead of being punished, for surely wrong is wrong.

[Krever Commission, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think most Canadians will recognize that I did not even get close to an answer to my question. The question was, did the minister know the identity and the motives of this shredder prior to when he gave him a golden handshake? I will try again: Were the identity and the motives known by this minister?

[Krever Commission, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the shredding of blood committee documents by Dr. Jo Hauser is condemned by the information commissioner as an effort "in thwarting the public's right of access". These documents by the way were from 1982 to 1989 implicating a Liberal cabinet.

Did the health minister know both the identity and the motives of this shredder when he gave him the golden handshake one day before the bombshell hit the press?

[Department Of Health, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a declassified letter that tells me that the minister clearly knew all about the scandal on December 3, 1996.

It is interesting that Dr. Hauser was then conveniently let go by the department just days before this information was made public by the information commissioner. That information was made public January 23, 1997. That information said that this was done to thwart the public's ability to know.

Instead of punishment and instead of investigation, he ends up with a golden handshake. Why?