Grant Hill

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, might I then finish my discourse today by saying that discrimination in Canada in any way shape or form is wrong. There should be no discrimination in this House of Commons toward those who are of a different lifestyle or different behaviour. To hide behind the term homophobic, to allow a promotion that is unhealthy is far more wrong. In this House of Commons I believe in telling the truth. I believe in saying openly that the opening of this issue with the phrase in the bill is going to take us down a road we should not travel upon.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have an application form from the University of Ottawa's law school. The application form has a section which states: "I wish to self-identify as: a cultural, racial or linguistic minority person; a person with a physical or learning disability; a lesbian, gay man or bisexual". It then goes on to say that the admission practices of the law school depend upon a quota system for those groups. That is another issue which I believe promotes an unhealthy lifestyle.

There will be those who say I have stood in the House of Commons and have branded the homosexual community. I say simply that I wish to have my medical knowledge plainly displayed in the House of Commons. Doing otherwise is a great disservice to this country.

There will be those who say that by my words I myself am discriminating. I wish only to have those people in Canada know that discrimination is wrong. There should be no discrimination whatever. However, to allow a quota system and to allow something to be promoted in our teaching system which is unhealthy is wrong, just as it is wrong to allow someone into our country who has a serious illness.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by stating plainly to everyone in the House and across the country my own personal position on discrimination.

Discrimination on the basis of any personal characteristic is absolutely wrong. My party's position is exactly the same. We believe that every single individual in Canada should be treated equally. Those policies go through our native position, our position on Quebec and our position on the issue before us today, that of sexual orientation.

Anticipating that this question would come up in the House, I was able to poll my constituents on the issue. I polled them in as plain and straightforward a manner as I could. I found that the constituents of Macleod, my region in southern Alberta, were 79 per cent against including the undefined phrase of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Reformers party wide have done polls and have found that whether or not the phrase was dignified by a specific definition, between 91 per cent and 93 per cent of our party members were against that inclusion.

I must say, since this issue has come on the table, I have had a significant outpouring of letters. I will go over the few that came to me this morning on this issue.

Steve from Okotoks is against Bill C-33. Sheila is absolutely against Bill C-33 and asked me to vote against it. Al wants me to know that homosexuals should not have any special status above anyone else and wants me to vote against Bill C-33. Greg is against Bill C-33 and asks me to keep up the good work. That is a little bit of a partisan comment, pardon me. Rod is against the bill and hopes that I am voting against it. Finally there is Lorne whose family is against the bill and hopes that I will vote against it.

I will say publicly in this House that I will follow the wishes of my constituency, the more than 79 per cent who took the time to write to me and those who continue to write to me and ask why. They ask me why an enthusiastic opponent of discrimination, a physician and surgeon, somebody who has operated on, counselled with and has been closely associated with the homosexual community in my area would vote against this bill which is being purported as being nothing more than a bill against discrimination.

I will say publicly that my association is also with family members who are homosexual. I have talked this over specifically with them. These were very personal discussions and they understand my position. My specific problem with this bill is that it will produce and allow a promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle, a behaviour that is unhealthy. I am speaking now as a physician with a physician's specific knowledge and experience.

The specific problems promoting this lifestyle relate to HIV, gay bowel syndrome, increasing parasitic infections, lowered life expectancy and finally, the one I have chosen to highlight today, an increase in hepatitis in Canada.

The U.S. Centres for Disease Control in the first six months of 1991 studied hepatitis in large urban centres in the U.S. They found in Denver 29 per cent of hepatitis A occurred in the gay community. Each figure I am giving to this House will be a specific percentage in the gay community in these large urban centres. In New York, 60 per cent of hepatitis A occurred in the gay community. In San Francisco, 50 per cent. In Toronto, 42 per cent. In Melbourne, Australia, 26 per cent.

This occurs in a segment of the population in those urban communities where it is enhanced. The overall percentage in society is about 3 per cent and those communities can be as high as 15 per cent. It is generally around 10 per cent. Look at the percentages in comparison to the numbers of individuals.

I am very concerned that this bill will start a process whereby the gay lifestyle will be promoted in our schools. I have gone to a specific now. This specific comes from the Toronto board of education sexual orientation manual for teachers. In this document there is a statement to encourage teachers to speak openly and frankly about homosexuality, which is fine. That is excellent. It should be done. However, I am concerned about a specific process here.

Teachers are given an example as to what they should say to the youth of our country. According to the manual this should be done by someone who is lesbian or gay. It should be someone with personal experience. It reads: "I feel fine about being gay. I am in a long term committed relationship with my partner. This is the best thing for me. I think this would be great for anyone". The suggestion that the gay lifestyle would be great for anyone promotes the gay lifestyle. I am quite concerned as a medical doctor that the promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle is not good for Canada.

What about promotion in our educational system in a broader sense? I have a form from the University of Ottawa-

[Petitions, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have another in quite a long list of petitions that I have been presenting on section 745 of the Criminal Code, known as the faint hope clause.

These petitions come from Airdrie, Crossfield and Fernie, B.C. They add to the hundreds of names of people from my area of the country who say that this clause in the Criminal Code puts our whole criminal justice system into disrepute.

This makes over 19,000 names that I have presented to this House on this issue.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since I was splitting my time with the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, my time was over.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, as a physician in my life before Parliament I would like to address the final victims bill of rights statement that the victim should know if a person convicted of a sexual offence has a sexually transmitted disease. I would like to relay the specific case of Margot Blackburn. In September, 1992 Margot was working in a church rectory. A convict was in the church doing community service on a day pass. The convict had a bad past record and he raped her.

He was caught of course, convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Margot, being up to date on medical issues, knew there was a possibility of an infectious disease being transmitted to her. This man was convicted. He admitted he had raped her. He said he was sorry and all the other things.

Margot asked if he could have given her AIDS. She applied to the court and asked for the perpetrator, Louis B., to have an AIDS test. When I tell this story to high school students across the country they look at me with horror when I say that the result was no chance, no AIDS test, zero. The convict and his rights take precedence over Margot Blackburn.

She wanted an AIDS test, and an eminently reasonable request it was in my view, since there would have been a significant gap between the time of infection and when a test would show positive in her. If the convict was positive, she would know full well she had reason to worry.

In Canada, the rights of the criminal in this case collide directly with the rights of Margot, and take precedence. I say to the kids: "You young ladies in this class, what do you think of the Canadian justice system when I tell you that? Whose rights should take precedence?" I have not had a single, solitary student in grade 12 say to me that Louis B.'s rights should take precedence over Margot's. They say absolutely not.

This issue, without question, puts the justice system into disrepute. Reformers want to change that. If a conflict exists between the rights of the victim and the rights of the criminal, the rights of the victim must take precedence.

I found a very interesting recent editorial in a newspaper written by someone who sits in this House, although not on this side, who very eloquently said that. The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime proposed in 1993 that the Criminal Code should be amended so that a blood test can be ordered when the court is satisfied that (a) reasonable grounds exist that the victim has been exposed to risk of infection, and (b) the taking of blood can be done without jeopardizing the life or safety from whom it is taken. In my view, no one can argue with that.

I will discuss a second case of a victim in Canada who I consider to be abused by our system. His name is Miles Fritz. He is a young man who lives in Cayley, Alberta. He is a master electrician and was working in the Yukon.

One evening while doing his dishes he heard a cry from outside. His 64-year old neighbour had been set upon by three thugs. Miles is a scrawny buzzard, something like me. Nevertheless he rushed out to save his neighbour. He found the three thugs literally kicking his neighbour unconscious. He leaped on them and beat them off. However, one thug drew a knife and stabbed Miles in his right forearm. Miles almost bled to death but they saved him with transfusions. As a result of this, he has a permanent disability.

A master electrician uses his right hand a lot. Miles has lost some nerve function, he has lost some power and activity. He will never again work as a master electrician.

The guy who stabbed him had been released on probation that very morning from prison. He received a sentence of nine months with two years' probation. What does Miles receive? Miles, who is a hero in my eyes, who saved his neighbour's life, receives nothing. Too bad, Miles, there is nothing for you.

The perpetrator gets counselling in prison for his drug addiction, for his past, for the way his mom and dad treated him, for the poverty that he underwent. Miles, the hero, gets a kick in the shins.

Miles puts our criminal justice system into disrepute. Reformers, every one of us, stand here today saying that if the rights of the victim collide with the rights of the perpetrator, the rights of the victim shall take precedence. We need a victims' bill of rights in Canada. I call on my colleagues in a non-partisan way to bring this to fruition quickly.

[Krever Inquiry, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my dad had open heart surgery on Sunday and I am glad to say that everything went fine.

One of his biggest worries was whether he would need a blood transfusion. His concerns are shared by many Canadians. In fact, a new survey indicates that only 7 per cent of Canadians would accept a transfusion if they had a choice. The confidence in our blood system is slipping away from us.

I call upon the Minister of Justice to get rid of the lawyers that are holding up the Krever inquiry. Let Krever tell his story, all of it.

[Krever Commission, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Krever inquiry into the tainted blood scandal in Canada is becoming even more bizarre. It has been reported that the Red Cross has paid $150,000 to two of its senior officials to report to that inquiry.

Could the minister tell us how much the Liberal government is prepared to spend to defend its buddies, specifically former health ministers Monique Bégin and Jake Epp?

[Krever Commission, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister faces quite a challenge. We have a justice minister looking at procedural fairness for fat cat politicians. We have a health minister who should be looking after procedural fairness for the victims, victims like Lynn Kamph from Pickering who is infected and ill, victims like Chris Taylor of Duncan, B.C. who is sadly already gone.

Would the health minister take off his lawyer's hat, put on the health minister's hat, a compassionate hat, and let Justice Krever speak and tell everything he knows?

[Krever Commission, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Krever report is stalled by government lawyers who are looking at, in the justice minister's words, narrow grounds of procedural fairness. This guy is a judge, a supposed expert in the area of procedural fairness.

Does the justice minister not recognize that he is calling into disrepute the competence of this judge?