Grant Hill

[Department Of Health Act, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-95, as it was originally brought to the House, seemed to me a very straightforward bill. I wondered why we would spend a lot of time debating what seemed like a name change.

As the watchdog for this bill I had already gone over it very carefully and felt the minister had full accountability and full responsibility for all matters relating to health. However, concerns were brought to my attention by the fine tooth comb experts. They came up with a potential concern, a potential problem that related to ministerial accountability. The motion by the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury would take care of any question on that issue.

Ministerial accountability is not redundant. It is absolutely mandatory. Anyone who tried to change that would be on very shaky ground. The Krever inquiry has brought to the fore the concern about ministerial accountability. This inquiry shows that our regulatory system can have flaws, that those dispensing to the Canadian public can have flaws. We are actually at a state now where the Krever inquiry is being held up by legal challenges coming from a host of sources.

Ministerial accountability is profoundly important. For that reason I support the inclusion of this clause in Bill C-95, and I will be so recommending to my caucus.

[Krever Commission, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is fighting the Krever inquiry in the courts.

The Krever inquiry is ready to make its final report and there are specific allegations that the federal government has done something wrong. If the federal government is innocent of all wrongdoing, why is it taking such forceful legal action to prevent Krever from making his report known to every single Canadian?

[Krever Commission, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Krever inquiry into tainted blood was a victory for Canadians who wanted a safe, secure blood system.

The commission has spent countless hours receiving testimony under oath. There have been serious findings of wrong doing: untreated blood products used by the public when safer products were available; tainted donors not turned away in a timely fashion; tested infected blood products used when alternatives were available.

Other countries have made similar mistakes and have apologized in addition to making immediate corrections. Canada's reaction to individuals being held personally responsible is very different with court challenges that could literally stop Krever's final report.

If Krever has found criminal behaviour relating to blood safety, he must report it to the Minister of Health and to Canadians. Let Krever speak.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, why a debate on this topic? Is a byelection not a very important debate for the Bloc Quebecois members? It is not a very important question for him, but it is very important for us. It is difficult for a Western party to come East and make a new proposal for this region of Canada.

I have a question for the Bloc Quebecois member. Before the sovereignty debate, why did we speak about Quebec? It is the same thing.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I seem to have struck an interesting chord with the hon. member opposite.

Light hearted comments made in the House I am sure should be taken in a light hearted fashion. If the hon. member thinks for one second that I really thought I was going to be done in during my visit to the gravel pit, that is quite far from the truth. A little chuckle might be worthwhile in the House occasionally.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

It is true. Annoy a Labradorian more than to tell a Labradorian they do not belong to Newfoundland; I do not believe that can be done. He said to me: "You make sure that your Reform colleagues know that Labrador is a part of Newfoundland and we are going to stay a part of Newfoundland. When you come here make certain that is clear".

It was fertile ground for Reform well before the byelection. It was fertile ground because those individuals determined that we are no longer going to dump wheelbarrows full of money on the ground to try to buy their votes. Reformers will tell it exactly as it is.

ACOA, FEDNOR and western economic diversification have been mechanisms for big political parties to buy votes. The way to get votes in Labrador is to tell the truth, to specifically say to individuals in Labrador that they do not need handouts. They need an environment in which they can thrive. They need a debt that is no longer sucking the lifeblood out of the future of their children. They need to have places where they can go to university and not be left without training.

Labradorians respond to that truth. Labradorians respond to common sense. Labradorians respond to a specific issue that says when they send a Reformer from Labrador to the Parliament of Canada they will not be sending a trained seal. They will not be sending someone who bows to the party wishes. They will be sending someone who gives party input.

I say plainly to my colleagues across the way: When the old way of doing politics is over, when the old way of campaigning is over, Labradorians may look again at the Liberals for their member of Parliament.

I make a prediction here today that Labradorians are going to show the way of the future in Canada when they vote in the byelection.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to debate this issue. The previous speaker was pretty good. I would say he generated fair emotion and experience in his speech.

However, I do reflect on his words in a specific way. I would like those who are listening to the debate to decide whether the minister is satisfied with the Churchill Falls power agreement. Is he satisfied with the status quo?

I was the first Reformer to go to Labrador. I visited quite some time ago. It was my choice to visit. Having made that choice, some of my colleagues asked: "Why are you going there? This is a cold and bitter spot. Why would you go to Labrador?" The answer is very straightforward. I am quite interested in the activities of the north and I found myself on the ground.

I was inexperienced in Labrador. I have spent some time in the north in my own part of the country but I had never been lucky enough to go to Labrador. It was fascinating how I was treated. I was treated with some scepticism, I must admit. I was treated with some degree of misunderstanding, which I also accept. However, I found a few issues in Labrador that are profoundly important to the people there.

One of those issues was brought to the table by my colleague, the power agreement at Churchill Falls. I met one of the men who first worked in Churchill Falls. He told me that whatever Reformers do, we should not buy the line that the Churchill Falls agreement is over and done with forever. He told me to look at the agreement and I would find that the excess power that is generated could be used by Newfoundland. It need not go through the convoluted agreement to coffers elsewhere. He told me to look carefully and I would find that the only thing necessary for Newfoundlanders to benefit from their own power is for superconductor transmission lines to go from Churchill Falls, the source of the power, through

Newfoundland. In fact Churchill Falls could provide all of the power needs for Newfoundland at a significant savings to that province. Why can we not do that? We cannot do that because the money is not available to build that transmission line.

I took the time to look into that agreement and what he told me was true, that Newfoundland could generate its own power and the excess power and benefit from it. To those status quo Liberals who say that the Supreme Court has ruled this agreement is over and done with, I say hear, hear. The agreement is a secure binding agreement, but Newfoundland could take the excess power.

The fellow who showed me around Labrador also said that the former member had been a very dignified member. I take nothing from the member who has gone on to the Senate, his reward in the sky. He told me that when the issue of gun registration came on the table, many Labradorians did not understand it. They asked for the former member's advice. They could not reach the member; he would not come home; he did not respond. His executive assistant in Labrador was usually easy to reach but he seemed to disappear and became very difficult to reach. He would not answer their phone calls and he would not respond when they asked for public meetings.

This individual took me to meet people to whom firearm registration was an unknown concept. He asked me what we would do with firearm registration. I told him that I had a commitment from my leader and my caucus colleagues that firearm registration was not the way to go. I told him we would love to have the bill split into two. We would quickly pass the portion of the bill that makes stricter penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms. We would take the part of the bill that talked about interfering where we do not think interference would be successful and we would toss it into the dustbin of history. He asked if I would give him that in writing. I said not only would I give it to him in writing but I would get it in writing from my leader. He responded by saying we should talk to some people with strong feelings on the issue.

On a rainy Sunday afternoon he drove me out to a gravel pit. I wondered where I was going; I thought perhaps he was going to finish me off. At the gravel pit there was a group of young men who were keen internationally renowned competitive shooters. He said to them: "Fellows, come over here and talk to this guy. He is from Alberta, a Reform member of Parliament. He is the first one to step on Labrador soil as a member of Parliament. He says the Reform Party will throw the gun registration component of Bill C-68 into the dustbin of history. Do you believe him?" They replied: "No, we don't believe him for a second. He is a politician and they are all as crooked as question marks". The fellow said: "Boys, I have talked to a lot of politicians and I have looked them in the eye and I think this fellow is telling us the truth". He said that he was going to join the party and that he would work hard for it.

This was well before the byelection was called, well before there was any idea that we would be fighting on this ground. I came back and told my colleagues that there was fertile ground in Labrador.

There is another issue that annoyed the people of Labrador. There is a line on most maps that indicates the boundary between Labrador and Quebec. One of the fellows told me there are some people in Quebec who do not accept that boundary. In fact, on some maps the boundary is absent. When tourists come from Quebec to Labrador, they are actually told that Labrador is part of Quebec.

[Krever Commission, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Krever inquiry is an important inquiry to Canadians. Japan has had a very similar inquiry.

The new health minister in Japan, after taking on the portfolio, very quickly apologized publicly both on behalf of his government and the companies involved. In Canada the new health minister is subverting the process of Judge Krever.

The question is straightforward again to the novice health minister. Why will he not let Judge Krever speak?

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that is fine. The three provinces paying money are clearly red, the others are a different colour. The amount they paid is in brackets. It is very clear. I have a Quebec school book, it contains the same chart found in the May 15, 1991 edition of L'Actualité .

A different text with this chart indicates simply the amount of the per capita equalization payment in 1990. The three provinces in the earlier chart which paid in Confederation are no longer colour

coded. The chart has been changed. Why? So that young people in Quebec believe that their province is the least favoured in Confederation. It is not true. Debate is not possible if the information is inaccurate.

An honest debate is required with each Bloc member, but there is no honesty if the information is inaccurate. I called the Quebec minister of education to say the information was wrong-it can happen. The answer? Zip. I got the same answer from the editors of the school book. The young people are short circuited. It is not true.

If we are to have a debate on sovereignty, the information we debate must be accurate and honest. I cannot allow a debate to be dishonest in the House.

Where do the Liberals stand on the issue of sedition? Why was there not rapid action on the issue? Could it be the Liberals would rather not have the issue debated plainly? I certainly hope not. Have there been examples of colleagues from the government favouring the Bloc over Reform? Let me cite a few.

We asked to sing the national anthem in these halls. Too hot. We asked for the opportunity to have committee vice-chairs, as it states in the rules that an opposition member and not an official opposition member should have that opportunity. Too hot.

Turning to truth on social programs, the other day in the House the finance minister said that Reform would cut $11 billion from medicare. That statement was wrong and inaccurate. I challenge any Canadian to look at our taxpayers' budget to see a specific reduction in the highest priority Reform program of $800 million. How could the finance minister manufacture $11 billion from that?

My Liberal colleagues will take $4.3 billion from the Canada health and social transfer payments to the provinces. If the Reform were to take all the same transfers it would take $1.5 billion, and we are criticized as being the slash and burn party. It is sad but the Canadian public will eventually learn these facts.

The Bloc Quebecois are in the House democratically. The democratic processes in Canada placed them here. I am able to say I like the individual members of the Bloc. I have conversations with them. They are fine men and women. I believe their ideas are completely wrong and I will debate this vigorously with them. However individually I have no problem with any of them.

The same democratic processes that brought them to the House will also take them from the House. I challenge them to be honest in their debates, to say exactly what they mean, and when the Canadian people vote they will be taken from these halls as separatists. I hope some of them will stay in these halls as committed Canadians.

I close by asking the Liberals not to soften the motion. I ask back bench Liberal MPs to stand up for Canada. If inciting soldiers to change their allegiance is not sedition, what is?

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that reminder. My apologies.

That was demonstrated yesterday when Reformers fought furiously to keep-

-the hon. member for Charlesbourg-

-from taking a key post on the Commons defence committee. This member, of course, is the separatist jack-a-nape who sent out a letter out during last year's referendum urging francophone Canadian soldiers to switch to a Quebec army in the event of independence.

Outrageously, the Bloc put him forward for the committee vice-chairmanship.

Even worse, Liberals on the committee were prepared to go along with this gross insult to everyone who's ever served in this country's military.

Next is a rather unparliamentary comment and so I will change it: "Only some very vigorous defence by Reformers forced the member to withdraw his name". Indeed he did withdraw his name. "Even so, the post was eventually filled by another Bloc member, again with Liberal collaboration.

"Having won at least half the battle, though, the B.C. Reformer for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt has shown he is determined to press on in the political war against such separatist infamies. That Reform member put forward a motion in the Commons to have the member for Charlesbourg investigated for behaviour that is seditious, offensive and contemptuous of Parliament.

"More Liberal skulduggery kept that from being full debated, but Reformers would not let it drop. Good for him", says the editorial, "and good for the party that is supporting his initiative."

"It is difficult these days to sort out everything Reformers have to say on both economic and social issues, given the long simmering divisions that finally emerged this week between its right wing and centrist factions."

"But as even those most involved in that dispute acknowledge, resolution of their differences is a matter of the party's full blown policy convention in June. For the moment it is enough to know they are united where it counts, against the enemies of Canada".

That editorial sums up why were are here today and why I am speaking on the issue. I reflect on the way the sovereignty debate has gone on. The Bloc and its PQ cousins have said to their credit that this debate should be entirely democratic, that they would be forthright in their approach on sovereignty and would tell and express the facts exactly as they were.

I draw the attention of the Canadian people to two huge flaws in those statements. The sovereignty referendum was designed to be and followed by a period of attempted reconciliation between sovereignists and the rest of Canada. The timeframe, approximately a year. If there was no new relationship with Canada to be established, sovereignty would follow.

I read and watched the sovereignty debate. That position was repeated over and over. I asked my Bloc colleagues specifically and directly to explain to me how then could diplomats in Canada be asked to immediately accept a sovereign Quebec if there had been a positive result in the referendum. What does that have to do with negotiation? What does that have to do with honesty in a question? There was no concept of such negotiation. There was no such concept of an honest question.

On the issue of a call to Quebec armed forces members to change their allegiance, that was what the member for Charlesbourg said. I do not care who talks around the issue, that is what the letter said plainly, straightforward and specific. Au lendemain, the day after. What does that have to do with negotiation? What does that have to do with a year's process to see if Canada and Quebec could come up with a new relationship? Nothing, zero, zip.

Canada is a tolerant country. Canada virtually tolerates everything. I will go to another specific incident from the sovereignist camp that I consider to be dishonest.

I have here a chart that appeared in L'Actualité on May 15, 1991 showing the winners and the losers in Confederation, the provinces that won and the ones that did not. According to it, and the Bloc members can have a look, we can see that three provinces paid: British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. The other provinces received money in Confederation. Quebec received $304 per capita. The chart is very very clear. It appeared in

L'Actualité