House of Commons photo

Track Hedy

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word is please.

Liberal MP for Vancouver Centre (B.C.)

Won her last election, in 2025, with 55% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Grandparent Year Act May 2nd, 1995

Madam Speaker, the gist of the hon. member's question is concerned about the issue of universality which actually has nothing to do with cost.

Universality means that we are all eligible for health care services regardless of what is our status in terms of employability or whether we have chronic illness, chronic diseases or not. Accessibility is the one that talks about ability to pay.

I understand the hon. member's question which is how can we continue to support the kind of medicare system that we know, based on the five principles of health care, if we do not put enough money into it.

As he so wisely pointed out, the United States spends 14 per cent of its gross national product on health care. Canada spends about 10 per cent and Japan spends about 6 per cent. Japan has the highest outcomes in health care in the world today. Canada ranks third. The United States ranks somewhere between Cuba and Czechoslovakia.

If we talk about money spent on medical services being the only determinant of outcome of health care, we are barking up the wrong tree. Money does not equate to outcomes and good health status. Many other things drive health status, such as poverty, environmental issues and many other issues with which we have to concern ourselves.

We are committed to health care. Studies have shown, especially the recent one from the University of Ottawa, that we can have an affordable, much more efficient health care system with better outcomes if we make some very real changes. We should look at such changes as moving from acute care to community care, looking at care closer to home; looking at providing core services for continuing care for seniors, looking at prevention and health promotion. Many of these things will give us better outcomes. This study has shown that we can save $7 billion a year on health care payments as a federal government and still come up with very good results.

We are talking about a time for looking at how we renew our system and how we make our system more effective and more efficient. We now know of so many ways to manage our system. That is what we are talking about in the renewal of health care. Those are the changes we want to see.

Grandparent Year Act May 2nd, 1995

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak today to Bill C-291, an act respecting a national year of the grandparent. I take the opportunity to speak on behalf of the government's commitment to Canada's grandparents.

I have not yet had the fortune of becoming a grandparent. I guess my sons have control over that and so I may never become a grandparent. I have grandparents. All of us have grandparents.

My grandmother was my mentor, a woman who was a feminist long before the word feminist was popular. She was strong, feisty and she told me that if I did not like how things were I should go in there and change them and not complain. She lived that. She was always fighting for causes. Like a battleship at full steam, she was always there making things happen, changing things. She always had courage. She was an outspoken and strong woman.

My grandmother set for me an example that I have followed. If she were alive today I think she would be very pleased and proud that I am standing here talking about her role in my life and about grandparents as a whole.

Grandparents play a vital role in the lives of families and in the lives of all Canadians. Whether you have grandchildren or not, you can be a grandparent. In British Columbia there the Volunteer Grandparents Association. It meets and looks after children. As we all know, in society today families can live so far away from each other and many families do not have an extended family or a grandparent close by. These grandparents whose children are not around become grandparents to children whose grandparents are not around and they bridge the gap.

It is interesting to see them at baseball games, to be there at ballet recitals and to watch these adoptive grandparents enjoying all the things their adoptive grandchildren do.

I have to tell members about filling the lives of children. Whether you are a young child, an older child or an adult, grandparents fill your life. My children's grandparents are very far away and they have benefited from volunteer grandparents. I think they always needed to know there was somewhere a safe haven they could go to when their parents did not understand; to go to somebody who had the wisdom and could remind them their parents were children once.

I remember my children telling me I sometimes forgot I was once a child. Grandparents are always there to remind us, to assure us our parents were not as perfect as they pretended to be. They bring that sense of vulnerability and fallibility into parenting, which is good. It gives children something to believe in and something to feel strong about.

The important role grandparents play in the life of a family should never be underestimated. Today where families are fragmented grandparents often take up the life of the family and carry it by themselves; sometimes only temporarily when there is a family crisis or illness and sometimes even permanently because of a divorce.

That is why we clearly need to support grandparents today. We must ensure they remain a stable factor in the lives of their grandchildren, regardless of where the parents are. The reason they do is that grandparents have a sense of continuity. They bridge the past and the present. They bring yesterday into today. Grandparents make us feel as if we have always been here as a people. That continuity is very important to us. Especially when our lives are fragmented and unstable they bring that sense of permanence, that sense of tradition, that sense of stability and reality which is needed in today's world. It is a sense of timelessness, if I may use that word.

Grandparents are very important because they are traditionally wise. They are always wise. Grandparents are a source of advice. They are a good source of advice because they have stepped aside from being subjective and can offer the objective wisdom parents are unable to offer because they are too closely linked to their children.

Three out of every four Canadians over 65 are grandparents. What is interesting is that you do not have to be over 65 to be a grandparent. The image of a grandparent as being someone kind with twinkling eyes behind glasses and an ample bosom and a warm laugh may not necessarily be what grandparents are. Grandparents are also now in their forties and fifties. They bring a sense of vitality to the family that was not there before when grandparents were only supposed to be one age.

Grandparents bring a sense of trust as well. They help us to feel safe because no matter what happens, they are always there. They seem to have a sense of immovability and a sense of complete and total stability. They are an anchor for most of us.

In many cultures grandparents are historians. Many cultures do not have a written history where we can go back and read it, especially in our aboriginal cultures for example. In those many other cultures where there is no written history grandparents bring the stories with them that tell us where we came from and talk about our traditions.

In many aboriginal societies the elders and grandparents are bringing aboriginal people back home, especially today's aboriginal people who have been removed forcibly from their homes at one point in time, have been severed from their past. Today's grandparents are healing in native cultures. They bring the old ways back, the sense of spirituality, the sense of permanence, the sense of bonding.

Health Canada has recognized this and has given grants through the new horizons program to assist grandparents in aboriginal cultures to bring their young people home. They help not just anecdotally but in a real way with issues such as suicide, substance abuse and alcoholism. They have been making a real difference by bringing back the cultures and helping the children. In fact Health Canada's grants send children to camps where grandparents tell stories, teach the native language, teach them basic survival skills, how to sew, and counsel them on issues that are bothering today's young aboriginal people.

It is sad to note that despite their important role in society some derogatory myths exist about grandparents. Those myths continue to be perpetuated.

One myth depicts older grandparents as frail and dependent. Like their young counterparts actually, the majority of older grandparents live active, healthy and productive lives. A 1990 study showed that one out of every two seniors over 65 provided assistance to people outside of their household, such as unpaid transportation or financial support.

Still another myth suggests that families sometimes neglect and even abandon grandparents and many older family members. That is not actually true. Studies have found that seniors obtain 80 per cent of the help they need from their families and that 92 per cent of seniors and grandparents say that they feel emotionally close to their families.

Half of Canada's senior grandparents live within 10 kilometres of at least one child. I did not know that fact until I looked it up recently. They visit regularly, they telephone daily

and they offer very clear and strong emotional support to their families.

I reiterate the fact that the grandparent through all of these ways, regardless of what culture, does play a very clear and strong role. Grandparents are ageless and timeless; they have always been here. They defy socioeconomic barriers. All of us have grandparents. Whether we are rich, middle class or poor, no matter whether we live in a developed world or in a developing world, no matter whether we speak English or any other language, we all have grandparents. They are a common universal treasure.

Because of their timelessness, because of their universality, because of their holding the family together, grandparents offer a sense of stability and a sense of permanence that bridge the past and the future.

I support the bill because grandparents make us immortal.

Supply May 2nd, 1995

Madam Speaker, the hon. member suggested that he does not understand why I would say this is a political agenda. It flies in the face of common sense. That is why I say there must be another agenda.

Surely we are talking about creating a set of principles. As I said earlier, principles give us a national objective. We are talking about making Canada a competitive country. Nowhere else do I see the ability to pull together as a country, to cross interprovincial barriers. Then we could have a common principle of training and an agenda saying what we aspire to as a country. At the same time we could give more autonomy to the provinces so they could develop appropriate programs and appropriate ways of dealing with their provincial and regional needs.

I do not understand what the hon. member has a problem with unless, as I said before, the problem is purely a political one; unless, as I also said before, we want to balkanize the country into 10 little provinces, 10 little mini-countries and 2 little mini-places in the north that we can call whatever we choose to call them.

Is that what the hon. member aspires to? What he is saying does not make sense to me.

Supply May 2nd, 1995

Madam Speaker, I apologise.

Another member of the opposition party said: "I think that there is not one Canadian or Quebecer who questions the importance and value of the five principles set out in the Canada Health Act".

The hon. critic again said that the federal government should uphold the five principles. Maybe I am not confused, maybe members of the opposition are confused.

The five principles of the Canada Health Act embody the whole concept of what is most important to Canadians. What Canadians constantly use to define themselves as a people is Canadian medicare. It is an example of how federal principles can act in partnership with provincial governments, which administer the program, to make things better. The Canada Health Act enhances medicare. It continues to tell us who we are as Canadians. It binds us together in terms of our values, in terms of equity, in terms of fairness and in terms of compassion.

In 1984 when the Canada Health Act was introduced it was unanimously agreed on by all parties in the House.

It makes sense. The Canada Health Act binds the country together while at the same time it gives the regions the freedom to be able to administer and decide with flexibility what it is they require in their region. I would like to use the Canada Health Act as a very good example of how we can have national standards, enshrine them in legislation and yet give freedom to the provinces to administer that act. It has worked extremely well.

National principles tell us that we have an objective which we are all working toward. At the same time we allow the provinces to decide how they will meet those objectives, based on things such as their economy, the needs of their people, geographic and demographic differences. It gives the provinces freedom but at the same time it holds the country together.

We should look again at what the Canada Health Act has given to us. We are one of the few countries in the world that enjoys a high standard of living, the best quality of life. The GATT, when it looked at the measurement of outcome, which is infant mortality, we rank second or third in the world in terms of those measures and those outcomes. Obviously national standards legislated with provincial jurisdiction to administer has worked. Canadian medicare is an example of how well it works and how well it can give us flexibility at a time when global competitiveness is what we are talking about, when Canada needs to be competitive with the rest of the world.

It makes sense to me that the federal government would transfer money to the provinces to administer other aspects of social programs, post-secondary education and social assistance, in the same way, looking toward a national objective that could be competitiveness.

The human resource will be the resource of the 21st century. Canada's medicare has enhanced our human resource potential. It has given us a competitive edge in terms of the fact that healthy people work. The less sick days, the less time off work, which makes any business profitable and give us an economic and competitive edge.

If we negotiated with the provinces for a set of national standards for post-secondary education and training, we would enhance the ability of the country to be competitive and to have trained people able to compete with the rest of the world.

This makes sense to me. I started off by saying that I was confused. I end by saying that this is not the real question. It is a political and hidden agenda by a group that does not really want to do anything but destroy the country and fragment what it has meant.

Supply May 2nd, 1995

Madam Speaker, I am confused. I am confused by the motion because it talks about national standards as being things which are not desirable to Her Majesty's opposition. Yet last Thursday, on opposition day, the health critic for the opposition party, Mr. Daviault said:

"In Quebec we have no trouble with the five criteria. As far as we are concerned, they represent a minimum consensus".

The other health critic, Mrs. Picard, said: "We believe in the Canada Health Act principles". Philippe Paré in the debate said: "I think there is not one Canadian or Quebecer who questions the importance-

Infectious Diseases Protocol May 2nd, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that this government supports that process very much. It is very concerned with the health and protection of frontline workers such as firefighters.

As a result, and because of that commitment, the government has assisted firefighters in setting up a meeting in January of all the stakeholders to discuss this issue. That will be followed up with a meeting in June.

The government also has protocols on the agenda for the ministers of health conference. Setting up protocols is in the provincial jurisdiction. It does not have to do with hospitals.

Dental Health Month April 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I want members to notice that I am smiling today to remind the House that April is Dental Health Month in Canada.

This month provides an opportunity for all Canadians to show off their teeth by sharing their smiles. I am proud to note that Canadians enjoy one of the highest standards of oral health in the world. This is thanks in large part to Canadian dentistry's commitment to disease prevention.

For years now the Canadian Dental Association, provincial associations, and local societies have sponsored many educational activities and projects of interest to both children and adults. These include mural displays, radio, television, and billboard ads, newspaper supplements and free dental clinics.

Please join me in saluting the efforts of the Canadian Dental Association and allied national and provincial associations for their commitment to good oral health.

I would like to ask all the members of the House to just say cheese.

Supply April 27th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I was a little disturbed by the last part of the hon. member's speech.

He can correct me if I am wrong, but I understood the member to say that he would like to see national medicare disbanded and provinces deal with provinces in terms of issues such as portability.

This government is committed to Canadian medicare, which is based on treating all Canadians equally as they cross from province to province. I would really like to see whether the member would like to elaborate on the dismantling of medicare that I just heard or to correct me if I was wrong.

Supply April 27th, 1995

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made the comment that provinces obviously do not like the system and the way the Canada Health Act was imposed by the government on British Columbia when it was breaking the act.

I would like the hon. member to name one province that has not supported all the principles of the Canada Health Act roundly within the last four months. I would like to know which ones have not supported the federal government in ensuring the Canada Health Act is effective and taking whatever steps are needed. All of the provinces, as far as I am concerned, have supported the concept. They believe in the system and in the Canada Health Act. They support the five principles.

The last meeting of provincial health ministers with the federal health minister reiterated that. Alberta said it will support those principles.

Supply April 27th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, typical of the third party is the sentimentality, the rhetoric, the lack of any real fact but let us spew it anyway. Let us do the emotional dance on people.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he could give me clear statistical data which shows that the outcome in acute care is not one of the highest and best in the world, that people who clinically need care are not getting it.

We have to be very careful to clear the wood between need and want. Health care is not a marketplace commodity. The difference between what a patient needs for appropriate care and what a patient thinks he or she wants is very different.

We provide the best health care in the world that patients need. When we talk about people needing urgent care and not getting it I would like to ask the hon. member if he can give me clear examples of people who have increased mortality because they need acute care and do not get it. That, Mr. Speaker, is not true.