Rob Merrifield

[Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thought this would be the opportunity to begin my debate but it is even better to begin with a question for the minister. Most of my dialogue would have been to question the minister on the lack of intensity in dealing with SARS from the very beginning.

Why would the minister not discern the need for a federal quarterback dealing with the issues from coast to coast on SARS rather than giving it off to the provinces? I think the provinces have done a tremendous job. I could not agree more with the minister that the province of Ontario has done a tremendous job, particularly in the Toronto area.

Why was it that there was not a national quarterback dealing with the issue when the travel advisory first came out that morning, that Nova Scotia said it would not advise travel to Toronto and Alberta said it would not advise travel to Toronto? There was no national agenda to say that we would deal with this on a national basis.

Why was the minister not prepared to stand up and work as a national quarterback on that issue and many other issues right from the very beginning a little over a month ago when SARS was first identified?

[Health, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the original recommendation, and she knows it, was to interview outgoing passengers.

The Ontario health minister will be travelling to Geneva to meet with the WHO. That is the good news. But where is the federal health minister? The WHO is an international organization. What will it take to engage the government and who is speaking for Canada?

[Health, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, back on March 27 the WHO recommended interviewing outgoing passengers, but the minister refused. We agreed with it at that time. The human and economic fallout of that decision is with us today. What a mistake it was for the government not to require interviews at that time.

Will the government now admit that the previous measures were inadequate and fix them?

[Vatche Arslanian, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Vatche Arslanian, a former resident of Oromocto, New Brunswick, who lost his life in Iraq on Tuesday.

Mr. Arslanian was working with the International Red Cross. His life ended when the vehicle that he was driving came under gunfire in eastern Baghdad. Vatche Arslanian was 48 years old. He had been in Iraq for two years, distributing food, water and medicine, and installing generators to help keep the lights on in hospitals. One of his colleagues had this to say:

He was an amazing man. We did a number of interviews with him before the war broke out and he was very determined that he was staying and helping those people who needed him so desperately.

The Canadian Alliance wishes to extend its sympathy to Mr. Arslanian's family, friends and colleagues. We also pay tribute to the International Red Cross for the dedication and selflessness of those who put their very lives at risk in the service to others.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has been in the House for a considerable length time and has lived in Canada for a considerable period of time.

My question is about how the bill, if passed, will change the ethics of a nation. The principle we have lived under is that respect for human life is a Canadian value. One of the fundamentals is the protection of human life, regardless of how vulnerable it is.

This legislation changes our ethics. In it we are prepared to destroy life for the sake of research. Therefore, instead of protecting human life we are prepared to destroy life for the greater good of society. It changes the whole foundation on which we built the law for which Canadians have come to respect and enjoy.

If we were to apply that principle, the health care dollars that will become precious as we move forward in the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, we could perhaps say that grandmothers at a certain age should not have treatment, perhaps the mentally challenged should not have treatment, or perhaps the handicapped should not have treatment because it is a different ethic.

If the ethic is for the greater good of society, we cannot afford it. I know that sounds extreme but does my hon. colleague not see the change of ethic that we will be vaulting ourselves into if we allow this legislation to go forward the way it is?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions because they are very important. My question is about the amendment we put forward on donor anonymity and on which my hon. colleague has not had an opportunity to comment.

The idea is that when an egg or sperm is donated for the purpose of reproducing, we have to allow the ability of the child produced from that to know where he or she came from and understand who his or her genetic parents are. In Canada somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 children are born this way every year.

It is unbelievable that this piece of legislation is now protecting the parent rather than providing opportunity for the child. It gets the principle wrong. The principle is that the child must be protected and if the House will not protect the interests of the child, who will? The next person who has to be protected is the parent, and then the science and the researchers. In this area of the bill, it changes that paradigm so that it protects the parent above the child. The bill gets it completely wrong.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague would comment on his perspective of the idea of donor anonymity.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague specifically when it comes to the idea of surrogacy.

One amendment came forward with regard to opening up the whole area of surrogacy which would allow not only the payment of expenses but also the payment for loss of salary. It opens this whole area up to commodification beyond anything the committee ever dreamt of. In fact, it was one of the things the committee was concerned about. Committee members were unanimous that this not be allowed to happen. However, this was overturned by the House in an 11th hour amendment at report stage. It is unbelievable.

The most important part of the bill is the regulatory agency. The regulatory agency will regulate this issue into the 21st century and beyond. The individuals who sit on that agency are very important.

I wonder if my colleague has the same concern as I do regarding the regulatory agency and the power of the minister to control it and to determine who sits on it. I do have some discomfort with regard to the amendment that was overthrown, which passed by a vote of 116 to 114 at report stage. This allows the individuals to have a conflict of interest while sitting on the agency.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, while my hon. colleague talked for 20 minutes, I think he just nicely warmed up the subject. He could have gone on for another 20 minutes and still not reached the depth of the material that is there.

As committee members we worked on this very intensely over the last two years and with great frustration as he described. We have been ignored as a committee. The recommendations coming from the committee over the last two years have been completely overlooked on at least four different issues.

The hon. member talked of strikes one, two, three and four. I can give him strikes five, six, seven and eight as to why this piece of legislation should not be allowed to proceed. One is the recommendations on surrogacy. Another is the regulatory agency. Another is the embryo and what that changes as far as the ethics of a nation. Another is donor anonymity.

Would my hon. colleague comment on some of those issues that he did not have enough time to comment on? Would he explain his views to the House on those issues?

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's comments, especially those regarding trade. It is interesting to note that he is suggesting that our lack of participation in the war will not hurt trade in the long term.

There is the dispute that is happening now regarding softwood lumber and agriculture, and the tariffs on both. That is okay because it is a dispute between different groups in two different countries. They are minor disputes which can be worked out through negotiations. However, I received a call from a constituent who is trucking in the United States and he is having a difficult time right now. He told me that this is not a small dispute over minor things but goes to the root of the different views that one nation has with the other regarding its involvement.

I do not believe we should have gone to war because of economics or because of our relationship. We should have gone to war because of values. We should have gone if it was the right thing to do and it respected the values of Canadians as a peace loving and freedom loving people who stand up for human rights.

Does my colleague believe that when we trade $1.5 million a minute with the United States it will not have any long term impact on the economy of this country?

[Health, April 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I just quoted from the WHO's own material. Whatever we do in Canada may be insignificant if infected passengers are coming to Canada from places like Hong Kong and Singapore.

Perhaps the minister could inform us if passengers from Hong Kong, Singapore and possibly China are being interviewed prior to departure for Canada. Are they being screened by pamphlet or interview or not at all?