Rob Merrifield

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to speak on this important piece of legislation. I have said before that it is probably the most important piece of legislation that the 37th Parliament will have to debate and to discern how to put forward and bring into law in Canada.

I say that because many of the bills that come forward in the House have two ulterior motives. Either they deal with finances, the dollars and cents, the money that people give in trust to us as parliamentarians to spend on their behalf, or they deal with the liberties of this land, the freedoms or the laws and rules.

However, this piece of legislation is not about either one of these. This piece of legislation is about life and death. To say that it does anything less than that is not doing it justice as far as the intensity of the bill is concerned.

This group of motions is very important because it deals with the areas of cloning and embryonic stem cells in many ways. To start with, the motions talk about the whole area of cloning. We have a society that really does not understand cloning other than knowing that the general consensus internationally is that cloning is not appropriate.

As for the reason cloning is not appropriate, we have seen and heard a lot of discussion about it with regard to Dolly, the sheep that was our first cloned animal. Dolly recently had to be put to death because she was in such pain. So we knew that through animal research it was possible to clone an animal and it created a considerable amount of interest in the research community and for the ordinary person walking on the street who would say that it is possible to clone someone now.

However, they do not understand the real problems and what it takes to be able to bring about a cloned sheep like Dolly. People need to discern that it takes at least 200 to 300 embryos before one is actually able to grow in a womb and to be born without defects. Three hundred are needed before there is one good one. For a sheep we might say that is not a real ethical problem because a sheep is an animal, but when it is a human being, a new baby, that is significantly different.

We have had a lot of talk about cloning in the media in the last little while. The Raelian cult suggested that it has three cloned babies. The cult says it will prove that they are clones. We have seen absolutely no proof of that. Whether they are or are not, we are not sure and it really does not matter.

Let me suggest that we speculate and say that perhaps they were born, and with what we know is true about cloning, only one would have been born correctly without being retarded, deformed or somehow malfunctioning, and if they were born they probably would not be able to develop fully. If that is indeed the case, it is probably no wonder that there is some hesitation on their part to bring more media attention to that, because there would be a reaction, with the international community saying that we absolutely do not want to go there. It just so happens that the Raelian cult has a base in Quebec. If the Raelian cult were to have that statistic of one in 300 being born healthy, it would want to go to a country that supports socialistic medicine so that it would not have to pay for the many costs that would be imposed.

There are many reasons why the international community is saying that cloning is inappropriate. One thing that is important to discern is that the scientific community does not really tell the truth when it talks about this whole area of banning cloning, because the ink is not yet dry on the draft piece of legislation and we have the scientific community yelling and screaming that we have to allow therapeutic cloning.

I would suggest that most members in the House do not understanding the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Certainly most people in Canada do not totally understand the difference between the two. In reality, there is not any difference. It is the same process. The only real difference is that one is killed at 14 days or prior to 14 days and the stem cells are taken.

So when we look at this legislation we have to truly discern what we are trying to do with this whole area of cloning. If we are to bring in a piece of legislation that is going to push us as a society into an area where we are prepared to destroy human life for the sake of research, then we should go very cautiously. If we are going to err, we should err on the side of caution. If we are going to convince Canadians that where we are going is the right and appropriate way to go, then we should be clear and solid in our position.

The fuzziness in this piece of legislation with regard to the whole area of just cloning itself, in this group, is something that should ring all sorts of alarms in our minds and in the minds of Canadians. If people think that we are getting technical about our opposition to what is in the bill and in saying that we need amendments to make it better, let me say that we do it because the legislation as it is does not move us into an area that is safe for our society and protects us from abuse by the scientific community and the potential of where it might want to go with this whole area of cloning. Therein lies the reason we support Motion No. 13.

Let us go to Motion No. 14, which really describes the idea of reproductive procedures. We are saying that when it comes to creating an embryo, it should not be created for the purpose of experimentation on the reproductive side. This is another motion that we support. We do not have any problems supporting the motion because it makes a little clearer the intent as to where we think it should be allowed or should not be allowed.

I would like to get into the area of the embryo and the embryonic stem cell, because they are two areas that are very important in this piece of legislation. One is whether we are going to allow ourselves to destroy human life for the sake of research, and that is the embryo. The other is a regulatory body that is very important because it has to garner the support of the nation as we move forward in the 21st century to determine what we will allow and what we will not.

There are two views on the embryo. One is the view of people with diabetes, and the diabetes association, and people with Parkinson's, leukemia and multiple sclerosis. They all want to use the embryo. They have been convinced that the embryonic stem cell would give them a golden opportunity for some cures.

I would challenge them and I have challenged them. I have had them in my office and talked to them. I have tried to encourage them to look at the science and look clearly at what is actually happening, because this legislation would allow research in this area if it is deemed to be necessary, but we do not determine or define what necessary means, so it allows almost anything.

For those people who think that the answer is in the embryonic stem cell research, I say to them and I challenge them, in 20 years of research, what have we seen come through with the research on the animal embryo? The animal embryo has not produced the kinds of solutions they are looking for and I think this is holding out false hope for them.

Yet when we look at the other side of it, the adult stem cell, we see some tremendous advancements in Parkinson's, leukemia and multiple sclerosis and actual cures in some of these cases with the adult stem cells. It is not just a pipe dream. It is not something that is trumped up. It is something that is there and we can see that there have actually been cures over the last year.

In Canada we have 31 million people, which is a very small number when we think of 6 billion people in the world. With 31 million people and limited resources, we should channel our energy, research and effort into areas that show the most hope and have the most cures. We are not going to solve all the world's problems, but we should take the money we have and apply it to what is most beneficial for Canadians, whose money it is in the first place. I would suggest that this would be in the non-embryonic stem cell research.

The hype and drive of scientists to be able to say that we should use these embryos is something that is alarming to me. It is alarming because I think that there is nothing stopping them from doing the embryonic stem cell research on animals, and they should continue with that. That is why Motion No. 17 is to prohibit the use of embryonic stem cell research. That really is the same as what the health committee said, or what we have said, which is that we should limit it for a three year period, but this legislation has in it a review every three years, so if we prohibit it for now it accomplishes exactly the same thing. So we would support that, because if we are going to err we should err in going cautiously. Although we have waited for a decade to have legislation come forward in this place and we need to proceed with it, we need to proceed in an intelligent way that is in the best interests of the people of Canada. I would suggest that we should make these amendments as they are in the best interests of Canadians.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important subject. It is probably the most important piece of legislation that the House will deal with in the history of the 37th Parliament. I would ask that you have a quorum call to encourage members to come in and listen to my hon. colleague as he has lots to say.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my point is that the outcome of the vote on Motion No. 93 would determine how we would vote on Motion No. 94. Did you declare Motion No. 94 as carried?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think my colleague was asking why we would go to Motion No. 94 without going to Motion No. 93. Motion No. 93 in my order would come first. If Motion No. 93 was supported, then we would support Motion No. 94. However, if it was not, we would not. That is the confusion I have. I am wondering if you could give the House clarification on that.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants me to talk about the debt. There was a change to accrual accounting in the budget. The day before the budget came down the debt was $536 billion, but because of the accrual accounting it moved to $563 billion in one day.

When we factor in that money my hon. colleague says that we are moving down and we are not in deficit. The only reason is because of the surplus that was there which is an overtaxation. It is not a government that has put its priorities on health care, which is the number one priority of Canadians. It is a government that has just dipped into the surpluses which is overtaxation and thrown it at the problem. That is an absolute abomination and will not be sustainable.

If the government does not pay down its debt in good times when it has surpluses, when will it pay it down? It never will be paid down.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question, because I did not have time in my 10 minutes to get into this in some depth. Hopefully I can answer this in such a way that the member will understand and discern the missed opportunity by the government with this allotment of money. Not only did it miss the opportunity in the September 2000 accord when two or three months prior to the election it supposedly threw $23 billion at the health care system, none of that money hit that system until the next April. It was just an illusion, no strings attached, nothing following that money.

Supposedly this accord was to attach some strings from the federal government. Let me tell the member something. It will not work when strings are attached from the top down. What we need to do is demand an explanation from the provinces as to where that money is going to be spent in order to drive sustainability, efficiency and accountability into the system. Then we need to make sure that the provinces put the postmarks in a place where we can record them, so we can find out exactly where they should be and then hold them accountable before the people of Canada. That is from the bottom up, and let me say that it will be very difficult for the provinces to back down on an agreement where they take money and apply it to where they say it should go.

They are in a much better position to be able to place that money than to have the federal government demanding where the money should go when the provinces are quite alienated and cannot apply the dollars where they should go. The government has the right idea but it is going in the wrong direction and it is doomed to failure. Mark my words, two years from now we will be in the same position and health care will not be on the sustainable course that we could have placed it on at this moment, and that is unfortunate.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure to speak today with regard to the federal budget. As the member for Yellowhead and official opposition health critic, I would like to speak to the largest expenditure in the budget, which is the proposed investment dollars for health care and the future of Canadians.

The government has a very dismal track record when it comes to health care, because it really has done nothing except pull money out of it in the mid-nineties and watched it struggle and wrestle and flap in the wind as the provinces dealt with intense problems and intense pressures as they tried to follow their mandate of delivering health care to Canadians.

Health care is number one as far as the priority of Canadians is concerned, yet the government has failed to recognize that over the past number of years. The budget is a failed opportunity by the government to drive accountability and sustainability into the health care system. I will explain that a little further as I go through my deliberations and a review of what has actually happened.

We have to understand where health care is right now. In examining the facts and figures, we see that wait times have increased. Tens of thousands of Canadians lack the ability to access a family physician. Right now in Canada we have an intense problem with the human resources side of health care. Looking at the budget and looking at the accord, and whether it was signed or not does not really matter, whether agreed to or not by the provinces and the federal government does not really matter, we recognize that precious little was done in this area.

It is no wonder that earlier this year the finance minister was forced to actually concede that his last attempt at putting dollars into the health care system, which was the September accord, was a failed attempt in the sense that it did not shorten wait lists at all or improve access to health care in any significant way. I would suggest that we will be sitting in this same Chamber a year or possibly two from now, having the same debate and examining the same problems with the same significant dilemmas when it comes to human resources in health care.

The new money is now on the table and it is time to get on with the job of real health care reform. The Canadian Alliance will hold the federal and provincial governments accountable to ensure that the new health care funding the new health spending buys genuine reform and does not allow more of the same status quo, which is not a sustainable factor. Looking at the demographics that will hit the health care system and the number of people crowding in at the age of 65 and beyond, we will not start to see any relief from that pressure of that aging demographic until the year 2040.

Therefore we have to discern very carefully the intense dilemma that we are going to be in as we move through the next 20, 30 or 40 year period. In doing so, we have to do our very best to sustain the health care system. In light of that, we have to discern whether the dollars placed in health care in this budget were appropriately placed there and whether there is appropriate accountability for those dollars.

The official opposition welcomes the health accord. We have to understand that it was really the budget for health care. The health accord was reflected within the budget; they were just two weeks away from each other. Nonetheless, it promoted and pushed forward a national agenda of health care reforms.

First and foremost, we think that Canadians will benefit when the provincial and federal governments stop their squabbling and stop their jurisdictional disputes around health care and get on with delivery. If we were to look at the numbers the day after the accord, there was some confusion in this country as to how many dollars were actually spent on health care. We should not really worry about that, because if we did not like the numbers we saw in one paper, we just had to pick up another paper to see a different set of numbers. It was that confusing. After we discern the package in the budget for health care and in the accord, there is still some confusion because there is a lot of negotiation and a lot of fuzzy areas that are yet to be determined as we move forward in the next couple of years. Nonetheless, we know that for primary health care reform there is at least $12 billion.

However, the real change in health care, the real significant paradigm shift that we need in the 21st century, is to put the interests of the patient first. We need to get on with that and we need to stop the fighting between the federal and provincial governments as to whose dollars are going into health care. Let us just start focusing on some of the things that have come out of the accord which we really agree with. I would like to talk about five of them and very briefly go through them and explain why they are important and why we agree with them.

First, the new cash infusion is very important. I talked about the $12 billion that is going into primary health care reform. We have to discern whether it is really $12 billion, because $3.9 billion of that was part of the social accord just prior to the last election. We still get this attempt by the federal government to play politics with the money by re-announcing money previously announced. I do not know how it determined that this is an ethical way to deal with taxpayers' dollars, but regardless of that, I would suggest that we quit arguing about that number. Let us just say there is $12 billion more, even if $3.9 billion of it was previously announced money and actually only $8.1 billion is going into primary health care reform.

It is absolutely pathetic when we see the number of dollars that are going in and discern that this new money is the first real, solid cash injection of money since the mid-nineties when $25 billion was pulled out of our system. Now we have provinces in which 40% of every provincial dollar goes to health care, whereas the federal government, according to Mr. Romanow's report, only contributed 12¢ of every provincial dollar that was spent on health care this last year.

We have this large injection. Some of my Liberal colleagues would say that this is not quite true because they put in all of this money in the September accord, but not really, because that was a five year accord and not one nickel of the money for health care reform went in until April of the first year. We are only now just crowding in on the third year of that. We still have two years to go on that past accord and we are re-announcing new moneys.

One thing that is important is the flexibility we see within the dollars that are being implemented into the new programs suggested by the accord and by this budget. Because provinces are the deliverers of front line health care services, it is very important that they be allowed the flexibility to apply those dollars to where they are most suited to their provinces' needs.

An example of that is New Brunswick, which has a very extensive home care program. Regarding the new dollars that are supposed to be applied to home care, at least it has the opportunity to take those dollars and apply them in other areas. That flexibility is there and we applaud the provinces for holding fast to their constitutional right in delivering health care, for not allowing the federal government to remove that from the accord or from the budget.

The third thing I want to talk about is restoring core funding to health care. It is very important that those core funds are allowed to be applied where they are most needed. It is really interesting to me to see that $243 million has been spent by the government for just studying health care over the last 10 years. That is a horrendous amount of studying.

In Mr. Romanow's study, which went on for 18 months, we see virtually a blank stare when it comes to dealing with the most significant problem in health care: the mounting wait lists. Over a million people in Canada are waiting just to try to access the services and the system. There are a number of shortages of physicians and nurses in our health care system. I have just come from a meeting with a group of physicians who were saying that the problem is much more acute than we originally had thought.

It is very important to talk about the alternative delivery system that the provinces need and must have the flexibility to be able to deliver on. Monopolies never work, whether they are private or public monopolies. We need to make sure that the provinces are allowed to be able to drive efficiency, accountability and sustainability into our health care system. Thank goodness that they have retained this under the accord.

We also are very appreciative of the dedicated health transfer that is going to happen by the end of this next year, in regard to which the Auditor General said that we do not even know how much federal money is going in because the CHST has such fuzzy numbers. It is going to be split. To be able to add accountability to the health care system, we should be able to know how many dollars actually are being spent there.

It is very important that we discern and understand that we are on the right track, but we absolutely have to make sure that now that we are on solid footing, we put the interests of the patients first as we move forward in the 21st century to sustain health care.

[Health, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada exists to protect the health and safety of Canadians, but the national standards for the safety of tissue and organ transplants are still not in place.

Regulations are estimated to be at least two years away, so my question is very simple. If the transplants are taking place, why are the standards not in place?

[B.C. Ear Bank, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada's ability to ensure the health and safety of Canadians has been called into question once again.

The B.C. Ear Bank was shut down in October after local officials discovered shoddy record keeping. They could not determine whether tissues had been properly screened for diseases such as HIV or hepatitis. All tissues have been recalled and officials say that anyone who has received tissue since 1975 should undergo testing.

Concerns about the clinic were raised in the early 1990s and again in 1998. Is this another tainted blood scandal?

Canadians deserve to know why action was not taken when red flags went up in the 1990s. Why did Health Canada wait until yesterday to inform Canadians when the clinic was shut down in October? What national standards are in place to prevent such problems from occurring in the first place?

This afternoon those questions will be placed on the Order Paper. We expect clear answers from the government.

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Yellowhead it is a great privilege for me to speak to this legislation.

This very important piece of legislation is long overdue. It is long overdue because of what I see as a deterioration of democracy in the country. It really is a hurtful situation when we see some of the disasters of cabinet ministers and individuals who have allowed corruption to infiltrate their professionalism as politicians.

I was newly elected as a member of Parliament in the last election. When I go back to my riding, I tell people sort of under my breath that I am a politician. At the airport people may not know exactly who I am and I am a little shy about telling them I am a politician because of the connotation around the word “politician”. People do not like the idea of a politician, provincial and particularly federal. The word “politician” is reflected negatively. Interestingly, it is because of the lack of performance, lack of credibility and lack of ethics that we have seen so much from the government.

Over the last two decades we have seen the amount of control the ordinary person walking the street has as far as federal politicians and decisions go in the House. It is really disturbing. We come into this place and say that we live in a democratic land. We come in here to debate the issues of the nation and to make laws that are good for the citizens of Canada yet the words in our debate become so hollow because nobody listens in this place. Nobody understands that it is not a true debate here because the people who make the decisions are bound to the party position so much, particularly on the other side of the House. They act like trained seals. They do not vote according to the conscience and will of the people who sent them to this place.

It disturbs me that the name tag on this bench has my name on it. This is not my seat. It is the seat of every man, woman and child of the constituency of Yellowhead. So often in this place we forget whom we are supposed to represent.

Then we bring in legislation like the bill before us which would allow democracy to slip even further than it has already. It is a shameful situation that this legislation is before us. It is a shameful thing in the country when we allow democracy to slip from our ability to be a government of the people. That has to change.

My grandfather fought for democracy and freedom in both world wars and it disturbs me that many times people in the House do not have the backbone to stand up and fight for democracy of the people in their ridings who sent them here. That has to change if we are truly to be a nation of the people and have a government that responds to the people.

Why is this legislation here? It is before us because Parliament has lost its way, one might say, but I think there are three reasons it is here.

Number one, Canadians think that the Liberal government is in the pocket of big business. We have seen the scandals involving cabinet ministers. The perception of the government is it is one plagued with scandal after scandal. It has lost the confidence of the people.

This legislation is an attempt by the government to become Mr. Clean. It cannot become Mr. Clean by bringing in legislation that moves us even further from the people we are trying to represent. One becomes clean by getting rid of the scandals and the corruption that have allowed the confidence to slip away.

The second reason is that the Liberal government is not able to pay for its own party debts. That party is in debt up to its eyeballs. The Prime Minister has said publicly that he will not leave the party and the government in debt. How will that party get rid of the debt? The government brings in a piece of legislation that forces the electorate, ordinary hardworking Canadian men and women, to pay off that debt. That is scandalous.

The third reason is because internal party politics are involved in this. We should examine why the Prime Minister, at the end of his term, wants to change the rules of how politics works in the country. Many members who have spoken on this piece of legislation have asked, what would drive the Prime Minister to bring this in at the eleventh hour? Is it a guilty conscience or is it personal petty politics that are driving this decision? We must discern and consider all of these things as we look at this piece of legislation.

After all the Liberal media spin and rhetoric has been put aside, it can simply be said that we have a government that is replacing the addiction to large business and corporate donations to an addiction to direct taxpayer funding. That is my biggest and strongest opposition to this piece of legislation.

The Liberal government does not really like democracy or citizen participation. It has shown that. That is why so many members from this side of the House say that we need free votes on legislation. Either a piece of legislation is good for Canadians and garners 50% plus 1 of the members of Parliament who represent their constituencies and the people of Canada or it does not. It should continue to be amended until it does garner that support. That is democracy and that would be in the best interests of the country.

I have spoken to Liberal members who say that every vote is a free vote. In reality they know it is not; it is party position. If it is a free vote, they are certainly voting the wrong way on a lot of these issues. What is even more disturbing is a government that in the last session brought in 73 time allocation motions and 9 closure motions. When it forces debate to end in the House and says it is absolutely going to drive legislation through regardless of what the representatives of the people of this country are saying, and does not listen to them, then that makes this place a mockery.

I am fortunate in that the constituency of Yellowhead is a large rural riding. When I return home I have the opportunity to bring every issue that we are wrestling with in this place to the people of Yellowhead in a closer way than if I was a member of Parliament representing a large urban area. I am able to place a column or a news release in most of the papers, of which there are about 13 or 14 in my riding. I am able to talk on the radio so I can inform people of the issues that are happening here. Because of that, my constituents are much more in tune with what is happening in Ottawa than if they were in a large urban riding.

As a member of Parliament it is a privilege to be able to explain to them what is actually happening and how the laws that we debate here would impact them. Even in the midst of that when I return home, they feel alienated. They feel they are left out and their voices are not heard here. I say that because if we look at the last election almost 40% of the electorate did not exercise their ability to vote in this country. With only 60% voting one can discern quickly that we have a problem with democracy in this country.

I have spent some time as a municipal representative and I have spent some time in the provincial government as a regional health authority on health care. I am much more in tune with what actually can happen at those levels of government and how at those levels of government we can represent the people in a more aggressive way. It is very important that we discern that the power of this House must be broken from the Prime Minister's Office and the press gallery, and be given back to the people of Canada.

When we look at this piece of legislation where $1.50 would be coming out of each taxpayer's pocket to subsidize political parties in this country, we should realize quickly that it is something that is not in the best interests of this country. It would alienate Canadians even further than the 40% because not only would they feel they are not being heard, but they would feel that they were not even needed to be able to contribute to the party of their choice to influence the decisions that are made in this place.

That is a shameful part of this piece of legislation that must be corrected. As it goes back to committee, and through the process of the House, I hope that those important things would be taken into consideration for Canada to remain a truly democratic country.