Rob Merrifield

[Business of the House, November 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague. He knows the subject very well. Some things have been excluded from his dialogue and it is probably because of a time restraint. I am quite concerned about the issue and the idea of splitting the bill. He has laid out the argument very well.

Other nations have wrestled with the same difficult subject. The United Kingdom has moved and has a regulatory agency. It is probably the leader in the world as far as the direction of technology, the regulatory body and in some things it allows in the area of research.

The Americans have also been wrestling with this. Over the last year we have heard them say that there will be no embryonic stem cell research. They have gone one step farther than that. An advisory committee for President George Bush has suggested that embryos, the fertilization of an ovum and a sperm, should not be called an embryo but rather a human subject.

Are the dialogues and what is happening in the States and has happened in the United Kingdom related to some of what we are wrestling with here? Could the member shed some light on his feelings on that?

[Business of the House, November 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask a question on this matter. It is a very important issue. I am sure that at the root of my colleague's concern is the impact Bill C-13 would have on some provinces.

I understand that Quebec is very concerned about embryonic stem cell research. In fact some dialogue has taken place as to whether Quebec will allow embryonic stem cell research to be done there. I applaud Quebec for that. I think it is a progressive move, one that is ahead of many other areas in the country.

However, the piece of legislation has an equivalency agreement contained within it. If it allows embryonic stem cell research, which will take precedence: the provinces or this piece of legislation?

I also wonder if my hon. colleague would speak to the reason why he wants this piece of legislation split, the appalling procedure of therapeutic and reproductive cloning? If his province feels so strongly about embryonic stem cell research, does it also feel the same about cloning? Is the idea that Quebec will not allow human cloning within the province on its books?

I am also a bit confused about this jurisdictional thing, because we are seeing from the provinces intense pressure on Bill C-13 and this area, reproductive cloning. I am a bit confused because my colleague, his party and his province seem less interested in provincial jurisdiction with regard to the impact of the Kyoto accord, which would have many more repercussions on his province than this bill would have.

[National Security, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, reports this week suggest that Iraq and North Korea have the smallpox virus. The U.S. has a plan to vaccinate every man, woman and child in the United States within five days of an outbreak.

It takes six months to produce a new vaccine and we have not even ordered it yet.

The Americans take this threat seriously. Why do we not take it seriously?

[Health, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the money for health care has to come from one of two places: new taxes or new priorities. The government has to come clean on this one. Which is it going to be?

[Health, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is still quite confused. He says that he does not favour a tax increase for health care, but he also says that if we are driven to that conclusion we will have to consider it.

Let us just clear this up. Will there be higher taxes for health care?

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his comments. As the former member of Parliament for Yellowhead, we served the same people. When I talk with the veterans, who were prepared to go to war to defend this nation, they are very proud of their history. They are very proud of the people who serve in the armed forces right now. They are not very proud with the way they are being treated.

When I look at the shambles we have with the submarines which have just been purchased or when I see, such as I did this weekend, that the helicopters cannot get off the ground, it is very frustrating.

Do we have the same problem with this government with regard to the military as we do with health care? I am the health critic for my party. It has been a culture of neglect over a decade, rather than just more money.

[Health, November 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister wants to spend five years and $15 million just to study obesity in this country but we already know what poor diet and inactivity do. How much of that $15 million is actually going to help kids today?

[Health, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the past the health minister has refused to rule out a tax increase but today the finance minister said that they are flush with cash, so will the health minister stand up today and rule out a tax increase for health care?

[Health, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government is flush with cash revealed today by the finance minister, yet the government has refused to rule out a tax increase for health. Why would that be, unless higher taxes are on its agenda?

[Health Care, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister said, “My preference is always to look at the surplus dollars or reallocation from within”. What is it going to be, reallocation or more taxes?