Rob Merrifield

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the minister's remarks. In particular, I was struck with the word renewal in regard to our health care system. I understand that Mr. Romanow is going across this country and I think many people have great hopes of what he will come out with in his report next November. We certainly appreciated the opportunity to dialogue with him last week when we discussed health care with him.

What he is doing is very important and I am not trying to diminish it, but when we start talking about renewal it sort of scares me because I do not believe our health care needs renewal. I believe our health care needs support, it needs foresight and it needs leadership, all of which we have seen such a tremendous lack of over the last year.

It really disturbs me when I see what has happened to the number one priority of this country, which is health care. I agree with the minister when she at least acknowledges that. That is the way the electorate sees health care. This is very important and it is very important that we look at some of the challenges coming down the road in health care. I will mention that a little bit later in my remarks, but my question for the minister comes to the issue of the billion dollars and what happened in the accord of 2000.

In the accord of 2000, there was $1 billion for medical equipment. We just have had reports about it. I have been following this all spring, actually, and have been waiting for the minister to come forward or for the figures to come forward at the end of the fiscal year so that we would know how the money was actually being spent. Now we see that almost half that money, $486 million, is unaccounted for.

Some of the money was spent inappropriately. Some of it was put into what not many people would see as high tech equipment, such as lawn mowers, sewing machines, icemakers and so on. I am wondering if the minister would like to comment on the lack of accountability in giving that money to the provinces and not watching where it went.

[Millennium Scholarships, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute today to four winners of the millennium scholarship from the beautiful riding of Yellowhead.

The recipients for the 2002-2003 academic year are: Tomas Rochford from St. Joseph School, Whitecourt; Myka Jones from Hilltop High School, Whitecourt; Laura McPherson from Grande Cache Community High School, Grande Cache; and Sheena Ptokipchuk from Mayerthorpe High School, Mayerthorpe.

Their hard work, curiosity and dedication to their studies has led them to these honours. I wish to congratulate them for their academic achievements and wish them much success as they continue their studies. I also wish to congratulate the dedicated teachers and supportive parents who have made their own contributions to these achievements.

Tomas, Myka, Laura and Sheena, we wish them all the best as they begin their university studies and look forward to hearing from them in the future as they contribute to a better Canada.

[Reproductive Technology, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer from the Minister of Health.

Yesterday the Canadian biotechnology advisory committee recommended that patents on human bodies should be prohibited at all stages of development. However, in January we were shocked to learn that Industry Canada had been issuing patents on human genes for years, so human life has become a commodity in Canada.

Is the government comfortable with that practice or will it do something about it?

[Reproductive Technology, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the commodification of human life is a serious concern. The health committee was unanimous in calling for a prohibition on the patenting of humans as well as any human materials. Why has the health minister ignored her committee?

[Pest Control Products Act, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to address Motion No. 1. My hon. colleague mentioned that it adds the information that would be allowed for confidential business information. This is also specified in the bill. In the original framing of the wording in the bill, we understand that companies which have developed many different products, are rather nervous about the information already available. Also a reading room will be made available for people to read through the information but no information can be written down. Therefore this amendment makes them a little more nervous.

It is important to understand that the bill is not only about pesticides and what pesticides can or cannot come into the country or go out of it, it is also about health and safety There are two sides to the argument. The extreme side says that no pesticides should be allowed into Canada. The other side says it is difficult for us to be competitive with our neighbours to the south and other international countries because of our slowness in and restrictions on allowing pesticides into the country.

Many of the new pesticides which are being restricted are much safer and better than the ones we presently use. This kind of negative incentive to the companies that would bring products into Canada would be put in jeopardy many of our farmers and our agricultural community. They are not looking for a competitive edge. They are looking for a level playing field with many of our trading partners. Therefore it is very important for us not to entrench this confidential business information any more than that we already have. That would be a difficult one for us to support.

We discussed Motion No. 7 in committee in a pretty significant way. It is a very important amendment because it goes to the root reason of why we are here. That is to represent the people who put us in office, to express their will and to conduct business of the nation in a way that is respectful and representative of the people for whom we speak.

The amendment says that on a seven year review, the legislation could go directly to the Senate and a Senate committee for review. The Senate is unelected, unrepresentative and friendly to a prime minister of the government in power. Therefore it is not a sober second thought. It goes against the fundamentals of democracy when a review of a piece of legislation as important as this does not come back to the committee of the Commons that dealt with it originally.

We talked about this at some length at the committee. It was very important because as the debate went around, all parties in the committee agreed with the change to the bill. They agreed that when the bill came up for review that it should not go to a Senate committee but rather to a committee of the House of Commons. It is very important that we not jeopardize the democracy for which we fought so hard. It is very important that committee work be dealt with in a respectful way. That subamendment was considered with forethought and with definite ideas that it was important to the legislation.

We might think that this might have been originally an oversight in the bill. However Bill C-56, which deals with the ethics of the nation, uses exactly the same language. That bill is subject to a three year review. It too could go directly to the Senate for review, an unelected, unrepresentative group of individuals who are friendly and appointed by the prime minister, instead of parliament and the health committee.

This amendment must absolutely not be accepted. We must be allowed to continue in the manner in which the health committee recommended. I strongly oppose Motion No. 7.

[Parks Canada, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last September I rose to warn the heritage minister of the environmental harm that was going to occur if national park wardens were unable to fulfill their enforcement role.

Parks Canada has been churning out the line that “little lasting damage was done to national park resources and any that was done was a necessary cost of fighting to be sure wardens did not get side arms”.

Nathan Anderson of the Jasper Booster newspaper has obtained a leaked document from Parks Canada's serious incident reporting system which tells a very different story.

Numerous cases of poaching and other irreversible environmental damage has occurred.

As I said last fall, a little common sense is needed to save our parks. Park wardens are the best able to protect these national treasures.

[Science and Technology, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance strongly supports stem cell research. It makes a difference in the lives of Canadians today.

The new reproductive and related science bill wrongly focuses on embryonic research, the benefit of which is only speculative. The number of individuals who have been helped through embryonic stem cell transplants is zero, while research on adult stem cells can help people today.

Recently, a 52 year old Parkinson's patient was treated with stem cells from his own brain. His symptoms were reduced by 80% and he no longer requires medication. Last month, a Quebec woman with MS was reported to be in remission following a stem cell transplant from her own bone marrow. These are just two of many examples I could tell members about.

Adult stem cell research is making great progress without problems of immune rejection and tumour formation and without the ethical minefield of research using human embryos.

Let us get our focus right on stem cell research.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to go back a year and explain the process that went on with the legislation. It is very important that we look at exactly what we have in Bill C-56 and understand why it is in there. It all started a year ago on May 4 when the bill went directly to committee. It is the first piece of legislation that has ever gone directly to committee. It went right to committee, and I commend the minister at the time for doing that. It is a very contentious issue which is important to all members of the House and all Canadians.

Putting it before committee was a very wise thing to do, before entrenchment of partisan lines and before people said things in which they would entrap themselves before fully understanding the issue. For nine months the committee examined this issue. It had the best witnesses from across Canada and around the world tear the legislation apart and look at it from all sides; the scientific side, the ethical side and the family values side. At the end it was suggested that maybe it was named inappropriately and that it should be named building families.

There are really two parts. We have the part about the in vitro fertilization, the idea of what it takes when infertile couples cannot have children and what has to happen for them to conceive. We looked at what would assist them to build families, to build healthy new Canadians who would develop into prosperous individuals to help and grow society in Canada.

The other side is perhaps as some people would argue not even applicable to the bill. It is all on the scientific side which drives the idea that research should be done to ease the suffering of individuals, which has nothing to do with reproduction other than getting some of the material that could perhaps be used for stem cells in this area. That was important to understand.

We listened to everyone. For scientists, the success of in vitro fertilization is a brand new baby boy or girl. However for society it is much deeper than that. We had witnesses who appeared before the committee who said that who their parents were, where they came from, if there was an anonymous donor that they did not know anything about, left a void in their life which they could not handle later in life. It was very important that we understood the structure of the human body, which is very complex, and the psychological effects on many individuals. Success from the different perspectives was very different so we had to look at all sides of the issue.

On the embryonic stem cell side, if we are going to destroy an embryo, destroy life at its beginning to achieve stem cells by 14 days, kill it, take the stem cells and do research is an ethical minefield in the eyes of many people. We are taking human life at its very early and most vulnerable stage and destroying it. It is not an issue of whether life begins there or not. Biologically it does and whether we like that or not there is nothing we can do about that. The issue is how much value do we place on life at that stage. That is the ethical dilemma in which the House will be placed. It is something that we wrestled with as a committee for a year.

At the end of that, we recognized that there were other alternatives. We had scientists come to the committee who said that we should not go down that path. From the scientific research being done and the easing of human suffering, it was much more successful on the adult stem cell side of it.

In December the committee issued its report on its findings entitled, “Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families”. This was an all party committee. The committee had a majority of Liberal members, and the other members of parliament were three Canadian Alliance, two Bloc, one NDP and one Progressive Conservative. After we listened to all the witnesses, we came up with these recommendations.

The recommendation states:

Research using embryos be a controlled activity requiring a licence. Even if all other regulatory criteria are met, no licence may be issued unless the applicant clearly demonstrates that no other category of biological material could be used for the purposes of the proposed research.

Prior to that, the preamble, we came to that conclusion because we heard that embryonic stem cell research presents some possibilities. Other sources, such as umbilical cord blood or adult stem cells are more available, are more easily obtained, are less ethically contentious. Some witnesses argued that research on stem cells using sources other than embryos might be sufficient to obtain the stem cell potential.

The committee was struck with the testimony that in the past year there have been tremendous gains in adult stem cell research in humans. We also heard that after many years of embryonic stem cell research in animal models, the results are not providing the expected advances. Therefore, we want to encourage research funding in the area of adult stem cells.

After nine months of listening to the best and the brightest in our land and in the world, the committee which had no vested interest said that there were two ways we could go. We could destroy life at its beginning and do research on the embryo which has very limited scientific possibilities at this time, or we could go on this other line which is the adult or non-embryonic stem cell research, which is umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid and on and on. The committee decided to go there. The bill does not reflect that and therein lies the problem and the reason for an amendment. We need a piece of legislation that recognizes the value of the adult or non-embryonic stem cell research.

What has happened since December? As I reported a couple of days ago in the House, in the last 60 days there have been a number of different advancements that have happened involving Parkinson's patients. These results were not just proposed and looked hopeful; the patients were actually cured. It is the same thing for multiple sclerosis and autoimmune resistance and on and on. We have seen tremendous gains in the last 60 days compared to any other time in history. What has happened in this line of research in the last year has been absolutely phenomenal. The advancement is growing and growing.

What happens in the next 60 days or in the next year becomes something we have to recognize. We have to be very cautious of going down the ethically charged line of destroying life at its beginning. All of this is important.

What is interesting is that because of this research we see actual cures coming from adult stem cell research. This was in an article on the fourth or fifth page of the Globe and Mail . If the research had been done on embryos and it had been embryonic stem cells that had cured the Parkinson's and MS patients, it would have been a shot heard around the world.

The drive of the scientists and society to get to the embryos is absolutely astounding. We do not have enough information on this whole area. It is very important that we take our time. We have to deliberate. Society has to wrestle with the same things we have wrestled with in committee so that we do not make mistakes. We must be wise in how we go down this ethically charged line.

The whole idea of patent law is not part of the bill because patent law comes under the industry minister. It is unfortunate. Something on patenting the human body should be placed in this legislation. Patenting the human body should not take place. The human body should be something that we cherish. How we find it may be patented, but certainly we should not allow ourselves to patent the human body.

The most important part of this legislation is not what we do with the embryo; it is what we do with the agency that licenses the research as we go forward in the 21st century. It must be accountable and garner the trust of Canadians if we are to truly have a piece of legislation and work in areas that are so ethically charged. It has to be looked at. It has to be changed. We have to make that as open and transparent as possible. I encourage all members to be wise as we deliberate in that area.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. He reflects the concerns of most Canadians when they look at the issue.

The stem cell issue is so new that people do not know enough about it. They want to know more. They cannot understand the difference between umbilical cord stem cells, stem cells from fat and muscle, adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells and what they all entail. It is complex and difficult to understand. Part of Bill C-56 deals with this. The other part deals with reproduction. The bill has a reproduction side and a science side.

With respect to the bill's science side, if we look forward into the 21st century one of the most important parts of Bill C-56 is the regulatory regime that would license controlled activities in the area. Could my hon. colleague comment on the regulatory body and how important it is that it garner the trust of Canadians? He has been a member of the House for quite some time and understands the importance of the issue.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments with regard to this important area and I agree that it is an issue that crosses ethical lines and we have to be concerned about that.

I would question whether my hon. colleague understands fully the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells. Adult stem cells include umbilical cord, amniotic fluid and stem cells can come from many parts of the body. It is important that our precious resources in Canada not be robbed from research in that area because of the different cures that he had mentioned, like Parkinson's and muscular sclerosis. We have seen actual cures come from those procedures in the last 60 days and yet embryonic stem cell research that has gone on for 20 years in animal studies has really produced very little.

If we are okay to go down that line then are we okay to patent and commodify the human body? Nothing is mentioned in this piece of legislation on patent law and yet the majority report suggests we should not patent human life. I would like some comments on that.