Rob Merrifield

[Research and Development, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Health carefully reviewed the draft legislation and made recommendations. The new CIHR rules contradict the standing committee's report but the minister has praised the new rules and thus has shown her contempt for parliament. It is not the first time for this minister.

Will the minister suspend the CIHR rules until federal legislation is in place?

[Research and Development, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, critical decisions about human life should be made by parliament, but last week the Canadian Institutes of Health Research decided to push ahead with taxpayer funded research on human embryos. Parliament, not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, should be making these decisions. Instead the minister has chosen to hide behind elected bureaucrats to do her dirty work.

Will the minister show some leadership and today table a bill so Canadians can be heard on these life and death matters?

[Bioterrorism, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last November the minister announced the creation of a national advisory committee on bioterrorism. The chair was named and a mandate was given. However, over four months later and six months after September 11, we have learned that the committee has not yet even met. My office confirmed this with the office of a committee member just hours ago.

If the government takes bioterrorism seriously, then why has the committee not even met for the first time?

[Bioterrorism, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as the U.S. led war on terrorism continues, the government's inaction on bioterrorism is nothing short of scandalous.

Months ago, the health minister promised that there would be smallpox vaccine and now the current minister is thinking of going back on that promise. It is almost half a year since September 11 and the minister's department has only begun to train the 1,500 emergency workers needed to counter bioterrorist threats.

How much longer will it be before Canada is ready for a bioterrorist attack?

[Reproductive Technologies, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, recent developments underscore the urgent need for reproductive technologies legislation.

Two weeks ago a Kentucky fertility specialist pledged to clone a human being. His team was to begin this work last week outside the United States, in an undisclosed country. He says he has 10 couples willing to participate. If he were to bring this experiment to Canada, there would be no law to stop him.

In January we learned that Industry Canada has been issuing patents on human genes for years. The health committee was under the impression this was not happening and recommended against gene patenting.

Last week in the health committee the minister pledged to introduce legislation by May 10. We hope that she will keep her word. We hope that such legislation will not be introduced only to die with the prorogation of this House. We have seen that game before, with Bill C-47.

Canadians are waiting.

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand and speak to Bill C-5.

It is important for us to understand that we come to the House to debate the issues and laws of the land as aggressively and positively as possible. Out of every piece of legislation there are winners and losers. Every once in a while we get a bill that is a win win situation where everyone wins. Seldom do we get a bill that is a lose lose situation where everyone loses, both the people for whom it is intended and those who would be impacted by it. Bill C-5 is a lose lose bill.

First, I will speak on behalf of my constituents of Yellowhead. I will explain how Bill C-5 would impact each and every one of them in a variety of ways.

My constituency runs from Edmonton in Alberta to the B.C. border through Jasper National Park. We have a national park in our riding. That is pertinent to species at risk legislation. Species reside within the park, but to get to the park one must go through farmland. There are farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods would be impacted in a dramatic way by this piece of legislation. They are struggling and having a tough time as it is dealing with grasshoppers and finding enough water to grow their crops let alone protecting habitat and endangered species on their property. Bill C-5 would require them to do that.

The oil and gas industry takes up a considerable amount of my riding. The industry harvests a tremendous number of trees. In some areas of the province it harvests more trees than the forest companies. Because it uses pipelines that take down trees and builds roads to its lease sites and well sites, it disturbs a considerable amount of habitat. This piece of legislation would impact its ability to continue to harvest resources in a considerable way.

Bill C-5 would also impact the forest industry. In my riding there are a tremendous number of companies that harvest and farm the forest. It is an 80 year cycle. They farm the forest for 80 years to grow a tree in my constituency. The forest industry is in the midst of changing the habitat as it does block cuts where it has trees growing at different levels and ages all through the riding. Bill C-5 would impact the forest industry in my riding in a considerable way because it talks about habitat of endangered species.

The coal industry would also be impacted because of the water used in coal plants as well as the pollution that perhaps comes out of them. There is concern about what Bill C-5 would mean to the coal industry.

The tourist area of my riding is Jasper National Park, one of the largest national parks in Canada. Bill C-5 would not have a considerable impact within the park because it is protected under the Parks Act. However snowmobiling, the use of ATVs, fishing and all tourist activities in our constituency would be impacted in a significant way.

Bill C-5 would have a much different impact on my riding than on ridings in downtown Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. The species at risk bill would not impact the livelihoods of people in those ridings. Those ridings are considerably different and their constituents look at the legislation in a different way.

If we fail to harness the support of those closest to the land, the habitat and the species we are trying to protect, Bill C-5 will fail because it would put species at risk.

One of the things we must ask ourselves regarding any piece of legislation is how much it would cost. What would be its social impacts? We asked the minister how much Bill C-5 would cost. He does not know. The estimates are $45 million a year and perhaps much more. No study has been done. We do not know what the impacts would be. We do not know how much it would cost the government or those affected by it.

The other thing we ask ourselves is who will determine which species are endangered. Will it be science or legislators? COSEWIC, which is the science, is pitted against the minister and the cabinet. Under this legislation it will not necessarily be scientists because they can be trumped by the minister and cabinet. The same is true with the national standards.

National standards have to be looked at not only from the federal perspective but also from provincial jurisdictions because provinces have species at risk legislation as well. In this case we cannot pit the federal jurisdiction against the provincial jurisdiction without some kind of problem. The government is saying that it will collaborate and listen to the provinces, but then it will trump whatever the provinces do as far as national standards. It is very similar to what we have seen perhaps with the Canada Health Act, which I am even more familiar with, and some of the disruption between the provincial and federal government jurisdictions.

Another one the is the reproductive technology bill, which we are hopeful will be in the House by May 10, as the minister has said. It also has the same provincial and federal jurisdictional problems. If an attempt is not made to overcome those problems by collaboration rather than a big stick, then we will have problems.

This is a piece of legislation that goes against every piece of law that we have in the country in the sense that it is a law where people are guilty before proven innocent. People have to prove they are innocent of the guilt. That really becomes a problem. We can take different approaches to any piece of legislation whether it is a carrot or a stick. In this case, to take the stick and say that they are guilty unless they prove themselves innocent, is counterproductive. What we need is a carrot. We need to engage those who are closest to the species and closest to the habitat. Once we do that, we then make them not a part of the problem but a part of the solution. This legislation fails to do that.

I would like to give a few examples of our neighbours to the south who have been working with endangered species legislation since 1973.

One example that comes to mind is the case of the northern spotted owl which affected most of the forest area of Washington, Oregon and northern California in the 1990s. There were over 2,000 acres of land restricted from logging and tens of thousands of loggers lost their jobs because of that legislation.

There was another piece of legislation only last year in Oregon concerning a short nosed sucker and a lost river sucker. These are two bottom feeding fish in the Klamath basin in Oregon. Thousands of farmers and landowners lost irrigation water because of them. The estimated damage to their crops and livestock was $300 million U.S. to $400 million U.S. because of these fish.

Then there is the illustration of the lynx hair, which was actually sabotage. A group of scientists took the lynx hair and planted it in a national forest in Washington state so the park could not be used. This case will go to a congressional hearing on February 28. The park had to be fenced and there was a halting of all economic, recreational or human use, including no logging, hiking or snowmobiles. This would have happened they had not been caught. Hopefully the perpetrators will be taken to task for this.

Every piece of legislation, as I said, has winners and losers. This piece of legislation has no winners, especially the endangered species. The farmers, the oil and gas people, the forest companies, the coal workers and the tourist industry are the losers.

To give an example of what some people think of the legislation, so members do not think it is just me saying this, Mr. Pope, a director on the stock growers association, said that if someone had to set out to deliberately create a law that would harm wildlife, destroy habitat and discourage private landowners from protecting wildlife on their land, it would be difficult to surpass a law like this one in its current state.

[Health Care, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in November the former health minister promised that 1,500 trainers would be instructing personnel at a local level to respond to bioterrorist attacks. At the beginning of this week, I asked the current minister how many are being trained. It is now the end of the week and I still do not have an answer.

Our sources tell us that the promise of a network of 1,500 trainees is not achievable and it has not even started. How many doctors are being trained?

[Health, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is $900 million left in the hepatitis C compensation fund.

The former minister was clearly mistaken. It is not the end of public health care and there is plenty of money for all of the victims.

Why will the minister not commit to extend compensation to the hepatitis C victims of tainted blood?

[Health, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in 1997 the federal government ordered the backbenchers to vote against compensating all Canadians who had contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood.

For four years the former health minister stubbornly refused to change his mind. He said that the country could not afford it. He said “It will be the end of publicly financed health care”.

Will the minister right the wrong of her predecessor and compensate every victim of hep C through tainted blood?

[Health Care, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the social union agreement which the minister helped negotiate is up for review this month. Real federal leadership would have called the provinces together for a national conference to achieve a dispute mechanism and to renew health care confidence.

Why has the minister not called for this conference? Where is the leadership?