Rob Merrifield

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. When I first looked at it, I was absolutely appalled. It is appalling because it is a motion that is so absolutely partisan. It was introduced on September 26, eight months after the Conservatives formed government. The Liberals are saying that we broke promises on wait times and have not provided the necessary funding or resources. We have not cut any funding or resources. That is exactly what has happened with regard to health care.

We have introduced some wait times initiatives, and I will talk about those in a few minutes. However, the partisanship of this is appalling. If we want to talk about partisanship, I will talk a bit about what the last Liberal government did. I do not want to dwell on the negative, but I have to level the playing field and set the record straight with regard to 13 years of terror in health care, one might say, by a Liberal government. It did nothing but increased wait times to 91% longer in the time it was in office. It pulled $25 billion out of health care in the mid 1990s.

By the year 2000, it decided there should be an accord to do something about health care. There were three accords in fact. There were accords in 2000, 2003 and 2004. What is really interesting is it followed the accords with a bunch of studies. The oldest trick in politics is when one does not want to make a decision, one puts it off to a commission, a committee or a study. That is exactly what happened.

We saw the Mazankowski report on what the provinces were doing. We had the Fyke report, the Clair commission, the Kirby report and the Romanow report. We were reported to death. The problem is not that we have not studied health care.

When we look at what the previous government did, it is absolutely startling. When it is in a situation where it refuses to deal with a problem at hand, it can cost a tremendous amount of money. We saw that in health care. However, it is worse than that. When a government dithers and does not take the initiative to lead--

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague intently. I serve with her on the Standing Committee on Health, which I have the opportunity to chair. I sometimes am struck by this individual's partisanship. I can hardly believe this motion. I understand that it was actually introduced on September 26, eight months after the election of January 23, when we took office.

The motion talks about broken promises on reducing wait times. It also talks about not providing the necessary funding or resources. I will have an opportunity to dialogue about that later, but I have a specific question for my colleague. The partisanship is really a little over the top, no question about it, but as for my question, does my colleague honestly believe that the problem with wait times is specific only to the number of dollars in a system and that the system can fix itself just with more funding? Or is there actually something further that needs to take place in order for us to be able to deal with wait times? It is a problem that actually seemed to explode under the past government's reign of 13 years, when we saw wait times increase by 91%.

Can the member come up with something more innovative and realistic than just whining about dollars after my only eight months in the chair dealing with this issue? Does my hon. colleague have something more on her plate than just that?

[Cardiovascular Health, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, getting a regular health assessment plays an important role in disease prevention.

Today the Canadian Medical Association is hosting a cardiovascular risk assessment booth, where members of Parliament and their staff can chart their 10 year risk of cardiovascular disease. They can also discover their cardiovascular age, calculate their body mass index, and find out their cholesterol level.

I know that due to our busy schedules members of Parliament sometimes neglect their own health, but knowledge is the key to health and our future health is largely determined by taking such preventive action and getting regular health assessments.

The cardiovascular risk assessment booth will be open from 8 a.m. to 12 noon and again from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. today in room 200, West Block. The examination is very quick and results are available in 10 minutes. I encourage all members of Parliament and their staff to take the time to get an assessment. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group, respecting its participation at three events.

The first event was the 46th annual meeting of the Regional Policy Forum--Council of State Governments--Eastern Regional Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 30 to August 2.

The second event was the 2006 annual meeting of the Council of State Governments--West: Alliance With an Attitude, Breckenridge, Colorado, August 10 through 13.

The third event was the meeting of the Canadian American Border Trade Alliance, the U.S./Canadian Border: A Unified Focus, Washington, D.C., September 10 through 12.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group respecting its participation at the 61st annual meeting of the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments in Chicago, Illinois from August 20 to 23, 2006.

As well, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group respecting its participation at the 2006 annual meeting of the National Governors Association: Healthy America, in Charleston, South Carolina from August 4 to 7, 2006.

[World Stroke Day, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today the World Stroke Congress announced October 26 as World Stroke Day. This day will serve to increase Canadians' awareness of the things they can do to reduce their risk of having a stroke. This includes maintaining a healthy blood pressure, avoiding tobacco use, eating a healthy balanced diet and being physically active.

Every year stroke kills over 15,000 Canadians, representing the third leading cause of death in Canada. Stroke knows no boundaries. It affects Canadians of all ages, ethnicity, as well as both men and women. To prevent stroke we need to increase public awareness of both its causes and symptoms.

Although World Stroke Day occurs only once a year, the fight against stroke must be fought every day all year long. It is encouraging that there is now a number of individuals and organizations that are working together on developing a Canadian stroke strategy and we wish them all the best in their vital work.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, six reports of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation of the Canada-United States Inter-parliamentary Group respecting its participation at: first, the Southern Governors' Association 2006 Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, July 15 to 17, 2006; second, the Western Governors' Association 2006 Annual Meeting, Sedona, Arizona, June 11 to 13, 2006; third, the Pacific Northwest Economic Region 2006 Annual Summit, Edmonton, Alberta, July 16 to 20, 2006; fourth, the Southern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments 60th Annual Meeting, Louisiana, Kentucky, July 29 to August 2, 2006; fifth, the National Conference of State Legislatures, Strong States Strong Nation, Nashville, Tennessee, August 14 to 18, 2006; and sixth, the National Conference of State Legislatures Annual Meeting and Exhibition 2005, Strong States Strong Nation, Seattle, Washington, August 16 to 20, 2005.

[Committees of the House, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Health. The committee recommends that the government continue funding the first nations and Inuit tobacco control strategy at the fiscal level of 2005-06.

[Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I believe I alluded to it in my comments. Not only is absolutely imperative that the information on these hazardous materials be accurate, but it has to be clearly understood by those who are using it. If it is not understood clearly by those who are using it, then really it is obsolete and altogether misses the intent of labelling. The member's point is whether we should have it in other languages and more clearly read. Absolutely.

We are going to be dealing with this when it comes to food labelling as well. Just because we have a Canada health guide, does that mean that people who read it really understand it? If they do not understand it, how good is it, really? It is only complied with and safe to the degree that it is understood by those who are using it, by the people of Canada.

I think the member's points are well taken. I am sure the committee is going to examine both sides of this issue because they are absolutely important as we move forward in the committee to deliberations on this piece of legislation.

[Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to supersede any court cases that might come forward in this sort of situation, but I take my hon. colleague's perspective on this. I am sure the committee will examine it more closely. That is really why we have the process we do. We have first and second reading and a fulsome debate in committee, bringing forward the best witnesses we can possibly find to discern how these kinds of issues and others in the piece of legislation will impact Canadians. Then we tweak it to make sure we have an appropriate balance.

Now, as for even after we implement the law, my hon. colleague has a hypothetical, which will work its way out one way or the other, but we also have a court system that allows individuals who feel they have a grievance because of the legislation to state their case before court and a judge and to have it handled in that way. I think that is appropriate for a country that believes in the rule of law.

I will take my hon. colleague's comments to heart. I think they are valid. There may be not only this situation but others that the committee will discern as we move the bill into committee.

I will say, however, that we have a consensus on the legislation from labour, industry, and provincial and federal governments right across this country. I believe the amendments put forward are something we should consider very carefully and consider supporting at this stage. I would ask my hon. colleague to vote for this piece of legislation in that respect.