Rob Merrifield

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 8th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (minimum sentence).

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation deals with the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The reason for it is as a result of violations being taken lightly in our courts. It would add minimum sentences to serious violations of Schedule I and Schedule II drugs. This is something that will protect Canadians. It is something that I encourage every member of this House to consider as it comes forward.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Crystal Meth, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to convey my great appreciation for the citizens of Yellowhead in the battle against crystal meth.

When crystal meth first appeared in Alberta, Drayton Valley was one of the communities hardest hit, but instead of sitting by and letting the drug destroy lives, the people of Drayton Valley took action. In a coordinated effort, social services, education providers, local politicians and enforcement officers joined with concerned citizens to provide solutions.

Law enforcement officers were added. The community's officers were brought into a partnership with community mobilizers to conduct prevention programs in schools and in the community. It took a couple of years and a lot of hard work, but Drayton Valley's struggle has become a success story, with Drayton Valley having experienced a marked drop in crystal meth addictions and related crimes.

Its success was so notable that the mayor of Drayton Valley, Diana McQueen, was asked to join the premier's task force on crystal meth. Drayton Valley's success can now be duplicated around the province and across the country. I would like to say good job, Diana, and great job, Drayton Valley.

[Access to Information, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, under the proposed federal accountability act, Canada's new government wants to bring the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation under the Access to Information Act. This is an important move toward implementing more accountability.

Would the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how he is planning to balance accountability, while ensuring the freedom of the press?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of things couched in my hon. colleague's comments on which I would like some clarification.

The oil and gas industry is very much a part of my riding of Yellowhead. Some of the comments about the subsidy were rather extreme. Alberta has actually allowed a 1% royalty until recovery of cost of project. To deem that a subsidy, I would challenge. After it redeems its cost of recovery, the royalty is then 25%. The majority of that goes not to Albertans, but to the federal coffers and, likewise, across the country, including Quebec.

The member commented on the child care provisions. The budget provides $1,200 for a child under the age of six, and 125,000 new day care spaces. I have a difficult time discerning how that challenges Quebec's provincial child care program. It actually helps it. How does this challenge Quebec's program?

[Committees of the House, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Health.

The committee has studied Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain acts, and has agreed to report it to the House without amendment.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I did not make myself clear enough when I said that it was not the ideology. The ideology of the NDP motion is that all pesticides should be banned. If an individual is dying because of the inappropriate use of pesticides or pesticides within their body, that is regrettable.

I make no mistake in my approach. I do not like pesticides. However, if we are speaking ideologically, then obviously the NDP would be supporting genetically modified foods because genetically modified foods are much safer and have much less herbicides than do conventionally grown products. If the NDP were not trapped in an ideology it would see that as absolutely not acceptable.

I talked about being trapped in an ideology of not seeing things clearly and not having a rational debate on the issue.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is about being trapped in ideology that I believe the NDP members are into. When it comes to pharmaceuticals we know that pharmaceuticals need to be used. A lot of work has been done on that. A patient safety institute has been struck. We have a medical records file, hopefully following the patient much more quickly. We are a little nervous about how slow that is happening but we are determined to ensure it happens. I believe it will be a catalyst on the pharmaceutical side to deal with. I therefore do not think it is accurate to say that nothing is being done.

It is important to understand that the regulations under pesticides in Canada are seen as being safe. We have the healthiest food products in all the world. We should be very proud of that as Canadians. We have very strong regulations on these products and if they are used according to the label they are perfectly safe, albeit in my experience with these products I do not like using them but I do use them, as do all Canadians. The only reason most of us use them from time to time is because we have a problem that needs to be dealt with.

They are very expensive and difficult to use but to say that pesticides are causing all the cancers in Canada is totally false. There is no science to say that is where it is coming from. I could say the same thing about the lack of bran in our diets or the inappropriate use of cigarettes or other products that are causing much more cancers than we are seeing in pesticides if we look at the numbers.

In saying that, I am not a fan of pesticides but this is an inappropriate way to deal with it. I believe a much wiser way would be to ensure the science is accurate, that Canadians are safe and that the re-evaluations are done appropriately. That is the way we need to go, not this motion.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the very talented member for St. Catharines.

The subject of this motion is very close to my first-hand experience. I actually have had the privilege to farm all my life. I had first-hand experience with chemicals. I have used them on a continuous basis as far back as I can remember.

I also have to say that I am no fan of pesticides and chemicals. I do not know a farmer who really is, but I do know that they are essential for us when the agriculture community has a problem and when individuals have problems with pests of some sort. Whether it is weeds and they use a herbicide, or a pest as far as some sort of infestation of a crop goes, it must be dealt with in some way.

We have to consider this motion in light of the products being used that have a considerable advantage for the agriculture community and for domestic use within Canada in the sense of dealing with a problem, but I do not know anyone who really likes the chemicals. Farmers do not use them because they like to use them. They use them because they have to use them. They are also very expensive to use. They are not cheap and not very nice to deal with, but farmers do it because they have to deal with a problem.

This motion that we are debating in the House today is an interesting motion. I believe it is fraught with ideology. I look at the very first line and I think that really says where the NDP is going or wants to go with herbicides and pesticides in Canada. The NDP, says the motion, would like to ban all those pesticides that are regulated under the regulations we have in the country today. That is the NDP ideology. We all understand that and we all know where that party is coming from on it.

The motion has parts (a), (b), (c) and (d). It is really interesting when we get to (d), which states that if the Minister of Health and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health can be satisfied, Canadians can be exempted from those chemicals or can use those chemicals if they can prove they are safe products. I am privileged to chair the health committee and many members here sit on that committee.

What the NDP is really suggesting, then, is that all the products registered in Canada today are not safe, even if used according to the label. I think that is a false statement. I believe it is something that the NDP cannot validate with any kind of facts or scientific proof. It is because of this that the NDP is trapped in the ideology that all herbicides are bad and should be banned for use in Canada regardless of where they are used. What the NDP motion is really saying is that pesticides should be banned in every dwelling-house, in every home, whether it is in a rural community or an urban setting.

I, for one, would like to suggest that we would be much wiser to discern whether these products have a health risk or not. If the product does not have a health risk, and if we can label them properly, identify them properly and use them appropriately, I suggest that they are safe and appropriate to be used in Canada.

When we are trapped in ideology, though, it usually leads us into all kinds of ridiculous statements and positions. If we were to take an ideological perspective on this, we could say that we should get rid of all table salt because a person could use an extreme amount of table salt, which could be very damaging and could kill individuals. We can say the same thing about sugar and all sorts of products.

Let us take another example. Let us talk about pharmaceuticals. The NDP members are wonderful advocates of pharmaceuticals for this country. In fact, the NDP would like to see every man, woman and child in Canada have all pharmaceuticals paid for by the state. The NDP has been very open and clear about that.

Nonetheless, we have study after study showing that pharmaceuticals are killing hundreds of thousands of individuals in Canada. In fact, the number is 24,000 people per year, according to the Baker-Norton study, who die inside hospitals due to adverse events. That does not count the other ones who may be dying and probably are, and we all know they are because of the extreme amounts of pharmaceuticals that are used in seniors' homes and inappropriately used by ordinary Canadians. I am not against pharmaceuticals even though they are a tremendous hazard if inappropriately used by the population of Canada.

It is when we get trapped by ideology that I find the debate in the House is sometimes very shallow and hollow. We cannot really talk logically and convince anyone that this is an inappropriate motion if the ideology is that all pesticides are to be banned in a country. If that is the premise of the motion, then let us just have a vote on it, because I do not think any debate here is going to change anyone's mind.

In this situation, we cannot talk about some of the facts before us and deal with them appropriately, but let us look at some of the facts, because I think we have to make sure Canadians understand that a lot of the pesticides that are approved in Canada have gone through rigorous testing and examination and have actually stood the test of time with the science we had at the time they were being approved for use in Canada.

At the time, I think there were 550 active ingredients found in 77,000 different products registered in Canada under the Pest Control Products Act. As for the Pest Control Products Act, 141 active ingredients were registered before 1995. I had the privilege of sitting on the health committee when the committee examined this back in 2001 or 2002. The commitment was made that we were to review these products so that we would bring them up to speed to make sure products were not being allowed onto the market that should not be. That was a commitment made by Health Canada.

I believed that it was very appropriate for us to do that because it had been a considerable time, and I believe it was back in the 1960s, since some of these products had been reviewed. They were on the market at that time and science had improved. We had, and I believe have, the opportunity to convince scientists, researchers and ordinary Canadians that these products are safe, and if they are not safe, we have the opportunity to remove them in an appropriate way so they can be used for the benefit of all Canadians where they need to be used. the benefit of all Canadians.

Let us look at the rigorous testing and re-evaluations. We find at least three things. The first is that when Health Canada announced the undertaking of the re-evaluation, it requested the submission of all available science and information, not only from here in Canada but internationally, from countries such as the United States, Australia or any of the OECD nations. That was so we would be working not only with our own experience but with international experience on some of these products. I think it is a wise thing for us to do, because if herbicides are dangerous to people from Europe, the United States or Australia, they are dangerous for Canadians too. We are no different. The hazards are the same. I think this was a wise thing for the CPCPA to be doing.

The second thing is that it was saying there should be public comment, that the people of Canada should be asked exactly what they were seeing and experiencing with regard to some of these active ingredients. Let us make sure for these pesticides, it said, that any adverse events are reported and dealt with appropriately and, if anything is unsafe, that it be phased out in an appropriate way. All of those things are good, because science has improved in every area of life and the science of being able to evaluate and re-evaluate these products is no different.

Since the re-evaluation has taken place, 53% of the active ingredients on the shelves today have been dealt with, and for 80 of those the manufacturers themselves chose to not produce them any more. Part of it is because the science has improved so much. When we examined this in committee we found that some of the new products that are available because of the new science were not being allowed in as fast as we would have liked. We wanted that because they were so much safer.

We wanted to encourage them to proceed a little faster on that side of it, but in the re-evaluations, 80 of those have been taken off, 9 of them have been decided to be phased out, 77 were accepted with some modifications and 4 were to be left alone with no change.

We can see what has actually happened with the re-evaluation. We must realize that it takes four to seven years before a product can be allowed onto the shelves in Canada and be used for commercial or domestic use. I am a strong advocate--

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, it is all about leadership, or the lack of leadership. That was the problem with the last government. It led by polls and not by directive. I think Canadians are starting to understand that this government is very directive and solid on leadership. That is why the legislation is in the House before the budget. It is important legislation and it should have been done two or three years ago.

It is now before the House. Let us get it to committee and get it enacted. That is what needs to be done, and I believe we will make that happen. It is refreshing to see a government that has this kind of initiative.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen the comments from the Canadian Medical Association. They come at it from a human resources perspective. Whether there is ever enough money for human resources, I do not know when enough is enough. They may be valid to some degree because we have a human resources crunch in medicine, not only in Canada but around the globe. It is very important that we understand that. I have never heard from Dr. David Butler-Jones or anyone from the agency.

The questions of the shortage of our resources with regard to the mandate of the agency are good questions to bring up in committee. We can ask those questions in due course, but I have not sensed that is a consideration at this time.