Rob Merrifield

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is a privilege to stand and address the people in the House and the people of Canada with regard to this debate.

First, we have to understand what has happened, what the problem is and why it is there before we can solve a problem. In reality, we do not have a debate here because all sides agree on one direction, one thing that should be done. It then becomes a matter of why it has not been done which is what the debate should be about this evening.

The problem is that we have a pricing regime in Canada for brand name pharmaceuticals and it sets the price for Canadians, not for Americans. The only reason the Internet pharmacy industry is alive and doing well today is because it is using that pricing regime to pump those pharmaceuticals into a foreign market that does not have a pricing regime and whose pharmaceuticals are sometimes 50% to 80% higher for some of the brand name pharmaceuticals.

However, before we think that our pricing regime is so good, we have to understand that it is only for the brand name pharmaceuticals that it is actually working because our pricing regime for generic drugs is actually quite a bit higher than that of the United States and, therefore, we are not seeing the exploitation of Internet pharmacies with regard to generic pharmaceuticals. The problem has to do with whether we can afford to allow the pharmaceuticals to go into the United States and compromise our pricing regime.

We have always, in our party, said that if it ever compromises either the availability of product or the pricing of our product, it has to be curtailed. The decision tonight is either to curtail the Internet pharmacy or to destroy it. The present government is the one that actually encouraged it at one time and said that it was all right and it started.

I for one believe that we should curtail it. I do not believe that we should destroy it. In Manitoba we are talking about the jobs of a significant number of individuals who are working in this industry. I think it is fine as long as it is contained and it does not compromise two fundamental things, which is price of the product or the availability of it.

First, let us deal with the availability of it. There is no fear of the availability of any product except Tamiflu, and I will talk about that a little later. When it comes to the availability of brand name pharmaceuticals, it is the pharmaceutical corporation that must decide whether it wants to play this game. It can decide to live with containing it, but containing it would mean shutting down the bulk sales of it.

What has the health minister done? The minister came forward a year ago this November and said that this was his number one issue. I wonder how many times we have heard the government talk about something being its number one issue, but this was the number one issue in the speech the minister gave a year ago at Harvard.

However all winter last year the minister would throw another balloon in the air almost every week saying that it should be stopped because of this or it should be stopped because of that. For a little while he had a different reason almost on a weekly basis, which made it difficult to understand where he was. It was obvious that he wanted to do something but absolutely nothing was done. Here we are a year later and this was his number one priority.

He sent this to the health committee and we looked at it but we got bogged down on it to some degree. However we did come forward with a solution to the problem to help the minister out. The reason we came forward with a solution before we had completed our study was because of what was happening in the United States, where a bill was being pushed through Congress that looked like it would pass perhaps in the summertime. Before we broke for spring we felt that something had to be done to kick the minister in the backside to make something happen.

We pushed a motion through committee and on June 6 we moved for concurrence in the House on the committee report. However the Liberals, who had agreed to the motion in committee, limited the debate on the report and we were not able to vote on it on June 6.

The motion put forward by myself asked that the bulk sales of pharmaceuticals be shut down. It was all right to go individual to individual but to shut down bulk sales, the two fundamental problems that we were afraid of was either the price or the availability of the product.

Now, not only do the brand name pharmaceuticals want us to shut down the bulk sales but the Internet pharmacy businesses also say that we should do that. They see it as a positive move. They are very content with the business they have at the present time, which is actually diminishing because of the difference in the Canada and U.S. dollars.

We pushed the minister into action but what did he do? On June 29 he came out with an announcement. We thought something would actually happen but nothing happened. He announced that something had to be studied a little further and that perhaps he would do something with regard to dealing with this, which would be to shut down the bulk exports by way of the Food and Drugs Act. That is what should have been done and we expected that to happen. It should have been done long before now.

Here we are this evening debating and we should be debating on which way we should go on this. We also drove that debate into the House where we actually had a vote in the House on October 6, less than a month ago. The vote was 288 to 0, which means that every member of the House representing every Canadian in the country voted to shut down the bulk exportation of brand name pharmaceuticals in this country. We still have a minister who has not acted even though it was his number one priority a year ago.

That is the situation we have seen not only with the Internet pharmacy but with other high priority issues like crystal methamphetamine, an issue that we have long been waiting for. I had gone to the minister with a private member's bill asking for the precursors of methamphetamine to be prosecuted and to change the Food and Drugs Act to make that happen. The minister agreed with me and told me that he would see what he could do. He made an announcement in mid-summer that had to go into the chronicles for 75 days, which is long past, and we still have seen no action on the precursors for crystal methamphetamine. I took the minister at his word when he said that he would do something but he has not done it.

It gets worse than that. Hepatitis C is another issue where the House spoke loud and clear. A motion was moved in the House which was a directive given by the House to the minister to be able to compensate those who were victimized with hepatitis C outside the 1988 to 1990 window and absolutely not one cheque has been given. There was $1.2 billion set up in a fund and $1.1 billion left in it and the minister is still saying that we should study it. He said that we had to study it in June to find out whether we had enough money to pay out. He found out there was enough money but there still has not been one cheque.

That is the kind of contempt that the government is showing to Canadians and to the House. That is not democracy.

If we are here debating something tonight, it is not whether there should be a decision to ban exports of pharmaceuticals. We should be debating whether the House means anything, whether a vote in the House carries any weight and why the government is still in power when it can treat this place, and Canadians in an extension of this place, with such contempt. That is the real debate that should be taking place in the House tonight, especially on a day like we have had today when we see the kind of situations that the government has got into over the last number of years. It is a disgrace and it is frustrating.

Let us talk about something that is really relevant and very current with regard to brand name pharmaceuticals, Tamiflu. We have right now another few birds that have contracted avian flu. We are not sure exactly what strain it is. It is not only in Manitoba and in Ontario but it was discovered this afternoon in British Columbia. We are seeing, almost on a daily basis, a potentially very serious problem happening in our country.

When we see why we should have had bulk sales of pharmaceuticals banned it is because of the Tamiflu. Yesterday, not the brand name pharmaceuticals, but the Internet pharmaceutical corporations said that they will stop all sales of Tamiflu to the United States.They are the ones who have shown the leadership, more leadership than we have seen from the government and the minister.

It is absolutely amazing, when we are sitting with a potential crisis and when we have seen that it was the number one issue on the mind of the minister a year ago, and we have still seen no action. No wonder we are excited and upset about what we are not seeing in so far as leadership from the government.

Should it happen? Should we be banning bulk sales? Yes, but not now; it should have been long before now. What this debate is really about is the lack of leadership from a government that has shown none in this regard.

[Pacific Gateway Act, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for his dialogue on transportation. I have a specific question with regard to my riding, which is where the Wabamun spill took place this summer. It is an absolute disaster. I have sent him a couple of letters regarding transportation through the corridor, from Edmonton to Jasper, asking for a reviewing of the rail as well as the maintenance of the schedule on which it is running.

The minister also has to coordinate how transportation works when it comes to natural disasters like this. In this instance four different or ministries were involved, Environment, Transportation, Fisheries and Oceans and Indian and Northern Affairs. How can that kind of an effort be coordinated and streamlined, if it ever takes place again?

[Justice, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we need some clear answers and commitments from the Prime Minister, not more “well, we will think about it.”

Either the Prime Minister is going to scrap the marijuana bill, Bill C-17, or he is not. Either he is going to reform the parole system or he is not. Either he is going to take real action on crystal meth and marijuana grow ops or he is not. Either he is going to adopt mandatory prison sentences or he is not.

What is it going to be: real justice reform or just more talk?

[Justice, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the Prime Minister finally sat down with the families of the four fallen RCMP officers, but they told me last night that they really did not get any clear answers.

The families have a list of very specific and reasonable proposals: one, scrap the marijuana bill; two, reform the parole system; and three, mandatory prison sentences for serious drugs like methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine and for violent crimes.

When will the Prime Minster act on these requests on behalf of all victimized families and Canadians?

[Taiwan, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, members of the international health community were in Ottawa this week to plan for a flu pandemic. The Liberal government excluded Taiwan from the conference. This is not in the best interests of Canada or global health.

Taiwan suffered 84 deaths from SARS in 2003. Its location makes it vulnerable to the avian flu and a human flu pandemic.

On September 28 the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office wrote the health minister requesting an invitation to have Taiwan go to the Ottawa conference. This government refused the request. Twenty-three million people live in Taiwan. It is an international travel hub with direct flights to Canada.

This should not be about politics. Pandemics know no borders. It is in everyone's best interests to have Taiwan in Ottawa sharing its expertise and learning from others.

Sadly, the government just does not get it.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I would love to comment on that. My riding understands full well the relationship with the United States in regard to oil and gas and that industry. My constituents also understand that we do not threaten by way of countervails on something that would not be legitimate and legal with regard to NAFTA. We cannot say the United States need to respect it if we are not going to.

What we really need to do is something more tangible that will catch the attention of the Americans. That is the message given to them when we talked to them here at the interparliamentary meeting a couple of or three weeks ago.

That message was that they are in jeopardy of losing 25% of a 1.4 trillion barrel reserve of oil, the second largest in the world. The Chinese government is looking at securing 25% of that. That is right now. Who knows what will happen two or three years from now? This catches the Americans' attention more than anything else.

Not only do I think it catches their attention, I know it has. Since that meeting, one of the congressmen sent me a speech that he delivered in Congress of the United States, in their House, on this exact same thing with the tar sands. He was trying to educate people into understanding exactly what is there. Not only that, also after that conference, I had notification from one of the senators who was asking how they could get up to the tar sands to visit because they needed to do that with as large a delegation as they possibly could.

We initiated that and now that will be an invitation coming through the parliamentary association. We will have them up to the tar sands. That is how to do it. We educate them and have them understand the importance of what they are losing. We also have them understand that to have the mentality of closing the border around them and to shrink and become protectionist is not in their long term future best interests, because they are competing not only with the Asian market but also with the European market.

What the Americans need to do is make sure that they have good relationships with all of North America. That means Mexico and Canada. That is really what NAFTA is all about. To compromise NAFTA is not in their best interests. That is what they understand. That is what will catch their attention.

I do not believe that my hon. colleague understands exactly what he is asking for when he says that we do it by threatening the Americans on oil and gas. What really catches their attention is having them understand that we are serious about trade with partners other than the United States on something as important as fossil fuels into the future. That has caught their attention in a very significant way. I believe that is a much more professional, aggressive and productive approach than what the NDP has put out. I still say their idea is a wacky idea and I think Canadians would agree.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, that is a interesting question, especially when it is coming from the bed partner of the NDP, the party that is propping up the illegitimate government that has no business actually being in power at the present time. The only reason the government still exists is because it is propped up by the NDP.

These are whacky ideas coming from the NDP. Calling back Parliament on a negotiated settlement that has gone on this long is ridiculous. Air security is just as ridiculous. Why would we want to use the threat of an export tax on the oil and gas industry? What we want to do has nothing to do with threats. What we really need to do is explore all options for a trade relationship that actually looks like it is being compromised, not because of softwood but because of NAFTA not being respected in the courts under this dispute settlement mechanism.

I would ask the same question of my Liberal colleague. What does he think of his bed partner's ideas on this and does he think they are as loony as I do?

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to stand and contribute to the debate tonight. I have listened intently to my colleagues on this. I have had some interesting thoughts go through my mind as I heard the debate and the rationale for how they are trying to explain to Canadians their position on the softwood lumber agreement.

This is an issue that is very near to my heart and to the hearts of my constituents. I do not believe there is a community in my riding that is not impacted by the softwood lumber industry.

Actually, it is even closer to home than that. I have a son who is a professional forester who works in the industry in my riding. I believe I have a fairly good understanding of how this industry impacts the communities, particularly in rural Alberta and in rural communities right across the country.

When we think of the 360,000 jobs across the country, those are primary jobs. We are talking significant numbers, especially when we understand that the spin-off effects in the rural communities for these primary jobs are one in four or one in five, depending on where they are.

To say that it is a big issue in my riding is an understatement. I think I have to explain that before I get into the debate on the softwood lumber agreement and what is actually before Parliament and before the country at this time to work this out because it has major repercussions.

We also have to see it in the light of the other two major industries in my riding, which is the beef industry and BSE, the agriculture industry and it has some effect with regard to the relationship between the United States and ourselves.

As well, I would like to talk about the oil and gas industry which is the third primary industry in my riding. It would be hard to say which one of the three is the biggest in my riding . I would it would be a draw because they impact in such a significant way. They all have repercussions in what we are talking about because we are actually talking about the NAFTA agreement. It is not so much about the softwood lumber agreement. We would like to think it is about the softwood lumber agreement but it has escalated beyond that.

If the United States of America does not respect the ruling of the NAFTA panel in the dispute settlement for softwood, it does not respect it as a dispute settlement mechanism for any of the industries in which we trade with the United States, our largest trading partner.

We have to understand just how important this is to the relationship between the United States and the 95% or 97% of the industry that is going without a dispute at the present time. We hear that on both sides of the border.

However there is a message for the Prime Minister and for the American President that they have to understand. When we look at who has been hurt and who has not been hurt with the way this disagreement has unfolded, we have to understand that it is the politicians on both sides of the border who have not necessarily been impacted. It is the people on the United States side of the border who have been impacted. It has raised the price of their homes by $1,000 on average because of the duties, the countervails and the increased costs of lumber to those American citizens, but it has not necessarily impacted the politicians in the same way. They are trying to play the political game, trying to win seats in their ridings and they are trying to protect forest industry jobs and so those senators and congressmen are really talking about politics at the local level.

Here in Canada we see the same sort of nonsense going on. It is not that it impacts the politics in the House so much. It has impacted the industry and it trickles down to the communities across the country and impacts those individuals. It is the communities and the industry that have lost. I know there is a mill in my riding that has had to shut down and I know mills across the country that have had to close over the last number of years as we played politics with a lack of leadership on this issue.

Who has won? It certainly has not been the people of the United States and it certainly has not been the people of Canada. Who has lost? Obviously the politicians on both sides of the border have not lost enough.

We have to understand that when we have a dispute settlement NAFTA panel, negotiations for the dispute settlement have to be recognized. If they are not recognized, then we have a situation where we will not be able to move forward on any kind of trade security for any industry. It does not matter if it is BSE, softwood lumber, oil and gas, the auto sector or any other industry in which we might be trading with the United States.

Where are we at right now? We are in a situation where it is not just about the softwood lumber industry. In fact, it probably has less to do with that and more to do with the other industries. The reason this is so frustrating for us when we ask the Liberal government to at least ante up the money to look after the court settlement for our softwood lumber industry is that it is not just about softwood. It is also about the respect of a trade relationship.

There is an old adage that if a handshake in a relationship with a business partner or a deal is not adequate, all the paper in the world likely will not save the deal. That is what we are seeing right now with the United States, that laws and treaties are not enough, that a mature, secure relationship is based on a commitment of trust and clear communications and that treaties and laws are no substitute to a good relationship.

We have ruined a relationship with a trading partner, the United States, over the last number of years and it has been challenged and compromised. In this House, we have had inflammatory words toward our American trading partner, our largest trading partner, for a significant number of years and because of that ,we have seen disputes.

I also said that BSE had something to do with this because BSE was not about health and safety. It was not health and safety risks that caused that. What it had a lot to do with was bad politics. We saw the worst of politics happen and that is why the border was closed to beef and why it was also opened to beef.

What should we do in this situation with the lumber industry? First, we should respect the NAFTA and return the $5 billion. If we do not do that, then what we are really saying is that NAFTA does not matter and that the courts really do not make any difference.

The second thing we absolutely cannot do is negotiate away the strong position we have here. I sat and listened to my colleagues from the Liberal side, particularly, talk about a unified voice, a unified voice by the industry and by the parties. My colleague from Vancouver North just talked about the mixed messages by the Prime Minister where he might negotiate, will not negotiate, will negotiate. All that has happened in the last 24 hours. However, the day after the NAFTA ruling, we have the trade minister suggesting, in a quote from the Montreal Gazette , “I think this is very significant for Canada because it will help us in the negotiations”.

What negotiations? They are saying, “Let's not negotiate”.

On the very same day, in the Globe and Mail he is saying, “I think the NAFTA ruling enhances Ottawa's negotiating position”. If that is not a mixed message compared to what we are hearing today from this Liberal Party, I do not know what is.

What are the Americans to think when they hear that kind of rhetoric coming from the party in power of our Canadian government on an issue that has gone on this long and that should have been well thought out and well planned out long before this time?

Are we negotiating away our position or have we negotiated away our position just in the last 24 hours because of what our Prime Minister is saying? We certainly give a compromised position. We have compromised our position because of this kind of nonsense and this kind of rhetoric.

The United States also needs to understand that if we are going to move forward in a reasonable way with a relationship on other trading issues, we have to respect the agreement that was signed, which is a free trade agreement, and its dispute settlement. If that is not the case, then we have some serious problems that are a lot deeper than just softwood.

The fourth thing is how we get around that. We have laid an option on the table, which is to negotiate with an envoy to the United States.

I had an opportunity to attend a Canadian-U.S. conference about three weekends ago. It was an opportunity to talk with a lot of the congressmen and the senators at that time and we laid out a position. We have been victimized in softwood. We have been victimized in beef. We will not and cannot be victimized in oil and gas.

We invited them to come up to visit the tar sands of Alberta so they would understand what 1.4 trillion barrels of oil look like. We wanted them to know what they might be compromising in souring a relationship in trade and that it would leave us no choice but to secure other options than just the United States with regard to the oil and gas industry. That is not putting any threats out there. That is a just security as a sovereign nation.

Don Manzullo, one of the congressman I met at the meeting, agreed with opening up the border. He said that the tariffs, countervails and the nonsense of the money should stop and the money should be given back to Canada. He said, “Seven times Canada has won, not in Canadian courts but in the United States courts, so they need to respect that”. Those are the kinds of messages we need.

We are getting some of that support and here is what happened in Washington today. House majority whip, Roy Blunt, said that we need to open up the border. The softwood lumber trade alone adds $1,000 or more per home and we need to have the border opened up, especially in the wake of the disaster of the hurricane where they are going to have a tremendous need for our softwood lumber industry.

Americans are understanding more now than ever more that they should drop the tariffs and countervails and start talking sense. It is not because of how it impacts our ridings. It is how it is impacting their ridings and we need to understand that.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

I stand corrected.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I listened intently to my hon. colleague who was in a bit of dream world and wanted to talk to Condoleezza Rice. I would encourage my hon. colleague to wake up from his slumber and face reality. I do not believe that Condoleezza Rice is all that concerned about his riding, but I do believe that he is. If he is, I would like him to answer as to why the government, in which he sits as a member, sat on its laurels and did absolutely nothing while it waited for the clock to tick down on the five year agreement for the softwood lumber industry, before this ever got into litigation or got into a battle between personalities, between governments, and ruined the relationship between two sovereign countries.

The Liberals allowed the clock to tick down before any leadership was shown. They sat in a majority government and had the full opportunity to show leadership at that time and they refused to do it. They just sat there, did absolutely nothing and showed absolutely no leadership. Now the member stands and says they are wanting this to be resolved and they are wanting to show some sort of leadership at this stage in the game. A lot of the industry in Canada has lost jobs and it has ruined the lives of some individuals. Their opportunity for employment in the industry is no longer there.

Why would the government show that lack of leadership at that time? The hon. member has to go back to his place tonight and look in the mirror and answer that question, because it has negatively affected the industry in such a terrible way.