Rob Merrifield

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member's questions give me an opportunity to explain to the House and Canadians our party belief on this.

We believe we have to deal with cleaner air, cleaner land and cleaner water. Those are the essentials. We have to do a much better job than we have done in the past.

However, we do that by getting rid of nitric oxide, sulphur dioxide and some of the poison contaminants that come out of the smokestacks of our factories and automobile exhaust pipes. We do not do that by bringing in CO

2

emission controls, a Kyoto protocol issue, which is about changing wealth rather than dealing with contaminants in Canada. We do not solve the problem by buying carbon credits from Chile or Russia. We solve the problem by dealing with the pollutants in our air. That is how we save Canadians.

I am appalled by a party over there that believes the Kyoto protocol is the answer. Two parties over there seem to believe that is the solution and answer to the smog problems that plague Toronto. It has nothing to do with smog. It has everything to do with CO

2

, which is what the Kyoto protocol is. It is an elusive situation where they have fooled Canadians into thinking that will solve the problem.

Unfortunately, it will not. It is the right idea going in the wrong direction. It will have a horrendous cost impact on Canadians rather than create the kind of climate changes that we need to save the lives of Canadians.

When we talk about human health and the health of a society, he is absolute right. We have to clean things up. We have to have cleaner air, cleaner water and cleaner land. We can do that with some of the technologies.

The member asked a specific question about fixing the problem of smog in Toronto. We do not do it by fixing CO

2

. We fix it by having more efficient automobiles, with new advancements in technology such as using other alternatives to fossil fuel. We are starting to see some of those advancements in our automobiles, the hybrid as an example.

I believe there will be new technologies far beyond what we see today. We should focus and put our money on that. We should put our research into this area to do what is the right thing for the people of Canada so we can save their health, build our economy, have the best country in the world and sustain that into the 21st century and beyond.

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure to second this motion. It is very important that we come into this House and talk about issues other than sex and corruption, which seems to have capitalized the attention of this place and discredited each and every one of us who represent members of the Canadian public. It is important that we talk about something that is near and dear to their hearts, that they are compassionate about, and that will impact them, their kids and their grandkids for generations to come.

It is important, before we start talking about health care, that we have a clear picture of what is coming at us with regard to the demographics of our country and how that will impact our health care system. We pride ourselves on our health care system. We are passionate about it and passionate about saving it, protecting it and making it better.

We have seen the Liberal government over the last decade not only removing funds from it but actually discrediting it to the point where we have doubled the number of people on waiting lists. We have a lack of human resources in our system, where 75% of doctors are refusing to take any more patients in this country right now. We are seeing a lack of nurses. We need 100,000 within the next few short years in order to refurbish the workplace within our hospital walls.

It is a serious situation when we look at the disastrous state the health care system is in right now. Before we even start dialoguing and discerning how we are going to fix that, we have to understand what is coming at us in the long term because health care, unfortunately, gets used as a political football. We look at it in four year segments, as election cycles go, and how we are going to win the next election by using health care as a vehicle. That has to stop. We do not have the luxury of doing that in this country.

When we look at the baby boomer population, the stress that it will put on the health care system will not start for a decade. Once that starts it will then begin to intensify and will keep intensifying until about the year 2040. It is important for us to mention that here because everyone in this House has to understand that, so we can clearly articulate it to the people of Canada. If we do not understand what is coming at us, there is no possible way that we can make decisions on how we can fix it.

Health care has been treated by crisis management, as patients show up at the door of hospitals, for the last half century. We must recognize that we must do more than just treat health care and patients of Canada through a crisis management approach. We must look at it in a proactive way. We must look at prevention and that is why it is important that we look at this motion today. That is why we are bringing it before the House, so we can have a healthy debate and look at what we are going to do with cancer, mental illness, heart problems and strokes, and how we are going to look at these issues in a proactive way.

It is important to mention what has happened in the last two years with regard to the health accords of 2003-04. The government implemented them, but we have seen very little action coming out of the 2003 accord. In fact, we agreed with the 2003 accord, but we saw that the provincial and federal governments actually bailed on a lot of the commitments in that 2003 accord.

I do not know what was more frustrating: the poll results that we saw on the 2004 accord or the $100,000 it took for the government to actually poll constituents and find out what they felt about that 2004 accord. The cynicism that was reflected in that poll should have been expected after what we saw come out of the 2003 accord where everybody bailed on their commitments.

Nonetheless, we know that the public's confidence in the health care system has eroded, and that is very clear in the poll that just came out yesterday or the day before. It is not surprising, but it is frustrating. It tells us that Canadians do not believe that the 2004 accord is actually going to solve all the problems. It is not going to be the fix for a generation that the Prime Minister had promised Canadians. It is not going to do anything more than play politics with health care like we have done in the past and are doing at the present time in order to win another election. That has to stop.

The motion speaks to a Canadian strategy for cancer control. I am absolutely struck at how well the strategy has been laid out by the Cancer Society. In fact it is very passionate about it. The Liberal government will tell us that it is implementing it, that it is in the Speech from the Throne and that it is supposed to be in the budget, but it is not. I was struck by the fact that an individual from the Cancer Society drove 10 hours in one day to meet with me in my riding office to explain the strategy to me.

The individual told me that just a few short years ago one in four Canadians contracted cancer in their lifetime. Today it is one in three. In a few short years it will be one in two. Those are horrendous numbers when talk about the demographic curve and the impact that will have on our health care system as we move into the 21st century. We have to understand this fact. If we do not understand it, we will be unable to solve anything.

The strategy is a preventative approach. How many cancer deaths can we prevent in the foreseeable future? Before we start draining the bucket to solve the problem, we should stop filling the bucket. By filling the bucket, I mean how do we deal with the number of overweight people? How do we deal with the health conditions of people because of their lifestyles? How do we ensure we have clean water, clean air and clean land? How will that impact our society with regard to health care?

I have had 20 years of experience in the health care system in my province of Alberta. The way we deal with mental illness in every province is a disaster.

When I sat on a regional health authority in Alberta, one statistic absolutely astounded me. It indicated that the number one reason people were hospitalized was for mental illness. It is not cancer or heart disease. People do not understand the seriousness of mental illness.

A study which came out last June indicated that 24,000 deaths within our acute care hospitals were caused by adverse events, most of those because of problems with medications. A good part of the reason why people are medicated is because of high stress and the amount of pressure placed on them. That is why we see an explosion in the number of people on benzodiazepines, antidepressants and sleep disorder medications. Until we stop thinking there is a pill for every problem and start realizing that every pill also has a problem, we will never be able to deal with these problems.

We have to look at a national strategy. We have to understand how to prevent illnesses from the start. Maybe we should look at slowing down our society with regard to the amount of pressure and stress on individuals. This would allow us to deal with some of the problems in a more proactive way.

It was interesting listening to one of the questions from my Liberal colleague with regard to the reason for having a national strategy on some of these issues.

Three thousand babies are born with fetal alcohol syndrome every year. This is an issue that the health committee dealt with recently. We brought forward a motion and debated it in the House. We sent a directive to Health Canada indicating that by June 2 we wanted a comprehensive strategy on how to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome.

At the last meeting of the health committee, Health Canada came forward with a solution. It was the most pathetic example of how it would deal with this situation. It had nothing to do with prevention and it had very little to do with the question that was asked. This directive was sent to Health Canada not just by the health committee, but by the House of Commons.

When I see that sort of approach by Health Canada and I see the kind of weak approach with regard to health care and our health care system by the Liberal government, I have to admit we have a serious problem in our country.

It is a pleasure for me to second the motion before us today. I challenge every member in the House to understand exactly what it is saying. I challenge them to vote for it. If they vote against it, they are saying they do not care about a national strategy. If they vote against it, they are saying they do not believe that prevention is the way to go. If they vote against it, they are indicating that they want to play politics with health care instead of looking at solutions. It is very important that we understand what is coming at us.

When I spoke about the demographic curve, I failed to mention the amount of obesity within our school aged children. They are going to start to have heart, stroke, cancer and diabetic problems at age 30 and 40, not at age 50, 60, 70. That will impact our health care system at the same time the demographic curve does. When we look at a realistic picture, we have to understand that we have to look at preventative solutions. We have to put people at the centre of our health care system and build a system around the needs of patients. If we fail to do that, we will fail Canadians and we will fail the health care system. The Liberals have failed them for the last decade. It is time to remove them. It is time to deal with health care the way it should be dealt with, and that is the approach before the House today.

[Committees of the House, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Health.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and a motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 2, your committee recommends that the government immediately ban bulk exports of prescription drugs, with the exception of those produced in Canada for export.

[Patent Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to add my voice to the debate on this important legislation. I commend my hon. colleague for bringing Bill C-274 forward.

I believe he has good intentions with regard to why this legislation is important and why he is bringing it forward to this House. I believe he is looking at the cost of pharmaceuticals in this country. We know pharmaceuticals are the number one driver of costs in our health care system. If we look out into the 21st century as far as we can determine it will continue to be that way. Perhaps it will even expand as we move forward.

Pharmaceuticals do a tremendous job for Canadians. They are well received and well used. In fact, we actually have to change the paradigm around pharmaceuticals in this country. Instead of understanding or thinking that there is a pill for every problem, we have to start understanding that every pill does have a problem because of what we are seeing with the adverse events with some of the pharmaceuticals on our marketplace today.

How do the pharmaceuticals get on to the market and are the proper rules in place to allow them there? This is part of the debate that has to go on in Canada. However the legislation actually talks about the evergreening or the battle between the generics and the brand name pharmaceuticals.

I think it is fair to have this debate and to actually raise the awareness of the people of Canada about this issue and what is happening. Bill C-274 would repeal the patent medicine notice of compliance regulations and reduce the patent protection of 20 years down some. As my colleague mentioned, the regulation was enacted in 1993. It was called Bill C-91 and it was introduced by the Conservative government.

I would like to read into the record the Conservative Party policy as it was adopted in March in Montreal.

The Conservative Party believes that Canada's pharmaceuticals legislation must strike a balance between encouraging the development of new drugs, and ensuring that those drugs are available to Canadians at affordable prices. We believe that part of this balance is achieved through adhering to the international standard of 20 years patent protection for pharmaceuticals.

To reduce that would not strike the balance. I believe it would disrupt the balance. It would actually drive investment out of Canada and not be in the best interest of the Canadian population, the pharmaceutical industrial or Canadian health care as a whole.

We support the laws and regulations that respect property rights. We encourage research and development into new drugs by brand name companies. We also support regulations that would allow generic manufacturers to offer similar medications through lower prices in a reasonable time.

What I think we are talking about is the balance between what the brand name pharmaceuticals are doing with regard to research and development, and then the generics that come along after the 20 year patent has expired capitalizing on the drug by duplicating it at a cheaper price and selling it to Canadians at a lower price. The generic manufacturers can realize their profits at that time.

It is a balance between encouraging development and investment into new technologies, as well as at the lowest price possible.We want to strike that balance and hold that balance.

Therefore we support the regulation of drug prices through the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board. This is unique to Canada. It is much different than in the United States. The prices review board sets our prices for brand name pharmaceuticals at a balance between seven other international countries so that we are not high or low but we make sure that the top price does not go above the median of those seven countries.

Because of that we have actually quite reasonable prices for pharmaceuticals in Canada. It has caused some problems because those prices are quite a bit lower than our nearest trading partner which is the United States. Consequently, Internet pharmacies are popping up which is causing considerable concern on both sides of the border.

Our prices are artificially set low, going into a marketplace that does not have a regulated pricing regime and therefore the brand name pharmaceuticals are being pumped in. It is not really comparing apples to apples from that perspective. It is a long complex issue, but it is an issue that I do not have time to address here. However, I want to bring it forward because it has implications with regard to the pricing of pharmaceuticals in Canada.

The bill does not seek to strike a balance. It seeks to tip the balance on to the generic side. Generic companies also are doing a very good job in Canada. They do great work, and some wonderful companies are adding to the prosperity of Canadians with jobs. We want to appreciate what they do at the same time.

This is a complex issue. I had an opportunity to sit in the industry committee when it was debating this issue last year. The debate becomes very complex. As one goes through the debate, one has to appreciate both sides, understand them and get a handle on it. The debate was would evergreening happen, or would the generics take advantage of laws of the land and try to capitalize on what happened in patent law or would the brand names try to capitalize and hold off generics unjustifiably to try to steal an extra two, three or four years under patent law.

My question to the industry officials who were there at the time was this. Did generic firms ever try to compromise the 20 years and bring their products on to the marketplace ahead of the 20 year window of patent protection? The response I received astounded me. In fact, it was not did they ever. It was they could not remember one product ever developed in Canada that was not attempted by the generic firms.

When we see this happening, we have to ask ourselves, in light of what the mover of this bill is trying to do in getting rid of evergreening, if this is legitimate. If a product is allowed on the market ahead of the 20 year period, if it is challenged in litigation and law to recoup of the costs and if the brand names win in court, they would never be able to recoup the costs of what they lost because of market share from the court case.

Therefore, we have a serious situation if the bill goes through the way it is. I believe it would drive the brand name pharmaceuticals out of the country. What do they do for the country? It is roughly $1 billion per year in research and development in Canada. They hire well educated Canadians and they provide well paying, stimulating employment for those Canadians. They produce some amazing drugs. That is probably the best benefit we can get from the pharmaceutical industry in Canada. I believe they will continue to do that.

The Conservative Party wants more than that from them. We want more investment because I believe they are falling behind on some of their investment. We want more well paying jobs. We want more knowledge based jobs. We want more new drugs developed in Canada. Therefore, we have to set up an environment that ensures they have assurance from governments that they will respect their 20 year patent law.

Therefore, I would like to read again another piece of our policy from the March convention which talks about research and development and innovation. It states:

The Conservative Party recognizes the importance of health sciences research in enhancing the health of Canadians and as a dynamic economic sector in its own right.

Research and development in Canada has done that. It is important for us to continue to protect that and to ensure a stable situation for our pharmaceuticals so we not only have very good products, but we have them at a very cheap rate as well, and Canadians can be proud.

Incidentally, our brand name pharmaceuticals in Canada are 50% to 80% cheaper than they are in the United States. On the generic side, that is not true. The generics are cheaper in the United States than they are in Canada.

I am please to have contributed to the debate on this issue, but I cannot support the bill.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to the bill. Bill C-215 is important legislation.

When we talk about legislation and we get consensus on an issue on both sides of the political spectrum, we know we have an issue that transcends the political pressures that sometimes get in the way of good common sense.

The legislation is a private member's bill. I give full accolades to my hon. colleague from Prince Edward—Hastings for bringing it forward. It is important and it points to a serious problem in society, a problem where it has taken such a soft approach on criminal justice from so many aspects. The pendulum has swung so far.

It is important for the House to consider how it can stop the pendulum from swinging farther. We need to bring it back to where we can deal with the criminal justice elements in our society in a very aggressive way and in a way that will protect society from itself. A society that does not protect itself from criminals is one that is in serious danger.

I want to lend my support to the bill. It speaks significantly to more pressures on the criminal justice element. We cannot do everything in one legislation, but this legislation specifically adds additional sentencing to firearm use crimes. I want to concur with the intent of the bill. It addresses the serious problem out there and it tries to correct it. Any time we have legislation that will do that, it is a good thing.

The bill is not just about incarcerating people and throwing away the key. It is about deterrents. It would give criminals a sober second thought of the consequences of being caught in this kind of activity.

The four slain RCMP officers who were serving society in Mayerthorpe and Whitecourt is in my riding. I had the opportunity to attend the funerals and memorial services. I also had the opportunity to talk to many front line RCMP officers. I talked to them about the four slain RCMP officers, the worst incident since 1885 as far as the RCMP is concerned. It staggers the normal thought process to understand what went on there. It shook the nation from coast to coast because it was so dramatic.

The questions flowing from that are intense and are worthy of consideration. How could something like this happen? The RCMP say that this is not the only incident that has happened. It is seeing a different kind of criminal element on our streets today, criminals that have no regard whatsoever for front line RCMP officers. In fact, they will target them. When they become the target, then they are not just walking into dangerous situations, whether grow ops, drug use, family violence or other situations, they now are the target of the criminal.

When criminals have that much disrespect for our law enforcers, then we have a serious problem. They know nothing will happen to them if they are caught. Our criminal justice system has become so soft . Some of the penitentiaries and prisons are so soft and easy to be incarcerated within, something with which I have a difficult time.

In my riding I have a minimum security prison in Grande Cache. The warden took me around the prison a few years back when I first became a member of Parliament. He explained how proud he was of the prison because prisoners could get their first year apprenticeship, a first year NAIT program, which is post-secondary education. He was very proud of the shop and rightly so. He showed me the welding courses, the woodworking and culinary programs. It was state of the art facilities.

The natural question for me was this. They have 24 hours in a day, the same as me, how many hours do they work? They are being prepared to go into the workplace where they will work an eight or ten hour day. If they are here 24 hours, maybe 12 hours a day would apply to getting this program under their belt. I said this to the warden and I could not believe what the he told me. He said no, that they could work only four hours, maybe four and a half hours a day. I said to him that they would be going from prison out into the real world and the workplace. They had nothing to do for 24 hours, except eat and be looked after, but they could only be worked four hours a day. I told him that this did not work for me.

The warden phoned me back about a year later. He said that I would be very proud of him. He said that the prisoners were working seven and a half hours a day. This is seven and a half hours a day for minimum security, where they are preparing them to face the real world, still is not adequate to me. At least it is a step in the right direction. We can understand how little the fear is in that minimum security prison, when that is the penalty.

The front line RCMP officers were slain in a very violent incident. This individual who took those lives had no business being on the street. His rap sheet had 30 criminal charges over three decades. Eight times he was convicted. His charges ranged from firearms, break and entry, unlawful confinement, death threats, possession of stolen property and assault. Our criminal justice system failed those RCMP officers. It failed the communities of Whitecourt and Mayerthorpe and it failed society.

This will be repeated again and again. Individuals such as James Roszko, who took the lives of the officers, are in every riding in this country. Every detachment has a list of these kinds of individuals who could in the right circumstances be equally as dangerous.

If we do not put laws in such as Bill C-215, we will not have any hope of changing our the system. We will not have any hope of criminals becoming more responsive to understanding the penalties of their action.

Another example is the grow ops. These are not individuals who are in possession of marijuana. These are actual grow ops of marijuana. When we look at the statistics, most are anywhere from $300,000 to $500,000. Last year In B.C. one in seven did prison time. In Calgary, one in ten did prison time. When we see that kind of lax approach in our criminal justice courts, then we understand we have a serious problem.

It is not only the judges who are at fault here. It is also our crown prosecutors and our whole justice system. They plea bargain away case after case. Many of our crown prosecutors are stretched to the maximum. They do not have the opportunity or the time to do their work on each case. They are told to run them through and get them back on the streets. If we talk with the front line RCMP officers, they will tell us that.

The Conservative Party has a significant amount of changes that we want to make to the criminal justice system. I will quickly read some of the changes.

First, we want to institute mandatory minimum sentences for violent repeat offenders. Second, we would require that sentences of multiple convictions be served consecutively. We want to make time mean time. Third, we would eliminate statutory automatic release. Fourth, we would reform the National Parole Board, including increasing input from the community and from the victim. Fifth, we would repeal the gun registry.

The Conservative Party also would do things such as minimum sentences for criminals who use a firearm, strict monitoring of high risk individuals, a crackdown on smuggling and put more law enforcers on our streets.

We see these things as important to changing the paradigm in our criminal justice system. Society has been jolted by these kinds of incidents, so much so that the House has to recognize just how serious it is out there. We have to bring into this House laws, debate them and change the laws so we give the direction to our judges and our court system so they will do what needs to be done to stop criminals in their tracks and protect society from these individuals. It is important that we do all of these. I cannot impress upon my colleagues enough how important it is.

We have to look at this legislation in a very serious way. I support it and I encourage everyone in the House to support it. It is the first step. Let us send it to committee. We can change it a bit if we need. Let us send a message to law enforcers and to our criminal justice system.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to two things: forming government and defending the definition of marriage in the country.

I have the distinct privilege to stand and speak on behalf of my riding. The bill is definitely not a priority for Canadians. We saw that on the Hill just a few weeks ago when 15,000 to 20,000 individuals came to say to Canada and to Parliament that we should be careful in what we do, that changing the definition of marriage is an experiment that has not gone well wherever it has been introduced, only in two other countries in the world, and we should tread very carefully when it comes to this.

People are angry and upset at the bill, and rightfully so. They do not buy what the Prime Minister is claiming with regard to the bill being all about human rights. We all believe that human rights should be protected but this is not about human rights. This is about changing a definition of an institution that has been cherished for many generations in this country. In fact, it predates the state itself.

This could have major consequences, not only for the institution of marriage but for children, for religious freedoms and for society itself.

I will not be supporting the legislation and I will do everything in my power to stop it. I will do that on behalf of the people of Yellowhead and I will do it as aggressively as I possibly can. I believe that most members of our caucus are feeling the same way about this issue.

What is marriage? Marriage is an inclusive union between one man and one woman and it has been recognized as that for thousands of years. It is an institution that predates the modern states and is recognized in most of the world's cultures and religions. Marriage serves as a bond between a man and a woman and between the generations. It provides the ideal environment for raising children. Marriage is the pillar of our society and, like I say, we trample on it at our peril.

Contrary to the Liberal claim, same sex marriage is not a fundamental right. The Supreme Court of Canada did not recognize it as such and gave it back to this Parliament to decide and to deal with. In fact, no nation or international court has recognized same sex marriage as a basic human right. Marriage as a union of a man and a woman has stood the test of time and place and many Canadians are willing to extend benefits and, I should say, are willing to extend benefits to other kinds of domestic partnerships. Most people in the House recognize that as well but they recognize marriage as something distinct. It is a unique bond or covenant between a man and a woman.

The other aspect to this legislation is religious freedoms. I also oppose the bill because the redefinition of marriage threatens religious freedom and conscience. Religious freedom is already under attack in this country and I think that we can expect worse to happen if we pass the legislation.

The government says that religious officials would not be compelled to perform same sex ceremonies. That is very generous of it but this is only one of the many possible impacts on religious freedom flowing from the redefinition of marriage. That is the law of unintended consequences of this legislation. In some of the provinces, marriage commissioners right now are being compelled to affirm same sex marriages or lose their licences.

The bill would not protect these officials because it cannot. The solemnization of marriage is under provincial jurisdiction. It is not under federal jurisdiction. Therefore we should not be saying that we can protect something that we cannot.

It seems like the government's deputy House leader thinks that it is fine for marriage commissioner's to lose their licences. I do not believe that should be the case at all.

What else can we expect? Churches or temples may be forced to rent out their halls for same sex marriage receptions, which is exactly what is happening in British Columbia. A branch of the Knights of Columbus has been taken to the B.C. Human Rights Commission for refusing to rent out its hall for a same sex marriage reception.

The charitable status of religious institutions in which same sex marriages may be performed could be revoked. Religious schools or charities may be forced to hire and retain employees of same sex couples.

Last but not least there is a concern that religious officials may one day be ordered by the courts to sanction same sex marriages and allow them to be performed in our churches, mosques and temples.

The bill includes a declaration claiming that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. However, this declaration carries no legal weight because the solemnization of marriage, as I have said, falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Freedom of religion and conscience is the lifeblood of an open society. Bill C-38 moves us further away from that standard, posing further harms to religious freedoms in Canada. As I have said, marriage commissioners are already being fired. Charitable status may already be taken away, potentially, and the outlook for religious officials and institutions to maintain their teachings and practice on marriage remains uncertain. For these reasons, too, I oppose the redefinition of marriage and this bill.

Let us move forward and look at what else might happen. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the traditional definition of marriage. In fact, it handed that back to this Parliament, which is the highest court of the country. We should do our due diligence. That is what I hope we are doing here today. Seriously concerned about this, as members of Parliament we must stand up and represent the people of Canada on this important issue.

The Prime Minister and the justice minister have turned their backs on marriage. I can tell members that we will not. A Conservative government would introduce legislation to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and would also extend the same federal benefits enjoyed by married couples to same sex unions. Our approach represents a reasonable compromise that is accepted by the majority of Canadians.

Marriage as the union of a man and a woman is a cherished institution in Canada and around the world. Not all marriages are perfect, of course, but on balance marriage is an institution that richly benefits men, women, children and society. That we would trample it and tamper with it, I would suggest to this Parliament, means that we would be on dangerous grounds and into a very dangerous experiment.

Redefining marriage would have numerous consequences. Some of them are already with us. Others will surely emerge with the passage of time. Among them is likely to be the ongoing erosion of religious freedoms in Canada.

This actually happened not long ago in Australia. Australians had the same sort of debate. The issue was in the courts and then the government was under pressure to act. There was a groundswell of support for traditional marriage in that country, just as we are seeing today. In response, the Government of Australia passed legislation preserving the definition of marriage. This government and this Parliament can and should do the exact same thing.

I urge all members of Parliament to carefully consider what is at stake. I urge my colleagues not to rush headlong into the reinvention of marriage, making our country just the third in the world to do so. I urge the Prime Minister to show true respect to his cabinet ministers and their constituents by not binding them on this bill. I urge Parliament to affirm marriage and to protect freedom of religion in Canada.

It is very important to think of the Prime Minister and some of his words over the last year, when he talked about coming in and reforming this House by giving the people of Canada a stronger voice through parliamentary reform. That is what he talked about. He ran in the last election pledging that he was going to do that when he became the Prime Minister of this country. He has been Prime Minister for a year. It took this Prime Minister six days to break his promise with regard to whipping his backbenchers into a whipped vote. Our past prime minister was notorious for whipping his caucus, but with him it was a month or two before we saw that sort of thing start to happen. It took six days in this case.

Here we are on same sex marriage, one of the most important issues that we have faced as a Parliament and as a nation. We have a Prime Minister who claims to have democratically reformed this House so that the people of Canada truly have a voice in this place, yet he stands in his place over there and whips his cabinet on an issue like this. It is not respectful to his cabinet. It is not respectful to the people of Canada those members represent. It is an abomination to this House on an issue like this.

I would implore him to change his mind and I ask this House to change its mind with regard to allowing this piece of legislation to go through.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for supporting me. He certainly was a valuable member in the committee.

It was obvious to us as we listened to the witnesses, and as we moved into the debate and listened to all sides of the argument, just how important an issue this is and how important it was for us to send a solid message to the department.

I am wondering if my colleague would comment on his perspective of what he heard in committee with regard to the department. It is important for us to really highlight this because that was the turning point in the committee. When the Department of Health actually presented the issue before the committee, we realized that the department was just going through the motions. It had been playing with this for two years at least, had a committee struck, was doing a significant amount of work, and yet was not going to come forward with any kind of a report.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on what he heard from the Department of Health and how this motion would be seen by them.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has suggested, he did come before the committee, as did many others. He was representing the small breweries and vintners, and had a specific focus on it. He was a little concerned, certainly with the cost and impediments of just putting a label on.

As he suggested in his question, what is that going to do as far as it concerns enforcement and the price of enforcement? We did hear that enforcement was going to be costly. The comprehensive program or strategy that we are looking for may or may not have labelling. It may have some labelling and not all bottles labelled. The argument is made with a bottle of wine, do we put a label on a bottle of wine since most people drink wine from a glass that does not have a label? All of those concerns were talked about.

It is important that we have a comprehensive strategy that actually shifts the paradigm, a paradigm in society, so that we understand the intense problem of individuals who are pregnant and drinking. That is where this motion is going and that is why I ask members to consider it.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to clear this up. The drinking of alcohol causes a number of problems. We have to do something about the comprehensive strategy on drinking and abusing alcohol. It has to be part of this. Drinking and using medication of any kind also has to be part of this.

We could have said to the Department of Health that by June 2 we wanted a comprehensive plan on all those items, but we do not want to lose focus. We want to focus on something for which the department came to committee and said, “We are so far along on this. We have actually been working on this for years”. The department said that it was ready to do something with regard to fetal alcohol syndrome. I am just taking the department's words and applying them here in asking the House to make the department put a comprehensive study and plan, which could or could not include labelling, before the House by June 2.

I am saying that because the departmental officials have said in committee that they actually can accomplish this. Did they say they could do it by June 2? No. They said sometime this summer. We know that nothing really happens in a department in the summertime. We want this done by June 2. It is achievable. There is nothing that actually focuses action more than a timeline and a directive. We can give them the directive. The timeline is in the motion. The Department of Health can accomplish it. Let us get on with making that happen.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented to the House on Friday, April 15, be concurred in.

This is a very important motion. The committee has discussed this issue and I must give accolades to my hon. colleague for Mississauga South. I salute him for his conviction and determination. For over a decade he has been working on trying to get warning labelling for alcohol. It is not so much because of the warning that we have to salute the hon. member, necessarily, but for his determination in his attempt to bring awareness to this issue.

The member for Mississauga South introduced Bill C-206 and the health committee took a serious look at this piece of legislation. The committee was looking for a more comprehensive program. Because of that, we listened to a number of witnesses from across the board and across the spectrum of industry and health groups and so on to understand what we should be doing with regard to this piece of legislation.

Before I get into the details, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Oshawa.

When the committee took a serious look at this, we had to ask if we should do something with this or not. We concluded that the bill should not go ahead the way it is written. There was no testimony that would necessarily support moving ahead with this bill in a way that would do what the mover of the bill intended, which is bring awareness to individuals who are using and consuming alcohol to the point where they would refrain from using alcohol, which in turn would allow us to eliminate the terrible scourge of fetal alcohol syndrome in the country. The motion was eight to one, which is fairly unanimous.

Why then would we bring this motion to the House and actually pass it at committee? I believe that the newspaper reports on this issue, most of the people who work in the Department of Health and most industry people have the wrong idea of the health committee regarding this issue. It was not that we disagreed with the issue. It was that we wanted to do something significant which would actually accomplish the goal and the intent of the mover. The goal is a notable one and is worthy of consideration.

What the committee decided was to have the House concur with the motion. We had the Department of Health come to committee and report to us and that was the most startling piece of testimony the committee heard. We heard that the Department of Health was not going to report on a comprehensive program at all in order to accelerate the work the department said it has been doing for a considerable number of years with regard to fetal alcohol syndrome. The department said it would not lay a comprehensive plan before the committee or the House or even the minister .

This is not the message we need to send to the Department of Health. It is not the message we need to send to the Minister of Health. What we need to send to the Minister of Health through the power of this House is a message to impress upon him and the department the need for that comprehensive program.

It is in light of this that we bring forward our motion. I will read the motion into the record because members must have all of the wording of the motion to understand exactly what we are saying. The motion is as follows:

--that the government present a new strategy for the prevention of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder to the Standing Committee on Health, to be developed by Health Canada and stakeholder groups, by June 2, 2005.

Many members in the House will say they cannot support this because we are asking the department to come up with something by June 2, but let us look at the testimony that came from the Department of Health to the health committee. The department said it has been working on this for a number of years. The department said the work was pretty well finished.

In fact, the testimony says that the department is much further along on this than it is on many other areas of alcohol use. When we look at the testimony given in committee and at what the department has said it is doing, compared to what it has said it is going to do, we understand very clearly that we must have some action.

We do not need more studies. We do not need more consultation. This has been consulted to death. We understand that we have a serious problem. Nine out of 1,000 babies born in this country are born with fetal alcohol syndrome. It is a significant problem. Fetal alcohol syndrome is very serious. It affects hundreds of children born each year. They begin life with a serious strike against them and it is something they have to live with for their entire lives.

We need to do something about it and Health Canada can do something about it, but only if we give officials the pressure that is needed to be able to push them to action. This motion that I am asking the House to concur in will do just that. It will impress upon the Department of Health and the minister the need to actually move to action.

I can already hear the other side suggesting that we cannot ask a department to do something within that short a time period. We certainly can because we know that it has the ability to do it. We know it is a long way along on this issue already. We know that this is just a matter of sitting down and tweaking.

We are not telling the department it has to actually do anything except come up with a plan of what it is going to do to be able to accomplish the goal of the intent of the mover of Bill C-206. That is very easy to accomplish. It is something that needs to be done, because failure to do it means that we will do nothing. Doing nothing on this issue is not appropriate for the legislators of the House, for people who come together to make the laws of this land to protect society, from itself in many cases and from issues in society that are harmful.

This is a motion that I believe everyone in the House should think very seriously about; I was going to say soberly about, but I do not want to use the pun lightly. I do want to impress upon the House how serious a problem this is and how important it is for us to look at it from all angles.

We did hear from the alcohol industry, which asked why we should put all of our attention on labelling. It would cost it a significant amount of dollars and dollars are not going to come out of thin air, said the industry; they can come out of either the consumers who use it or the already existing programs that deal with fetal alcohol syndrome disorder.

We did not think it was appropriate for us to just say “let us put a label on every bottle” and then walk away from it thinking we had done the politically correct thing while not actually accomplishing any good. I do not think that anyone in the House necessarily wants to play politics with an issue this serious. What we really want to do is accomplish the goal, which is to prevent individuals from having fetal alcohol syndrome. We heard testimony about how devastating it is when pregnant women are involved with alcohol. At each stage as the fetus is developing, the alcohol retards and destroys the growth pattern.

The argument was about whether this happens in the early days of pregnancy, the middle or the end, but the reality is that it happens in all of these stages. The testimony was compelling enough that we should impress upon anyone who has the potential of being pregnant to leave alcohol alone, to not become involved with it. It is also important to mention that a woman who is pregnant and has one or two drinks should not become alarmed. What this does say is that we should leave it alone if at all possible so that we do not retard the development of the fetus.

How do we win on these kinds of issues? We win the same way we won on drinking and driving. We have not won completely but we certainly have made a paradigm shift in society. Now if someone drinks at a party and wants to drive, people stop that person before he or she gets into that vehicle, whereas 30 years ago they would help the person into the car. That was a paradigm shift. Peer pressure becomes a powerful thing. We need to use that same pattern when it comes to fetal alcohol syndrome and mothers who are drinking.

My time is nearly up but I do want to impress upon the House how important this motion is, because it will be debated here for three hours and we will actually go to a vote in the House. Votes in the House should mean something. When they mean something, the department and the industry should take the nod from what the House is saying. We have a responsibility here and I ask members to consider that as they vote for this motion.