Rob Merrifield

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on this important motion. It is not the first one of its kind that I have had the opportunity to speak on, because I do sit on the health committee and I dealt with this for some time there. In fact, I had the opportunity to bring forward the original motion this House debated earlier this fall with regard to compensating all the members of this group outside the window of 1986-90.

It is important for the House to understand this. At that time, the motion got 100% support at the health committee, from all sides of the House. The motion urged the minister to make sure that compensation was done appropriately. We waited for a considerable amount of time before voting another motion, one put forward by my colleague in committee in the same process. The difference between this motion and the one I put forward is that the government in power actually will not be able to hijack this one. The House will be forced to vote on this motion.

The last one should have come to a vote as well so that we would have clear direction on the motion for compensation of all victims outside of the window of 1986-90, but it did not. It was circumvented.

Now we are going to have an opportunity for the House to speak out loud and clear. The minister obviously is not getting the message. The minister thinks that he can just tinker around with the fund, the $1.1 billion that is left in a compensation fund that started at $1.2 billion, while victims continue to be victimized by this terrible disease because of a misuse of power, a miscommunication.

The Krever inquiry said that all victims inside and outside the window should be compensated. This government has simply failed these victims. I may be a little too close to the issue, a little closer than some of the others in the House. I am rather passionate about it. When we sit at the health committee and talk to a number of the witnesses who come forward, we get some compelling testimony, testimony that we can hear much more aggressively than that heard in the House. Perhaps I can share some of that testimony if I have enough time this afternoon, but what I do want to say is that we have to deal with this problem. We have the opportunity. We have the means to do it.

I listened attentively to my colleague on the other side with regard to the reasons and the rationale for not compensating. I have a very difficult time with that because obviously he has not listened to the Krever inquiry, which recommended treating everybody the same based on the essence of fairness, but I will just lay out the arguments that were presented here by the last speaker from the government side.

The first argument was that it is in the courts, that the courts have the money and it is at arm's length from the government. Regardless of that, there is $1.1 billion of a $1.2 billion fund that is still in the courts. What the actuarial report is going to find out in June is whether there is enough money. I do not think we need a report to find that out, not at all. We know exactly how much money is there. It is a very hollow argument.

The argument is that if the courts have enough money we are going to compensate. Really, the issue is not whether we have enough money to compensate. The issue should be whether compensating is the right thing to do. That is a decision that has to be made by the government and the House and hopefully in approving this motion we will come clear with that one.

The idea of whether there is enough money is not the issue. We know how many victims there are now. We know that the number put forward at the beginning of this debate was supposedly 20,000. We know that number was false. We said so at the time. The number is actually closer to 5,000. There is no reason not to compensate.

When it comes to the second argument, he is saying that the government did the right thing because it compensated within the window of 1986-90. I believe that is not appropriate. It is certainly not appropriate because of what I just mentioned.

Madam Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time. I think you are aware of that, so I will just continue.

The third argument was that the government has given $200.6 million to the provinces for the victims outside the window of 1986 to 1990. I believe that is what the speaker said. We have to understand that not $1 of that went to any of the victims. In fact, I would suggest, and even in the words of my hon. colleague he suggested this, that the provinces used this for alternative delivery of health care because they are stretched for health care dollars. They used it to be able to buffer their health care systems. None of that money went to those victimized by tainted blood.

The other point is that they put $1.25 million into the blood services, which needed to be shored up. That had nothing to do with the victims. It was just something that needed to be done to deliver a safe product to Canadians and to make sure that the health and safety issues were dealt with. It had nothing to do with those who are victims. To use that as an argument for not being able to compensate those who are outside the window makes absolutely no sense to me or to anyone in the House, I am sure.

What went on was absolutely shameful. The discrimination was not only against those who were outside the window of 1986 to 1990 and who were not compensated like those inside that window. There was also discrimination between diseases. Those inside the window were compensated for hepatitis C contracted from tainted blood. Those outside were victimized by tainted blood with hepatitis C as well HIV-AIDS, but HIV-AIDS did not have the restriction from 1986 to 1990. All of those infected through tainted blood who contracted HIV-AIDS from the same blood were compensated.

Not only was it discrimination between years but it was also a discrimination between diseases. It is an important thing not to lose sight of when we talk about fairness in the House. Here we are as members of Parliament representing the people of Canada, who expect fairness in all the decisions that we render in the House. If there is any decision that demands fairness, demands correctness and demands to be fixed at this time, it is this issue.

I have heard it talked about at committee. Members from the government side have said they were not here at that time, that they are new committee members from the Liberal Party. They say it was those who were in charge at the time. They say they were not here and so we should have an opportunity to fix it.

I want to correct the record or make sure that the record is clear. The decision was made in 1996. The members who are still in the House are many. They include the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Public Health and many of the cabinet ministers who are sitting in control of the decision making of the government and the country. They are sitting in the House in the same chairs now and are able to make a decision to correct the injustice. In fact, the current health minister, when he was the attorney general of British Columbia, called for compensation for all hepatitis C tainted blood victims.

There is absolutely no reason to delay a decision to do the right thing, to compensate those victims who are still being victimized by this terrible injustice.

As I said before, $1.1 billion is left in the fund. In fact, last year while continuing to pay out of some of the costs, there was $60 million more in income than there was in claimants. All of those from 1986 to 1990 who have applied are already compensated. The estimated numbers are now 5,000 from within the 1986 to 1990 period and 6,000 victims outside those dates, both post and pre. We know what numbers we are actually dealing with because many of the provinces went ahead and compensated through their funds as much as they possibly could. We actually know who will come forward. We know the numbers that are definitive. We know how much money we have spent. We know how much we have paid out.

When it comes to the amount that was paid out, I think it is worthy of note to understand that a good part of that money was not necessarily for the victims. A good part of that money went to the lawyers and for the administration of the funds. I believe my numbers are right. I think we are at around $92 million for that alone.

The point I am trying to make is very clear. We did the wrong thing by compensating only a restrictive window from 1986 to 1990. The government knows it and every member of the House knows it. We have the opportunity to correct that and do the right thing. Victims continue to die. Many of the victims who should have been compensated are already gone.

We have the chance to do the right thing. It is not a matter of dollars. It is a matter of justice. We should get to work and make it happen now. No member has come up with a reason or a justifiable argument against it. The committee has recommended it to the House. The House must do the right thing at this time.

[Question No. 89, April 4th, 2005]

With regard to the Canadian Cervid Council and the Canadian Deer and Elk Farmers Association: ( a ) broken down by recipient and, in each case, specifying any amount disbursed and any government department involved, what, if any, grants and contributions has the government made to these organizations since fiscal year 1999-2000; and ( b ) what audits has the government done that examine payments to these organizations?

(Return tabled)

[Justice, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, marijuana grow ops are a major problem not only in my riding but across the country. The convicted growers are not doing the jail time. In British Columbia only one in seven went to prison. In Calgary it was one in ten. The justice minister seems to think that is okay but Canadians are just fed up.

Will the government support minimum sentences for grow op criminals?

[Civil Marriage Act, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand on behalf of the people of Yellowhead and contribute to this amendment debate on a very important issue.

This is a crucial issue for millions of Canadians, including many of my constituents who treasure the institution of marriage. It is a significant issue, not only for those who are seized by it but also for all Canadians. Marriage is a foundation of our society. A redefinition of marriage will have important long term consequences for the institution of marriage, for children, for religious freedoms and for society.

It is appropriate that this issue be debated in this House; however, it is unfortunate that the government has allowed for the courts to drive the agenda on this matter. It is troubling for Liberal cabinet ministers who have gone back on their solemn words and their votes to affirm the traditional definition of marriage. It is also worrisome for a democracy where a Prime Minister is forcing his cabinet to ignore their consciences and constituents by forcing through this piece of legislation.

I have listened closely to the views of my constituents on this issue, and with me, a great majority of them affirm the traditionally received definition of marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. In my remarks today, I want to speak in defence of marriage and I will raise a number of concerns about the Prime Minister's plan to redefine marriage.

What is marriage? Marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman, and it has been recognized for thousands of years. It is an institution that pre-dates modern states and it was recognized by most of the world's cultures and religions. The received definition of marriage serves as a bond between a man and a woman and between generations. It unites men and women and provides an environment for children to grow and flourish.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a vital, integrated force in our society. It is the basis of family, long recognized as a fundamental social unit in our society. We do grave disservice to marriage when we reduce it to a matter of contract and rights. To reduce marriage to a contract between two adults is to neuter the definition of its real meaning. Intrinsic to marriage is the unity of male and female. If male and female no longer matter, then why should other aspects of marriage really matter, such as an exclusive, lifelong commitment? Why does the government consider some aspects of marriage intrinsic but others not? It is on very weak ground.

Marriage is about more than just numbers of partners involved. Marriage is about more than a modern notion of romantic love. It is about more than equality. Marriage is not an issue of fundamental human rights, but basic human rights include freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and equality under the law.

Same sex marriage is not a human right. No country in this world recognizes same sex marriage as a human right, not even Belgium or the Netherlands, the only two other countries that have same sex legislation on marriage. Marriage is a gift. It is a treasure. It is not a prize to be won through court rulings or a change in the law.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and it has stood the test of time and place. Many Canadians are willing to extend benefits to other kinds of domestic partnerships, but they recognize that marriage is something distinct, a unique bond or a covenant between a man and a women.

With the majority of my constituents, I too affirm the traditional definition of marriage, and I will oppose this bill with everything I have. I also oppose this bill because the redefinition of marriage threatens freedom of religion, itself a fundamental right recognized in the charter. I am especially concerned about the implications of this bill for religious officials and religious institutions. Religious freedoms are already under attack in this country. A series of court decisions and rulings by human rights tribunals have determined that religious freedoms of a number of individuals and institutions have been challenged. I would like to give a couple of examples.

Toronto printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 by the Ontario Human Rights Commission for refusing, on religious grounds, to print material for a Toronto lesbian and gay archives.

There is another case. A Catholic high school in Ontario was forced to allow a gay couple to attend a high school prom, a clear violation of the Catholic teaching. All too often, when so-called equal rights push up against religious freedom, it is the latter that is cast aside.

The bill before us carries us further down the road of marginalizing religious freedom and expression in this country. The government says that religious officials will not be compelled to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. That is very generous of them, is it not? This is only one of the many possible impacts oN religious freedom flowing from the redefinition of marriage. It is the law of unintentional consequences.

We are already seeing marriage commissioners in a number of our provinces, including Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, being compelled to affirm same sex marriages or lose their licence. The bill does not protect these officials. It does not protect them because it cannot. The solemnization of marriage falls under provincial jurisdiction.

The government's deputy House leader thinks that is just fine, that it is not a problem with them losing their jobs. We do not. What else can we expect from this legislation? Churches or temples may be forced to rent out their halls for same sex marriage receptions. In fact, there is already a pending case in British Columbia where a branch of the Knights of Columbus are under fire for legitimately refusing to have its hall used for a same sex wedding reception. It will be interesting to see how that ruling comes out.

The charitable status of religious institutions which oppose same sex marriage may be revoked. Religious schools and charities may be forced to hire or retain employees who are in same sex marriages. Last, but not least, is the concern of religious officials that they may one day be ordered by the courts to sanction same sex marriages or allow them to be performed in their churches, mosques or 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, the declaration carries no legal weight because the solemnization of marriage is a provincial jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court says that the guarantee of religious freedoms under subsection 2(a) of the charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil unions and religious same sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs. However, the court does not exclude the possibility of the unique circumstances which would override this guarantee.

Given the tendency of the judges to view the charter as a flexible document in which the rights can be read in, and given the pattern of so-called equality rights trumping religious rights, there is a legitimate cause for concern.

It is the freedom of religion in conscience that most other rights depend on. The redefinition of marriage bill is yet another threat to religious freedom in Canada. Marriage commissioners are already being fired in some jurisdictions. The charitable status of religious institutions could be taken away, and the outlook for religious officials and institutions to maintain their teaching and practices on marriage remains uncertain. For these reasons too I oppose the redefinition of marriage and this bill.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the traditional definition of marriage. The court handed it back to this Parliament. The Prime Minister and the justice minister have turned their backs on marriage. We will not.

Our amendment to the main motion seeks to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to extend to civil unions, especially under law of the provinces, the same rights, benefits and obligations as married couples have. We are also seeking substantive protection for religious officials and institutions in the context of federal law. Our position seeks a reasonable compromise, one that would be accepted by most Canadians in this country.

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. We tamper with marriage at our peril.

Redefining marriage will have numerous consequences. Some of those are already with us. Others, to be sure, will emerge in the passage of time. Among those is likely to be the ongoing erosion of religious freedom in Canada.

Australia went through the same situation a year ago. There was a groundswell of support against changing the law. Defence for the traditional definition of marriage swelled up in that society and so it backed off. This is what I would advise the government to do in this case as well.

I urge all members of Parliament to carefully consider what is at stake. I urge my colleagues not to rush ahead. I urge the Prime Minister to show true respect and allow his cabinet ministers to vote their consciences and for their constituents. I urge Parliament to affirm marriage and protect the freedom of religion in Canada.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, March 21st, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-349, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (substances used in the production of methamphetamine).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce Bill C-349 on behalf of the people of Yellowhead and for all of Canada because of the importance of methamphetamine abuse and use within Canada. It is growing, particularly in my riding and it is unbelievably significant.

The bill would give RCMP officers another tool and would allow them to prosecute for the possession of the precursors to methamphetamine.

I will give an example of some of the things that have happened in light of this last weekend. We as a party have pushed back against the criminal element in our country by adopting amendments with mandatory minimum sentences for firearm crimes, by cracking down on smuggling, by strict monitoring of high risk individuals, by putting more law officers on the streets and by protecting children from sexual predators.

This bill would give another tool to the RCMP. The legislation deals with methamphetamine use. Its use is significant because of the abuse within our riding. An ambulance driver has told me that on a weekly basis he fights with somebody who is under the influence of methamphetamine.

The bill needs to be pursued by members of the House and I ask for support of every member here because of the significance within their ridings the same--

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want criminals to do real time. That is why it is called a criminal justice system.

We have confidential information about a plan to cut over 200 members of the RCMP from the national force. This is not the response that the families or Canadians were looking for. What twisted logic would lead a government to cut RCMP officers just after these deaths?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we recently said goodbye to four fallen RCMP officers in my riding. The killer had a history of violence, intimidation and skirting the criminal justice system.

The victims' families, the killer's brother and all Canadians are saying enough is enough. Hardened criminals should do hard time and we want real action to prevent further tragedies. Will this government agree to mandatory minimum prison sentences for serious violent crimes so that these officers' deaths will not be vain?

[Reproductive Technologies, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there are 84 other countries that had a different view which reflected their policy nationally.

Many ministers have repeatedly assured the House that the government would support a full cloning ban. Its own legislation prohibits human cloning, but at the UN it does something different. The only thing that really is consistent with this government is that if a promise is made a promise is broken. Why is this government not keeping its word?

[Reproductive Technologies, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, just a few hours ago the United Nations General Assembly passed a declaration to ban all forms of human cloning. The margin was 84 to 34, but Canada voted against the ban.

In October the health minister said to the House, “We are committed to opposing all forms of human cloning, and we will take the positions internationally that are consistent with our domestic policies”.

Why has the government gone back on its word?

[Anthony Gordon, Leo Johnston, Brock Myrol, Peter Schiemann, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Mayerthorpe, Alberta is a small rural town in the riding of Yellowhead. It is where I was born. Last week this quiet community was jolted by the senseless deaths of four young RCMP officers: Constables Peter Schiemann, Anthony Gordon, Leo Johnston and Brock Myrol.

The officers were killed in the line of duty, paying the ultimate sacrifice in helping to bring peace and order to our communities.

The citizens of Mayerthorpe and Whitecourt are in mourning and they are responding as small towns can. They are reaching out to their families, to the RCMP detachment and to each other.

I know that Canada joins them in their grief. We mourn. We pray. We remember.

We in this House are reminded again of our solemn duty to pass laws that ensure the safety of our citizens and our police officers. The courts must uphold those laws.

On behalf of the citizens of Yellowhead, I extend my sympathy to the families and friends of the fallen officers and to the brave young men and women of the RCMP.

We thank them for their sacrifice. We will remember them.