Rob Merrifield

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I would suggest it will save not one or two lives, but thousands and maybe tens of thousands of lives if the numbers that I see are accurate, and the numbers that were reflected in that report.

However, I want to stay on the issue of drugs for one more quick question because it is very important. We talked about this in committee the other day with regard to the catastrophic drug coverage. According to the minister's report and his information to committee, the 2003 accord said that the catastrophic drug coverage would happen, that it would be in place by 2006.

That is what the provinces and the federal government were working toward, by the end of that year. Now we see that the accord that was struck here a couple of months ago is saying that we are first going to get a report near the end of 2006. So, the actual catastrophic drug coverage in essence is going to be put back one, two, or three years? How many years? Give us a date? What is the proposal?

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the minister is right. We did look at this over a year ago in the health committee. In fact, we had the actual consent forms that were being asked for. We said that there was no way that first nations were going to fill them out, they were so complex. We would not fill them out for ourselves and yet we were asking our first nations to do it, so there was no surprise about that.

That was over a year and a half ago. We recommended changing those forms so that the compliance would be there. That is another issue. I do not want to spend all 15 minutes on this issue, but I am rather upset. The Auditor General is bang on. The government and the minister had better do something about it.

However, let us get on to another issue that is related to it. The report came out this spring. Actually, it was in the middle of the election. There were 24,000 deaths because of adverse events in our acute care hospitals in the year 2000 and probably more since. That was what the report suggested. We have to believe it is true because it was reflected with another study in the United States saying exactly the same sort of numbers. That does not count for the ones in the nursing homes. That does not count for the ones who die outside of hospital because of adverse events from drug reaction.

I brought in a motion that was passed by the House, this spring, saying mandatory reporting had to take place. I would like to ask the minister, what are you doing with that and what are you doing to deal with the issues that are addressed in that report?

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the minister is trying to fudge what the Auditor General has said with regard to this issue. That is just on the dollars and cents that could have been saved. If we were to multiply that over a number of years, it would be tens of millions of dollars a year. That is what she said. That is a lot of money.

Then we go to what she said with regard to human life. She said that there are a number of these drugs. We have seven or more doctors prescribing to seven or more different pharmacists different drugs, and that becomes a health and safety issue. How many lives are at risk because of the lack of information from Health Canada, from the government, to those doctors and pharmacists? That becomes a much more serious issue than even the money and that is what she is addressing. I would like the minister's comments on that.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I think the minister is saying that the Auditor General was wrong the first time she addressed it because she said that with different buying practices alone this could be saved. This is the third time she said how disappointed she was that it was not addressed the last two times.

If that was the case, the minister is saying he respects the Auditor General's report. Does that mean you did not respect it the last--

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I want to get this straight. Is the minister saying that it could not have been fixed when the Auditor General addressed it the first time? When she addressed it, it was pretty specific. She is saying that just one drug alone cost $17 million, when it should have cost $4 million in one year. That was just to change the buying practice of one drug. Is the minister telling us that she was wrong the first time she addressed this issue?

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I have some questions for the minister and I am pleased that he could join us tonight.

I want to correct what was said earlier. It is not on his initiative that he is here; it is on ours, the official opposition. We are the ones who asked him here because health care is a number one priority for us and we had some serious questions that we wanted to put to him with regard to it. Therefore, I thank him for giving us his time and opportunity.

The Auditor General is held with a tremendous amount of respect by all Canadians and all members of the House. In her report today it states:

--we found that the government is paying tens of millions of dollars more than necessary each year because it does not take advantage of some well-known cost-saving measures...This is the third time we have raised this with Health Canada. I am disappointed that these issues have not been resolved.

There are many issues that we deal with in the House, some on the liberty of Canadians, some on the actual dollars and how their money is spent, and some on actual life and death situations. This one happens to be on money and life and death.

I would like to ask the minister point blank, how come it has taken three times? This is the fourth time. What assurance can he give us that this is not going to happen the fifth time?

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good comment. I was there at the committee and we asked those same questions. How can McDonald's do it in Denmark but it cannot do it here? Companies can do it here and we have to move them toward making that happen. The public is starting to demand it. The processors know that is the direction they are going. I told the Canola Council to be prepared because this is coming down. It is already ahead of the game.

We have to understand that New York Fries did it by starting to use canola oil in the oil base. It was a very simple thing to do in order to make it happen. That is what we should do right across the country.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of ways I could not support it. I am trying to support it, but it is difficult.

The recommendation was to have the health committee look at this and actually file a report in the House by March 31. This was the negotiation I tried to make with the mover and yet he said no to that.

If members are looking for legislation or regulation within a year, I am talking about taking three or four months to go through a process that would have advanced it much faster and would have had the weight of an entire committee to present it before the House.

I am glad the member talked about the canola industry. The canola industry is actually moving very fast to deal with this. The industry hopes that within five to ten years 50% of the 12 million acres in Canada will be producing the low trans fat oil, but that is genetically modified. Therefore the member is saying that she agrees with genetic modification of those kinds of oils because they are much healthier and lower with respect to pesticide use and so on. This was another debate that we had on the side.

I am glad to hear the NDP is talking with reason in this area.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

This is an important issue and one on which the nation is becoming fast aware that trans fats are in our foods and are causing a significant amount of damage.

In the last Parliament, when I was the senior critic for health, we had the opportunity to look at this issue in committee. It was under the labelling review that we had initiated last spring. At that time we had an opportunity to hear witnesses. We had three days on this issue talking to a number of experts behind this and in the industry to discern for sure if trans fats were indeed a problem in our diet. I was alarmed at some of the testimony of the witnesses who came forward and the conclusive evidence, I would say without refute, that trans fats are not good.

We are here today discussing a motion brought forward by the NDP. It is not often that I agree with members of the NDP on the intent of a motion but on the intent of this one I give them good marks. I do challenge them not to play politics with this issue. It is a very important issue and it is more important that we actually do something constructive than to get headline news on the evening channels.

When I discern what had happened in committee, we were to examine all of the information with regard to this and bring forward a report to Parliament, lay it in the House so that all members from across the country would have the information that was given to us at the health committee and be able to truly discern, with many more facts, what was actually behind the issue of trans fats in our diet. The report was supposed to be done by September of this year but an election was called and nothing has taken place.

It is interesting to listen to hon. members from the NDP. They are so opposed to trans fats in the diet, which obviously are harmful to society, and yet as far as marijuana which is also very harmful to society, they want to legalize it. That is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, but nonetheless, they will have to wrestle that through with their constituents as those issues come forward.

When it comes to this issue of trans fats in our diet, there are two issues: First, will we get rid of trans fats, which science and experience tells us is bad and harmful? Yes, I believe we should as a society and there is no argument there. Second, should we agree with the motion and does it actually achieve that goal in a way that is responsible? How will we achieve the goal that we want to eventually get to? That is where I have a considerable amount of concern.

We have to look back as to why trans fats are in our diet to begin with. It came forward in committee reports in the early 1970s that trans fats were not good for us and they should not allowed in our diets. They have only been around for the last 30 to 35 years and only in our diets for 30 to 35 years. Should we allow them in? The report at that time said that we should not, nonetheless, a decision was made to allow them because we were having a significant amount of problems with saturated fats. The saturated fats in our diet are increasing and are very harmful to us. We knew that and in those days the ParticipACTION program was in full flight. We remember those ads on television where the 35 year old Canadian was not as fit as the 70 year old Swede.

In our attempt to do something good and healthy for society, we decided to replace saturated fats with trans fats, which is pushing hydrogen through them so they solidify at room temperature, which others have described. We made a decision to replace them with something that was even worse than we had originally. This is not to say that saturated fats are good because they certainly are not. All of the science is very clear on that. We need to reduce saturated fats and trans fats.

Unfortunately, we have a population that does not know the difference between saturated fats, trans fats, polyunsaturated fats and semi-hydrogenated fats. All of those and more are on the labels but we have a population that really does not understand them. I would suggest that most people in the House do not understand the difference and the nuances of those different fats and yet they are on our labels. Some people would argue that we should have choice. Yes, choice is important but if we do not know what the choices really are and we do not know what it means when we say there are a certain amount of trans fats or saturated fats in our diet, then what good does it do?

The issue then becomes whether we should legislate trans fats. I think my colleague just finished saying that was a role that perhaps the government should play. Perhaps it is.

We spoke to the NDP with regard to some of the amendments and were able to get some of them in there. However we wanted to finish the work the health committee had started, which was to file a report and give all the information to the House so members could, with good knowledge and with the support of the health committee that examined this from all sides, make an informed decision on the impact it would have on international trade, on the domestic competitiveness of different industries and its affect on the different industries. All of that, and more, could have been examined and we could have brought that information to the House.

We asked the NDP to change the motion to read, “Let us have that report by committee in this House before March 31, 2005”, which is just a few months away. I believe that would have been a much more responsible way to have dealt with this motion, not to play politics looking for evening headlines but to actually move this agenda along in a much more progressive way so that we had all the facts before the House prior to making a decision on whether to bring forward regulation within a year and ban trans fats from our food shelves.

This issue could have repercussions in that we could make the same mistake today that we did back in the 1970s. We should lower saturated fats and trans fats in our diet but if we get rid of trans fats we could go back to perhaps palm oil, which is 50% saturated fat, which is industry's biggest fear. We would rather give our own industry, the canola industry, the opportunity to bring forward its new technology, which would allow 7% saturated fat, and replace it in a much more healthy way.

We have an opportunity to not only eliminate trans fats from our diet but to allow an industry in Canada to put its own hybrids of canola, which are much more healthy, on the shelves and solve the problem in a two win situation. We would win both by making it healthier and by producing an opportunity for industry within this country. Now, that is where we should be going.

One of the facts on trans fats and where we are at as a society is certainly the obesity problem. It is such a problem that it is estimated that it costs Canadians $6.3 billion annually because of poor diet, and $1.8 billion annually in indirect costs. Consumers, producers and the food chains are recognizing the need to change and the need to do something about this.

There is also trans fats in mothers' breast milk at average levels of 7.2% and high levels up to 17%. This is serious.

Just to get back to the canola industry, one of the new technologies, as I was saying, is this high oleic acid canola. I believe around a million acres of it was produced this last year. I am a canola grower myself, in my own riding, and I know quite a bit about the new technologies in canola. The industry is now putting out to contract at the present time for next year. This is a very low trans fat free canola. It is a tremendous opportunity for Canada and the Canadian industry.

The debate around this whole issue is twofold. The first is to get rid of it. I would agree with getting rid of trans fats from the Canadian diet. I think we should move as quickly as we can on that. However we should do it in the right way, with all the facts and knowing all the repercussions. We do not want to knee-jerk react like we did in the 1970s. We want to do something that would be productive and would allow industry to conform to the new legislation and to the new opportunities, I would say, for them. New York Fries is a perfect example. It has eliminated trans fats from its menu as a marketing opportunity.

More marketing opportunities are needed. I think we can do that, but we should follow the right process. I do not know which way I am going to vote on the motion; I will decide when the vote comes up. I agree with the concept but I am a little nervous about how we are going to get there.

[Diabetes, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, diabetes is a disease that afflicts far too many Canadians. Two million Canadians currently struggle with this disease. The numbers are expected to increase as our population ages and as obesity rates rise. In some first nations communities the incidence of diabetes is three to four times the national average.

The government keeps saying that it is a priority, but where are the results?

The Conservative Party recognizes the need for a range of prevention and treatment strategies to combat this disease.

Canadian scientists are engaged in leading edge research, testing and treatment programs, including the exciting Edmonton protocol. We must do more to prevent diabetes by encouraging physical activity and healthy eating.

November 14 is World Diabetes Day, marking the birthday of Dr. Frederick Banting, one of Canada's greatest scientists.

On behalf of Canada's official opposition, I offer our best wishes to the Canadian Diabetes Association and to all those who strive to prevent, treat and find cures for this disease. We thank them for their good work and wish them success in the years ahead.