Rob Merrifield

[Health, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, since 1998 the official opposition has urged the government to compensate all hepatitis C victims of tainted blood.

We accepted Justice Krever's recommendation to compensate all victims, not just those inside an artificial window. However, year after year the Liberal government has denied fair treatment to thousands of Canadians and their families. On October 21 the Commons health committee passed a motion urging this government to compensate all who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood. The motion passed unanimously.

I have given notice to move concurrence in this House for this motion. During tonight's debate we will be looking for clear support from this government and a timetable for action, not more studies. We cannot erase the wrongs of years past, but we can do something for the remaining victims and their families before it is too late.

Compensation was the right thing to do in 1998 and it is the right thing to do today. The funds are in place; the excuses are getting weak. Canadians are watching. Victims are waiting. Let us do the right thing.

[Reproductive Technologies, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government says it is opposed to human cloning, but last year at the United Nations, Canada abstained from a vote on the issue. This week it has another chance. The United Nations is again going to debate the resolution to ban all forms of human cloning.

Will the government continue to say no at home but something different at the United Nations, or will it say no to human cloning?

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the member is absolutely right. CAISP is being used as a vehicle. CAISP is absolutely swamped. It has been a disaster for the time period that it has been in existence. Now we are asking it to administer another program that was announced on September 10. If we are going to do that, then we have to add the resources to the program and to the people who are administering the program in order for it to comply with the things we are asking it to do. If we fail to do that, then we are asking for disaster.

The member is absolutely right, and others have spoken about it this evening, the CAIS program is not meeting the needs and is not getting the money into the hands of the people who need it the most at the present time, the farmers. The farm gate is where the money has to be and it has to be there now.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the minister's comments with regard to other ruminants. It is unfortunate this program has taken so long to come forward, really at the 12th hour. The minister has not consulted with regard to other ruminants which have been terribly impacted. I challenge him to make sure they are looked after.

I appreciate that he is meeting with the sheep and goat group tomorrow. I have also talked to those groups. I have also talked to individuals involved in the elk, bison and deer industries which have been impacted just as severely. Some of them have been impacted more so because of a chronic wasting disease in the elk industry which has impacted them for three or four years. They are into their fifth year of absolute disaster. However I do respect what the minister said.

With regard to this program being flexible, he is absolutely right in the sense that all provinces have it differently and the way the provinces approach the program will be somewhat different. I challenge the minister to be flexible enough to recognize the needs of the provinces and the fact that they are part of this program, and that when they come up with solutions, to be flexible. In speaking with the minister's office today I understand that those negotiations have been rather rigid. I impress upon the minister to make sure that this program actually works. We are here to help the minister, the government and all Canadians by holding the minister's feet to the fire.

I was a little upset this summer when the minister went into the meeting saying that he would consult this summer. However when we asked for the ag committee to be struck in July so a program could be in place sooner rather than later, our request fell on deaf ears. I find that absolutely appalling.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Yes, I could be accused of child abuse. That is true. In some ways it is not all good news.

Nonetheless, the people of Yellowhead are very concerned about this issue. Not only are they dealing with the BSE crisis, but people in my riding just came through two years of severe drought and a severe grasshopper problem which has put them on their knees. The BSE situation is not the straw that broke the camel's back. It is the absolute life-support cases. My office my staff tell me that they are fielding calls quite often from people considering extreme situations, as much as to say that they are looking at possible suicide. When we start receiving those calls, it is very serious.

We can say that this is a Canadian-U.S. problem. I think that was described very clearly by our leader this evening, and that is absolutely true. We can say that is a solution at which we could work. As far as opening the border, we cannot control what the United States does. We certainly can control how we react to this situation in Canada and how we support the industry or not support the industry. That is exactly what we need to do.

When we talk about the United States and our relationship, I was with an interparliamentary group this spring. We went to the United States to talk to a number of the congressmen. Most of them thought the border was open. They had absolutely no idea of the intensity of the problem in Canada, nor the impact it was having. They were looking at what was happening under their own noses.

When we have a ruined relationship with our largest trading partner, it will cause absolute havoc, not only with BSE in the cattle industry, but in many of the other industries. Of our export trade, 85% to 87% is with the United States. We had better start nurturing that relationship and we had better start doing it quickly. I share that with the members in the debate because it is paramount.

The government thought the Americans would open the border by the end of the summer. Government members crossed their fingers hoping that would happen. The program is more than a year late. It is about a year and a half since the time the first cow came down with BSE in Canada. Since that time, the impact on our industry has been absolutely devastating and it has been described in many ways.

In the little time I have left I want to talk specifically about the program that was announced on September 10 and how it has miscued. First, I have to address the problem of the other ruminants that have been impacted just as severely as the beef industry, namely elk, deer, bison, sheep, goat and lama. These individual producers, through no fault of their own, have been impacted by BSE. It is not about science; it is about politics. It is the worst kind of politics that has influenced and impacted these agricultural communities. We have to support them.

We were looking for some sort of indication in the throne speech for support for the agriculture industry. We did not get that. It is unfortunate because the agriculture industry is certainly looking for it. It needs it now. The industry is questioning whether the government is playing politics not only with the United States, but with the lives of farmers and those of their families. I saw that happen with the government over this last summer, and it has to stop.

I was on the phone just a few hours ago with the ministry of agriculture in Alberta. I asked about the program and about the intense conversations with the federal government. The inflexibility with the dates has to stop. The minister said that he will have a program that will be flexible. He had better back that up. The flexibility has to be there and we have to understand the difference.

Alberta represents 45% of the beef industry in the country. It needs the ability to be flexible and it needs to understand that it is part of this program as well. It needs to be respected to that degree.

When the set aside program was first announced it was going to be 40% but now it is being talked about backing that off to 28%. I would like the minister to comment on that. I would also like to know whether he will allow October 1 to be the start date of this program.

We also have to understand that just because the set aside program is there, these individuals will get $200 as long as the animal does not go to slaughter. They have to be able to sell that animal and not be restricted to the point where it depreciates to a value that is not any good.

I could go on but I know my time is up. There are lots of things I could say about this program not meeting the needs of farmers and they have to be addressed by the government.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, it is a great privilege and a pleasure of mine to stand on behalf of the people of Yellowhead to address this issue.

This is a very important issue for Yellowhead. I take my job as representing the people of Yellowhead very seriously. This also is an issue that comes very close to home. I was raised on a farm and my full time career was working on that farm. Most of my life I was a dairy farmer. As well, I crop land farm, beef farm and I have an Elk herd. We have passed that on to our eldest son. It is the fourth generation within this--

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I listened to my colleague's comments very intently. I am really a little bit confused because he talked about opening the border not necessarily being a solution. He talked about testing the animals as being a solution. He talked about the monopoly that has been identified within the province of Alberta and across the country with the packing plants' ownership of animals.

All of those points are interesting, but the member's government has come out with a program that is at least eight months late, probably a year late. It was done in consultation with the industry and hopefully with all the member's colleagues.

I am sitting here a little dumbfounded trying to discern exactly where the member is coming from with regard to the proposal that is on the table from the government as a solution for the BSE problem. Perhaps it is a flashback in the member's past. Maybe he is on the wrong side of the floor. I would like you to explain to us in the House exactly what you think of the proposal that is before the industry at this time.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, May 12th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-528, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (substances used in the production of methamphetamine).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this very important bill. It would give the RCMP the tools to crack down on crystal methamphetamine problems. This illegal drug has rampaged my riding as well as most of the ridings in Alberta. It is a very serious problem.

The legislation is supported by the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties. They are struggling with this problem on a firsthand basis in their communities.

I talked to an RCMP member on the weekend. He was very impressed with the opportunity to have legislation that would give him the tools to crack down on those elements that go toward the making of crystal methamphetamine.

The legislation is commonplace in many of the states in the United States. It is a matter that we should be looking at very seriously because it would give the RCMP the ability to crack down on this drug. The precursor of being able to make the drug and having large amounts of it in a person's possession would be deemed an illegal act. It is something that we encourage the House to consider as we move it forward.

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

[Health, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, out of the $1.2 billion, just $366 million has now been paid to the victims. There is far more in the fund, enough to cover all of the victims. We know the government was liable back as far as 1981. What is the government doing with the $800 million left in the fund if it is not looking after people like Mrs. Dixon?

[Health, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to mistreat victims of hepatitis C.

One of my constituents, Phylis Dixon, received a lump sum and $1,000 a year from the compensation fund. However she has just recently been cut off because she could not prove that she contracted hepatitis C in 1988.

Mrs. Dixon is a World War II veteran. She recently had a liver transplant and gets around with a walker. Is this the government's idea of compassion?