Rob Merrifield

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I guess dullness reigns in this place. I would like to answer the question of the individual. He had a few comments, but I do not know if there really was much of a question.

On the idea of Australia, Australia is one of the parliaments born out of the British parliamentary system, very similar to ours. They have a hybrid of it. We have a hybrid of it. Actually, to be honest, over the period of time--and he talks about the history of democratic reforms in the British parliamentary system--it took them 400 years before they figured out that the frontbench outvoted the backbench in the British parliamentary system. So there is a hybrid out of their own system. It is an evolution of democracies as we move forward in the history of the world and as democracies go.

We are in this process at the present time. We have a golden opportunity to move the yardsticks just a little bit with a fixed election date.

There were a lot of comments made by my hon. colleague, but none of them answered the question of why he would say no to this. This is all about giving the electorate, the people he represents, or says he represents, the opportunity to know when they are going to the polls. That would get it above the gamesmanship of political process and into truly representing the people of Canada.

That is really the root of the problem. I have a very difficult time when an individual in this House who has been here as long as he has does not understand that. I guess I should not be that surprised, because I saw individuals in this House forget all about representing their people within the first couple of months of being in this place. An individual can be here too long. He often forgets who he represents and who the real bosses in this country really are.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate the motion. I do it on behalf of the people of Yellowhead and I make that reference to make sure the people understand that I do it on their behalf. That is because it goes right to the root problem of what is going on with the country and with the House with regard to how Parliament runs and how a nation that calls itself democratic actually looks after itself.

Before we get into debate on why we should have fixed election dates, I make reference to the very first line in the motion which says that there is a serious democratic deficit in Canada. That is true and I believe it is. It is the first thing I recognized when I walked into the House a little over three years ago as the representative for Yellowhead. That is when I recognized just how dysfunctional this place actually is and why it was that we just had an election where 40% of the electorate decided not to even worry about going to the polls. They just checked out of the electoral process.

When we understand the problem with the dynamics in this country and the slide of interest in the democratic process, we have to ask what is the problem. Why is that actually taking place? Over the last three years I have examined a number of reasons why I think that could be happening. I have examined it first hand in this place as I have diligently worked on committees where I have seen them decide one thing one week, then the minister cracked the whip and all of a sudden they do 180 degrees reversal on their position the next week. I have seen situations where we have a Senate that is appointed, that is not really reflecting sober second thought on pieces of legislation coming from the House. I have seen now, as we have examined what is going on at the present time with the sponsorship scandal, that without a fixed election date the electorate in Canada and members of Parliament from all sides of the House are being victimized because of not knowing exactly the date of an election call.

When we look at these three things, the easiest one to change would be the fixed election date. It is so simple and it would send such a strong message. An ordinary Canadian looking at the electoral process would say “Why would we not fix a time when we know exactly when we would go to the polls to elect our representatives again?”

I have listened very carefully to members of the House and I have yet to come up with a real good answer as to why anyone in this place would say no to that as a rational move in parliamentary reform. We have to understand that our Parliament is born from the British parliamentary system. There are all kinds of different models of that parliamentary form around the world. We can look at New Zealand, Australia and a number of others that came from the British parliamentary system and they have all evolved somewhat and they are all somewhat different. I would say Canada is a very young nation in the scope of things and we are at a pivotal time where perhaps the vote today could actually change the course of the history of our evolution of a democratic process.

It is very important we do that, because when we get into the free voting in the House we see the votes are absolutely whipped by the government. We have seen that time and time again over the last three years that I have been here. In fact the most recent one was the most embarrassing for the government when just last week almost the entire House voted against the cabinet. The Prime Minister whipped them, but he was not even here to vote himself and would not engage in it. A person should be here to vote on those issues.

Nonetheless, when we really listen to what the Prime Minister says and compare it with what he does, it tells us a lot about what will actually happen in the future. At the present time the Prime Minister talks a lot about the democratic deficit and how he really wants to change things so that it will engage the population of Canada and engage the House in true debate as we move forward into the 21st century. It is amazing to me when I hear all this rhetoric. I have to take him at his word. If he said it, that is what he wants to do. Yet when we look at the history over the last 10 years he has been the finance minister, he invoked closure or time allocation at least 13 times on his own legislation in the House.

We think, well okay, maybe he had no choice; maybe he was just part of cabinet and had no opportunity to change that. He certainly had that opportunity when he became Prime Minister. We thought when it came to time allocation and closure he would certainly change that, because that is what all the talk was about. However, the second week that he was in the House as the Prime Minister, he invoked closure on a piece of legislation.

Not only that, but he denied a free vote when it came to the firearms registry legislation. That piece of legislation certainly was not a money bill. It was a bill that dealt with firearms registration. It certainly should have had a free vote. It was a golden opportunity to send a new message to the people of Canada on how Parliament would run in the 21st century, and we were right back to the exact pattern of the last 10 years that we have seen from that individual.

What resonates in my mind is what the Prime Minister said in the Winnipeg Free Press back in November. I mention this in health care quite a bit because health care is my portfolio. What he said was that if we want to know what he is going to do in the future, just look at what he has done in the past. That does not say very much for health care and it says even less when it comes to democratic reform and dealing with the democratic deficit in this country.

It is unfortunate that we hear lots of rhetoric but we see very little performance when it comes to dealing with important issues. A perfect example is Senate reform and the idea of how the senators are actually put in place. They are appointed by the Prime Minister of the land. I do not believe that senators really should have a party position. The whole idea behind the Senate is that the senators be above the political process. Things can become a little chaotic in this place and with pieces of legislation there is the possibility of making some mistakes. True, sober second thought in the Senate would be an appropriate thing to do.

When it comes to how the senators are appointed, there are some vacancies for Alberta, my home province, where the people of Alberta went to the polls and actually elected two representatives to sit as their representatives in the Senate. However, the Prime Minister refuses to appoint these individuals as the representatives of the people of Alberta. I cannot imagine that anyone could talk about the democratic deficit without actually doing something to deal with this shortcoming.

When we look at today's debate which is on fixed election dates, we have to ask ourselves why that is not happening. I asked the question earlier of why anyone would say no to that.

There are other examples but I will use the example of Australia, which comes out of the British parliamentary system. Lots of things that Australia does in its British parliamentary system are quite a bit different from what we do. It is somewhat refreshing when we examine how they do it. A perfect example is that our percentage of voter turnout at the last election was a little over 60%, but in Australia it is somewhere around 95% to 98%. How does Australia achieve that? It does it by taxing individuals $25 if their names are not crossed off the electoral list. Therefore, the people vote. It does more than that. Election day is a stat holiday so that when the people go to the polls, everybody in the country takes that day off and celebrates the liberties and the democracy that they live under. They do not take it for granted.

Perhaps there is something we can learn by recognizing just how important it is to make this place functional, to make democracy truly reign. We must understand as members of Parliament that being a representative is all about serving and not about political opportunism. The motion before the House truly could move the yardstick a little further along and show that we are above the political process, that we have the best interests of Canadians in mind. If we are going to do that, we would have no hesitation whatsoever in making sure that we vote in favour of this motion to have fixed election dates. That would remove the whole idea of political opportunism in this area. It is very frustrating to me when I see that happen.

Some of the provinces have already started this. British Columbia now has fixed election dates. Ontario is talking about it and others may be looking at it. Why is that the case? Why should leadership on how democracy should be run in this country not start in this House? We should set the pace and lead. It should be the other way around. Instead of the provinces doing it, we should be setting the example in this House of how democracy should be run in a democratic country, especially in the 21st century as technology and information flows freely.

It is frustrating to me to hear the lack of arguments on the other side of the House with regard to this motion. I would encourage people from all sides of this House to really consider the opportunity before us today to vote for something that is in the best interests of the people they represent.

[Question No. 6, April 2nd, 2004]

With regard to grants and contributions made by the government in the riding of Yellowhead for each fiscal year since 1999-2000: ( a ) what was the amount disbursed to each recipient; ( b ) which government department was involved; ( c ) what was the name of the recipient organization or business; and ( d ) what was the address of the recipient organization or business?

(Return tabled)

[Government of Canada, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, every day without fail new stories are uncovered that display the Liberal culture of corruption.

Despite the Prime Minister's claim, Canadians are no closer to knowing where the money went or who knew. All that we have is inconsistent testimony, missing hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds, and the financial mismanagement of our hard earned tax dollars. There is no new story here.

This is the same Liberal face that has plundered the trust of the Canadian people over the past decade.

What do I tell my constituents when they call about the neglected infrastructure in their national parks, the long hospital waits or the softwood lumber jobs? What do I say to the cattle industry and the hard working farm families or the small communities struggling with crystal meth and the message that the government continues to go soft on drugs? Again, there is no new story here.

Canadians have lost their faith in the ability of the Liberals to clean up their own mess. More importantly, the Liberals have violated the trust of Canadians and for that they will be judged.

[Question No. 36, March 29th, 2004]

With regard to all contracts (including amendments) awarded by Health Canada in each fiscal year since 1993-1994, what was: ( a ) the value of all contracts for communications, polling, speech-writing and stategic analysis; and ( b ) the name of the vendor, the amount, the purpose, the deliverables, and the names of other firms competing for the procurement of each?

Return tabled.

(Return tabled)

[Adverse Drug Reactions, March 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, medication errors continue to claim the lives of Canadians.

Last week it was revealed that two dialysis patients lost their lives when they were given the wrong IV solution, potassium chloride instead of sodium chloride. At least nine Canadians have been killed this same way in the last four years. Hospitals are taking steps to prevent this from happening again, but how many more lives have to be lost before Health Canada fixes this problem?

Up to 10,000 Canadians die each year due to adverse drug reactions. Less than 10% of those events are actually reported.

Last month I tabled a motion again calling for the government to consider mandatory reporting of all serious adverse drug reactions. The House approved my motion, but the government has still not moved toward mandatory reporting. Does a vote in this House not actually mean anything?

Men, women and children are dying because of medication errors. We can and we must do better. The problem will only get worse unless we act now.

[The Budget, March 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what my hon. colleague is talking about with regard to that claim. Aboriginals are the unhealthiest population in the country. Some of the reserves are an absolute disaster.

The member has to realize that the provincial government is not responsible when it comes to dealing with aboriginal health matters. Only one government is responsible and that is this government. It has absolutely failed for a decade to deliver on health for first nations. It is an absolute disgrace what has happened to our aboriginals with regard to health care in Canada.

[The Budget, March 25th, 2004]

The board did not draw those conclusions out of a hat at all. It formulated them from a very careful study.

If those conclusions are true, then we have to stop playing politics with health care. That is what the government has done, and this budget has failed to deliver on it. We have to start working with the two orders of government in a collaborative way. This appears to be impossible for the government to accomplish. It is unfortunate because the only way we will accomplish that is to change the government. Canadians are ready to do that.

[The Budget, March 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let me start with the plan my colleague mentioned. It is unbelievable what the government has done with regard to studying health care and deciding what kind of plan with which to come forward. How much money did the government spend over the last decade? We sent that question to the Library of Parliament and it came back with the answer of $243 million just to study health care. We do not need another study. We do not need to wait until summer to figure it out. We know the answer. What we need is some performance and some leadership, but we are not getting either.

Canada taxes higher than any of the OECD nations. When it comes to health care, Canada only rates 13th out of the OECD nations. As far as dollars per capita, Canada ranks third. If we look at the age of our population, Canada ranks first. Those figures came out of a study done by the Fraser Institute last year. That means Canada put in per capita higher than any other country. Just providing money will not solve our health care problems. We need to look at reforming it and putting it on a sustainable path.

Two weeks ago, the Conference Board of Canada said that health care in its present state was headed into a failure. It cannot be sustained in its present form. The board did not come up with those conclusions by accident--

[The Budget, March 25th, 2004]

It is absolutely amazing. This was a promise in the health care accord. There is no one in the land, no prime minister and no one from any party who could be a prime minister, who would have gone into another election without giving that $2 billion.

It is absolute nonsense for the government tried to trump it up and play a sleight of hand on this again, re-announcing and re-announcing the $2 billion. This was $2 billion as one-off money. Actually it was not one-off. It had already been announced in the health accord last year. I would challenge this government not to do this with health care dollars with the provinces. No wonder they are so upset about the dollars and cents in health care.

The budget says that $34.8 billion will go into health care over the next five-year period. However, we have to understand, which the provinces do full well, that those dollars were re-announced and re-announced. A good part of that money was announced in the 2000 budget, just before an election. That was playing politics with health. That was a five-year commitment, and we are just into the third year now. Now the government is re-announcing that $2 billion as part that $34.8 billion.

When the provinces look at the federal government and its lack of commitment to health care, they say that it may be able to fool the guy on the street, but it is not fooling them. They know the dollars and they know the numbers. They say that the government is absolutely false in what it says because its fifty-fifty commitment to health care is no longer there, and it is still not there. Stable funding is still not in place for this government.

Nonetheless, we can argue about whether the commitment is there. Last February an agreement was reached with the provinces. For the first time in a decade, provincial governments and the federal government came together and decided on a five-year agreement. Even in with that agreement, the government did not fulfil its commitment. Significant time lines were in the agreement, significant things that had to be done in that first year.

We agreed with a lot of what was in the accord. It said that provincial governments would be given flexibility to deliver on health care; it would reform the primary system. By September it would have the primary system indicators to tell us how we were doing, good, bad or indifferent, with regard to health care. The government has totally missed that deadline. It is not there today. It is not even being worked on. When the ministers met with the Prime Minister, just before the throne speech, there was not a word of that. Not only that, the bottom line indicators for a national home care program, which is part of the accord as well, were not there as well.

Therefore, we have a tremendous disconnect with what was agreed to by both orders of government last year to what has been happening and nobody is talking about it. It was not talked about in the throne speech. It was not talked about in this budget. In fact health care was scarcely mentioned in this budget.

What was talked about in this budget was what would be done with the public health agency.

It has been almost a year since we had the massive outbreak of SARS. SARS taught us some lessons, but the lessons should have been learned long before SARS hit. There were many warnings over the last number of years about the problem we would have if we did not look after the public health and protection of our nation. Diseases such as SARS, the avian flu and so on have ravaged many countries. Now we have firsthand experience of that, and we had been told it would come.

In fact we have been totally vulnerable from learning the lessons of SARS and actually dealing with it. We still do not have a chief public medical officer of health, somebody who can take the bull by the horns and play quarterback on a massive outbreak like SARS. That is really the job of the health minister, but if the minister will do not it, then we need somebody else who will. We are still sitting vulnerable on that. We still do not have a public health agency. Although it was mentioned in the budget, there have been no time lines for either one of those.

It is frustrating to see exactly what is in the budget and what is not. Why do we have to delay and delay? In fact the big discussion on the agency is the location of its headquarters, which is really interesting. It should either be in Vancouver or in Winnipeg, but my guess is it will be in Ottawa, not because of anything other than politics. It is unfortunate when we see governments playing politics with health care because it is too important.

We absolutely cannot be playing the politics of putting health care on a sustainable path and waiting until this summer to do it. The Prime Minister has had a decade of waiting for his time to become the prime minister. The answers for health care should have been foremost in his mind. It certainly is top in the minds of ordinary Canadians. Instead of coming forward in his first budget and first throne speech and giving real answers to health care, they have been absolutely ignored. It is a shame and an absolute disaster.

The government has tried to play sleight of hand with money. It has tried to convince people that it is fiscally prudent, yet there has been scandal after scandal. This government has to be replaced. The corruption goes from the top to the bottom. There is only one answer. Canadians will judge the government accordingly in the next election.