Stan Dromisky

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of Motion No. 158.

[Firefighters, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the hon. member's motion.

I want to express my very deep concern for the welfare of this country's emergency response workers who risk their lives to protect ours. Most Canadians cannot begin to conceive the nightmare these individuals must be living through wondering in doing their jobs to the best of their abilities whether they have put their own health in jeopardy. We cannot imagine the fear and trepidation all emergency workers must feel when they respond to a call never knowing what danger awaits them.

Canada owes a great deal to the dedicated men and women who put their lives on the line each day for our health and safety. I can reassure the House this government does not take their risks lightly. These risks are taken so seriously that this government along with our provincial counterparts, industry and labour have for some time now been developing programs to protect not only emergency response workers but also those in the transportation sector and those handling hazardous chemicals in the workplace.

Under the transportation of dangerous goods regulations, for example, a United Nations number or product identification number and the shipping name of a commodity must be on the label and the shipping document. Even in the absence of a shipping name or a product identification number or a placard or label the product may be identified by contacting the Canadian Transport Emergency Centre or CANUTEC using any of the following information: the flight number; the call sign if the goods are being transported by ship; reporting marks and car number if it is being transported by rail; carrier and truck or trailer number and carrier and licence plate number if it is being transported by road.

In the event of an emergency, the firefighter can call CANUTEC which has an inventory exceeding 320,000 material safety data sheets. CANUTEC is a national bilingual advisory service provided by Transport Canada to assist emergency response personnel in handling dangerous goods emergencies. CANUTEC has established a scientific data bank on chemicals manufactured, stored and transported in Canada. It is staffed by professional chemists experienced in interpreting technical information and providing advice which can be obtained by calling collect on a 24-hour basis.

CANUTEC is able to immediately provide the relevant information by accessing its database through the use of key words such as the UN number, the product identification number or shipping name required on the transportation of dangerous goods shipping label and shipping documents.

Also, part VII of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act requires that shippers and importers of certain dangerous goods have an emergency response assistance plan, ERAP, approved by Transport Canada. Currently there are approximately 14,000 such plans covering over 4,000 organizations entered into the transportation of dangerous goods directorate's national registry. All of these plans are audited.

Due to the seriousness of safety and health problems of hazardous chemicals used every day in the workplace, the federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed following a consensus proposal developed through extensive consultation with industry and labour representatives to implement a workplace hazardous materials information system. This system is a national program to reduce workers' deaths and injuries by

providing workers and employees with health and safety information about hazardous workplace chemicals. This system is implemented through interlocking federal and provincial legislation under the hazardous products act and in response to the workers' right to know the hazards of the materials with which they work.

Under the hazardous products act, suppliers of hazardous materials must provide precautionary labelling and material safety data sheets to employers. Complementary provincial legislation requires employers to develop appropriate workplace labelling and other forms of warning about hazardous materials produced in their workplace processes and make data sheets available to their employees and provide for worker education on the safe use of hazardous materials.

Furthermore in the province of Ontario, the Ontario Occupational Safety and Health Act requires that employers provide fire departments with data sheets upon request. There is no question we must continue to address the needs and concerns of emergency response personnel, such as firefighters as well as all other workers using hazardous chemicals.

Our goal is where possible to continue improving the systems of hazard communication for the benefit of all workers. We want emergency responders to have access to the most up to date information on prevention methods available. We are encouraging close co-operation between employers and employees to ensure that they have appropriate training and equipment to deal with out of control situations.

It is clear that the protection of Canadians, particularly those whose job it is to protect the general population is tremendously important to this government. In co-operation with the provinces, industry and labour we are doing everything within our jurisdictional power to provide emergency response workers with the necessary vital information to assist them in carrying out the dangerous work in as safe a manner as possible.

The intent of the motion is an honourable one. The government will support any strategy or technique that will provide protection for our citizens involved in such an honourable and extremely dangerous endeavour. The intent of this motion can become a reality with the co-operative efforts of the federal and provincial levels of government plus the others concerned and involved in the private sector.

[Ontario Election, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker,

There once was a man from North Bay, Who dreamed of a win on E-day, Harris promised a tax cut, Thinking we'd fall for that smut, Sounds just like Mulroney, wouldn't ya say!

That is right, Mr. Speaker. We will not be fooled by the fairy tale provincial Tory election plan. We heard tall tales like these from Brian for nine years.

Economists are being polite when they express their scepticism about the Tory plan for balancing the budget. However, behind closed doors they are rolling on the floor laughing at Harris' Alice in Wonderland election ploy.

Let us get real. The Ontario electorate is not so naive as to believe that a 30 per cent personal income tax cut will ever come their way. This comes from the guy who wants Ontario students to sell chocolate bars in order to subsidize the huge Tory tuition plan and the increases his party has planned for them.

[Breast Cancer, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

More funding is required to support efforts to establish breast cancer support groups across northwestern Ontario. This funding is especially warranted in light of data indicating the federal government committed greater amounts of funding on a per patient basis to other diseases than to breast cancer research.

Does this government have any intention to increase funding for breast cancer research, education, and support groups?

[Immigration Enforcement Improvement Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, Bill C-316 is a private member's bill put forward by the member for Cambridge. In short, the bill proposes to give provincial court judges the power to order deportation at the time of sentencing.

On the surface the proposal seems to make sense. In spirit and intent the bill would simplify the bureaucratic process, eliminating the need for a deportation inquiry. Instead, a foreign born criminal would be ordered deported at the time of sentencing and hopefully be removed without incident following the completion of his or her sentence.

Both the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have called for this type of legislative change. There are a number of gaps in the present system through which foreign born criminals can disappear underground between the time they complete their sentences and the time they are called for the deportation inquiries.

The minister is sensitive to the concerns raised by the Canadian Police Association. He has discussed the possibility of such a change on two separate occasions. On November 1, 1994 the minister tabled a document entitled "Into the 21st Century: A Strategy for Immigration and Citizenship". In the document the minister raises a number of possibilities for legislative change:

A number of legislative changes will be considered to reinforce the control and enforcement provisions of the Act. For example, currently deportation orders can only be issued by an immigration official. Consideration is being given to authorizing judges to issue deportation orders at the time of sentencing, rather than requiring a separate step.

That can be found at page 59. He further referred to such a possibility in his speech at second reading of Bill C-44.

There may be other improvements that we can usher into the system and one such recommendation, for instance, coming from some of the police chiefs is to permit judges to not recommend deportations at the time of giving sentence but to order deportation at the time of sentencing so that the system is leaner, so that the issues of that individual are all dealt with at the right time, and that there is full due process for that individual's counsel and lawyer to react to that judge's ordering of a deportation rather than recommending and then having it go back to immigration and before an immigration appeal division and so on.

In light of the foregoing it is safe to say the minister supports the spirit and intent of Bill C-316. However, there have been a number of technical concerns raised not only by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration but also by the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General.

Take a look at some of the concerns from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. This legislation raises some serious constitutional questions. The supreme court has established that deportation is not a form of punishment but rather an administrative decision taken by Canada. Bill C-316 seeks to change this. By making deportation a sentencing option it suddenly becomes a criminal punishment.

There are no fewer than three constitutional clauses that could be used to argue against the sentence. For instance, section 15 deals with equality under the law. It could be argued that two tiers of punishment would be available to judges if Bill C-316 came into effect, one for citizens and the other for non-citizens. We would have a case where two people commit the same crime, yet the punishment would be harsher for one than for the other.

Section 11 deals with double punishment. It could be argued that removal from Canada would represent a second form of punishment in addition to any other sentence. In effect, non-citizens would face the prospect of being punished twice for the same offence.

Section 12 deals with cruel and unusual punishment. It could be argued here that removing a permanent resident from Canada is tantamount to denying for life a person's right to be with family and friends, to earn a living or to communicate freely in the course of daily living.

Let us look at some of the concerns raised by the Department of Justice. There is a clear potential that even the simplest case could become mired in constitutional wrangling, which could stretch on for years and cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.

If the bill were to pass we would be transferring the responsibility for removing potentially dangerous criminals from the federal immigration department, whose representatives are experts in the field, to the provincial crown attorneys and judges. We should not dilute federal responsibility for something as important as the deportation of violent offenders.

It would take both time and money to train lawyers and judges to deal with immigration cases. The international obligations that Canada has with respect to immigration matters are not well known to judges acting in criminal matters.

Plea bargaining could become a convenient way for people who should not be in the country to stay in the country. There would be also be more appeals to our overloaded courts.

Deportation can be a complex process requiring travel documents and international co-operation. These are affairs which are best handled by the immigration department, which will continue to be responsible for all other deportations of persons who have entered Canada illegally, have been convicted of serious crimes in other countries or have otherwise violated the Immigration Act.

Judges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt before they can issue any court order. Bill C-316 as it stands could not withstand a charter challenge. The federal court has established that deportation is not a form of punishment but rather is an administrative decision taken by Canada.

Let us look at some of the concerns raised by the Solicitor General. The purpose of the Transfer of Offenders Act is to accommodate non-Canadians serving sentences by making it possible, on the basis of an arrangement between states, to transfer offenders so they can serve time in their homeland. This act is not meant to support orders which may have been made by the court.

Bill C-316 proposes that the act be amended to allow Canada to remove any foreign criminal serving time in a Canadian prison. There is absolutely no incentive for foreign countries to pass treaties with Canada whereby we would transfer to them the cost of punishing offenders who have committed crimes in Canada.

The government wants to ensure that all dangerous foreign offenders are ordered removed. We also want to ensure that the humanitarian concerns, which are an important part of the immigration system, are consistently applied to all persons subject to removal orders.

Bill C-44 seeks to remove all appeal rights from the Immigration and Refugee Board by dangerous criminals hoping to delay or prevent their removal from Canada. It also would prevent the release of unescorted convicted criminals under deportation order from Canadian prisons until they can be removed from Canada.

Many of the proposals which this bill would seem to resolve have already been dealt with in Bill C-44. The system works, but it could work far better than it does at the present time. The hon. member for Cambridge is clearly pointing out that there is need for change. We are taking action, but we must weigh our options carefully. All too often there is a difference between what sounds good and what is practical.

[Old Age Security Act, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see from the large number of amendments prepared on the subject that the opposition is not in favour of making changes to the current appeal process.

I cannot speak for the opposition, but the Liberal Party of Canada believes that our seniors deserve the best. With the proposed changes to the appeal system we would be giving them the opportunity to have their decisions reviewed as quickly and fairly as possible under the best system we can offer.

Motion No. 12 is intriguing. By the debate that is taking place, we see it is also very frustrating and confusing for the members of the official opposition versus members of the third party opposite. The battle that is going on between the two clearly reveals to me and to other members of the House of Commons that there is no simple answer to the very complex operations of any great government such as we have in Canada. Simple solutions just do not exist.

However, both parties have for some time, close to 18 months, been advocating simple solutions to extremely complex problems. I am just wondering after this lengthy period of time whether or not that is a deliberate attempt, or perhaps it is simply a matter of fact, that both parties lack the ability to comprehend the complexity and profound depth of these government operations. Perhaps they are deliberately trying to confuse Canadians with these simplistic solutions and are therefore misguiding the voting population.

We should begin by noting that the Canada pension plan review tribunals hear thousands of cases every year, thousands. These cases often are very complex. The legislation is also complex. They are sometimes very difficult to adjudicate.

With human beings involved, mistakes are sometimes made by these tribunals. When this occurs the minister must with great reluctance appeal the decision to the pension appeal board. This is only done where there are the clearest indications that a mistake has been made. Nonetheless, the department records indicate that 45 review tribunal decisions that were appealed by the minister to the pension appeal board were in fact overturned by that body. That 45 represents 80 per cent of the decisions that were made and rendered in 1994. Had the minister followed what appears to be the preference of the opposition and paid benefits before he was absolutely certain they should be paid, these 45 people would have been in the unfortunate position of having to repay money to the government. Imagine the shock these 45 people would have received if they had opened their mail and discovered they had to pay back thousands of dollars immediately. Naturally, they would be in the position where they would have no assets, no funds, simply because they live from cheque to cheque.

Therefore, closer examination of this motion, which the opposition claims will give better service to clients, will in fact reveal that many of those clients are put in a position where they have large overpayments that must be repaid, because the government is paying benefits before it is certain about entitlement. We must not allow that to happen.

For all these reasons, I oppose Motion No. 12 and urge all hon. members to do the same.

[Old Age Security Act, May 15th, 1995]

-to forgiving.

Let me begin my discussion of this amendment by outlining briefly what it contains.

The Reform Party proposes that the minister should report to the House how much overpayment benefit money is forgiven each year. That is a simple request. The minister should make recommendations regarding how much he should be permitted to forgive in the upcoming year. The Reform Party believes that the minister has a crystal ball and knows exactly how many cases are going to appear before him and his ministry. Therefore, he should be able to make such a judgment for the future 12 months.

Reform proposes that a parliamentary committee should set limits on how much may be forgiven in a year. Again we have to use the crystal ball. The proposal also suggests that no amount may be forgiven until the committee sets the yearly total and no amount may be forgiven once that total has been reached.

When I first heard the motion, I could hardly believe my ears. The Reform Party is supposed to be the party which believes that less government is better government. Yet that very same party introduced the motion which would add extra processes, extra time, extra layers of bureaucracy and extra costs to the administration of the old age security program. It really is amazing.

Motion No. 7 betrays the Reform Party's fixation on the minute details of the OAS program. Members opposite seek to micromanage the program and the minister at great cost and for no benefit whatsoever. It would like to have complete control over every minute detail, every tiny aspect of the entire program.

As usual, it is instructive to look at the facts surrounding the motion. It is also worth while to note that these facts are at the disposal of the Reform Party, as they are at the disposal of all members of the House.

The Minister of Human Resources Development currently forgives something less than $1 million in old age security overpayments each year. As we have noted in debating other motions, the minister is responsible for that amount but does not have carte blanche to forgive overpayments. Certain conditions must exist before the overpayment can be forgiven.

As the old age security program pays benefits in the order of $18.5 billion each year, the rate at which overpayments are forgiven is something in the order of five one-thousandths of one per cent of the benefits paid. In addition, the amounts are already reported to Parliament in the context of the annual main estimates and public accounts. I will repeat that for the benefit of Reform members. These amounts are already reported to Parliament in the context of the annual main estimates and public accounts. Hon. members already have the opportunity to examine all of the figures in depth.

The motion by the Reform Party would create a duplication of these processes, and to what gain? So that Reform members can micromanage the minister's use of his discretion to forgive overpayments which amount to something in the order of five one-thousandths of one per cent of the program's expenditures.

If the motion were adopted, it could lead to disaster. Imagine a committee setting a small limit on the amount which could be forgiven. If that amount of money were used up in eight months time, let us say, what would happen to the cases which occurred

in the final four months of the year? The government would have to tell those individuals that they must repay their debts even though their circumstances were similar or worse than someone who was overpaid a few months earlier. I do not consider this a fair practice and no one else in the House does.

With regard to the motions to amend Bill C-54 moved by the Bloc and the Reform Party, the government finds itself right in the middle. In one of the motions the Bloc Quebecois demands the minister be required to forgive overpayments without regard to the ability of the client to repay the amount. In Motion No. 7 the Reform Party seeks to prevent the minister from using his authority to forgive benefit overpayments compassionately by placing limits which would have to be respected no matter what the ability of the pensioner to repay the overpaid amount.

On one hand we have a party that says never collect any overpayment and on the other hand we have a party that says never forgive any overpayment. The government recognizes the need to recover moneys where warranted and to forgive repayment where appropriate. I also believe ministers must retain responsibility for the administration of their programs and that this responsibility should not be removed, as would be in the case of either Motion No. 6 or Motion No. 7 if adopted.

I firmly oppose Motion No. 7. I urge all hon. members in the House to do likewise and to move to the speedy passage of this legislation.

[Old Age Security Act, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating to be discussing Motion No. 7 because of what the Reform Party is advocating. It is advocating that the minister's discretion with respect to forgiving overpayments should be wiped away and this special kind of power given to the highest ranking officer.

[Health Insurance And Services, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I an indeed pleased to be able to participate in this debate. I personally believe very strongly in the principles of medicare and I know that they are also of great importance to people not only in my own riding but across the country.

The Canada Health Act is a brief, simple act. It sets out the five principles: public administration, universality, accessibility, portability, and comprehensiveness. It has a few definitions and deals briefly with penalties for failure to achieve these principles. It does not, could not, and should not set out how provinces operate their systems.

The preamble of the Canada Health Act is clear on this. Provinces are free to build their own systems within the broad framework of the Canada Health Act.

The guiding principle of medicare has long been that Canadians' health and access to quality care should not depend upon their financial means. In 1984 the Canada Health Act was introduced by a Liberal government and passed unanimously. The preamble of the Canada Health Act recognizes that "Continued access to quality health care without financial or other barriers will be critical to maintaining and improving the health and well-being of Canadians". This concept is also brought out as the primary objective in Canadian health care policy: "to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers, as described in section 3 of the act". It is within this framework that I wish to address the motion before us today.

Contrary to what some members in the House would have us believe, the government does not have a rigid view of how health care should be organized in Canada. The provinces already have a large degree of flexibility in the organization and provision of health insurance and health services. They have had this flexibility for many years. The only conditions the federal government assigns are that the provinces respect the requirements of the Canada Health Act.

Within the requirements provinces can experiment and change the way they deliver care, and many have been doing so. Nothing in the Canada Health Act limits the flexibility of provinces to realign the delivery and organization of their health care systems. Almost all provinces have embarked over the last few years on major reforms of their health systems.

The public administration criterion of the Canada Health Act presents a good example of the flexibility inherent in the act both in the provision of health insurance and in the delivery of health services by the provinces. The criterion applies to provincial health insurance plans and not to the administration of individual components of the health care system such as hospitals. This means, for instance, that private sector management of publicly owned hospitals is permitted. In addition the criterion allows administration authority of a provincial health insurance plan to be delegated to an agency if that is the wish.

Another example of flexibility inherent within the Canada Health Act relates to hospital services. These services are not directly tied to an institutional setting. Thus it is permissible for acute care to be provided in the community in a patient's home, for instance. It is always the provinces, not the federal government, that determine which services will be given in which setting.

The extramural hospital in New Brunswick is an example of provincial use of the flexibility. Under the program the patient is formally admitted to the acute care program. However, all required services are brought to the patient's home and not to the most expensive operating unit within the hospital structure called the emergency ward.

I emphasize, however, that the government recognizes the need for flexibility. On other hand it will not compromise on the fundamental values upon which the Canada Health Act and medicare in Canada are based. We are and we will continue to be flexible in our approach to health care, but we will not permit financial barriers to impede access to health services. If flexibility means turning our health care system into a private one that profits from the misfortunes of Canadians, the government

wants no part in it. We will not tolerate direct charges to patients for medically necessary care.

During this period of constraint creative processes are being produced by creative individuals in every province in handling these fiscal problems. There are solutions and money can be managed much more effectively than it is at the present time.

One of the most cherished services enjoyed by Canadians is the health care system. Health care issues constantly rank as number one across a variety of polls. The federal government is the ultimate torch bearer of the one of the last truly national programs. The central government, therefore, is morally obliged to defend the Canada Health Act against policies that seek to destroy it.

I believe as do many Canadians that the Canada Health Act should be kept as it is. Undoubtedly any changes to the fundamental principles upon which health insurance is founded would cripple the most notable gains attained by the Canadian health care system.

We need only look south of the border to realize how fortunate we are to enjoy the health services we do. In the United States approximately 35 million people are without adequate health coverage. Health care horror stories abound south of the 49th parallel. Even Americans who have medical insurance can be hit by very high medical bills. In some cases, because of poor family coverage, if a family member has a serious illness or an accident the extra bills can be financially devastating. Moreover American company medical insurance plans lock many Americans into their jobs. This is because once a person develops a chronic illness no other insurance company will provide insurance at reasonably affordable rates.

Certainly wealthy Americans can receive the finest possible health care. However this is certainly not the case for the middle and lower socioeconomic classes. It is interesting that the opposition in the House is advocating a very similar system to that of the Americans.

Some detractors of our health care system indicate that we can no longer afford medicare in its present form as a result of our fiscal situation. However most health economists agree that it is not our medicare policy in and of itself we can no longer afford, but the inefficiencies in the manner in which medicare is implemented and delivered.

Significant improvements could be made in a number of areas without compromising national standards. For example, the unbridled growth of unproven and costly new medical technology has ballooned health care costs without any apparent return on the money spent. Another problem pertains to the manner in which drug prices have skyrocketed over the recent past. As well it appears supply and distribution of our medical manpower need improvement.

These are but a few of the areas where efficiencies, if introduced, could reduce the cost of delivering health care in Canada. Above all, provinces must listen to those who deliver and maintain health care services as well as those who receive the services. Although some problems exist we must do what we can to improve the system without destroying it. In a nutshell, the difficulties facing our health care system are the result of unlimited demands upon a limited pool of resources.

I feel compelled to rise today before the House to speak against a motion that would ultimately lead to the dismantling of the health care system that is dear to the hearts of many Canadians. In sum, Canadians demand and expect direction from the federal government for the preservation of our most sacred national program. The government has a moral right and the legal authority to ensure that this is the case. That is why we must vote against the motion before us today.

[Citizenship, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

We all know the government has in place an award that recognizes the commitment and contributions of adults who promote good citizenship in the communities across this wonderful country of ours. What is this government doing to recognize the citizenship contribution of Canada's young people?