Stan Dromisky

[Nowrooz, March 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, last Saturday, March 21, was the first day of spring. At least 10 nations celebrate nature's rebirth and renewal on this day. This celebration is referred to as Nowrooz and it is commemorated in one way or another in Azerbaijan, Turkey, Tajikistan, Khazakistan, Pakistan, Ozbekistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Armenia and Georgia.

This traditional celebration is rooted in the ancient Persian civilization. As nature renews itself and prepares to bloom the people contemplate new efforts for a more promising future.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all nations celebrating Nowrooz, especially all those Canadians commemorating this holiday. May this new time of the year bring productivity, growth and great health to all.

[The Late Bill Reid, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were saddened to learn of the death of Haida artist and sculptor Bill Reid on Friday. Canada has lost not only one of its greatest artists but an inspirational cultural leader among the First Nations people.

For roughly 40 years Mr. Reid created numerous works incorporating traditional Haida Gwaii carvings and designs. He is credited with the revival of Haida art in British Columbia, which coincided with a renewed pride among First Nations people in the province.

Bill Reid brought the rich, proud history and culture of the Haida people to the rest of Canada and to the world. For this we are very grateful.

Mr. Reid's art work is internationally prominent. At the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C., his Canadian canoe sculpture “Spirit of the Haida Gwaii” is a source of pride to First Nations people, British Columbians and all other Canadians.

Let us remember Bill Reid. I urge Canadians to see his work and take pride in what he has given to all of us.

[The Economy, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it feels like a very short time ago, but a little over four years ago I as a newcomer to the House of Commons heard my first budget presentation by the hon. Minister of Finance.

It brought a little apprehension to me because after listening I believed what he was saying. He said that we could do what was necessary to achieve our deficit target of 3% of GDP and we would repair the disaster that was left to us by previous administrations. Naturally I had faith in his plan, a plan that was laid before us. However, I am going to be very honest, there were some reservations.

Why did I have these reservations in my mind? It was simply because I as a student of the political scene had followed the 34th session of Parliament during Brian Mulroney's government and had watched the hon. minister of finance, Mr. Wilson, time and time again make predictions and discover that he was always way off in his predictions. I was a little fearful that maybe that would be a permanent sort of occurrence that happened with every budget.

Fortunately with my faith I knew that we could achieve the target. However, not in my wildest dreams did I think we might be in the position that we are today, balancing the budget so quickly and so far ahead of schedule.

Sure, I am ecstatic about this situation and proud but I am also relieved to see that the promises made back then have been fulfilled and then some. We have a balanced budget and Canadians should be proud. Their efforts and sacrifices have paid off.

Yes, we have all made sacrifices. We all know the vast majority of companies in this country have debts. We know the vast majority of households in this country have debts. However, there comes a time, whether in a corporation, a company, a business or in a household, when some decisions have to be made. We cannot have expenditures exceeding income. That is when the sacrifices have to be made. In a household that is when the husband and wife get together and say they cannot afford this or that and must make a decision. They have to curtail their spending. They decide that the wife will not get a fur coat this winter but will get it when they can afford it.

In other words, sacrifices of that nature had to be made on a personal basis by all Canadians in order for us to achieve the targets that we have in a little over four years.

As a long time educator, I was particularly pleased to see the efforts that were made to improve the situation that faces our students. Improvements for the management of student debt, the provision of tax relief for interest payments on student loans and the granting of increases in funding for advanced research and for graduate students were most welcome announcements.

We all are aware of the fact that we have done quite a few things by implementing certain measures in past budgets as well as this one. I predict that there will be many more measures in budgets in the years ahead. These measures will help many to survive and benefit from their involvement in the post-secondary educational system.

I would like to point this out to all the august members of the House of Commons who are here to listen to my presentation tonight. Just about everything the budget implements has a direct or indirect bearing on the educational development of each and every citizen of this country. Whether they be health, agriculture or industry, whatever measures are implemented will have positive spin-offs as far as learning processes are concerned.

Despite popular support for this educational budget initiative, we are still hearing complaints from the opposition. For instance, Premier Bouchard and his Bloc allies have claimed that the millennium scholarship fund represents interference in provincial jurisdiction. Others also complain about that very same issue. The reality of the matter is that his position is seriously at odds with the sentiment of his constituents.

A survey which was taken last fall by a major polling company indicated that the notion of a scholarship program was widely popular in Quebec, so much so that only 6% of Quebeckers opposed the concept of a scholarship fund. This is clear cut evidence that the Bloc and Mr. Bouchard are seriously out of touch with their constituents, as are other premiers of this country.

Last weekend I was very fortunate to have spent three days in Montreal. On Friday night I spent over two hours with four students, three from McGill University and one from a college. They pointed out to me that they were not opposed to any federally funded initiative that would help people in post-secondary educational systems in their province, provided that it was fair.

When I asked for their definition of fairness they said “What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we can get it, it must be equally available to someone else in another province. Whatever they get in British Columbia we should also receive”.

An interesting point emerged. They felt that fairness could only be achieved through national federal programs. That is quite obvious. When there are as many provinces and partners as there are in this federation, which represent a variety of ideological political positions and which have a variety of strategies for achieving their goals, there will be great discrepancies between and among each and every province.

The only way we can get uniformity and the only way we can maintain a degree of fairness is to have a nationally instituted, initiated, administered program.

I believe the real problem is that Mr. Bouchard has a serious problem allowing young Quebeckers to be aware of the fact that Canada contributes moneys to their education.

Let us take a look at what is happening in the province of Ontario. There have been a lot of complaints about the transfer payments. We know that the 30% tax cut pledge of the Mike Harris government will cost that province $4.8 billion each year. This represents money that could have been used for education and health care in Ontario.

This tax cut in the province of Ontario amounts to approximately five times more than the federal transfer reductions to Ontario in 1998 and 1999. Rarely does a premier of any province mention the transfer of tax credits which is another strategy we have agreed upon to transfer money directly to the provincial coffers.

Higher and higher levels of education are now necessary in order for Canadians to adequately participate in today's job market. I am not only concerned about the job market, but also about quality of life. It is absolutely essential that we be the guardians of the individuals in this country. That is the main purpose of a government, to protect its citizens, to see to it that their quality of life is enhanced on an ongoing basis, to see that its citizens grow. We must bring about those strategies to guarantee that all people in Canada will continue to progress.

I could go on for another two or three hours talking about all the wonderful things that have happened, are happening and will happen under this government.

[David Shannon, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it was a moment of great pride for me and the citizens of Thunder Bay when David Shannon, a quadriplegic lawyer from Thunder Bay was bestowed with the King Clancy award by the hon. Hillary Weston, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, on behalf of the Canadian Foundation for Physically Disabled Persons.

In Toronto approximately 1,500 guests donated $650,000 to the foundation, a record amount added to the $7.5 million raised in the past 13 years.

David Shannon was recognized for his courageous 9,000 kilometre journey from coast to coast on his electrically powered wheelchair and for raising over half a million dollars to establish an endowment fund for disabled persons.

King Clancy awards were also given to Joan Mactavish, for her development and delivery of specialized services for deaf-blind people, and Amy Doofenbaker, a dedicated veterinarian and international wheelchair athlete.

Ford Motor Company of Canada and Bell—

[Citizenship And Heritage Week, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is Canada's annual Citizenship and Heritage Week, a week long celebration that includes National Citizenship Week, National Flag of Canada Day and Heritage Day. A special focus this year will revolve around young Canadians. A variety of youth oriented activities will take place across the country.

This week represents an opportunity to pay tribute to the value we as Canadians share and to the enduring traditions that have formed the fabric of our nation.

I encourage all parliamentarians to recognize the individuals and organizations that have been participating and contributing to the program of special events in their communities.

This is an opportunity to further strengthen the vibrant, positive community bonds that exist throughout the country.

[Euthanasia, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Motion No. 123 as proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. This motion advocates that a special committee be appointed to review the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide and that a bill be brought into the House by this committee.

In the 1990s people are now able to live longer than ever before. This is in part because of the fantastic advances that have been made in medical treatment and more positive, personal enhancing lifestyles.

Unfortunately the reality of this situation is that along with prolonged longevity one can also experience a reduced quality of life, especially those afflicted with incurable and degenerative diseases. Diseases such as AIDS, Alzheimers and cancer can make the latter stages of life unendurable.

Persons with these afflictions can see their probable future before they become incapacitated. Some of them will seek assistance to die, desiring greater control over the decisions related to life or death.

In June 1995 the special Senate committee on euthanasia and assisted suicide produced a very comprehensive report. One of the prominent recommendations made within the report was that the Criminal Code be amended to clarify the practice of providing treatment for the purpose of alleviating suffering that may shorten life.

This is not an issue that has been introduced in these chambers for the very first time. Since March 27, 1991 when private member's Bill C-351 was introduced, numerous attempts have been made through the use of motions and private members' bills to bring about significant changes to the Criminal Code, changes pertaining to euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide.

Reading Hansard transcripts of those debates in the past in this House revealed that certain presenters were extremely knowledgeable about this issue, most notably the comprehensive, well researched debates made by the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

Every effort in the past was destined to fail due to the fact that the concepts presented were very foreign to the cultured and conditioned minds of members present. Every attempt died on the order paper.

There is much to be gleaned from the legislative judicial accounts in Australia, Netherlands and numerous states south of the border.

I think it is appropriate that the House of Commons now examine this issue as it definitely merits further study. I can imagine no better approach than a House of Commons special committee composed of representatives of each official political party as a means of investigating this complex matter.

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are certainly contentious, stirring deep emotions in most Canadians. These practices abroad have raised many questions regarding the importance of regulation.

There are several countries that have been utilizing some form of euthanasia. It may be possible that the experience in these countries may make us more sensitive to the benefits as well as the drawbacks of this practice.

Some of the benefits include the empowerment of individuals to decide the extent to which they can live with pain, thus allowing individuals to become more autonomous in medical treatment decision making.

The rationale here is that the extension of life, without an accompanying improvement in the quality of life, is not necessarily the desire of all patients suffering through painful, irreversible medical conditions.

In some instances, preservation of life may imply nothing more than prolonged pain and suffering. Many Canadians believe that allowing individuals to die with dignity is a reasonable proposition. There appears to be growing support among Canadian for the concept of euthanasia.

Let us look at the down side. There are concerns that legislative voluntary euthanasia can lead to involuntary euthanasia or murder as we know it.

We have heard anecdotes of shocking cases in Netherlands, for instance. In one published case, a Dutch general practitioner was called to a patient's home and, meeting her for the first time, immediately asked her to choose between hospitalization and euthanasia.

When the stunned patient could not reply because of her condition, he gave her one hour to think it over. This highlights a concern held by critics of euthanasia who fear that physicians may very well end up taking the initiative in the cessation of life without the voluntary wish of an incoherent individual.

In Netherlands although euthanasia is a criminal offence it is actually not prosecuted as long as specific guidelines are followed. These guidelines were developed following a series of court decisions. The patient must repeatedly and explicitly express the desire to die time and time again. The patient's decision must be well informed, free and enduring. The patient must be suffering from severe physical or mental pain with no prospect of relief. All other options for care must have been exhausted so that euthanasia is a last resort or the patient must have refused other available options. The euthanasia must be carried out by a qualified physician. The physician must consult at least one other physician or consult any other health care professionals. The physician must inform the local coroner that euthanasia has been carried out.

This is the present state of affairs in Netherlands after many years of debating, arguing, court cases and so forth. They have all led to the acquisition of more knowledge and understanding. The spinoff is that the general population also becomes more knowledgeable throughout this process.

During this decade Canadians have been exposed to the concepts of euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide more frequently than in any other decade in our history. Sensational court cases have made it obvious that Parliament must act. The courts should not be making the laws of the land. Members of Parliament must accept that responsibility. Our past minister of justice, the member for Etobicoke Centre, clearly stipulated this position on February 14, 1994. He also declared that it was time for an informed discussion.

The former leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard, stated: “Like many Canadians, I was asking questions. Obviously there are very deep personal questions involved and we should, all of us, in a non-partisan way try to set up a new kind of approach to it”.

As parliamentarians we must not enter the debate regarding these contentious issues in an ignorant emotional manner. It is for the purpose of increasing our knowledge and exploring this issue that I stand here today and urge all members to support Motion No. 123.

[Infrastructure, December 10th, 1997]

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

Recently a funding agreement for the improvement of the Trans-Canada highway was announced between the federal government and its counterpart in New Brunswick. Can the minister tell this House what progress is being made with the province of Ontario for the national Trans-Canada Highway agreement?

[Thunder Bay, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for the Ministry of Transport.

In the middle of the city of Thunder Bay a railway tanker car containing volatile butane sprung a leak, thus possibly endangering the lives of hundreds of nearby residents.

What has been done and what is now being done to protect the citizens of my riding in this situation?

[Mining, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Today representatives of the mining industry from across Canada have come to Ottawa to outline their current challenges. What steps is the government taking to ensure an attractive investment climate for the mining industry in this great country of ours?

[Foreign Affairs, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Despite the efforts of others to dictate Canadian foreign policy, Canada continues to develop a relationship with Cuba.

Can the minister describe the latest developments in this relationship and explain how both countries will benefit?