Deepak Obhrai

[Immigration, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of new immigrants came to my office last week. They are highly respected physicians. They were invited by this government to come to practise medicine in Canada but lo and behold, the professional organizations have refused to allow them to work.

My question is for the minister of immigration. Why is the government misleading immigrants? Why promise and not deliver?

[Human Rights, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations, of which Canada is a member, affirmed the basic rights of all individuals on earth.

Since then we have come a long way in terms of respecting the basic human dignity of people around the world. Whether it involved the freeing of colonies from imperialist rule, the ending of legislated discrimination in South Africa or the collapse of oppressive regimes across eastern Europe, we have made tremendous progress since 1948. However as Tiananmen Square and more recently Kosovo have taught us, the struggle for freedom is not yet finished.

Let us pause for a moment to congratulate ourselves for the strides we have made. Then let us get back to work to ensure that all people's rights are respected.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-30 which gives educational rights to Mi'kmaq nations. It is a privilege for me to talk from a minority point of view on this bill. I would very much like to support this legislation. However, as my colleague pointed out, we do have some serious reservations. We would support this legislation if our amendments can be incorporated.

My party's cornerstone policy is equal treatment for all Canadians. We want all who live in Canada to be equal participants in the Canadian mosaic. We recognize that the first nations have a very unique culture and unique customs, which we encourage them to maintain. We also want them to be an equal part of this Canadian mosaic.

When we talk about issues like this one, allowing education to be run by cultural groups, these questions arise. What kind of education? How will that education relate to joining in the Canadian mosaic? The bill states quite clearly that this educational system should be compatible with other Canadian educational systems so that students can transfer from one system to another. However, our concern is that in past experience this has not been the case.

The board is set up so that chiefs have the power and they will be the board members, but there is the concern of who the chiefs are accountable to. The chiefs are supposed to be accountable to the people of the bands but past experience indicates this has not been going on. This raises the concern of how this board will be run. School boards are technically run by parent councils, teachers and elected trustees. Why should that principle not apply here? Why should they not have trustees elected by the band members to run the schools?

We do not see that happening here. This is a top down approach where the chiefs will be the board members and there will be no elections. That is our first major concern. How will the band member be part and parcel in directing school policy?

This bill will be used as a precedent for other aboriginal communities so it is right for us to address the important issues related to the accountability of these systems. We would not have much problem if there were a board to address the needs of the full native community, if the board were elected by the band members, the teachers and others in the education field. Then they could provide the best education for these children who would go on to become future Canadians of excellence in their fields. This is possible in providing a framework for native Canadians.

As my colleague mentioned, it is important to recognize something which is a cornerstone of my party's policy. Are all Canadians and we should be learning to build bridges with each other. Canadians should not be separated. Canadians should not be compartmentalized.

When we create schools and compartmentalize people into different areas, when will these Canadians interface with other people who have come from all over the world to live in this country? After all, we are citizens together. Where will they understand brotherhood? Where will they understand comradeship? Where will they understand being proud Canadians? Even the military would not go to this extent because we need brotherhood. We should be together.

We are creating what to us is a division but we also recognize that there are unique requirements of the first nations, their culture and their customs. We understand that and we respect them very highly. We feel that can become part and parcel of a broader picture of teaching native culture and native customs not only to Mi'kmaq but to all Canadians in schools. In that way we can build bridges with each other, we can understand each other.

I have reservations to this bill. I would like to see further discussion and amendments brought in so that we can have a greater picture on this.

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Edith Jameson, a resident of Calgary East, phoned me last Saturday. She contracted hepatitis C prior to 1986. Her liver has been damaged and her gall bladder has been removed. She told me her health has been going downhill and her financial resources are stretched to the limit.

My question is for the Minister of Health. Will he stop acting like a lawyer and for the love of God offer something to Edith and thousands like her? He should make the right moral and compassionate decision and not a legal decision.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member's question I feel sick.

They are trying to defend something which is not defendable by coming up with ludicrous ideas. What has insulin to do with this?

This was a federally-regulated body that had tests, but people got infected. Insulin was discovered. What has insulin to do with this? Did a federally-regulated body have tainted insulin given to people? Is that what he is saying?

What we are saying here is very simple. We are saying that a federally-regulated body could have stopped this infection, possibly, had the power to do it and did not do it. There was negligence.

Compensation has to be given to everybody who was infected. That is the question. The motion today is to compensate everybody infected with hepatitis C.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak not as a member of the Reform caucus and not even as a member of the House. Today I rise to speak as an individual Canadian who is witnessing thousands of his fellow citizens dying. They are dying while their government looks the other way. They are dying while their government uses cold, legal arguments and speaks of the need to make hard decisions.

They are dying through no fault of their own and yet the government says that it has had to make a hard decision. The government has not made a hard decision. The government has made a cruel decision.

Canadians put their trust in our national health care system and they through its mismanagement are paying the ultimate price. I am referring to the 20,000 to 25,000 individuals who were infected with the hepatitis C virus through the Canadian blood system prior to 1986 and today are either sick or dying.

While the government has chosen to compensate more than 28,000 who were infected after 1986, it has chosen to ignore the rest. It saddens me greatly that I must participate in a debate of this nature, a debate which could have been avoided had the government respected the rights of its own citizens. This is justice denied for a group that is rapidly running out of time.

Both the health minister and the Prime Minister are decent men and are fundamentally good people. However, on this issue I fear they are allowing their legal background to cloud their sense of compassion.

I ask them to reconsider their position and to afford some dignity to the thousands whose lives have been shattered. I ask all members of the House to cast their partisanship aside and vote to compensate all persons who contracted hepatitis C from blood products. We must act now because compensation and justice delayed are compensation and justice denied. This is especially true for thousands who will develop the more acute symptoms associated with chronic hepatitis C infection.

I have some notes but I will not read them. I will speak based on what I feel. I sat here this morning listening to the government side. I listened to the parliamentary secretary who talked most of his time about what the blood system of the future will be.

We are talking about people who were infected in the past. Not only that, I have a note from Larry Maheu who asks “What about victims after 1990 when the blood was supposed to be safe?” He was told by his doctor in Sunnybrook Hospital that the blood screening was not seriously done until 1993. What kind of situation did we have prior to 1986? What kind of a situation did we have from 1990 to 1993? What are we talking about?

Then another member talked about how hepatitis C was not serious when compared to HIV. Excuse me, the member should ask the people with hepatitis C. They are sick, and he has the gall to say that is not a serious matter, that it is a matter of money.

Then the parliamentary secretary says that these people have the right to go court. What is this nonsense? Of course they have a right to go to court if they make the wrong decision. Is that the right decision? No. Government members are making people who are suffering go to court and suffer again. They are saying that there is compensation for some people and not for others. What nonsense.

I am amazed to see government members skirting the issue. Time after time as I sit in the House I am getting more and more depressed. We now have one Liberal member giving his time to an independent member. I am glad he did that, but we can see that he is running away from the issue because he cannot defend himself.

Then we have the Prime Minister changing the whole issue and saying that this is a confidence vote for the government, so that he can make his members vote not according to their conscience but according to the threat that they will go into an election.

As my colleague from Macleod said to Liberal members, all we are asking for is that they look into the eyes of those who are suffering and make a conscientious decision. We are telling them that this is not a confidence vote on the government. We are only asking them to make a morally right decision. That is all we are asking.

The government is justifying itself by saying it made this decision with 12 other ministers. Well, yahoo. As far as I know, before I was a member of parliament, this government did not listen to the provincial ministers. Now it is justifying this by saying that the provincial ministers have agreed so it must agree. That is not what Canadians expect from a federal government. Canadians expect the government to stand up for them and not hide behind what the provinces say. It is the government's responsibility because this is a federally regulated institution.

Let us assume for a moment that the Minister of Health's claim that nothing could have been done prior to 1986 is correct, although I know it is not. If this were the case then the government would not be responsible for the infection of Canadians prior to 1986 and, by the government's reasoning, there would be no need for compensation.

We have the principle that if the government was not at fault then it would not have to pay. Then why does the government spend tens of millions of dollars to compensate those affected by floods and ice storms? The government is not responsible for the weather, yet the government chooses to compensate those adversely affected by it. Maybe there are some politics behind this. Maybe there are more votes to be bought from those people than there are from the poor victims of hepatitis C.

Perhaps a more compelling example is the fact that this government has chosen to compensate all tainted blood victims from 1986 on. The government's premise that it is not responsible for hepatitis C infection is wrong.

An essential aspect of leadership is to acknowledge when you have made a wrong decision. This is the time to acknowledge it. Premier Klein did it. Premier Harris did it. This government can do it too. It is a matter of compassion.

Why can this government not look beyond the legal arguments and do the honourable thing? Do not listen to the lawyers, listen to the people.

The Minister of Health is prepared to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to battle victims in court.

The minister claims that the health care system will collapse, that this will be a burden on the health care system. Really? If a small mistake is such a threat to the health care system then there is something seriously wrong with it.

I appeal to government members, including backbenchers. This is not a vote of confidence against the government, it is a vote that requires us to take a moral stand on a tragic issue. Let us look the victims in their eyes and tell them that they have our support.

[Human Rights, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week five white supremacists were arrested for the brutal beating death of Mr. Nirmal Singh, the janitor for a Sikh temple in Surrey.

If the five individuals who were arrested are found guilty, then their punishment should reflect the revulsion Canadians feel about this senseless act.

1998 is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While Canada has made tremendous progress during this 50 years, this incident shows that we still have a long way to go in respecting the humanity of our fellow citizens.

I know that the entire House joins with the official opposition in telling the racist groups that their time is over. We will no longer put up with their hatred. We will no longer put up with their violence.

[Racial Discrimination, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, March 21 is the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. I take great pride in the fact that Canada in 1989 became the first country in the world to have a national March 21 campaign.

Unfortunately racism continues to be a problem in countries around the world, including Canada. Yesterday evening I had the honour to attend the finals in Toronto of the stop racism national video competition.

Students from across Canada produced brief segments of the problems of racism in Canadian society. These young Canadians showed an awareness to a problem we should all be addressing. Racism divides people and weakens society.

The Reform Party is committed to fighting racism. Therefore we pledge to work with all Canadians in order to ensure that discrimination is eradicated in Canada.

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what this has to do with this bill is that we are creating an agency which is responsible for keeping and administering the funds, not disappearing into the government coffers. I think that is what the hon. member is alluding to for the RCMP. This is a good point.

That is why we are supporting this one good idea of the government. Maybe this idea will spread to other institutions as well, including the RCMP, if it is feasible.

The government should start looking into this and doing these kinds of things more often.

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, March 19th, 1998]

We are saying that at least this agency is responsible to Parliament as well as listening to the Canadian people. Hopefully that addresses the hon. member's question.