Deepak Obhrai

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to the hon. member's question.

He is right, I said hope. I did not give a full commitment about that. I do hope the government will not build this thing up with a patronage appointment. Please do not do it.

He is right regarding the question about whether this agency is going to consult people. It has the ability to consult people and to talk to Canadians. There is the question of who has the input over this. There is still a bureaucratic tangle over there. Some will say they do not trust those people.

At least here we have an arm's length agency hopefully that Canadians can have an input in. It is accountable to Canadians. Hopefully it will put down the user fees and will address the environmental issues and other things that concern us with reference to running a smooth parks network in this country. That is important to us. Parks are a natural heritage. We have parks here that are world heritage sites. We are custodians of these parks for the people of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for Bill C-29, the Canadian parks agency act. While it is rare that we see eye to eye with the government on issues, I feel that partisanship must be cast aside when good ideas emerge. This rarely happens on the other side though.

Canada is a country filled with natural wonders. Our natural environment is as much a symbol of our country as are the maple leaf and the beaver. From Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba to Glacier National Park in British Columbia, our parks are national treasures.

I represent the riding of Calgary East, a stone's throw away from the beauty and splendour of Banff, Jasper and Yoho national parks. I can say that Calgarians and indeed all Canadians are extremely proud of their national parks.

People come from around the world to take in the beauty of our country. In fact, our national parks and sites attract over 24 million visitors yearly and contribute over $2 billion annually to the economy. While dollars do matter, we should not let this alone determine our commitment to preserving our parklands.

It is my hope that this bill will allow our national parks to flourish while at the same time dramatically reducing the amount of government resources needed to administer them.

Bill C-29 calls for the creation of a new agency, the Canadian parks agency. Nine times out of ten I cringe when I hear of the birth of yet another bureaucratic monolith. This usually means that the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook to pump in maximum dollars for minimum results.

However, in this case I see some merit in the establishment of the Canadian parks agency. Let me explain why.

Parks Canada is currently responsible for our country's 38 national parks and, among other things, 131 national historic sites. It manages over 225,000 square kilometres of Canada's natural and cultural heritage and employs roughly 5,000 people.

At present responsibility for Parks Canada falls under the Department of Canadian Heritage through the Secretary of State for Parks who reports to the heritage minister.

The new agency will remain accountable, through the minister, to Parliament. Perhaps the most significant change will be that the new proposed agency will be able to raise and keep its own revenue. This will no doubt contribute to more efficiency and will hopefully lead to a decrease in the fees Canadians pay to gain access to our national parks.

I have heard on numerous occasions from my constituents that the costs of visiting places like Banff and Jasper are too high. The user fees keep going up and up, discouraging Canadians from visiting the national parks to see their own heritage. We have an obligation to the people of Canada to make it as affordable as possible for families to take advantage of this beautiful country.

It is nice to see that once in a very long while the government gets it right. In this instance the Liberals have acknowledged that self-sufficiency in government is the right route to take.

The Canadian parks agency will be able to raise and keep its own revenue. It will have access to $10 billion for parks and historic sites. Normally this is where the taxpayer alarm would sound. Another $10 billion of people's hard earned money will be spent? However, in this instance any funds drawn from the $10 billion account will be repayable to the crown with interest from revenue generated.

As well, third party operators will be permitted to administer certain facilities. Outsourcing to private business will improve service, increase revenue and deliver improved efficiency. This new financial independence will allow the revenue generated to flow back into the parks and sites. This in turn will allow for the establishment and expansion of new initiatives. What this means is that new parks will be created and those already in existence will be better maintained. This is how the government should work when it comes to areas such as this.

The agency will be able to bargain directly with its employees. The CEO will have the authority to appoint employees and establish terms and conditions of employment for agency staff. Hopefully this will afford the agency the flexibility to develop a human resource regime which is more responsive to the agency's operational requirements.

In terms of accountability, the agency will fall under the minister of heritage. She, in turn, will be accountable to Parliament.

Moreover, the Canadian parks agency will fall under the Access to Information Act. The auditor general will be able to audit the agency at his discretion.

Bill C-29 also commits the agency to hold consultations on a biannual basis. This will allow Canadians to share their views on the agency's program and to participate in the management direction. This is especially important because we have to be very careful that development is also balanced with the environmental requirements to maintain the parks. The maintaining of our environment is also very important.

The agency will consult directly with parties that may be affected by any new fees. This hopefully will bring more reasonable fees for Canadians to enter into the national parks.

The bottom line is that Parliament, the auditor general and, most important, the Canadian people will be able to hold this new agency accountable. What we have is a bill asking for the creation of an agency that will be fully self-sufficient, more efficient, more flexible and fully accountable.

It is also my hope that this new agency will contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of Canada's natural environment. This will ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the many natural wonders that Canada has to offer.

I was proud to be in this House supporting the legislation introduced by the government which established the Saguenay marine park, the first marine park in the world. It was my pleasure to support that bill. I firmly believe that we have a moral duty to preserve Canada's natural environment.

In closing, the official opposition is committed to having our national parks and heritage sites administered in an accountable, efficient and cost effective manner. For the reasons outlined above I see little reason why I should not support Bill C-29.

[Fisheries, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of fisheries.

First, this government forgot Christmas and Easter on the heritage calendar. Now we have been harpooned. This government has announced that the Prince of “Whales” is coming to town.

Is there something this minister should be telling us about Moby Dick? Is this some secret code name for a plan to finally stop U.S. overfishing off the west coast?

[Small Business Loans Act, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party to listen to what I have to say, as well the member from the NDP who never seems to have any solutions except criticizing.

Today I rise to voice my opposition to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act.

The purpose of this act is to extend the small business loans program to March 31, 1999 and to raise the government's liability under this program to $15 billion, a $1 billion increase. Few will deny the importance of small businesses. They symbolize the entrepreneurial spirit and the work ethic that have made this country what it is today. They are the engines of the growth of the Canadian economy.

In 1994 more than 98% of all businesses in Canada were small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. In 1995 the numbers indicate that small business accounted for over 40% of Canada's private sector economic output.

My wife owns a dry-cleaning store in Calgary. I am a junior partner. She has been operating this business for the last 15 years. I am an owner of a small international consulting firm. I was a business delegate with Team Canada to Asia. Therefore I know the struggle that small business owners go through just to make ends meet.

I also have firsthand experience in dealing with well intentioned but misguided government policies such as the small business loans program. This program does not successfully aid small business owners who truly need assistance.

The small business loans program has incurred a net loss estimated at $210 billion for loans issued between 1993 and 1995. Why? This program lacks accountability and clear objectives.

The banks are guaranteed the money at no risk to them if there is a default. Businesses will access more money than they can handle, thereby raising their debtloads. The government will try to look like a friend of small business by implementing this program. Lastly, enforcement is poor.

The auditor general, a non-partisan evaluator of government spending, has recommended that this government make a comprehensive evaluation of this program before it is extended. I agree with the auditor general because of the following reasons.

The Canadian economy is in a state of transition. No one would have expected in 1961 when the program was created the extent of change that would occur during the following 35 years. The Canadian economy has gone from being primarily based on the manufacturing sector to now being dominated by the service sector.

Who would have envisaged the growth of the high tech sector and the effects of the Internet in 1961? The Canadian economy and the business environment has changed and therefore the needs of small businesses have changed.

The current small business loans program does not take this into account. As well, the auditor general remains doubtful that the program's move toward full cost recovery will succeed. He suggests that careful monitoring and better systems to forecast the future performance of this program are needed. He also calls on this government to strengthen the program's auditing of potential borrowers.

The auditor general recommends that the department provide Parliament with information in order to allow us to assess whether this program is effective.

I have just listed several programs that both the auditor general and my Reform caucus colleagues share about the small business loans program.

We agree with the government on one thing, that we must encourage the growth of small business. This entails giving entrepreneurs access to capital.

While the Liberals feel that the inefficient and wasteful government programs will achieve this, the official opposition believes businesses will thrive if taxes are cut and bureaucratic red tape is reduced.

As one of those with experience in small businesses, I can attest to the havoc this government's excessive taxes and unnecessary bureaucratic paper work have on the small business community.

Business owners need the government off their backs. They need an economic environment which allows entrepreneurial spirit to excel. Let us start by reducing the tax burden that, simply put, kills jobs and profit.

Let us for the moment reflect on the tax burden for an average small business, the payroll taxes, CPP, UIC and WCB. While the objectives of this program are noble, government mismanagement has raised these premiums to very unacceptable high levels.

Then there is the business tax, a tax that is not tied to performance but to space occupation. Witness what happened in Toronto yesterday when small business owners were hit with huge tax increases.

Then we have the property taxes charged by the landlord through the operating tax, and finally the GST, a supposedly revenue neutral tax. Ask any small owner about GST. The GST came from their profits as competition and consumer resistance forced businesses to absorb this tax.

Therefore it is no coincidence that the provinces with the lowest provincial tax rates, Alberta and Ontario, are leading the country in job creation.

It is also no coincidence that the United States, whose taxes are considerably lower than ours, has an unemployment rate of under 7% and dropping while ours remains stuck at more than 9%.

The government had an ideal opportunity to show its commitment to the hundreds of thousands of small business owners of Canada by reducing the tax burden in the last budget.

Did the government do that? No. In fact it went the other way and compounded the problem by throwing more money at what can best be described as a band-aid solution.

Rather than setting up more rules government should be allowing entrepreneurs to keep more dollars in their pockets, which will allow them to hire the extra person they need.

Government interference in the marketplace discourages the development of alternative and innovative financing solutions for small business. At the same time there must be a re-evaluation of the way in which financial institutions lend money to small business.

The banks must show a human face to the thousands of struggling individuals who need that extra infusion of capital to kickstart their businesses. The major banks must realize that their monopoly carries with it certain social responsibilities and obligations. They must also take certain risks. Right now the risk is zero or, at the very least, ridiculously low. They are thriving in this economy. Profits are at record levels. They should be partners in our society and at least assume some burden.

Today with their record profits banks can afford to be partners. They should be joining those pulling the wagon of prosperity instead of merely riding on it. They must do this or risk losing their monopoly.

The dual process of reducing taxes and having banks deal more compassionately with small business owners will be mutually beneficial. Less taxes mean more profit. More profit means better loan risks. Better loan risks translate into easier financing. Easier financing brings about expansion and thus more employment. This is the route we should be following.

We have before us a government that now seeks to extend the small business loans program by one year. I could possibly commit to supporting this if the government initiated a thorough review of the program, just as the auditor general recommended.

However the government has added an additional $1 billion in liability despite the fact that the program has $1.3 billion remaining before it reaches its maximum limit of $14 billion. This $1.3 billion is adequate—