Darrel Stinson

[Petitions, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling several petitions.

The first two petitions are with regard to the mail route couriers. Many of the people in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap depend upon these couriers to deliver and pick up their mail. Some would like the right to form a union and bargain collectively. It is my pleasure to table these petitions today.

[First Nations Ombudsman Act, April 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in full support of the bill by the hon. member for Wild Rose, Bill C-222. We are into the final hour of debate. We have heard a fair bit about the bill and I have listened to what members on the other side have had to say.

I am here tonight to tell those members that I have been to many of these meetings. I have listened to the aboriginal people who have showed up at these meetings. I have listened to their concerns. Some of the stories I have heard would bring tears to your eyes, Madam Speaker.

I had a speech for tonight. Instead, I will read into the record a letter calling for financial accountability. It states:

We have been working for 5 years trying to get accountability, democracy and equality to our First Nations communities. We worked for three years under the name Dakota Action Group and for two years under First Nations National Accountability Coalition of Manitoba. To date, we have gone national and are in the process of registering our organization under First Nations National Accountability Coalition. We have organizations in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick. We get calls from all parts of Canada with regards to mismanagement of band funds, corruption, nepotism, no services, no equality and dictatorship rule in the First Nations communities.

We have approximately 200 reserves that have joined our accountability coalitions and there are about 213 that have been in contact with our organization or affiliates. These band members want their rights restored under the Canadian constitution, the charter of rights and freedoms, the Human Rights Act and the Indian Act.

As aboriginal people and as Canadian citizens, we have been stripped of all rights by our very own aboriginal leaders as well as the department of Indian affairs.

The Corbiere consultation process is proof of that. The supreme court ruled in favour of the Batchewana off reserve band members to vote in band elections, but they could not do the consultation process nor could they get the funding for it. The government gave the defendants—the Indian affairs and the chiefs and councils—funding to do the consultation process. We believe the government is letting the fox get security for the hen house.

Our organizations, which deal directly with the “grassroots people” across Canada, were not informed of the Corbiere consultation process or of the funding for it. Again, the grassroots people have been neglected and forgotten. The aboriginal people have no rights. The majority are ruled “dictatorship style” on the reserves. There is no economic development in the First Nations communities. Most reserves have no money and huge deficits with no future in sight for band members. This is one reason the suicide rate has sky-rocketed and has reached epidemic proportions on the reserves.

The way the chiefs and the council operate their systematic government is demoralizing, demeaning and discriminatory. There are very few band meetings, if any at all. Few band members are privileged to be employed. The grassroots people are not informed of any developments on how their funds are spent. They can only observe the chiefs and council and their relatives drive new vehicles, get new houses or extensions on homes and the chiefs' and council's children sent to private schools. Nepotism is widespread. The band members are not educated and they are kept that way. The chiefs and councillors are not available to be accountable or to provide information because they are on exotic vacations/trips and they are paid twice for per diems, travel and honorariums.

Their cellphones are unlisted while grassroots people are forced to live in third world conditions. Many cannot access money for housing, medical, education, transportation, including all other programs such as native alcohol and drug programs. Any activity or requests for accountability results in all services being discontinued. The aboriginal leaders do not consult with the band members. They do whatever they want. They spend band funds any way they want with little or no sensitivity to the needs of their people. The grassroots people pay dearly and heavily for the extravagant squandering of band funds (tax dollars) by the chiefs and council. This is condoned by the department of Indian affairs.

If the non-native people ran their businesses the way the majority of the chiefs and councillors operate the band offices, they would be in jail. This is proof of the double standard that exists in a democratic country such as Canada. To go to Indian affairs or the RCMP is futile. Numerous packages have been given to both departments about fraud, corruption, embezzlement, etc. A blind eye is turned. RCMP liaise with Indian affairs and so it appears that Indian affairs investigated themselves and controls the RCMP. This leads us to believe that the chiefs and councillors are above the law. Their criminal activities are untouchable. The band members have nowhere to turn for help.

We knew the band members needed to have a native ombudsman, so we did a proposal and gave it to (the member for Wild Rose) to take to the House of Commons on behalf of the grassroots people. Without one, there will be more Waterhen, Gustufson and Oka crises. Situations have deteriorated so badly that people are threatening to take arms up against their chiefs and council and to give up their lives for change.

We have a crisis in our First Nation communities and it is crucial that a native ombudsman be enacted into legislation. Fortunately for the grassroots people from coast to coast, there is an organization like the First Nations Accountability Coalition where people can vent their frustrations, hopelessness and receive a glimmer of hope that there might be a solution which is the native ombudsman who will be there on behalf of the grassroots people.

We appeal to all members of parliament to support this native ombudsman Bill C-222. If the government is sincere to remain in good standing in their special relationship with Canada's First Nations people, and if they truly want accountability, democracy and equality in Canada, as well as lighten the tax burden, then they will support Bill C-222. We see this as a major milestone in building on a new relationship with the grassroots people of Canada and we are PEOPLE too!

This letter was written by Leona Freed who has worked very hard to bring some of these concerns to the attention of the government and to the attention of members of parliament.

I would like to quote from another article called “Chief Injustices”. It will give members something to think about. It says “if you dare criticize the abusers, you are ostracized. If you dare speak out in favour of support groups who are off reserve for urban aboriginals, if you speak out against the aboriginals, you stand the chance that aboriginal goon squads will come after you”.

This is not uncommon. It goes on and on.

We went to meeting after meeting. I attended a meeting in Alberta with the hon. member for Wild Rose. The native people came up to us an told us they were threatened. They were at the meeting even though they had been threatened not to talk to members of parliament and not to raise those concerns. Is this any way to live in this country when a person cannot take their concerns to their member of parliament, let alone the RCMP, without threats being made against their family? This is what is going on.

It is not just the communities that are saying this. I will now quote some examples given by a judge. The most high profile example of aboriginal corruption is on the oil rich Stoney Reserve, 60 kilometres west of Calgary, where an independent audit in financial mismanagement resulted in 43 complaints being turned over to the RCMP.

In a precedent setting decision in 1997, Alberta Judge John Reilly demanded a provincial inquiry into how such a wealthy band could have such poverty and social ills, linking the Stoney government to a banana republic.

In September 1999, after investigating the suicide of a Stoney teenager, Judge Reilly produced a damning report that laid the blame for the boy's death squarely at the feet of the corrupt native leadership and the misguided federal bureaucrats.

Let us take a look at the Gitksan authority of B.C. which was caught in 1998 investing federal health care funds in the Alberta stock exchange. No charges were laid but the band lost over $50,000.

The examples go on and on but does the government listen? Does the government listen to the grassroots people? No, it listens to the people it wants to, the Phil Fontaines who get all the money and speak for the white people and not for the grassroots native people.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

No, it did not happen to me and I can tell the House why. When the government tells me how good something is, I study it and then I think maybe I should hit my head against the wall to make sure I am reading it right. If it still concerns me I go out and talk to the public about it, and nine times out of ten the public will set me straight. I am not ashamed to say that I have gone back to my constituents who have said that maybe I have been down in Ottawa a bit too long. They tell me what they want.

It is about time all members of the House start to realize that their job is to bring the concerns of their constituents to the House, not to take from the House and tell constituents what they will get, shut up and like it. It is time we all started to learn that.

An hon. member on the other side mentioned the Speech from the Throne. We can go through any Speech from the Throne and discard it in the wastebasket like we have done for years. What is said at that moment means absolutely nothing. It is all for show. We all know it and the people of Canada know it. It has never been anything more than that to the government. Its object is to jam its agenda down our throats whether or not we like it. Those who do not like it will be branded, labelled and shut up one way or another until they are too afraid to stand up and disagree. That is the agenda of the government.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to members debate this subject for a good part of the day. What I have heard raises a concern over the disagreement in opinion.

For some reason, if a member stands in the House to disagree with a piece of legislation, members on the other side will call the member all kinds of things. I heard the word “bigot” used today. I have heard a number of others words. It seems that this is the way the government works, that if a member is in disagreement with any piece of legislation that comes to the House the member will be labelled. It has been a tactic in Canada for far too many years.

People outside the House who have concerns about legislation are to the point where even they are afraid to stand in public to voice their concerns because they are afraid of being labelled.

I want the House to know and I want the people of Canada who are listening to this debate to know that there are members on this side of the House who will not be intimidated by that tactic. We will say what has to be said. We will say it on behalf of our constituents. No amount of name calling and no amount of labelling will stop us. They can keep on calling us what they want to call us. It will not stop us.

Let us look at Bill C-23. Sixty-eight federal statutes are to be amended. What a glorious day this is for the lawyers of the country. What a glorious day the government has provided once again for its friends in the legal community. What a glorious day of trying to interpret exactly what the bill means. It is a heyday for them.

The government is too afraid to define marriage. It is a shame. Marriage is one of the main cornerstones of society. Yet the government refuses to define it. It refuses to define conjugal. Yet it is willing to put this piece of garbage into legislation and force it upon the people of the country, to force it down their throats whether or not they like it.

Let us have a look at the history of the government with regard to some of these issues. The Liberals are the ones who stand there with their hands over their hearts and say they have consulted with the people, with the provinces, and this is what they have come up with.

I am here to say that there was no consulting. Nobody came into my constituency or any other constituency that I know of. Nobody from the government went to the provinces and talked to them about it. They just decided to do that and since they decided to do it the public has become aware.

There has been mention in the House time and time again of the concern we hear back from our constituents on this piece of legislation. Bill C-23, in the constituency of Okanagan—Shuswap, has now overtaken Bill C-68, the firearms legislation. It has overtaken child pornography in the concerns of the people of the Okanagan—Shuswap area.

There is concern out there. We are not getting hundreds of signatures or hundreds of letters. We are getting thousands of letters, faxes, e-mail, petitions and phone calls from the people who pay our wages.

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain wanted to know if maybe his constituents were confused because he was being inundated with calls and letters with regard to this piece of legislation. I want to assure him that his constituents are not confused, not one bit.

Every other member in the House, even those on the other side who will vote in favour of the bill, are getting the same from their constituents. Yet they will refuse to stand on behalf of their constituents because they will have to go against their party whip. That is a shame for a country that is supposed to be called a democracy. We have not seen democracy in this country since the second world war, and that is a shame.

Let us look at the poorly written, poorly drafted piece of legislation which the minister has decided to put forward. It is the first piece of legislation, I heard today, that was brought forward by the minister since she has been here. I cannot believe it. It is something that will be fought over in courts for centuries to come if it is accepted. Members over there know quite well that this is will happen.

The bill is not even based on dependency and we are supposed to be looking at dependency. It is based on something called conjugal relationships, not whether or not the person is in need of assistance but his or her sexual habits. It does not make any sense. It makes no sense to anybody.

What about caregivers, people who give up their jobs to stay home and help their parents? They think they owe a debt to not only their parents but to society to help them through their troubled years. That is not addressed. They refuse to address it. I do not understand it. I do not know if it is something that happens when we get to the great hallowed halls of this institution.

[Correctional Service Canada, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only prisoners who Correctional Service Canada loses track of, we know prisoners can walk away, but what excuse can there be for missing computers?

An audit obtained by Southam News revealed over $600,000 worth of CSC equipment mysteriously grew legs in Ontario alone. Kingston Penitentiary was missing a mere $30,369 worth of assets, while nearby Joyceville Institution lost track of $167,691 worth of assets.

However, the big prize goes to CSC's Ontario regional headquarters where computer equipment accounted for 92% of the $420,000 in missing assets.

It comes as no surprise that CSC offered a training session on asset management but attendance by employees was, and I quote from the audit, “minimal”.

This week's lesson for the solicitor general is to start requiring CSC managers to keep track of both the assets and, for God's sake, the prisoners.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with great interest, particularly with regard to the transfer payments.

My understanding is that the federal government is putting $3.3 billion less into the system than was in the system in 1993-94. This is the year 2000. When we factor in inflation we are looking at a great lack of funding from the federal government to the provinces, particularly when the provinces signed on to these programs with the complete understanding that it would be a 50:50 cost sharing.

The hon. member also spoke of pain and suffering, and I have a question for him. To my way of thinking, one of the darkest pages in the history of the medical profession in Canada was how this so-called caring and sharing Liberal government treated hepatitis C victims. These people absolutely believed in the system. They were told that it was fail-safe. They bought into it and went in for blood transfusions. After the fact they found out that they had tainted blood. Some are suffering with kidney failure and some are literally dying. Yet the government has only seen fit to pay the lawyers in these cases. It has not put one dime toward the victims.

Is this the hon. member's idea of what people would think of as a Liberal “we care, we will help you” attitude toward innocent victims in the medical system?

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

I must congratulate the province of Quebec, even though I may disagree with that government on many issues. With regard to the hepatitis C victims, the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec have seen fit to at least address payment to these victims.

Has the member done any calculations as to how much money the so-called caring, sharing Liberal government has saved by not paying the victims, by just paying the lawyers and allowing the victims to do without? I would like to have an opinion from the member on this if I could.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will try to tone it down just a little bit here. I think they both have valid points and they should debate this out.

I actually find this quite humourous, especially coming from the government. The member is quite right. There is no doubt that the government has cut transfer payments to the provinces with regard to the health care system. When the provinces signed into this system they were guaranteed a 50:50 split. Now we are down to about 13%.

What I would like to ask the member is this. Although we—

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member the same question I have asked other government members with regard to the health care issue.

Many people in this country had total faith in our health system. They became victims of hepatitis C. The government has recognized this fact. Provinces such as Quebec have voluntarily come across with their share to these victims, yet the government has done nothing. The only thing it has done is pay off the lawyers.

What does the hon. member think of this? Should these people be paid and paid now?

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that when the provinces signed on to the medical system it was supposed to be a 50:50 proposition. Now we are down the member says 9% but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say 13% of federal financing.

My question pertains more to what the government is doing in regard to the hepatitis C victims. The government has allowed the victims to sit with absolutely no compensation at all. Some of these people are not capable of working. They are sick. Some are close to dying and yet the government has seen fit to only pay the lawyers and not the victims.

I would like to know, since the member is in the financial end of this, how much interest is he saving by not paying the victims?