Bev Desjarlais

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise again and restate my support for Bill C-49. This act will implement the framework agreement on first nations land management.

As I have said before, this bill is a major step toward first nations self-government. I am proud that the New Democratic Party has been the only party since our first days that has fought for first nations self-government. This is their inherent right as the first people to live in our great country.

I have listened to the words of the Reform members regarding first nations issues. Their arguments have been misleading to say the least. They have been trying to exploit negative stereotypes about aboriginal people. The most absurd claim has been that this bill will allow first nations to break federal search and seizure laws. They have obviously forgotten about section 8 of the charter of rights and freedoms which protects everyone from unreasonable search and seizure.

The most dubious thing about this claim is the Reform Party's unspoken assumption that first nations intend to abuse power. They instantly assume the worst of the first nations. They assume that if first nations have power they will abuse it. The idea that first nations are unable to handle power or properly govern themselves ignores their history. It overlooks the fact that they governed themselves for thousands of years before Europeans immigrated here and seized control.

I have 31 first nations in my riding of Churchill, over half the first nations in Manitoba. I know that the first nations do not want to manage their land so they can abuse power. They simply want to end their dependence on Ottawa. The government has run their lives for over 100 years. The result has been poverty. First nations know that they can run their lives better than government bureaucrats can. This bill will give them the chance to do so.

A few weeks ago the hon. member for North Vancouver copied a letter for me that he had sent to a mayor in his riding. This letter expressed his opposition to this bill. It said that Bill C-49 would let first nations pass laws. As a result, the member said this would result in different first nations having different laws. The interesting thing is that he left it at that as if it were obvious that this would be a bad thing. The letter also said that this bill would allow first nations to have economic development without consulting neighbouring communities.

Even though it should not be necessary, I am going to address the two points I just mentioned. Perhaps the Reform Party is not aware that different first nations have different cultures. Each has a unique history, a unique land and a unique economy. It makes perfect sense that they have different laws in certain areas. What a double standard for the Reform Party which promotes decentralization in federal-provincial relations to oppose it for first nations.

As for consulting with neighbouring communities on economic development, I agree that it is desirable. I am of the impression that there will be a process for consultation. This is as a result of a meeting with the first nations and the union of B.C. municipalities on November 13, 1998.

First nations would be wise to form friendly and open relationships with their neighbours. These kinds of relationships benefit everyone involved. In my riding many communities have a first nation reserve and a non-reserve area side by side. The ones that do best are the ones where the first nation government and the town government work well together.

This bill is a great step forward toward the eventual goal of full self-government for first nations.

I congratulate all the chiefs involved in reaching this agreement. In particular I want to congratulate Chief William Lathlin of the Opaskwayak Cree Nation and Grand Chief Francis Flett of Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak. The Opaskwayak Cree Nation is part of my riding and is signatory to this agreement. Both these leaders were instrumental in its reaching this stage.

Although I am very pleased with this bill I want to conclude my remarks by reminding the Liberal government that there is still much to be done. The United Nations has rightly slammed Canada's treatment of aboriginal people. I quote from last December's report by the United Nation's committee on economic, social and cultural rights:

The committee is greatly concerned at the gross disparity between aboriginal people and the majority of Canadians. There has been little or no progress in the alleviation of social and economic deprivation among aboriginal people. In particular, the committee is deeply concerned at the shortage of adequate housing, the endemic mass unemployment and the high rate of suicide, especially among youth in the aboriginal communities. Another concern is the failure to provide safe and adequate drinking water to aboriginal communities on reserves—almost a quarter of aboriginal household dwellings require major repairs for lack of basic amenities.

I could not have said it any better myself. The words gross disparity sum up the status of aboriginal people in Canada. The Liberal government says it is concerned about this but its lack of action says it is not.

The federal government has a duty to work in partnership with first nations governments to address these problems. The Liberal government has ignored almost all the recommendations of the royal commission on aboriginal peoples. Instead it has only made a few token gestures.

Whenever I criticize the government for its lack of action on aboriginal concerns, the minister of Indian affairs points to the aboriginal healing fund as though it solved everything. Yet I am constantly hearing from my aboriginal constituents about this money not being available for vital projects. It does not go nearly far enough.

I and my colleagues have been calling on this government to implement the recommendations of the royal commission. The few it has implemented are not enough. Not implementing the rest is a betrayal of all aboriginal people.

I repeat my call to the Liberal government to implement the royal commission on aboriginal peoples recommendations. Aboriginal people are tired of this government's stonewalling. They are tired of half steps. The time for real action is now.

[Railway Safety Act, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that the story related by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands should be of great concern. Without knowing exactly how it is proceeding through the Department of Transport, I am sure most of us here will follow up with the particulars to ensure it will not happen again.

I am sure most Canadians do not realize there are private police and such on the railways and on that New Brunswick toll highway. Authority is given to the companies that run that stretch to police it. I do not think Canadians realize that and I do not think they would be very happy to know that. As the word gets out we might find that more and more comments come back if things are not done in an acceptable manner. In this case it certainly appears it was not.

[Railway Safety Act, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the ongoing process it is important for the dynamic aspect so talked about to really be there and for it not to be a lot of fluff. There is a concern that might not be the case. I know the railway workers and the municipalities involved will be very vigilant in ensuring this bill really works to improve railway safety.

I know the parliamentary secretary has committed to ensuring that what takes place is up front. We will see how things proceed.

[Railway Safety Act, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party in support of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act.

The bill is the product of an inclusive consultation process with representatives of the railway industry, organized labour and other stakeholders. These stakeholders have indicated their satisfaction and support for the bill.

The process of consultation that culminated with the bill is a rare and refreshing change from the autocratic way the government usually operates. Most of the time the government takes its cues from its business friends who are concerned with only their bottom lines and not with what is in the public interest. This obvious bias is most apparent in the way the Liberal government has slashed health and social spending and finagled with EI funds that are supposed to pay for unemployed workers and job training.

Most government bills come to the House from the bureaucratic backrooms like lightning bolts from Mount Olympus with little or no public consultation. When there is consultation it is usually only with high priced lobbyists. That is why the bill is such a rare and refreshing change.

It was a pleasure to see organized labour, municipal governments and the Canada Safety Council consulted in the making of the bill. It was rare to see a balanced process, rather than one skewed by a one dimensional perspective.

New Democrats and social democratic parties around the world know that business is fundamentally important to the public interest. After all, it is the engine that creates our society. Business is a valid and important contributor to society but it is only one dimension in the multidimensional reality of the public interest. In a healthy democracy business needs must be balanced with the needs of communities, with individual liberty, with compassion for the sick and the disadvantaged, and with other values that its citizens hold dear.

When business interests gain supremacy over others democracy is threatened. We see this in many third world dictatorships where business thrives but the people are denied liberty and most live in poverty.

The consultations that went into the bill are a case in point. Business was well represented by CP Rail, CN, Via and the Railway Association of Canada. Surely they made valuable contributions, but other voices were at the table as well. Labour was there to represent the workers. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities represented communities and the Canada Safety Council represented the general public interest. No wonder this process produced a positive bill that we are pleased to support.

Among other things the bill allows for greater openness and transparency in the making of rules and regulations. It addresses concerns about train noise in communities and the problem of train-car collisions at road crossings. It clarifies jurisdictional issues over road crossings and extends the jurisdiction of railway safety inspectors. It provides the federal government with the authority to mandate safety programs from railway companies and enables the government to regulate railway emissions.

I particularly welcome the provisions for greater openness and transparency in rule making. The bill will ensure that unions and other interested parties have 60 days to review and comment on any new rules, rule changes or proposals for exemption. I know the transportation unions take the safety of the public and the safety of their members very seriously and will take advantage of this opportunity to add their input into the regulatory process.

One of the most difficult issues this bill deals with is noise pollution from train whistles. When these whistles blow at all hours of the day and night they disturb people living near railway crossing and lower property values. At the same time train whistles are important for safety because they serve as a warning to motor vehicles and pedestrians crossing tracks. Over 95% of train fatalities are caused by trespassing on tracks or at crossings. So the challenge in this bill was to balance the need for safety with the quality of life of people living near crossings. After listening to the rather strange story the member from Cypress Hills mentioned, the challenge will also be to ensure that the rights of those people who are on those tracks are dealt with in a fair manner. It would appear that is an area that will have to be looked at fairly quickly.

The solution found was to turn responsibility over to local governments which, as we know, are more in touch with the needs of their communities than the Ottawa bureaucracy. This bill will enable local governments to pass resolutions to limit train whistling. In order to ensure safety, the municipalities will have to consult with the relevant railway companies and other stakeholders and the crossing will have to meet certain national safety standards. Clearly this solution delegates a great deal of responsibility to local governments and depends on the vitality and good judgement of those democracies. New Democrats and community activists everywhere will closely monitor this new system to make sure it works.

Although I support this bill overall, I would like to note one reservation regarding the section about the medical testing of railway workers designated as critical to railway safety. Without a doubt, the public interest demands that these workers be medically fit to do their important jobs. My concern is with section 35 of the bill which states that these persons shall undergo a medical examination organized by the railway company concerned. Medical records are personal and private and we, as members of parliament, must take care any time we pass a law like this one that violates the privacy of citizens. I am concerned by the fact that this bill specifically states that the medical examinations are to be organized by the railway companies concerned.

I have a great deal of experience with these kinds of issues, having worked for 25 years in the health care field. For many of those years I served as a union representative and I have seen firsthand the kind of abuse that permeates with rules like this one. It is possible that the railway companies will try to abuse this section. Hypothetically they could have a company doctor declare a worker unfit to work in order to get rid of a union leader or to prevent an employee from having enough years of service to qualify for their pension. On the other side of the coin the company could have a doctor overlook some legitimate medical problem to keep an employee on the job when they are shorthanded. These kinds of abuses have happened before and we must ensure that they cannot happen again. This underlines why unions are absolutely essential for protecting the rights of workers and why the railway unions must be vigilant in protecting their members.

In summary, this bill attempts to improve the safety of Canada's railways. It presumes that the railway companies will not put profit before safety. Only time will tell if this confidence in the railway companies is justified. Despite these reservations I reiterate my support for the bill.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, to get to the end result I am not aware of all the figures regarding consumption taxes in every area.

I for one have never begrudged paying my dues for what I receive. I personally have never begrudged my tax dollars. I have benefited greatly as a Canadian. My family has benefited through public schools, through roads and through the health care system. Personally I pay my taxes and I do not begrudge them when I receive the goods but that has not been the case.

With regard to the 1% on the GST, there is no question that the benefits to the local economies and to individuals will be benefits that will reach everybody if we use the 1% GST cut. That is not the case when one person receives a tax break. That is the problem Canadians want to address in the tax system. They want something that is going to be fair for everyone.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not have a problem with accountability. Canadians want accountability for their tax dollars, but reasonable accountability is what we are talking about.

It seems again I am talking of the doublespeak that the government uses. We all read the comments of the transport minister when he talked about certain dollars that were signed away and that the process really was not there to keep track of it and there are toll highways in New Brunswick because things were not accounted for. It is important to recognize that we have to be accountable and the things that happened were wrong in that case.

We did not have a problem within the health care system in Canada. There was not a serious problem until this government took the helm and dollars became so scarce that the government had to get on somebody's case over where the dollars were going. We did not hear Canadians complain about the things they are talking about now, of not getting surgery for six months to a year and of not getting treatment for breast cancer until three, four or five months down the road. That is the legacy of the Liberal government and it is not because of accountability.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am sure when the government releases its budget it will sell it as the answer to everything, the answer to the government's failure to support our health care system, the answer to its failure to improve child poverty. As it has for the past year, the government will talk of the surplus and the need to decrease the debt.

Canadians are tired of the government's doublespeak. Canadians knew with the budget last year that by not going ahead with further cuts the government was not putting dollars back in health care.

Canadians know that dollars paid by workers and employers should not be used for government favours. Canadians know that the finance minister's surplus should not include EI dollars. We do not need to abuse the EI fund to put an armoury in Shawinigan. We do not need to use EI dollars to have a millennium scholarship fund as a golden calf for the Prime Minister. Without those EI dollars, the finance minister's surplus dwindles. His pat on the back should be resulting in a small burp, not the belching we must continually listen to.

In reality there should be no pats on the backs on the government benches. The social deficit in Canada has reached an all-time low. Let us recap a few of the government's wonderful contributions since the Liberals took the helm. All that is missing is the iceberg.

Child poverty has increased by $500,000. Homelessness is a national disaster. Every province has called on this government to react to the critical state of our health care system and then the member for Scarborough East calls it whining.

Government members have taken a year to clean out their ears, or is it just so bad that even they are feeling the shame and embarrassment of Canada's drop in social standing?

I want to read from a letter that I received over the break:

It is very tough to survive on old age pensions in present times. My wife and I are trying to do just that. My lady is 70 years old and I am 76. The price of necessities is rising daily and it is so hard to make ends meet.

In 1998 the government raised our medical target $300, so we now must pay $600 before we get any discount on the price of drugs. We are both on medication. This is a low blow.

The cost of living in the north is horrific. We pay top dollar to operate our cars. We cannot afford a holiday which we should be entitled to.

The federal government has seen fit to forgive a $700 million tax bill to people who are already billionaires. This will certainly fall in the laps of the average taxpayer to fill in the void.

This is the Liberal legacy as we enter the new millennium. The government had best make a good showing with the next budget. We cannot afford for conditions to get any worse. Canadians will not tolerate this Prime Minister's lack of vision. This government must make a serious commitment to the people of Canada. What are the options to improve the sorry state of Canada's social condition?

As a bare minimum, $2.5 billion must be put back into the health care system. The bare minimum. Put the EI payments back into the program. We have all heard the disgusting statistics throughout Canada as to the number of workers no longer able to collect benefits, not because the dollars are not there but because the government changed the rules so less and less can receive benefits. What good is an insurance plan if it is not able to be collected by the people who most need it?

My colleague for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre mentioned the deplorable numbers for his riding. Only 19% of the unemployed are able to collect EI benefits. Some employment insurance. In my riding $16.9 million less is being paid out in EI benefits.

Cut the GST by 1%. This along with dollars put back into EI are the greatest encouragements to job creation and boosting local economies. This way all Canadians benefit: workers, the unemployed, the sick, local businesses, not just the billionaire who got the $700 million tax write-off.

[Railway Safety Act, December 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am not really concerned because most Canadians truly know who are speaking out on their behalf.

Taxpayers paid for the trans-continental railway that linked the country from east to west. They got an excellent return for their investment as the railway spurred economic growth, particularly in the west where it facilitated transportation of prairie grain.

I can remember a time not too long ago when branch lines criss-crossed the prairie provinces. I grew up in southern Saskatchewan and feel a great love for the prairie provinces as well as for my new home in northern Manitoba. Grain elevators in small prairie towns all connected by rail were gathering points for communities.

All that began to change when the Liberal government betrayed the Canadian people and sold off CN Rail at a bargain basement price. A few investors got very rich off the corporate welfare measure but prairie farmers have ultimately paid the price. CN Rail has begun ripping up the branch lines taxpayers paid for and selling them off, leaving prairie farmers to truck their grain themselves.

Another aspect of corporate welfare is the double standard when it comes to taxation. Individual Canadians and small businesses carry large burdens primarily from regressive consumption taxes like the GST. Corporate taxes in Canada are among the lowest in the developed world. Yet when the Liberal government decided to balance its budget it cut programs like health and education rather than rebalance an unfair tax burden. It balanced the budget on the backs of ordinary Canadian workers and small business people who suffered the consequences of the cuts while carrying an unfair share of the tax burden. All the while corporate welfare bums made higher and higher profits.

Now that the budget is balanced the government should reinvest in health and social programs and make tax cuts where they are needed, like phasing out the GST and reducing the burden on small business. Instead the Liberal dominated finance committee has recommended a set of tax breaks in favour of high income Canadians.

The New Democratic Party opposes this tax cut. In its place we propose reinvesting in health and other vital programs and targeting tax cuts like a GST cut that will help everyone, not just people making well above the national average income.

I will be supporting the Bloc member's proposal as I feel that it will ensure Canadian municipalities and provinces will not suffer further consequences from the government. It certainly is in the spirit of ending corporate welfare.

[Railway Safety Act, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Bloc for proposing this amendment to Bill C-58.

This is a very reasonable amendment to the railway safety aspect to ensure that railway companies take financial responsibility for the safety of operations. Should there ever be a cost to comply with the safety regulations under clause 19 it is only fair that the railways pay for this. This amendment if passed will ensure that local taxpayers are not forced to pay for railways to comply with these regulations.

In response to some of the concerns my hon. colleagues in the Reform have mentioned, there are already regulations in place. If it is a matter of highway and roadway brush, regulations are in place within the provinces to ensure that they are responsible.

We have seen more and more devolution of responsibility from the federal government on to the provinces and ultimately the municipalities to cover costs. They are absolutely taxed to the limit. We need to ensure that the railways are owning up to their responsibility. As my colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain indicated, perhaps it will not be a problem in the prairies because rail lines are disappearing rather quickly. It is inherently important that we ensure the municipalities do not suffer the consequences.

The amendment is also very timely because it deals with the larger issue of corporate welfare. I have to comment on the suggestion that sports teams should have some kind of a tax break when citizens throughout Canada are suffering hardships because of lack of money going into health care. It is inherent that we make those who are profiting from certain things pay the price.

Taxpayers already give up far too much pay for corporate welfare. The Liberal government cheered on—here is where the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands comes in—by the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties shells out billions of dollars in tax break and direct subsidies to private interests. One of the most outrageous examples was the privatization of CN Rail. Since 1867 and even before then Canadian taxpayers have paid for our railway system.

[Nunavut Act, December 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party to Bill C-57.

The people of Nunavut have a unique culture and deserve to have a court system which reflects their culture and geographic realities. The NDP has been consistent in its support for self-government and that is why at second reading our aboriginal affairs spokesperson indicated our principled support for the bill.

However I have very serious concerns about the bill. If the court system created by the bill is implemented, it will have devastating consequences for the Manitoba Dene whose traditional territory straddles the Manitoba-Nunavut border. The Manitoba Dene are my constituents. Although I too support self-government for Nunavut, I cannot support or endorse a bill which runs counter to their well-being.

The Manitoba Dene are those bands in the Dene nation whose reserve lands fall within Manitoba. There are two such bands, the Northlands First Nation who signed a treaty with Canada in 1907 and the Sayisi Dene First Nation who signed a treaty in 1910.

These treaties guaranteed members of the nations the inalienable right to hunt, fish, trap and select reserve lands anywhere in their traditional territories. Fifty-seven per cent of their traditional territory lies north of the 66th parallel that divides Manitoba and Nunavut. This area represents less than 5% of the territory of Nunavut.

Ever since these first nations signed their treaties they have continued to hunt, fish and trap in their traditional territories north of 60. When the federal government negotiated the Nunavut agreement with the Inuit of Nunavut, the Manitoba Dene asked to be included in these negotiations but were inexplicably and unjustly excluded. There was no justification for this exclusion.

The government was negotiating the transfer of lands to which the Manitoba Dene have a right according to treaty. In a feeble attempt to justify what it had done the federal government claimed out of the blue that the Manitoba Dene had no rights north of 60.

This claim would almost be laughable if it did not have such serious consequences for the Manitoba Dene. No one who knows anything about the Manitoba Dene believes this ridiculous claim in light of the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Archeologists have proven that bands have occupied lands of north of 60 for 2,600 years. These bands have no less than 25 burial sites north of 60. They have occupied lands north and south of the 60th parallel for as long as there have been historical records about them.

For most of the past two and a half centuries they have been a nomadic society. The staple of their diet was the caribou and they travelled across vast distances following the great northern caribou herds. This is why their traditional lands do not match up with the nice straight lines we see on maps. Caribou do not care about the lines on maps. By the terms of the treaties the Manitoba Dene signed in the first decade of this century they have an undeniable claim north of 60.

The Government of the Northwest Territories acknowledges the ridiculousness of the federal government's position with an administrative measure called the border A licence area. Within this area, which very closely coincides with the traditional territory of the Manitoba Dene, Manitoba Dene are not required to have a licence to carry out their traditional practices.

This policy directly contradicts the federal government's claim but acknowledges the reality of the situation. To this day the Dene of Manitoba still hunt, fish and trap north of 60. In these communities where most food has to be flown from the south, making it very expensive, most people still rely on hunting and fishing to feed their families.

Despite the evidence arrayed against their position, the Government of Canada clings irrationally to its claim that the Manitoba Dene have no rights north of 60. Even when in 1993 the standing committee on aboriginal affairs unanimously called on the government to recognize the rights of the Manitoba Dene within Nunavut, the government refused. At that time the Progressive Conservative Indian affairs minister said that the Manitoba Dene claim north of 60 would have to be resolved in the courts.

In response to this challenge, the Manitoba Dene filed a claim with the Federal Court of Canada asking the court to enforce their treaty rights. This case remains before the court today. While the Dene of Manitoba case has dragged on, the Liberal government has forged blindly ahead with the implementation of the Nunavut Act.

The bill before us today is to establish a Nunavut court of justice to reflect the unique cultural and geographic realities of Nunavut. I say again that my party and I support the Inuit right to self-government and we support the creation of a separate court system for the territory.

The Northern Manitoba Tribal Council, of which the Manitoba Dene are members, the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, also officially support the Inuit of Nunavut. However, they know as I do that it is not fair and it is not right to settle one land claim at the expense of another.

When Nunavut comes into being a few months from now, the Nunavut wildlife management board will have jurisdiction over hunting, fishing and trapping in the traditional territory of the Manitoba Dene. Nunavut leaders have refused to recognize the treaty rights of the Manitoba Dene until there is a ruling from the court. In the meantime, since the rights of the Dene are not recognized, they will be subject to the rules and regulations of the Nunavut wildlife management board.

The Nunavut court of justice created by the bill will have the power and responsibility to enforce the regulations of the board. I cannot in good conscience support the creation of a legal authority that will prevent the Manitoba Dene from hunting, fishing and trapping in their traditional lands. I therefore submitted an amendment to the bill which would have granted a stay of prosecution of the Manitoba Dene people charged with these kinds of offences in their traditional lands.

I want to take a moment to read that amendment:

Any proceedings before the Nunavut Court of Justice that involve the Denesuline of Manitoba claiming as a defence any matter set out in the claim presently being advanced for and on behalf of the Sayisi Dene First Nations and the Northlands First Nation in the Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) in a Statement of Claim dated March 9, 1993, as amended, initiating suit T-703-93 against the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Attorney General of Canada (among other defendants) shall be stayed pending the final decision of the Federal Court of Canada with respect to the matter of, if the matter is appealed or referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, the final decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

When the Table ruled this amendment out of order because it went beyond the scope of the bill, I was extremely disappointed and frustrated. This one amendment could have protected the treaty rights of the Manitoba Dene until the courts affirmed them.

How typical of the disrespect and contempt with which the Canadian government has treated these people. In a bill dealing with the Nunavut court of justice and its jurisdiction to try different crimes in the territory of Nunavut, an amendment to temporarily modify its jurisdiction seems entirely within its scope to me, especially in light of the number of omnibus bills we have seen pushed through the House in the last two months. What hypocrisy on the part of the Liberal government. Without tainting or delaying the process that the people of Nunavut deserve, the Manitoba Dene, MKO and I have done what we can to try to amend the bill within the methods available to us.

Now that we are at third reading all I can do is say I am opposed to the bill. I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that the rights of the Manitoba Dene are respected. The Manitoba Dene deserve justice. If their treaty rights are respected there is no reason why the Inuit and the Dene cannot find some sort of mutually acceptable accommodation in the context of Nunavut.

I emphasize again that the area in question is less than 5% of Nunavut. Rather than promote such a resolution, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have denied Manitoba Dene treaty rights and have acted as roadblocks to their justice.