Bev Desjarlais

[Petitions, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition on behalf of citizens throughout Canada who call on the government to comply with article 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and comply with the human rights tribunal decision in the matter of pay equity.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first nations leaders in Manitoba do not agree with the Deputy Prime Minister's self praises. They want a meeting with the Prime Minister.

Intolerable conditions on many reserves have driven them to consider desperate measures. Poverty and unemployment are widespread. Suicide and disease rates are many times higher than the national average. The United Nations has called these conditions subhuman. First nations are tired of the government's token gestures and they are tired of getting the runaround from Indian affairs.

Will the Prime Minister agree to meet with Manitoba's first nation leaders? A simple answer, yes or no?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Transportation infrastructure is vital to economic development on first nations. The Government of Manitoba has told the chief of the Mosakahiken First Nation that road connections from Moose Lake and Cormorant are a federal responsibility because 80% of the population is first nation.

If this government is serious about promoting economic development to end first nations destitution will it commit necessary funds for road building in partnership with provincial and first nations governments?

[Canadian Farmers, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian banks have a golden opportunity. They can prove their commitment to the Canadian people by helping farmers in Canada.

Grain and hog farmers in Canada are trying to survive the most serious crisis since the great depression of the 1930s. After years of record profits, bank closures and a multitude of service charges, the banks have been spending millions on a lobbying campaign to force the acceptance of mergers. Canadians have be vigilant in their opposition to the mergers and have clearly said no.

The banks were in the farming and mining communities in the good times and now they must stand by them through the bad. They must reconcile their profitability with the responsibility which comes with their charters.

They can begin rebuilding their reputation with Canadians right now. It is imperative that Canada's chartered banks put those merger campaign dollars into productive use and invest in the farming and mining communities of Canada.

I urge the banks to halt foreclosures on any family farms during this crisis.

[Senator Selection Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to follow up on a question concerning the Shamattawa First Nation which I asked in the House on November 5.

Shamattawa is facing horrific social problems. There have been over 120 suicide attempts since 1992 and 80% of the first nation's youth are addicted to solvents. This level of solvent abuse and the personal and social consequences of it represents a health and humanitarian crisis that cannot be ignored.

Current efforts to deal with this problem have proven to be inadequate. The poverty that has led to these problems is a long term issue that desperately needs to be properly addressed. Addiction treatment is not available in most first nations, including Shamattawa, so addicts have to leave their homes to get treatment. They are then returned to their communities, back into the poverty and desperation that caused their problem in the first place, without support. There is a desperate need to improve social conditions in remote first nations and to provide ongoing support for recovering addicts when they return to their communities.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recognized this problem and the need for long term solutions. It called for healing centres in troubled communities like Shamattawa to provide the ongoing support that recovering addicts need to keep from relapsing.

Over two months ago the chief of Shamattawa personally delivered a proposal for a healing centre to the minister of Indian affairs. The lack of response from the minister prompted my November 5 question asking why the government was ignoring the appeals of the Shamattawa First Nation. The answer I received was the sort of empty, evasive reply we on this side of the House have become all too used to.

The parliamentary secretary said that the government is concerned about the level of poverty, in particular in the community of Shamattawa, and that it is very aware of the problems in the first nation. He said that the government was working diligently on these problems. This is all very easy to say, but the people of Shamattawa have yet to see the benefits of this concern and diligence. While the government ponders what it can do about this crisis, in Shamattawa children as young as four are becoming addicted to solvents and homeless people are being left outside to freeze.

Six days ago Indian affairs officials in Winnipeg met with the chief of Shamattawa and would not commit to any help whatsoever. While this meeting was going on there was another solvent related death in Shamattawa. A teenage boy, high on solvents, shot and killed another boy.

The proposal for a healing centre in Shamattawa would cost the government less than $1 million. Recently we heard that the government is giving $10 million to alleviate the poverty being suffered in northern Russia. I am not against foreign aid, but Shamattawa has asked for less than one-tenth of what Russia got and received nothing.

There are many remote first nations with social problems as desperate as those of Shamattawa. It is criminal that in a country of Canada's wealth such conditions are allowed to persist. All that is needed is a relatively small amount of aid.

Will the government now commit itself to administering meaningful aid to to Shamattawa First Nation and to other northern communities at the earliest possible opportunity?

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the debate on the bill up to this point has been very interesting. Since the Norway House Cree Nation is part of my riding, I would like to add my own comments.

The bill represents the end result of many years of negotiations among the Norway House Cree Nation, the province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. Any legislation introduced in the House of Commons to implement agreements negotiated with other parties, particularly when these negotiations take place for a number of years, is legislation that includes a great deal of delegated trust.

In this specific case since the duly elected government of the Norway House Cree Nation signed the agreement and the people of Norway House ratified it in a referendum, we must trust that this agreement is satisfactory to the people of Norway House. This does not mean we believe there to be unanimous support for the agreement. Since the people of Norway House voted in favour of this agreement, it must be assumed that it reflects the opinion of the majority.

During this debate some members of the House have questioned whether this agreement reflects the will of the people of Norway House. Let us be clear about what these members are implying. By questioning the legitimacy of the referendum results, they must be alleging that some sort of electoral fraud took place. This is not the type of allegation that should be made lightly.

At a time when first nations are finally able to regain control of their affairs, the department of Indian affairs and ultimately the Government of Canada must ensure that the democratic rights of every first nation member are not ignored. Failure to do so is setting their governments up for failure.

Any member of parliament who believes as I do that first nations have a legitimate right to self-determination knows that it is not parliament's place to tell first nations people what to do. Throughout the history of Canada's relationship with the first nations this kind of patronizing attitude has lead only to tragedy.

To avoid repeating the errors of the past first nations must be free to make their own decisions and determine their own path. Thus, in the absence of unassailable proof that the referendum was fraudulent, I cannot in good conscience oppose what I must conclude is the desire of the majority of the people of Norway House and their democratically elected band government.

To help put this matter in context let us compare the Norway House Cree Nation with the nearby Cross Lake First Nation. Both these first nations were among the five affected by the flooding in the 1970s and both signed the northern flood agreement. Each has a democratically elected government and as is its prerogative the government of Cross Lake is following a different path in its fight for compensation.

Unlike Norway House, Cross Lake has not reached an agreement with the province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. The government of Cross Lake has not been satisfied with the compensation offered by the federal and provincial governments for the flooding of their land. Thus they have decided to hold out for the compensation they were promised under the original northern flood agreement.

What we have is two first nation governments faced with similar circumstances choosing different paths to confront their circumstances. Norway House has chosen to make a deal while Cross Lake has chosen not to do so. Some have said that Norway House has made the wrong decision, but we as members of parliament have no right to tell these first nations what to do. I support their right to self-determination so the people who must make this decision are the people of those communities.

The referendum result and the fact that they re-elected their chief and council indicate that the majority of the people of Norway House support this agreement, and I respect their decision. Likewise I support the democratically elected government of Cross Lake's decision to follow a different path.

It is important to note that the position I am taking to support the self-determination of each first nation reflects the position of the first nations themselves. At the last annual general meeting of the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, the chief of Norway House pledged his support for Cross Lake in their struggle for compensation. Clearly even when they choose different paths for themselves first nations stand in solidarity and support each other's self-determination.

I am pleased that the Norway House master implementation agreement is bringing some resolution to the community. Most if not all members who have taken part in this debate have never been to this fine community in my riding.

I am pleased to report to the House that economic development is moving forward in Norway House. A new mall was opened this week creating dozens of new jobs in the community. The community has embarked on many substantial projects including a new day care centre and a paving project last summer. Virtually every road in Norway House is now paved. In addition, there are also new tourism initiatives under way highlighting the community's long history and spectacular natural beauty.

However, I am upset and deeply disturbed by recent developments in Cross Lake which indicate that the Government of Canada and the department of Indian affairs are trying to leverage that first nation into signing the master implementation agreement against its will.

The chief of Cross Lake has asked me to tell the House about the pressure his government and his people are under from the department of Indian affairs and the Government of Manitoba.

Cross Lake is the only first nation that has yet to sign the agreement. Like any government in this day and age, the government of Cross Lake First Nation also carries a debt. Unlike most other governments Cross Lake needs the department of Indian affairs to underwrite its debt. Now the department of Indian affairs is threatening to stop the underwriting of the band government's loans, meaning the band will go bankrupt unless it can immediately pay off its debt.

Imagine if Canada's creditors demanded immediate repayment of our national debt. It would not be reasonable to expect this and neither is it reasonable to expect this from the Cross Lake First Nation.

The department of Indian affairs has effectively put a knife to the throat of the Cross Lake First Nation. If it signs a master implementation agreement the immediate cash payments will allow it to pay off its debt and avoid bankruptcy. But the Cross Lake First Nation has made it clear that it does not want to sign a new master implementation agreement.

The Progressive Conservative Government of Manitoba has so far been unwilling to offer fair compensation so Cross Lake has chosen to continue with the more time consuming process of pressing for the compensation it was promised under the northern flood agreement. It must be free to make this choice.

This blackmail by the department of Indian affairs is despicable and betrays the Liberal government's utter contempt for the principle of first nations self-determination. I call on the Liberal government to end its blackmail of the Cross Lake First Nation immediately.

We can see that the Liberal government has the capacity to be unethical in its treatment of first nations. However, there is no unassailable proof it has used these underhanded tactics with other bands such as Norway House. In the absence of such proof we must assume the democratic process is legitimate.

I know the members who are opposing the bill have good intentions and they feel they are supporting what is right for Norway House. There are members within the Norway House First Nation.

Support for this agreement is not unanimous in Norway House and that is the democratic right of those who oppose it but I call on all members of the House to support the wishes of the majority of the people of Norway House by supporting the bill.

I also call on members to join me in fighting the terrible injustice that the government is currently perpetrating against the Cross Lake First Nation.

[Parliamentary Privilege, November 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on October 9, I quoted a number of grade 11 history students from Hamnot Collegiate in Flin Flon, Manitoba. These students are constituents of mine who had faxed me that day with their views on whether the solicitor general should resign. The overwhelming majority of them said he should resign. Prior to question period that day I asked the class if I quote them in my question. They were ecstatic that their views were going to be heard. I was very disturbed by the Deputy Prime Minister's response. He called the students' comments unwarranted and unjustified and accused me of abusing the process of this House. I will address each of these allegations in turn.

Some of the students were very insulted that the Deputy Prime Minister dismissed their opinions as out of hand. In a democracy is the government not supposed to respect the views of its citizens? The Deputy Prime Minister had no right to call their opinions unwarranted and unjustified. His doing so goes right to the heart of what is wrong with this Liberal government. it is arrogant. The Deputy Prime Minister clearly does not care about the views of Canadians. No wonder the things the government says and does are increasingly out of touch with what Canadians want.

The same attitude can be seen in his accusation that I was abusing the process of this House by informing the students of my question so they could watch it on television and give their opinions. Does the Deputy Prime Minister actually think it is an abuse for Canadians to watch their own government on television? Would he prefer that the proceedings go on behind closed doors so they do not have to be accountable? It is not an abuse for Canadians to watch the proceedings of parliament. It is a democratic right. But this Liberal government does not seem to care much about democratic rights.

The previous speaker, my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, indicated his efforts to try to bring some modern changes and some democracy into the House. Once again there is no attempt by this government to see that change go through, not even to the point of taking that suggestion to committee where it could be discussed and heard and so we could finally see some kind of change to the type of democracy this government is bent on pursuing.

The right to protest is another crucial right in a democracy. This is part of freedom of speech. If Canada is to be a democracy, Canadians must be free to voice their opposition to what the government does. When the RCMP pepper sprayed those APEC protesters in Vancouver they were suppressing the fundamental democratic rights of those protesters. This is a very serious matter and Canadians deserve to get to the bottom of it.

Rather than openly answer these allegations, the government has been acting as if it has something to hide. First, as his comments on the plane to Fredericton showed, the former solicitor general prejudged the RCMP public complaints commission. The sworn affidavits confirm this to be so. He has now resigned for this indiscretion, proving the students I quoted were right all along, but the matter is far from closed.

The government continues to insist the RCMP commission will get to the bottom of the pepper spray incident which is absolute nonsense. The commission is only mandated to review the actions of the RCMP officers, not the political masters. Since the commission cannot look into the actions of the Prime Minister, it cannot determine whether he or his staff was involved in the suppression of democratic rights. The commission has been hopelessly tainted by the former solicitor general's comments and by the fact that the students have not received any legal funding while the government is represented by a team of high priced lawyers.

The only way Canadians can get an accurate picture of what truly happened during the APEC conference is to appoint a judicial inquiry to investigate. If the government truly has nothing to hide, it should appoint a judicial inquiry to exonerate itself.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government continues to ignore the crisis in the Shamattawa First Nation. Four out of every five youths in the community are addicted to solvents.

Last Friday the chief had another fruitless meeting with Indian affairs. At the same time there was yet another solvent related death in Shamattawa. A teenage boy, high on solvents, shot his 14 year old brother. This brings the death toll in the tiny community to at least 22 solvent related deaths since 1992.

In light of this latest tragedy, will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development overrule her department's refusal to grant Shamattawa the healing centre and solvent treatment beds it so desperately needs?

[First Nations Land Management Act, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that all of his constituents felt it would be acceptable for self-government to be defined in terms of a municipal government being responsible to the provincial government. I am under the impression that he has some first nations people within his riding. I would seriously question that all of them feel that way.

My understanding is that virtually every first nation in Canada desires to move toward self-government so they will not have to respond totally in the context of a provincial government. First nations people want control over their own lands. They want to make their own laws. There are some limitations with regard to criminal offences, but as a developing governing nation the first nations deserve the same opportunities Canadians have had since the beginning of recognized government. I would like to see it move ahead in that way.

I am curious to know whether the member has any first nations people in his riding and if he can truly attest to the fact that all his constituents would like to see self-government as a municipal government doing what the provincial government says it should do.

[The Environment, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister tells this House that Canada is leading international efforts to reduce climate change.

Reports from Buenos Aires state the opposite. Canada is blocking global efforts to set domestic targets and is negotiating hot air loopholes between the U.S. and Russia.

Can any minister explain to Canadians why this government is trying to sabotage the Kyoto protocol and risk the health of Canadians?

Why is the government forcing our environmental responsibility on to other countries?