Rod Bruinooge

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the submission by the member for Timmins—James Bay. I genuinely believe he has done some very important work for aboriginal people throughout Canada and of course in his riding. I would even say that his actions have been done in a very sincere way. He often takes important issues that face aboriginal people in his community to the country. He should be commended for that.

However, I have to ask, why today is he getting up in the House and standing in the way of this important bill proceeding to the Senate? That is what he is doing. It is undermining his credibility as an advocate for first nations, Métis and Inuit people by standing in the way of this bill, by taking part in his party's filibuster. It is not something that does anything for his credibility. Why is he standing in the way of Bill C-30 going to the Senate?

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the member, who even referenced me in his presentation, which I appreciate.

I know another one of my colleagues asked him a question earlier about why he was filibustering this important bill, which will deliver so many benefits for first nations people. It was agreed to by the Assembly of First Nations, with our government, in an important accord, which was actually signed, a real agreement. However, the member made reference to the fact that we needed to continue to consider the bill, that this was what the process was all about. He also lectured my new colleague on this topic.

The member referenced the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue as his spokesman. Why then, when the bill was in clause by clause, did the Bloc members adopt it unanimously? If they are still interested in going through the details, why did they unanimously adopt it and why are they continuing to filibuster now when we know the bill is ready to be sent to the other place so the benefits of that tribunal can begin to come forward for Canadians?

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 12th, 2008]

As my hon. colleague says, “They had enough of talk”.

It was not until about a month later that in fact the term “accord” was attached to what we all know was not a signed agreement. Thankfully, our government was elected and we have been able to move forward with some real tangible plans, not a dreamy panacea that would cure everything. That is the only approach that the Liberals have. They bring forward very glorious talk, but after 13 years they did nothing for aboriginal people.

If we look at some of the ideas that came out in the previous era, the good ones were set aside. I can comment on former minister Nault. The member of course knows minister Nault quite well. His great ideas were set aside. All the Liberals wanted was talk and that is all they came forward with at the last moment.

The member needs to talk to his caucus. On the subject at hand, Bill C-30, I guess the member has not spoken with his caucus. In fact, the whole caucus voted to completely endorse this bill. In clause by clause, every single element of this bill was endorsed unanimously by his party. Yet, he talks about the bill as if it is something he and his party do not support. That is wrong and I am not sure what cheap political points he is attempting to score here, but his party, like I said, has unanimously endorsed this bill.

On top of the deception related to the Kelowna press release that the member put on the record, I would also like to speak to some of the other misinformation he has put on the record. The $150 million associated with this bill is quite a significant amount. When we look back to Bill C-6, the bill that the former government tried to put before Canadians, it only had about $6 million associated with it for the settlement of claims. This legislation is a considerable improvement on the ability of government to actually settle some of these outstanding claims, in fact, a large number of them.

He thinks that the outstanding backlog will not be addressed. He should know that 50% of the outstanding specific claims are less than $3 million. In fact, the vast majority of them are a great deal below the $150 million mark. The $2.5 billion that we have extended to this important tribunal is going to take care of this massive backlog that is in place.

I want to ask the member a quick question. He was speaking earlier about how the tribunal would not be able to unilaterally remove parcels of land from the provinces and territories, including his own territory. Is he suggesting that this bill should now be modified at third reading so that the tribunal could unilaterally take parcels of land out of Yukon? I am not sure his voters back home would like that.

[Specific Claims Tribunal Act, May 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the member opposite.

He often likes to speak about his previous tenure on the government side. He harkens back to the moment when the previous government was about to be unceremoniously thrown out from office and rolled out what he likes to call the Kelowna accord, though, of course, that press release came from the first ministers meeting which called for $5 billion to be spent by the federal government. And of course it was not an agreement.

It was simply an announcement of a promise that the former government wanted to implement should it be successful in the next election. We know what Canadians had to say about that former government.

[Points of Order, May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Don Valley East made a hurtful, discriminatory and unparliamentary remark. The member's remarks maliciously stereotyped young people. Allow me to quote Hansard, in which it says, “He is young so he will do what is asked of him without too much questioning”.

If a member made the same remark about other people or replaced the word “young” with “aboriginal, female or disabled”, we would rightly have been furious and demanded that member's resignation. It is not different when one targets the age of a member.

The member then used the term “junior” to describe Canada's youngest parliamentarian. If a similar disparaging remark had been made about a senior, we would have equally have been appalled.

The Canadian charter forbids discrimination on the basis on age. We say to our young people that they can risk their lives defending our democracy abroad and then the member suggests that they should not be allowed to participate here at home.

How can we encourage young Canadians to get involved in the democratic process when certain members insult them for doing so? As a young Canadian, my parliamentary privilege has been affronted.

I ask the member for Don Valley East to do the honourable thing and apologize to young Canadians for her hurtful remarks and withdraw her comments.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Labrador. In fact, I have to commend him for his recent trip to take part in the sealing industry's hunt off the east coast. I must admit it is appreciated that there are some members over there who support that industry.

In relation to comments recently made in relation to the upcoming day of protest, I note that when the national chief was before committee this week he had a lot of good things to say about our government. I look forward to addressing that in my next question.

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 26th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today also marks the 23rd anniversary of the coming into force of the section 15 equality provisions of the charter, which took place on April 17, 1985.

Today, as we recognize these two anniversaries, we should take a long, hard look at the fact that there are still Canadians who are not treated equally under a Canadian law inspired by the charter.

Last November, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development introduced Bill C-21. This bill will right a wrong that should have been addressed many years ago. It will repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and guarantee that Canadians living on reserve benefit from the same access to the act as those living off reserve.

Unfortunately, the opposition parties have watered down the legislation and have taken away the full benefits provided under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Three years or three months: both are too long to wait. In the spirit of the charter and the equal treatment of all Canadians, our first nations deserve better.

[April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, having been a member of the aboriginal affairs committee, I did take part in that education study at the post-secondary level. A number of important issues were raised during that study and, thankfully, our government has received that study from the committee.

I would like to reiterate some of my points. Under the Indian studies support program, FNTI is eligible for over $500,000 in 2008 and 2009.

With respect to post-secondary education, more generally, our focus has always been on transferring tuition dollars to individual post-secondary students. In 2007-08, this student support amounted to $73 million in Ontario alone. In 2008-09, this amount is set to rise to $75 million for these same Ontario students.

This funding will allow them to attend the Ontario post-secondary institutes, colleges and universities of their choice. This support increases the employability of these students and, in turn, contributes to the Canadian economy--

[April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions that have been raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

Our government truly appreciates and recognizes the fine work done by post-secondary aboriginal educational institutions. There is no debating the value that they provide to aboriginal learners throughout our country.

Though the provinces have primary responsibility for post-secondary education, including for aboriginal students and for post-secondary institutions, whether they are located on or off reserve, the Government of Canada plays a supporting role.

Through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's Indian studies support program, we provide funding support to institutions for post-secondary curriculum design, development and delivery of aboriginal-specific programs.

Under the ISSP, the First Nations Technical Institute, or FNTI, is eligible for approximately $530,000 in 2008-09. Further, FNTI remains eligible to submit proposals under the same program through which it received additional funding in past years.

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada must, and has treated FNTI as it does other aboriginal post-secondary institutes, by providing proposal-based funding.

Let me reiterate that we remain committed to working with FNTI and the province of Ontario to help the institute evolve into a fully self-sufficient, sustainable educational institution.

To this end we have offered to fund a strategic business consultant to work with FNTI to assist in developing a sustainable business plan. FNTI has accepted this offer and INAC officials are working closely with FNTI to get this in place.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Kelowna proposals were nothing more than a press release backed up by false Liberal promises. If the Liberals were serious about these efforts, we would have seen them enact something in their 13 years. Even today, the Montreal Gazette calls the Kelowna proposals exactly the wrong approach to solving problems on reserve.

Clearly, our government has a different approach. We are actually getting things done. That is why we have cut in half the number of communities with high risk drinking water systems. We have resolved a record number of specific claims. We have tabled legislation to reduce the backlog of specific claims and we have paid out $1.2 billion so far in compensation. We are getting the job done.