Rod Bruinooge

[The Environment, April 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, all the appointments that we make throughout Canada come from a very talented pool of qualified individuals, and that is the same in this case. Our record on the north is without parallel. Not since the Diefenbaker years has a prime minister focused so much on our northern issues.

In that member's own territory we can look to the Yellowknifer that said that our budget was one of the most progressive for the north in many years. I find it hard to imagine why that member is not supportive of the initiatives we have taken in the north.

[Manitoba, April 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, another provincial budget was introduced earlier this week and once again Canadians are seeing good results from our government's fiscal policy.

When Manitoba finance minister Greg Selinger tabled his budget, he listed area after area where Manitobans are benefiting from a positive federal-provincial relationship and strong federal investments. He talked about how federal investments will help Manitobans save more money, improve health care, transition to new jobs, upgrade their skills, increase productivity, build new wastewater infrastructure, hire more police officers and create better public transit. Finally, because of our fiscal policy, Manitoba was able to produce yet another balanced budget. The list goes on and on.

The real question is why the federal NDP cannot see what Premier Doer is doing. Why did the members for Elmwood—Transcona, Winnipeg Centre and Winnipeg North not tell their leader that budget 2008 is good for Manitoba and good for Canada? Why did they let their party vote against it? Is their leader that out of touch, or is he just not listening?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg South Centre a number of questions on a file we both share, I will leave that to the time I have in committee.

The question I have for her is in relation to the statements she made with regard to the changes to the immigration policy as proposed in the budget.

In a democracy I feel individuals who are elected to the House of Commons have the opportunity to put forward ideas and changes in policy and represent, in the House, the reasons why we feel they are right for the country. The member opposite also can stand in her place to advocate for a different position.

Is she philosophically opposed to the position we have put forward to the point that she would vote against our government and force an election?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. She mentioned that she did not think our government was doing anything to protect first nations women from violence.

I think that first nations women in particular when they are in a matrimonial breakdown find themselves very vulnerable. Our government, and of course the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has brought forward legislation that will bring about matrimonial real property protections to first nations citizens, including women. Does the member think that is a good idea and would she support it?

[April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern the member has put forward on this issue as she continues to advocate on behalf of her constituents.

As I stated earlier, we have made great progress on the processing and delivery of the common experience payments. Each applicant and application requires considerable due diligence, which does take time. We are continuing to closely monitor progress and our officials have been instructed to respond to clients as promptly and as effectively as possible.

Furthermore, every effort will be made to assist former students in receiving all the compensation for which they are eligible.

I want to be clear. The government remains committed to the fair and lasting resolution of the legacy of the Indian residential schools and is taking all the steps necessary to ensure that the common experience payments and all other measures of the Indian residential schools settlement agreement are delivered as quickly and as effectively as possible.

This historic agreement will strengthen the partnerships that we have established and continue to foster, with aboriginal communities and all Canadians, a lasting--

[April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the question put to this House by my hon. colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, concerning the processing of common experience payments.

As we know, the Indian residential schools settlement agreement, which began implementation on September 19, 2007, will bring resolution to this unfortunate chapter of our history. This agreement is intended to foster reconciliation between the aboriginal people who attended these schools, their families, their communities and all Canadians.

As the member opposite is aware, an important part of this agreement is the common experience payment. Common experience payments have been made to former students who resided at an eligible federal residential school. Payments are $10,000 for the first year, or part of a year, plus $3,000 for each additional year, or part of a year after that.

All former students who lived at an eligible Indian residential school and were alive on May 30, 2005, may receive a CEP upon application. Eligible former students will only have to fill out a CEP application form and the Government of Canada will use its existing records to assess the claim.

A total of $1.9 billion has been allocated in order to make the common experience payments. To date, the government has received over 90,000 applications. I am pleased to report that since the launch of the common experience payments, as of this day, 78,000 of these applications have been processed.

A total of $1.2 billion has been paid to the former students through the CEP. This is in addition to the $82.6 million which was already paid out through the advance payment program to elderly former students.

The government is aware that in some cases unique circumstances have led to some applicants not receiving all the compensation for which they have applied.

In some cases, former students may have calculated the years which they resided at residential schools based on the calendar year rather than the school year.

Former students may have also resided at an Indian residential school for a number of years and subsequently attended a day school. The agreement, which was agreed to by all parties, does not include any day schools. However, some applicants may not distinguish these two experiences when applying for the CEP.

The government is also aware that in some cases records are incomplete. We are continuing to work with former students through a court-approved and supervised process to ensure applicants receive all the compensation for which they are eligible.

In all cases, applicants receive a detailed letter which outlines the amount of compensation they received and provides them with information on how they can participate in the court-approved process should they wish to do so for reconsideration. Further, an appeal process is also available, which is managed by all the parties to the settlement agreement.

What is important at this time is that we continue to focus on timely and effective implementation of the Indian residential schools settlement agreement, so that former students and their families may benefit from it.

At this time, I would like to draw the member's attention to the other important aspects of the agreement. These include the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which will provide a holistic, comfortable and safe setting for former students to share their experiences. It will also create a complete historical record of this system. As we can see, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will be an integral part of the healing process for former students.

The Indian residential schools settlement agreement has also included $20 million in funding for commemorative activities, as well as $125 million for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

In closing, I would like to thank all members of this House for improving our commitment to the Indian residential schools settlement agreement.

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan on the work she has done in relation to Jordan's principle, a motion that was passed unanimously by all parties in the House last year.

My question today will be similar to some of the questions I have asked other members who have spoken to the concurrence motion. It is in relation to Canada's long history of negotiated settlements with our first peoples and the Constitution of Canada in which we have entrenched aboriginal rights.

Could the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan suggest to me how she reconciles the concept of returning lands and rights to indigenous peoples with our existing negotiated settlements and Constitution that make up Canada today?

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member for Don Valley East, I have a number of questions. Her perception on our actions is that they are simply rhetoric.

I would suggest that bringing about the historic resolution of the Indian residential school settlement as the first act of Parliament by this government is not rhetoric but real important action. I would also like to suggest that proceeding with implementing important historic legislation in relation to setting up a specific claims tribunal has been called for for years and will improve upon the incredible backlog that we received as a government. There were nearly 800 specific claims which burgeoned from a very small number in the early 1990s.

My question for the member is in relation to the actual agreements that her party when in government signed. The previous Liberal government signed the Kyoto protocol and then did nothing to implement it. In fact, it left our government behind in a terrible way with 35% emissions above important initiatives in terms of greenhouse gas reductions.

Would she have our government sign a new declaration on the international scene which we know as a government we simply cannot implement? Is she suggesting we follow the former Liberal government initiatives where they simply placated the international community but did absolutely nothing to follow through on their commitments?

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interjection by the member for Churchill, which is the riding where I was born.

My question for the member relates to much of the theme I have been talking about today, which is the contemplation of the declaration to revert legal status of lands and rights of lands to a pre-contact moment.

Does the member believe that the lands and the mineral rights in her riding should be handed back to the first nations inhabitants of her riding to the point they were previous to contact with Europeans?

[Committees of the House, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has referenced a few different initiatives by the previous Liberal government. There is no question that one of them was quite substantive. A lot of effort was put in to the First Nations Governance Act. Unfortunately, that was the first thing the member for LaSalle—Émard set aside when he was finally successful in his coup of that government.

In relation to what is called the Kelowna accord, this has been a debate among myself and the member opposite for some time. I will not deny that proposals were brought about by the previous government at a meeting in Kelowna. However, I cannot accept the fact that there was a signed agreement at Kelowna. It is simply not part of Canada's history. This is a deception, which is the only way that I can put it.

To add more credibility to that meeting by suggesting that there was a signed accord is something that I cannot accept. At every opportunity when it is raised, I will point out the truth of the matter, and that is what I am doing today.