Rod Bruinooge

[Natural Resources, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs has been in discussions with Premier Handley on this important file, and of course we have appointed a negotiator to come to an agreement in principle, as we see devolution in the Northwest Territories as essential not only to Canada but to the future of the NWT.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs have on many occasions stated their interest in supporting the north. The Minister of National Defence has also done so on numerous occasions.

We are very interested in making sure that Canada's sovereignty is maintained throughout the north and that is why we have invested heavily in and throughout the north. When we look back, earlier last year, we made a $300 million investment in northern housing. We feel that this is a starting point to assist the Nunavut people toward improving their housing conditions.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the previous year there was an investment of nearly half a billion dollars in this area. Clearly, it is an important issue to us as first nations children on reserve need the support of the parental systems that are in place.

At the same time, the government needs to be mindful of the way to assist families in situations where unfortunately those parental systems are not in place. We will be continuing to effect our improvements on first nations reserves and we look forward to assisting them in the future.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to announce in the House that this morning the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief John Beaucage signed a government agreement in principle in North Bay, Ontario which establishes a framework for the Anishinabek Nation to assume greater control over its own institutions of government.

This agreement in principle provides a practical approach for supporting first nations to strengthen their internal governments, and solidify the political and financial accountability of first nation governments to their citizens. Stronger aboriginal government institutions help attract investment and partnerships that will promote economic development and improve social conditions in their community.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, NTI did launch a lawsuit against the Government of Canada in December of last year, but our government has moved forward by appointing a negotiator to deal with the issue that the Berger report has raised.

We will continue to be very mindful of the issues that face Nunavut. Of course, when we look back to last year's budget, we in fact invested $300 million in housing needs for the north in Nunavut, and we are very proud of that fact.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it interesting that the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan in her submission referenced walking the walk and talking the talk. Clearly this government is moving forward. We are walking that talk by bringing in this repeal of section 67. We are acting on behalf of human rights of first nation citizens.

I would also like to read something for her. A very interesting article in the Globe and Mail was written by Wendy Lockhart Lundberg, a Squamish Nation lady from British Columbia, the home province of the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. She wrote:

Aboriginal women championed the introduction of Bill C-44, which would repeal the section of the Human Rights Act that shields from scrutiny the actions and decisions of band councils and elected chiefs. Bill C-44 would finally give aboriginal women an additional tool towards human-rights protections equal to the rights and protections currently available to all other Canadians.

I would like to ask the question: have aboriginal first nations women not waited long enough?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague who sits on the committee with me, and of course, I would like to commend him for his activities on the committee. He is genuinely interested in improving the lives of aboriginal Canadians throughout Canada. I would also like to commend him for his appreciation of the importance of this repeal and the historical impact that it will have for the future of first nations in Canada.

I have a question for the member. Over the last 30 years we have seen attempts at repealing section 67 occur on three occasions and it has been to committee multiple times as well. Over the years it has seen a number of attempts and as such every time there is engagement with the various groups. Would he not agree that it is about time that we proceed?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her support in theory for what we are attempting to do with section 67, and for her submission, although I have a question for her. It could be likely, unfortunately, that human rights violations are occurring on first nations reserves right now. I hope that is not the case, but it could very well be the case. Any amount of time that we extend in the process of transitioning this repeal will be simply an extension of those violations continuing, so I ask her, why should we make it longer than it needs to be?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes an interesting point. Of course we see it in other situations when individual rights in a democracy come up against the rights of the larger community. In this case, though, I think the Canadian Human Rights Act will be judicious in the way that it is implemented. It is going to take into account situations where individuals have their human rights affected. Of course the Government of Canada is supportive of first nations communities and their traditions, but I believe this is the approach that needs to be taken.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is something that the minister, the government and I have done on many occasions, and that is not to use consultation as an excuse to not act.

This is one of those cases where acting is essential. It is important that we not let this continue to be put off into the future. We have an opportunity. All of us cannot necessarily guarantee that we are going to be here for countless decades. In fact, that probably would not be a good thing for any of us. We have to take the time that we are given and act, and act appropriately, and that is what we are doing with this repeal.