Rod Bruinooge

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague comes from an important part of Manitoba and represents an important region within the city of Winnipeg.

In relation to the first ministers meeting last year, the focus of that meeting did not shine much light on the plight of the urban aboriginal, individuals whom the member serves quite proudly.

My question relates to his commentary on the means for which services and benefits are delivered to aboriginal people, Métis, first nations and Inuit. The system is flawed. He pointed that out in language perhaps more descriptive than my own. Should we not as a government be looking first at ways to improve the means for which these benefits are delivered as we move forward? Is it not incumbent upon us to take that action as our primary objective?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here just a few months, but one thing I have noticed about this hon. colleague is that he tends to speak in a very non-partisan way that seeks to move the debate forward in a fashion that is constructive, and that is appreciated.

I would also like to say that both myself, the government and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have often spoken of how we agree with the objectives and targets that were laid out at that first ministers meeting. There were a lot of them.

If I were to ask a question, though, of this hon. member who has served in many capacities in the previous government, it would be to ask him these questions: Why is it that it took until the last moment of the previous government's life to move forward? Why did it take so long and what stopped him previously from moving forward with these types of discussions?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is genuinely interested in assisting the people of Nunavut, who are well served by her.

I would like to ask the member for Nunavut if she would not agree that this government has moved forward on some important initiatives, and in fact, some would suggest, on the most important initiative for the people of Nunavut, which is of course housing. I would like to quote the premier of Nunavut, who stated:

And the budget sets aside $200 million for Nunavut for housing so I'm very encouraged by that. It will definitely help our residents here that require housing, social housing.

It is this real action with real dollars that I think is important as we proceed, especially for people of the north. I come from the north myself and I know there are special requirements. It takes a lot more energy and resources to deliver materials to the north. When I was in Iqaluit this March, I witnessed that message loud and clear. Is this government not taking real action for her people?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague who has shown considerable passion throughout the years in relation to aboriginal issues. I do not think anyone would question where his heart is on these matters.

As the hon. member knows, I am a new member of this place. I have come here to enter into debate. I want him to illustrate to me how the debate proceeds in relation to certain premises, such as the premise of truth in relation to one particular issue.

Aboriginal leaders from across Canada went to the first ministers meeting last year. However, the consensus, about which he speaks, perhaps was not as strong as some would think. The member referred to “a signed agreement”. The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations appeared before the aboriginal affairs committee. He was asked if there was a signed agreement, a signature page. Under oath, he indicated to us truthfully that there was not.

Is it is helpful to this debate to indicate something such as a signed agreement if in fact there is no signature page?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we all would agree that the targets and objectives that were laid out at the first ministers' meeting of last year were important and our government will work with all parties to help move forward the issues of aboriginal people.

The member referred to clean water. I would like to highlight the fact that it was this minister who proceeded immediately with a clean water policy to address the issue and give first nations the opportunity to have clean water. We have seen many communities throughout Canada on a high risk boil water advisory.

Does the member not agree that it is real money and real action that will help achieve progress for aboriginal people? Is that not the approach we should take?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commentary of my hon. colleague with whom I have the pleasure of sitting on the aboriginal affairs committee. He has definitely brought great insight to that committee.

I would also like to thank him for indicating that there were no plans. Of course there were not. Those plans were in fact going to be brought out over the next few years. It is in direct contrast to the member for LaSalle—Émard who did talk about how plans were substantially in place. It is nice to hear my aboriginal colleague talk about the truth and that is appreciated.

The member talked about the investment, the money, and how it is going to improve lives, but I need to ask about the system. The system itself is flawed. He must agree that the only way we are going to truly improve the lives of aboriginal Canadians is to look at the system itself. I would ask him to bring forward his ideas on that.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the comments that the member for West Nova made in the seven minutes before question period broke up his speaking time. He was speaking in relation to the troubling situation that this new government has inherited. He spoke to the last period of time and having issues associated with it specifically for aboriginal people. There is no denying that there are many issues that we as a government have inherited.

He made reference to the phrase “when you buy the dog you get the fleas” in relation to the issues we have inherited. It seems to me that referring to these issues as fleas is very offensive. Perhaps his first language is not English, so maybe he would want take a look at that statement one more time and further clarify it for me.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, with whom I also sit on the aboriginal affairs committee. She has clearly shown her diligence on issues related to aboriginal people and I think all Canadians should be appreciative of that.

One of the issues that has permeated this debate, not only today but throughout the last few months, is the fact that the system through which services are delivered to aboriginal people is itself broken. That was not considered as part of the process. I would like to know if the hon. member thinks the current system in fact does need that improvement, or if perhaps that need not be considered as part of these ongoing discussions.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I sit on the aboriginal affairs committee. He has had many years of experience in parliamentary affairs.

I would like to ask him a question in relation to the Quebec aboriginal groups that were not involved in the Kelowna process and how they did not proceed in extending their agreement.

The member does have considerable parliamentary experience and history going back to the 1980s. I would ask him whether that type of logic which he has extended today, where agreement was taken, should also apply to past agreements that Quebec was not a part of. Does that same logic extend when Quebec is not at the table and does not agree?

I would ask him to clarify the logic that he is using.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of serving with my hon. colleague on the aboriginal affairs committee. I believe she is genuinely interested in moving forward on the issues concerning aboriginal Canadians.

I would like to ask her about one area that was not involved in the Kelowna process, and that is in relation to structural reform. It is quite clear based on the commentary of many of the people who were at the table at the first ministers meeting, that was not an item that was unanimously agreed upon.

More important, how can she refer to empty rhetoric when we look back at the 13 years of inaction, where opportunities were missed and aboriginal Canadians saw the outcomes continue to be deplorable? How can she say that empty rhetoric is not most reflective upon her and her party?