Jim Prentice

[National Defence, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of contaminated sites is part of the legacy that the Liberal government has left for succeeding Canadian governments. There are extensive numbers of contaminated sites across northern Canada.

Seventy per cent of the contaminated sites in fact are within the jurisdiction of my department. We are working on this. We are mindful of the environmental mess that has been left behind by the previous government and we are addressing it.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the latest iteration we have from the Liberal Party is a private member's bill that has no money either. It is just a continuation of more empty Liberal promises.

We intend to proceed with clear budgets, with accountability, with action, with results and with measurement. We will deal with the issues of aboriginal poverty that the Liberals did not address for 13 years, a 13 year record of shame and incompetence.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, false indignation appears to be the garb of choice for the Liberals these days on aboriginal policy. It is a bad fit.

The Liberals ran this country for 13 years and for 13 years they failed aboriginal Canadians on education, on housing, on drinking water, on treaty implementation and on accountability. They have been criticized by the Auditor General, by the United Nations and by Amnesty International.

They can be as indignant as they want but history will record the Liberal era as one of empty promises. What they really wore is shame.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House today that we are taking action on this issue. I will be appointing the former Ontario cabinet minister, Mr. Alan Pope, today as a federal special representative. Mr. Pope will be in Kashechewan tomorrow, will consult through the summer and will report back in the fall.

The previous government refused to acknowledge the mere existence of the problem and deal with it. This government is committed to act. We are committed to working together with the first nation and with the provincial government to examine this matter and to report back.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I addressed that question previously today, but in case the hon. member did not hear me, this is a complicated subject. It is before the government. We believe the process of negotiations at the United Nations has been a constructive one. We will continue to analyze the document that has been produced and in the days ahead we will speak about it.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have spoken in the past. He knows full well that the federal Crown has been involved in these negotiations. The constitutional reality in our country is that the federal Crown is not responsible for policing issues nor for issues relating to provincial Crown land.

However, we are involved in the land claims process and so the record is clear, since the issue in Caledonia began, at various times the federal Crown has sent in Mr. Bob Howsam, one of the senior people from my department, Michael Coyle, one of Ontario's most respected academics, Ron Doering, one of the country's most able negotiators, and most recent, a respected former parliamentarian and a former foreign affairs minister, Barbara McDougall. We are doing everything we can and we continue to make progress.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as I have previously stated, the subject is a complicated one. We believe that the process of negotiations to this point at the United Nations have been constructive and that they are aiding in the reconciliation of aboriginal interests and the interests of states in the world.

The draft declaration, which has been proposed, is a complex one. There are many differing points of view in the world on this subject. We will continue to work together with the United Nations and our other partners as we move forward.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question.

We feel that the negotiating process at the United Nations has already proven extremely useful in creating trust between member nations and indigenous peoples throughout the world.

The proposed draft declaration is a very complex document. There are many different opinions in the other countries. I am talking with the other ministers about this.

[Kelowna Accord Implementation Act, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend, the former prime minister of the country, and I both share a commitment to improving the lives of aboriginal Canadians. I certainly do not question his bona fides in that sense and, I assume, as a gentleman, that he does not question mine.

Long before I was elected I worked on land claims. I have spent a significant part of my life working in the aid of aboriginal Canadians. I have seen aboriginal poverty firsthand, both on reserves and in urban centres, which is why I truly believe that one of Canada's greatest challenges is the issue of aboriginal poverty. In that sense, he and I are of common ground.

Where we differ is how we should go about making a difference in the lives of aboriginal Canadians. Aboriginal poverty is deep rooted. It is a complex issue. I say, with all due respect, that I do not think anyone can table a single page at the close of a first ministers' meeting as a compilation of numbers, issue a press release and believe aboriginal poverty has been solved.

The problems in this country are much deeper than that. They require a long term commitment, structural reform and renovation in consultation with first nations. Unless that is done, we will not succeed in the eradication of aboriginal poverty.

I support the principles and the targets that were discussed at Kelowna in the course of that first ministers' meeting. I also acknowledge the efforts that were undertaken to draw together the premiers and the aboriginal leaders. However, the issue is where to go from there.

I was in Kelowna that fall and the dialogue, to be sure, was useful and inspiring in some ways, but the results at the end were unclear. The conference did not conclude with a signed document by the participants entitled “The Kelowna Accord”. I talked to many of the premiers at the close of the conference and to all the aboriginal leaders who were present at the table. I asked them about the page that was tabled at the close of the meeting by the prime minister. There was no consensus with respect to those figures. There was no commonality as to how money would be spent, how it would be distributed among the provinces and the territories or how it would be divided among the aboriginal organizations that were present. It did not happen. I was there. I did the due diligence to ensure that those were the facts at the time.

My friend says today that the money was put forward in a press release. We should make it clear for Canadians that we are not talking about an accord signed by the premiers and the territorial leaders. In fact, there was specific disagreement between the province of Quebec as I understand it and the other participants with respect to the health aspects of the accord, which was one of the reasons that no document was produced.

The Kelowna accord also did not reflect any sort of process that involved all of Canada. The province of Quebec, as represented by the Assembly of First Nations' regional chief for Quebec and Labrador, Ghislain Picard, did not participate in the process and did not take part in Kelowna. It does not reflect a Canadian consensus.

My friend referred quite specifically to Mr. Doer and stated that Mr. Doer had referred to the morality of the current government. Mr. Doer is an NDP premier of another province and hardly one who would be proselytizing for the Conservative cause. I would like the House and Canadians to know precisely what he said because his comments about morality were a scathing criticism of the former government. He said the following:

--the former government did not contain the so-called Kelowna money. We don't want to be unfair to the [Prime Minister's] government because the former government did not put the Kelowna money in the fiscal framework as every journal--the journals here know. And they did not flow the money from 2004. So we're dealing with a promise in 2004. We're dealing with a promise in 2006. And I would argue if we don't proceed with the principles of Kelowna we're dealing with broken promises again....

He carried on to make his comment about the morality of the situation.

In terms of Mr. Doer's comments, that is what happened at the premiers conference. When we speak of the Kelowna process, we should put the facts in context.

Our discussion today is about more than the right way to go about the financial aspects of this matter. It is about asking the important questions of what the next steps are beyond Kelowna, beyond that first ministers meeting and beyond the process that did engage the provinces, the federal government and aboriginal leaders.

The most fundamental flaw in the bill before us today is that it does not change in any way the legislative framework that governs the relationship between Canada and first nations peoples. We must address the root causes of aboriginal poverty and we must understand the history if we are to correct those problems.

First nations in this country live under one of the country's most outdated laws, the Indian Act. The Indian Act is a compilation of pre-Confederation statutes. It is an act that requires significant change. It is a legal framework that must be updated by the federal government, working in consultation with first nations, if there is to be a future with aboriginal Canadians operating inside a legislative framework that is modern, aspiring and works in the 21st century.

In 13 years, the previous government did not replace the Indian Act with a modern legislative framework. That is the most important next step and that is what I have spoken to, as the minister, with aboriginal leaders in this country, about a process that would take us down that road, about creating a modern legislative framework that goes beyond the Indian Act and takes the first peoples into the 21st century on a position of parity with other Canadians.

Structural change is required. It is not simply a question of tabling a press release at the close of a conference and offering $5.1 billion over the course of five years. It is a deeper problem and it requires structural change.

We must set priorities that come with achievable goals and clear benchmarks. I see some clear priorities as we move forward, which I have spoken with aboriginal leaders about: better support for aboriginal women; addressing the issue of matrimonial property rights, an issue that the previous government did not address, even though committees of both the Senate and the House of Commons called upon the Government of Canada to address the circumstances of aboriginal women; education, child and welfare reforms in concert with the provinces and aboriginal organizations; clarified accountabilities; and, as was suggested at Kelowna, market based approaches to deal with housing issues.

I am talking about priorities because this government is taking a business like approach to these matters. We set priorities. We budget for them. We act upon them. We find the money before we make the promises. We do not intend to govern this country through the issuance of press releases. We set clear goals and then we deliver.

Another illustration of that was yesterday in this House when I expressed my disappointment upon learning that my predecessor made an ad hoc commitment in the context of the community of Kashechewan but failed to include the costs of those commitments in the government's long term finance plan.

Let me be clear. This government will find a lasting solution for the people of Kashechewan. We will work with the community to do so and we will do it right away. I have spoken with my hon. colleague from another party on this issue, but the solution is one that must be clearly supported, not only with a rational basis on which to proceed so that the community is not repeatedly flooded, but also in consultation with the community.

That, together with other initiatives that we have taken, shows the way forward that this government will follow in dealing with the post-Kelowna era. We will do so in full consultation and full collaboration with the premiers, the territorial leaders and aboriginal Canadians.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the only fiction in the House of Commons today is that the former Liberal government dealt with this in any responsible way.

I take from the former government member's comments a suggestion that we should be building houses on the sites selected by the former Liberal government. The truth is that those sites flooded this spring.

We need to work together with the Kashechewan community and we will be doing that. We will find a suitable alternative location and we will build a proper community, something the Liberal government never did.