Jim Prentice

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has long spoken of a historic meeting in Kelowna. The department is saying it works in collaboration with the native peoples. What collaboration? The native peoples of Quebec do not even want to participate. Why? Because after the dozen years it took to prepare this meeting, the Liberal agenda remains unclear. What a surprise. The Liberal agenda is never clear.

How will the Prime Minister resolve the problems of Canadian native peoples without having all first nations at the table?

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, since the time that I arrived in this Parliament, we have been asking the government to take action with respect to stopping violence against aboriginal women. We have heard today a shameful performance from the government on this issue.

Why will the government not answer the question? No more dodging, no more obfuscation, tell the House of Commons why violence against aboriginal women is not one of the agenda items at the first ministers meeting?

[First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the fine work my colleague has done in advancing the cause of first nations, not only the first nations in his riding but elsewhere.

I was a little saddened to hear that comment. This legislation is being dealt with in a non-partisan way, as my learned friend points out. I wish to point out for the record that this Parliament has perhaps been unique because an enormous amount of legislation has arrived at Parliament from the doorsteps of first nations, not legislation developed by the Government of Canada but legislation developed by first nations.

I speak of Bill C-54, the oil and gas legislation that was brought to the House, developed by the first nations themselves; Bill C-71, which we are speaking to today, again developed by first nations; and Bill C-20, the fiscal and management package legislation, also developed by first nations.

All the legislation has been brought to the House and it has been moved through the House expeditiously, with a minimum of partisanship. There has been no partisanship from any of the opposition parties on any of the legislation. That needs to be pointed out because there is an attempt being made right now to suggest that somehow Parliament has blocked the advancement of aboriginal Canadians or that Parliament has not been in favour of the legislation that has been brought forward to improve their economic and social conditions.

Parliament can be very proud of the work it has done. The Indian affairs committee can be very proud of the work it has been done over the course of the last 18 months. There is, at this point, not a single piece of aboriginal legislation backlogged in the House. The opposition parties have not blocked any legislation that the Government of Canada has brought forward on aboriginal Canadians. Therefore, to somehow suggest that the opposition parties are being partisan is unfair in the extreme.

This legislation was brought to the House by the government today. The opposition parties are indicating their willingness to have it moved expeditiously through the House of Commons before any election takes place. At the end of the day, Canadians will be the judge of who is responsible for many of the difficulties and grievances that we see in aboriginal communities. It has not been the opposition parties.

I congratulate the proponents of this legislation, who are in Ottawa today, and they have our support.

[First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pleasure to indicate our party's support for the proposed first nations commercial and industrial development act. I echo the comments of my colleague that the legislation clears the House of Commons immediately, hopefully today. We will be working on that and discussing it over the course of the day.

As I rise to speak to the legislation, I wish to begin by pointing out that the legislation originates less with the Government of Canada, or this hon. House, than it does with the first nations communities themselves. It is extremely important legislation, and I will talk to the details in a few moments.

The legislation originates with the leadership of the Squamish First Nation in British Columbia, the Fort McKay First Nation in Alberta, the Tsuu T'ina First Nation, which is part of the Calgary community in Alberta, Carry the Kettle First Nation in Saskatchewan and the Fort William First Nation at Thunder Bay.

These communities have taken the leadership to move toward sectoral self-government, to create opportunities in their own communities and to advance the social and economic well-being of the people who live in those communities and who are members of those first nations. Their efforts are to be applauded. They have fought vigorously over the last five years to develop the legislation. On behalf of our party in particular, we acknowledge the efforts they have undertaken and the success that they will experience.

If I might be forgiven, with respect to one of the first nations, the Fort McKay First Nation, as the critic of our party, it is of particular satisfaction to me to see this matter move forward. I was involved, in a prior life before coming to the House, in the resolution of the land claim settlement of the Fort McKay First Nation. I think Canadians need to understand just how far we have moved in a very short period of time in our country with respect to the progress of some first nations. Much more needs to be done, but if we look at the situation in Fort McKay, it is very telling and useful for all Canadians.

I first became involved with the Fort McKay First Nation when I was a treaty commissioner of the Indian Claims Commission. We travelled to Fort McKay in the early to mid-1990s. We conducted a treaty land entitlement inquiry and ascertained that the Fort McKay First Nation had never been given the land it had been promised when it signed treaty. I do not have time at this juncture to go into all the details of that. However, in the days that followed, the Indian Specific Claims Commission released a report, which I co-authored. That report resulted in a treaty land entitlement settlement. As a result of that, the Fort McKay First Nation is in a position to proceed with oil sands development on their first nation.

It is with pleasure that we now are moving toward legislation that would allow the Fort McKay First Nation, the Tsuu T'ina, Carry the Kettle, the Squamish First Nation and the Fort William First Nation to proceed with comprehensive economic development in their communities. The stumbling block to this development has been the Indian Act. The Indian Act was a compilation of pre-confederation statutes. It is at this point close to 150 years old. There is no way the Indian Act provides a sound basis for industrial development of this complexity and the Conservative Party has been very clear. I will just quote from our policy framework. It states:

The Indian Act (and related legislation) should be replaced by a modern legislative framework which provides for the devolution of full legal and democratic responsibility to First Nations...within the overall constitutional framework of our federal state.

This is precisely the type of legislation that our party has been supporting on a philosophical basis. The legislation provides full control of their own legal and democratic decision making authority to those first nations that determine they wish to opt into the legislation, and the legislation is optional, in a manner which indicates considerable prudence and wisdom, once again using the situation of Fort McKay.

It is clearly incomprehensible that we would attempt to develop federal legislation and regulations dealing with environmental and reclamation issues, air and water quality, all the panoply of issues that involve the development of oils sands, when that framework already exists. It exists in law in the province of Alberta. Very comprehensive legislation has been developed to permit oil sands development. In the case of Squamish, we are dealing with port development, as well as in the case of Fort William. In the case of the Tsuu T'ina First Nation, we are dealing with very comprehensive commercial real estate development, et cetera.

The legislation allows Canadians to opt in to the existing well developed provincial legislative framework to regulate that industrial activity. Presumably, it is possible to opt out as well. It will require, under the legislation, the consent of the first nation itself. It has to originate with the first nation and it is its decision. It requires consent of the province and of the minister as well.

I think one can see how this will permit economic development to proceed immediately and it will eliminate the need to develop an entire duplicative regulatory regime for much of this development.

Congratulations to the first nations. The legislation is well thought out and developed. It has been carefully crafted. It is certainly in a position where it can clear the House very quickly.

The legislation enjoys wide support. It was made clear at our committee that both the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta are supportive of the legislation. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has reviewed it and considers it to be very advantageous as well. The legislation arrives in the House, having been followed very closely and having been supported by first nations. The Assembly of First Nations, as I understand it, has indicated its general support as well.

The regulations that would be developed under the legislation would be site specific. They would follow upon the framework of the legislation. One question that needs to be addressed is the whole issue of federal liability in this context. The legislation deals with that. The federal crown is not responsible once the provincial regulatory regime comes into place. The decisions made under that regulatory regime do not increase any federal legal responsibility.

In a general sense, I would point out that this is excellent legislation. It will permit first nations that opt in to it to move ahead very quickly with commercial and economic development. There are those who are critical of it. To be sure, it does not solve all of the issues that we face in this nation relating to self-government. There are many first nation communities for which this legislation will not be advantageous. We have to continue to move forward developing economic and social opportunities and social justice for those first nations as well. This is a start.

For those first nations to which this applies, it is very important legislation and warrants the support of the House. It will contribute to regulatory certainty, economic development and most important, it will encourage significant investment on these first nations.

The legislation has been developed in close consultation with first nations. That is a first precondition insofar as the Conservative Party is concerned. Self-government legislation, whether it is sectoral or otherwise, cannot be developed in isolation by the federal government. Consultation is required. Second, this legislation will have an immediate positive economic impact on the first nations that wish to see it developed. Third, philosophically, the legislation is extremely important to where we are headed in the country. It is important that first nations have the opportunity to assume control of their own lives and to lead the country in a positive direction.

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the commitment the hon. member has shown to aboriginal issues, along with several other members of his party. It perhaps is an area where there is some commonality of interest in this House among everyone other than the government.

The hon. member is right. A very important first ministers meeting has been scheduled for the end of this month to address what I consider to be the most difficult social justice issue facing our nation and that is the question of aboriginal poverty. However there is unanimity among all the opposition parties for that meeting to proceed. Nothing in this resolution that has been put forward would, in any way, imperil the first ministers meeting. I intend to be at that meeting and I know the leader of the NDP intends to be there. Members on both sides of the House will be there. There is no reason for that meeting not to proceed nor is there a reason for it not to be productive. Aboriginal Canadians have waited a generation for this meeting.

As my hon. friend says, for the government to hold aboriginal Canadians, who have lived in poverty for the entire duration of the Liberal government, which is almost 13 years at this point, hostage and suggest that it will not be able to proceed with this meeting because of this resolution is absolute nonsense.

It is beneath contempt for the government to be suggesting that is the reason this motion should not be proceeded with and that Canadians should not have a chance to elect a new government.

The election of a new Conservative government will spell for aboriginal Canadians, for the first time in a generation, the first time in the lives of many young aboriginal people, a government that will deal with them honestly. It will be a Conservative government based on its history of conservatism, a Conservative Party that granted the vote to aboriginal Canadians and a Conservative Party that has defined modern aboriginal policy. Aboriginal people will be treated with respect, with dignity and with honesty. For aboriginal Canadians that will be a new experience.

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a pretzel I am not. The motion calls for and confirms the opinion of the House. My friend says that it should be defeated by reason of its novelty. I would disagree with that. It is clearly a compromise motion that brings forward the majority opinion of the House that the government does not have confidence and it specifies an election date that is in the best interest of our community. Nothing could more rational than that.

My friend acknowledged the importance of Blackstone who is one of the great parliamentary legal scholars. The part to which I am about to refer was written some 231 years ago, shortly before the establishment of the very first democracy in British North America in 1758 in Nova Scotia. I think the logic of what was said at that time applies to this very day because what we are talking about here is not legality. We are not talking about detailed rules and procedures. We are talking about the concept of respect among the different orders of government, the executive branch and the legislative branch. We are talking about the constitutional traditions that keep our government system strong which are being abrogated as we speak by a government that does not have the confidence of the House.

Blackstone stated:

Thus every branch of our civil policy supports and is supported, regulates and is regulated, by the rest; for the two houses naturally drawing in two directions of opposite interest, and the prerogative in another still different from them both, they mutually keep each other from exceeding their proper limits--

--which is what the government is doing, exceeding its proper limits.

--while the whole is prevented from separation, and artificially connected together by the mixed nature of the crown, which is a part of the legislative, and the sole executive magistrate. Like three distinct powers in mechanics, they jointly impel the machine of government in a direction different from what either, acting by themselves, would have done; but at the same time in a direction partaking of each, and formed out of all; a direction which constitutes the true line of the liberty and happiness of the community.

Some of that language is difficult to understand but at the end of the day the language speaks to the fact that the liberty and happiness of our system of government only works if there is respect by the executive branch for this Parliament, and that is what we do not see from the Liberals.

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I begin with repetition of the motion which is before the House that was put forward by the New Democratic Party leader. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, during the week of January 2, 2006, the Prime Minister should ask her Excellency the Governor General of Canada to dissolve the 38th Parliament and to set the date for the 39th general election for Monday, February 13, 2006; and

That the Speaker transmit this resolution to Her Excellency the Governor General.

I wish to make it clear at the outset, that the preference of our party since mid-April has been that the government does not have the confidence of the House, on account of the corruption we have seen from the Liberal Party and the Liberal government of the day. I refer in particular to one passage from Justice Gomery's report in the summary wherein he said:

The LPCQ as an institution cannot escape responsibility for the misconduct of its officers and representatives. Two successive Executive Directors were directly involved in illegal campaign financing, and many of its workers accepted cash payments for their services when they should have known that such payments were in violation of the Canada Elections Act.

I will return to that report.

The corruption and illegality we have seen from the government caused the Conservative Party to lose confidence in the government some time ago. We have demanded an election since that time and we continue to do so.

The compromise motion put forward by the New Democratic Party is being supported by the majority of the members of the House, and certainly by the Conservative Party. It is a compromise motion because the government has been unable to even face up to the prospects of non-confidence motions until this time. The Liberals have carefully gerrymandered the democratic schedule of the House to avoid dealing with the reality that they do not have confidence of the House of Commons.

This takes us to the culture of entitlement, the arrogance shown by the Liberal government, a government which feels it is so entitled to its entitlements. In the face of democratic tradition and the clear fact that the Liberals do not have the confidence of any of the opposition parties in the House, they cling to power tenaciously, showing complete disrespect for the House of Commons and for the people who elected us to this chamber.

I will reflect upon where this leaves us as Canadians. I will return to the whole concept of where the government is in terms of its culture of entitlement. It has been clear, since the inception of parliamentary government going back to the Magna Carta of King John, the original Charter of the Forest in 1215, that the government of the country and of our English forefathers must have the confidence of the House of Commons. Absent the confidence of the House of Commons, there is no right to govern and the government is illegitimate.

That has been the case in the English-Canadian tradition of Parliament since 1264. It has certainly been the case in Canada since 1841, when in the riding that the Speaker himself represents, Kingston, the first united Parliament of Upper and Lower Canada met. Since then, there has never been a government that has shown the degree of contempt for Parliament that the current government has.

From time to time people mention that Canada is a young country, and perhaps it is. However, we are an ancient parliamentary democracy. The first legislative assembly was established in our country in 1758, some 227 years ago. Since that time, we have had a balance in the country where there has been respect for Parliament and for the legislative assemblies of Canada. Only that Liberal government has abrogated that respect with the degree of contempt that we have seen by the Liberals.

Frankly, this matter did not have to reach the House of Commons and get to this extent. The compromise motion could have been resolved outside of any confidence motion. It could have been resolved simply through an agreement on the part of the Prime Minister, acting in concert with the leaders of the opposition parties. The leaders of the opposition parties have offered a compromise and have made it clear that the government does not have the confidence of the House of Commons and accordingly an election should be called, and they have put forward a suitable date.

Quite apart from the confidence convention to which I will speak, it would have been very easy for the Prime Minister to have agreed to that resolution. It would have been very easy for the Prime Minister to have avoided a Christmas election. The only reason this is before the House is because the Liberal government is disrespectful of everyone else in this chamber and disrespectful of the Canadians who have sent us here. The Liberals are trying to force an election over Christmas upon the people of Canada.

Liberals have taunted and cajoled the opposition parties today saying that confidence is indivisible and if we do not have confidence in the government, vote it down and they will have an election at Christmas. On those taunts, there will come a day when they will have to face the reality of that. There will come a day very shortly when they will have to face a clear confidence motion. The Liberals will have no choice but to get out from behind their barricades, acknowledge and face up to their filth and corruption and deal with the Canadian electorate.

More than anything else I am struck by the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister and the government. This is the democratic deficit Prime Minister. This is the Prime Minister who promised to respect the House of Commons.

Let me take this House back to the throne speech of 2004. These are the words of this government:

The path to achievement begins with making sure that Canadians believe their government, so that they can believe in government....

We must re-engage citizens in Canada’s political life. And this has to begin in the place where it should mean the most--in Parliament--by making Parliament work better. That means reconnecting citizens with their Members of Parliament....

The Government of Canada is determined to return Parliament to the centre of national debate and decision making and to restore the public’s faith and trust in the integrity and good management of government. To that end, it will, as a first step, immediately table in Parliament an action plan for democratic reform.

Those are the words of the government about Parliament. It has not done any of it. The Liberals do not respect Parliament. How can one believe a government in its throne speech could offer to restore Parliament to the centre of the national democracy, yet when confronted with a clear motion from three opposition parties in the House of Commons that they do not have confidence in this government and they want to see an election, the government turns its face on that and its own throne speech? The hypocrisy, the cunning, the self-treachery of all this is unbelievable.

The throne speech further states:

Significantly enhancing the role of all MPs will make Parliament what it was intended to be--a place where Canadians can see and hear their views debated and their interests heard. In short, a place where they can have an influence on the policies that affect their lives.

This is hypocrisy. Imagine the government promising to restore this chamber to the centre of our democracy, yet refusing to accept this motion and refusing to move to an election on a schedule that has been put forward by the opposition parties, in fact by a majority of the House of Commons.

The hypocrisy that I speak of, the false piety, does not stop there. There was a message from the Prime Minister himself. There was an ethics responsibility-accountability document filed by the government with a message from the Prime Minister dated February 4, 2004. At that time this Prime Minister said:

Parliament should be the centre of national debate on policy. For this to happen, we must reconnect Parliament to Canadians...

He believed in that, until it came time for his government to invoke closure on Bill C-48. Suddenly, Parliament would no longer be connected to Canadians. There would no longer be a national debate. There would be closure and contempt for Parliament. He did not believe that when the Liberals rammed through Bill C-48, the budget bill.

The Prime Minister and the government believe in nothing more than truncating the democratic process in the House when it suits their convenience and when they can hang on to office at all costs. At the end of the day, this is all that matters to the Liberal government.

In the face of the filth and corruption of the Gomery report, which ties the Liberals directly to criminal conduct and the misuse and abuse of taxpayers dollars, they still refuse to acknowledge the democratic choice of Canadians in the House of Commons and they refuse to be accountable to Canadians at the polls.

I will carry on with the Prime Minister's letter of February 4, 2004. He states:

Democratic reform affects all parties and all Canadians. I ask the leaders of the other parties for their support in implementing this action plan so that Parliamentarians and Canadians can be reconnected to the democratic process.

The Prime Minister of Canada asked the opposition parties for their support to restore democracy in the House of Commons. Yet we have before the House today a very simple motion that reflects the wishes and the clear desires of all opposition parties in the House. We have the opposition leaders asking in return that the Prime Minister might respect the House of Commons and the silence is deafening in the House.

The low cunning of the government, the deceitfulness, the guile and the falseness of the Liberals is remarkable. They will not face Canadians because they know what they are in for when the time comes.

It was not just the Prime Minister. There was a message from the leader of the government in the House. He had this to say on February 4, 2004, “we must restore Parliamentarians' role in generating authentic, thoughtful, and constructive debate”. Except the Liberals do not want debate when it comes time to determine whether we should have an election and when that election should take place.

That letter of February 4, 2004 concluded as follows:

That is why I invite all my fellow Parliamentarians, as well as citizens from across the country, to share their ideas and inspire me with their experiences. We need to work together to ensure that democratic reform succeeds.

I, for one, am not inspired. I am not being allowed to represent the views of my constituents. Their view is that we should move forward with an election on the timetable that has been put forward by the leader of the New Democratic Party as a compromise to get this issue before Canadians.

It is very clear why we need an election. I would turn to the Gomery report and the stunning indictment that report contains of the government, the major findings of the Gomery report. Why is it that the Liberal government does not enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons? It is very clear, and it can be found by all Canadians at pages 5, 6 and 7 of the summary volume of the Gomery report.

The commission of inquiry found, first, clear evidence of political involvement in the administration of the sponsorship program.

Second, it found insufficient oversight at very senior levels of the public service, which allowed program managers to circumvent proper contracting procedures and reporting lines.

Third, it found a veil of secrecy that surrounded the administration of the sponsorship program and an absence of transparency in a contracting process.

Fourth, it found a reluctance for fear of reprisal by virtually all public servants to go against the will of a manager who was circumventing established policies and who had access to senior political officials.

Fifth, it found gross overcharging by communications agencies for hours worked and goods and services provided, inflated commissions, production costs and other expenses charged by communications agencies and their subcontractors, many of which were related businesses; the use of the sponsorship program for purposes other than national unity or federal visibility because of a lack of objectives, a lack of criteria and guidelines for the program; and, very seriously, deliberate action to avoid compliance with federal legislation and policies, including the Canada Elections Act, the Lobbyist Registration Act, the Access to Information Act, the Financial Administration Act as well as federal contracting policy and the Treasury Board transfer payments policy.

Sure to figure prominently in the coming election as well is the complex web of financial transactions within Public Works and Government Services Canada involving kickbacks and illegal contributions to a political party in the context of the sponsorship program. Sadly, that political party is the Liberal Party of Canada, the government of the day, a government that professes its faith for democratic renewal in the House of Commons and yet, in the face of findings of criminal conduct, cannot understand how it does not enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons and is prepared, through guile and treachery, to hang on as long as it possibly can before surrendering to democracy.

Justice Gomery spoke of the existence of a culture of entitlement among political officials and bureaucrats involved with the sponsorship program, including the receipt of both monetary and non-monetary benefits, and the refusal at the end of the day of senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office and public servants to acknowledge their responsibility for the problems of mismanagement that occurred. That is a stunning indictment.

The reason the corrupt, arrogant, deceitful Liberal government does not have the confidence of the House of Commons, the reason the leader of the New Democratic Party put this motion forward and the reason it enjoys the support of the majority of the House of Commons is that we do not have confidence in people who steal public money. We do not have confidence in people who are engaged in kickbacks of public money to their political party. The Liberals should not be running this country. They are not worthy of this country.The sooner we have an election so they will face the wrath of the Canadian voters the better our nation will be.

I must say, as a reasonably new parliamentarian, that what I find most disturbing about the refusal of the government to accept the democratic will of the House of Commons is that it flies in the face of our entire democratic history. It flies in the face of the rule of law. It flies in the face of the understanding that we have in this democracy. Our Constitution is not entirely confined to paper. It exists in tradition and in the respect that we have to show one another.

I will take everyone back to something that was written hundreds of years ago by Blackstone when he said:

It is highly necessary for preserving the balance of the constitution, that the executive power should be a branch, though not the whole, of the legislature.

He further stated at page 150:

--this very executive power is again checked, and kept within due bounds by the two houses, through the privilege...

What I am getting at is that what we see from the Liberal government is a focus upon narrow legalism and upon a strict interpretation of what is or is not a confidence motion. We see none of the respect that we need to have a system of democracy that is functioning and flourishing.

The executive branch cannot treat the House of Commons with the degree of contempt, guile and treachery that we have seen from the Liberal government since the day that I took office in this chamber as a member of Parliament. It has to stop and it will stop when we get the government to recognize that it does not have the confidence of the House of Commons and we need to go to the polls where Canadian citizens, one by one, will have a chance to throw the filth and corruption of Liberal treachery out of office.

[Keeseekoose First Nation, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let us return to the stolen education moneys of the Keeseekoose First Nation.

The minister has led the House to believe that these financial irregularities, to use his term, are the sole responsibility of the first nation and the RCMP. In fact, the band is in departmental co-management, and believe it or not, the theft of the money took place while his department paid $2 million to the accountants.

Could the minister confirm that over $600,000 was stolen from the children's education fund right from underneath his accountant's and department's noses?

[Keeseekoose First Nation, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the chief at the time of the theft was the Liberal candidate, but in fairness, I am not surprised that the minister is confused. It is difficult for all Canadians to actually keep a clear picture of which Liberals are under RCMP investigation and which are not, which have been convicted and which have not, and which have been banned from the party for life and which have not.

Would the government consider establishing a sort of Liberal offender registry, a criminal registry that the public could consult from time to time and which the minister could use?

[Keeseekoose First Nation, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was questioned about the Keeseekoose education trust account of $600,000, which has now been stolen. At the time, he said that the allegations were ridiculous. By Tuesday, according to the minister, those ridiculous allegations had become serious financial irregularities with the RCMP involved and, in addition, criminal charges being laid. The minister is having some difficulty getting his story straight.

We know that his department has audit documents about the theft. He is refusing to produce them. Is he trying to protect the former chief, the former Liberal candidate?