A particularly nasty issue is being dealt with by the new Stephen Harper government in a way that is generating positive reviews:
Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice outlined the clean water plan for native reserves today, saying residents of First Nations communities should feel as safe about their drinking water as all Canadians.
"It is unacceptable that many First Nations communities across Canada continue to face ongoing risk to the safety of their drinking water," Prentice told a news conference in Ottawa.
The government has a five-point plan for improving water standards on native reserves, and said work would begin right away in 21 communities identified as most at risk for waterborne health hazards.
Under the long-term plan, natives will be in charge of making sure reserves live up to federal standards for design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of drinking water.
The plan to pass on the responsibility to the people (in this case, the First Nations people) is consistent with small-c conservatism. To deal with it now is consistent with the priorities of the Assembly of First Nations:
According to Prentice, the problem with drinking water on reserves is not money. It has to do with accountability and standards, he said.
Head of the Assembly of First Nations Chief Phil Fontaine, who was at the announcement, praised Prentice's move.
"I applaud the decision taken by the minister to address these communities immediately. They are in crisis and their situation requires an immediate response," Fontaine said, appearing on CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live.
Fontaine said he worked closely with the minister on the clean water plan.
"It's been very much a collaborative approach, and this approach began soon after he was sworn in as minister of Indian Affairs," he said.
But here is another thing to consider. During the election, Phil Fontaine threw his support behind the Paul Martin Liberals:
National Chief Phil Fontaine said early in the campaign that voting for the Liberals or NDP, not the Conservatives, would be best for aboriginal Canadians. He said the assembly would not be making a formal endorsement, however. On Jan. 17, Fontaine held another news conference to express concern about the fate of two recent funding agreements if Stephen Harper's Conservative team formed the government.
It looks like those concerns were heard if Phil Fontaine was able to sit down with Jim Prentice so soon, and immediately come away with an announcement on this important issue.
Yet another concern of the AFN was some confusion in the ranks of the Conservatives during the election:
Finally, First Nations across Canada need to use every opportunity available to compare, flesh-out and challenge Conservative Party candidates to clarify their platform on First Nations (and “Aboriginal”) issues. Where inconsistencies appear (e.g., Monte Solberg), these need to be made public in an effort to get Harper to go on record with a clarification.
The reference was to Monte Solberg's comments on January 10, 2006:
Aboriginal groups are bristling over the Conservative finance critic's statement that the Tories would ignore a $5.2-billion deal to improve housing and health care for native communities.
In an interview with a Saskatchewan radio station, Monte Solberg said a Conservative government would not live up to the agreement, reached in November.
"(The) Kelowna agreement is something that (the Liberals) crafted at the last moment on the back of a napkin on the eve of an election,'' Solberg told radio station CJWW on Monday.
"We're not going to honour that. We will have our own plan that will help natives a lot more than the Liberals' .''
Of course, there was the damage control:
However, the party's Indian Affairs critic, Jim Prentice, tried to draw a fine line between supporting the objectives of the agreement and how it should be paid for.
"We support the targets and objectives that were defined in Kelowna,'' Prentice told The Canadian Press.
"The five- and 10-year plans that were talked about at Kelowna are the way to go.''
What Prentice has an issue with is the notion that $5.2 billion will be spent without determining how the money will be distributed.
"The issue surrounds the ambiguity on the finance plan,'' he said.
And the obligatory reference to the hidden agenda:
Solberg's statements are indicative of the real nature of the Conservative party's policy ideas, said Indian Affairs Minister Andy Scott.
"It does reveal the true intent behind the Conservatives on aboriginal issues,'' he said.
"What other hidden agenda items are we going to find out about?''
Well, now that the "hidden agenda" has been revealed, Phil Fontaine seems to be pleased.
But besides using this as an opportunity to poke fun at Andy Scott, the whole episode brings into focus the issue of all ministerial statements being vetted by the Prime Minister's Office.
Some people have used this as an opportunity to allege that Stephen Harper is worried about the hidden agenda leaking out, or that he is a control freak, that this is somehow an abrogation of free speech or of democracy, or that the Liberals were right when they suggested Canada would become a police state.
Of course, it is none of these things. As Warren Kinsella pointed out, this is standard operating procedure, and he knows as much about the workings of the Prime Minister's Office as anyone in Canada:
I don't get it - what's the big deal? We did the same thing. Everyone does. As Norman Spector once said to me, all that PMO does is (a) control communications of government (b) plan cabinet shuffles and (c) plan their next trip.
I said the same thing, pointing out that centralized communications is the norm in a well-organized project.
The reason I bring this up is that during the election we saw some confusion. The confusion was a concern for the AFN, and rightfully so. Post-election the situation is much improved, showing that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are willing to learn from their mistakes. Jim Prentice did his work as minister, and presumably the PMO made sure that the announcement of the results was worded in a way that was consistent with other government objectives. And to be frank, having an extra pair of eyes look over a speech is always a good idea.
That means that for Phil Fontaine and the AFN, they can be confident that Jim Prentice is describing official government policy, policy that will not quickly altered because of a lack of clarity.
A good minister, a good plan, and a good announcement -- sounds good to me.
