Debates of Dec. 12th, 1994

Immigration Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deffered.

The next question is on Motion No. 22.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

moved:

Motion No. 24

That clause 20 Bill C-44 be amended by striking out lines 1 to 14 on page 16 and substituting the following:

1994, c.26, s. 35(F)

"20. Section 105 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Where person in institution

1. (1) Notwithstanding the Corrections and Conditional Release Act , the Prisons and Reformatories Act or any Act of a provincial legislature; where a warrant has been issued or an order has been made pursuant to subsection 103(1) or (3) with respect to any person who is incarcerated in any place of confinement pursuant to the order of any court or other body, the Deputy Minister may issue an order to the person in charge of the place directing that

(a) the person continue to be detained until the expiration of the sentence to which the person is subject or until the expiration of the sentence or term of confinement as reduced by the operation of any statute or other law or by an act of clemency; and

(b) the person be delivered, at the expiration of the sentence or term of confinement referred to in paragraph (a), to an immigration officer to be taken into custody.

Temporary absences

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit the authority of any person, pursuant to any Act referred to in that subsection, to grant an escorted temporary absence pursuant to any of those Acts."

Madam Speaker, once again let me repeat my appreciation to both the Bloc and the Reform for having given unanimous consent to allow the government to offer this motion at report stage.

I will give a bit of background and explanation. The amendment is in reference to individuals serving time in our federal penitentiaries who are deportable, removable from our country upon completion of their time in prison.

Currently for whatever reason the individuals are considered for day parole or unescorted temporary absences. It was my feeling and that of my officials that somehow it lacks a great deal of common sense. If we think about the situation of individuals who will be deported upon completion of their sentences, why would we want to try to reintegrate them into Canadian society if they will be deported?

The reason I introduced it as an amendment at report stage is that when we came up with the proposal I obviously had to get approval from the departments of justice and solicitor general. While I was doing that Bill C-44 was introduced. Subsequent to my seeking approval both the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General concurred that the amendment would make a great deal of sense. It is something I hope members on all sides can concur in.

Essentially we are speaking to individuals who will be deported because of the seriousness of their crime upon completion of their time in prison. Therefore this amendment would not permit such individuals to be considered for either day parole or unescorted temporary absences.

Not only does that speak to the fact that there is not going to be a need for integration into the Canadian community because of their deportations. It also limits the possibilities that upon day parole or unescorted release into the community even for a few hours those individuals may go underground or escape our authorities or officials of the Department of the Solicitor General. Consequently because of their past criminal acts they may be a danger to the general public.

Perhaps this bridges the gap between the Immigration Act, the Criminal Code and Solicitor General regulations. It is well intentioned and speaks to our regulations having the common sense they ought to have. I look forward to having the support of members of the House.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, this amendment was introduced at noon today. We did not have time to examine it in depth but we agree to this amendment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

(Motion No. 24 agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I ask that the divisions be deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the government whip to defer the divisions until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the divisions stand deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

Pictou Landing Indian Agreement Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, for Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-60, an act respecting an agreement between Her Majesty in right of Canada and the Pictou Landing Indian Band, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]

Madam Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-60, the Pictou Landing Indian Band Agreement Act. The legislation is being introduced at this time to fulfil the commitments the Government of Canada has made to the Pictou Landing Micmac of Nova Scotia. This legislation will further reduce the potential for any new legal action related to the Boat Harbour issue against the Government of Canada.

Hon. members have seen for themselves that this is not a lengthy or a complex bill. Nevertheless Bill C-60 is important to more than 400 Pictou Landing Micmac and it deserves the consideration and support of hon. members on both sides of the House.

By way of background I would like to briefly outline the history behind the Pictou Landing settlement agreement so that my hon. colleagues can make an informed and responsible decision on Bill C-60.

In the mid-1960s the province of Nova Scotia entered into an agreement with Scott Maritimes Limited to open a pulp and paper mill at Abercrombie Point in Pictou Harbour. As part of that arrangement the province accepted responsibility for treating and disposing of the effluent generated by the mill.

The nearby Boat Harbour tidal estuary was chosen as the most economical site for the effluent treatment facility. All the land around Boat Harbour was expropriated by the Government of Nova Scotia with the exception of reserve lands belonging to the Pictou Landing Micmac.

Rather than expropriate these reserve lands, the provincial government acquired the First Nation's riparian rights through negotiations with the First Nation. It is worth noting that the First Nation was not enthusiastic about the project and the use of Boat Harbour as a holding pond and conduit for pulp mill effluent. It agreed only after intense lobbying by Nova Scotia officials.

After acquiring the First Nation's riparian rights, the province blocked the entrance of the estuary to create a 162-hectare lagoon. This included some 12 hectares of reserve lands that were flooded and lost to the First Nation.

At that time the province paid the Pictou Landing Micmac $60,000 to compensate for the permanent loss of fishing and hunting revenue and other benefits derived from the First Nations' use of Boat Harbour.

Unfortunately, environmental problems began to arise almost immediately after the treatment facility opened. Despite repeated requests by the First Nation, action taken by the province did not effectively correct the problems.

In 1982 the Pictou Landing Micmac submitted a specific claim to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Four years later due to limited progress in negotiating the claim the First Nation filed suit against the Government of Canada for breach of fiduciary duty.

The government pursued an out of court settlement with the Pictou Landing Micmac. Through extensive consultation and co-operation, a fair and equitable settlement was reached. In a community wide referendum in July 1993, members of the First Nation voted 141 to 25 in favour of the agreement.

This agreement is a $35 million settlement which includes a $20 million compensation package. It breaks down as follows: $8 million were earmarked to be distributed among the members of the First Nation for individual compensation. Much of this

money has already been paid out; $9.725 million were placed in a continuing compensation fund to address special claims by members of the First Nation related to the Boat Harbour environmental problems; $2.275 million were allocated to support projects that will benefit the First Nation, including the building of a multi-purpose recreational centre and the establishment of a Pictou Landing economic development promotional package. These moneys are intended to compensate the members of the First Nation for general impacts associated with the Boat Harbour facility.

The remaining $15 million in the settlement has been directed into a community development trust fund that will enable members of the First Nation to relocate if necessary. This fund is being administered by the First Nation itself and will ensure that the First Nation and its members will be able to protect themselves from any future health effects from Boat Harbour.

The agreement also provides for programs to monitor the environmental and health effects of the Boat Harbour system. The First Nation is one of the main participants in the establishment and the ongoing implementation of these monitoring programs. In addition, although not a condition of the settlement, the federal government undertook to explore ways which might yield a solution to the environmental problem with respect to Boat Harbour.

Hon. members should be aware that this settlement agreement is self-implementing. In other words it does not require legislation to come into force.

I am pleased to inform the House that implementation of the agreement has been proceeding well. Most of the settlement funds have been transferred to the First Nation, giving it the means to develop and administer programs to improve conditions on reserve.

Although this agreement is self-implementing, at the request of the Pictou Landing Micmac, the government made a commitment to confirm two of the agreement's provisions through legislation. That is the purpose of Bill C-60.

Specifically, legislation is required to confirm that the settlement agreement is the sole source of compensation for claims related to Boat Harbour. This legislation ensures that any claims of members of the First Nation beyond those already settled by the payments to individuals can only be made against the $9.725 million continuing compensation fund. This is very important because it ensures that the settlement amount of $35 million is the full amount the federal government will pay related to the Boat Harbour claim.

In addition to releasing the Government of Canada from further claims by members of the First Nation, Bill C-60 also protects the First Nation against such claims by specifying that any such claims are to be directed to the compensation fund.

The second thing Bill C-60 will do is ensure that settlement funds are not Indian moneys as defined by the Indian Act. This again is important because it confirms that the First Nation and not the federal government has control of and responsibility for the moneys once they have been transferred. Trust funds managed by the Pictou Landing Micmac are currently holding those compensation dollars that have not been paid to individuals.

This provision of Bill C-60 actually accomplishes two goals. First, it meets the government's commitment to give the First Nation complete control over the settlement moneys as intended by the settlement agreement. At the same time it reduces the administrative responsibilities of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I want to assure hon. members that this legislation imposes no new responsibilities on the Government of Canada. It simply confirms and formalizes some elements of an agreement signed in July of 1993 that is already being implemented.

I also want to assure the House that Bill C-60 will have no impact with respect to the correction of environmental problems at Boat Harbour. The federal government continues to work actively with other parties and in particular the province of Nova Scotia and the First Nation to facilitate a solution to these problems.

As hon. members are no doubt aware the government is currently participating in discussions with Scott Maritimes Limited, the province of Nova Scotia, the Pictou Landing Micmac and other interested parties to identify possible solutions to the environmental problems at Boat Harbour. I am optimistic that this will lead to the development of an effective rehabilitation strategy.

Bill C-60 is essentially an administrative bill that fulfils two specific commitments requested by the First Nation and agreed to by the Government of Canada in the Pictou Landing settlement agreement of July 1993. As I mentioned at the outset it is not a complex or far reaching act. Nevertheless, hon. members should recognize that failure to proceed with the bill could impose obligations on the government down the road.

For example, without Bill C-60, the Government of Canada might be open to claims over and above the $35 million settlement figure. There will be no legally certain basis to prevent members of the First Nation from seeking additional compensation in the future.

Our failure to proceed with Bill C-60 might also mean that the First Nation could be liable for payments beyond the amounts it has received in the settlement. This would impose an unnecessary and perhaps unmanageable hardship on it.

Finally, if Bill C-60 does not become law, the government could ultimately become responsible for managing the settlement funds on behalf of the Pictou Landing Micmac. This would create a needless administrative burden and could lead to additional legal problems. It would also likely sour relations with the Pictou Landing Micmac as it would go against the spirit of the Boat Harbour final agreement and their desire to manage their own affairs.

For these reasons alone I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-60. I would remind them of the fundamental need for government to fulfil its outstanding commitments to First Nations, including the commitment to legislate these provisions of the Boat Harbour final agreement.

Hon. members are well aware of the government's intention to build a new partnership with aboriginal peoples based on trust, mutual respect and participation in decision making processes. Living up to our commitments is critical to the process of building a new relationship with aboriginal people that will take us into the next century. The House can contribute to that process by supporting this legislation.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of my party. I will tell you at the outset, however, that I am not about to congratulate the government. As far as advance notice of this bill is concerned, although I was told last Friday that the bill would not come before the House this session, I learned this morning on returning from my riding that it is on today's Order Paper.

I deplored this practice before when the Yukon bills were considered. I was very surprised to find a one foot thick pile of documents on my desk the day before second reading. I had to spend the whole night reading all these documents to try to prepare something acceptable for the next day.

As for advance notice, although this is the end of the session, the government should show some understanding, especially since these are far-reaching bills which we are often unable to discuss and criticize for lack of time. As I was saying earlier, I am not about to congratulate the government on the subject of advance notice.

I have no congratulations to offer either on the fact that this bill, like other bills affecting Natives, constantly refers to an agreement. The bill before us today is quite simple, as it contains only four clauses. There are short definitions and a significant clause 4, which is the heart of the bill. Naturally, clause 4 refers to an agreement that is not provided to us.

Again, our ability to comment is rather limited. It is difficult to make positive and constructive comments on an agreement that you have never seen. When we realized that the four clauses of this bill referred to a specific agreement, we had to move heaven and earth to put our hands on it. We finally got a copy of the agreement on Friday afternoon.

Having been told that Bill C-60 was not on the legislative menu, we did not set out to examine it immediately. So, we all had to scramble this morning. Again, I tell you, it is quite difficult to come up with constructive criticism when you have had just a few hours to go through an agreement 20 or so pages long and weigh the merits of it all.

I will nevertheless give you an overview of the historical development of the agreement underlying this bill. In 1986, the Pictou Landing band was on the verge of taking legal action against the federal crown. This action was predicated on the fact that, in 1965, an effluent treatment system had been built in Boat Harbour, Nova Scotia. Of course, it had been built on Indian land and authorities had simply forgotten to advise the Indians that there was going to be some building on their land. That is pretty well how things were done back in those days. As you can see, the native issues were far back in the government's priorities.

So, after repeated attempts to negotiate made over several years, the Indians finally said: "Negotiations are required. If the government refuses to negotiate, we will take legal action", which they did in 1986.

In 1992, the government was facing prosecution. It figured it would give negotiations a try. It then instructed its negotiators to meet with the band to consider the possibility of an out of court settlement. This settlement was reached out of court. To have it adopted democratically, it was put to a referendum in July 1993: 141 of 260 voted on the agreement, so they had a participation rate of roughly 60 per cent on the decision concerning the agreement as such. Of the 166 members who voted, 141 were in favour and 25 against.

Those opposed were motivated mainly by the high level of pollution on their reserve. I will come back to that shortly because we think that is the problem and it is the type of project which we can agree to refer to the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, but there will certainly be many questions raised in that committee because I think that the environmental aspect gets very short shrift. We will have to see, with the First Nations, exactly what the settlement means, especially for the environment.

Of course, the agreement was signed following the referendum on July 20, 1993. Basically, the agreement relieves the Canadian government of any liability for past, present and

future effects of the treatment system. The government says that it will escape any liability by paying them $35 million.

My colleague just mentioned that these $35 million would not be subject to the Indian Act. So the native people, the Pictou Landing Indian Band, will be able to control the $35 million themselves. I think it is important to specify that this amount will be divided roughly in two. There is a $20-million compensation account for the band and the members, recognizing that their environment was damaged. The remaining $15 million will go into a compensation account if the band ever decides to move.

We are at the point where we say: We know that your environment is very polluted, so polluted in fact that we are putting $15 million at your disposal to move. Moving might be a solution, but what will happen to the costs and also to the environment which was polluted for years and which will probably remain in that state?

As I just mentioned, the government offered the possibility of avoiding future effects and risks. The amount of $15 million will be used to move people to adjacent lands and let the company, Scott, continue what it has been doing for nearly 30 years, that is to pollute the environment.

Issues of employment and pollution are also involved, to which I will come back later. When you read the bill, and particularly the agreement, it is obvious that the government wants to discharge itself of any responsibility. In fact, this is the basis of the agreement and of this bill designed to solve the problem for good, at least according to the government's vision and definitions.

In chapters 8 and 9 of the agreement, Canada agrees to look at ways to find solutions to environmental problems. What does that mean? It means that the government is committed to looking at solutions. The government is not saying that it will solve the issue, only that it will look at solutions. The federal government also pledges to take any reasonable action to fight harmful effects, but it does not have any future responsibility. This sounds wishful thinking, while the danger to the environment remains ever present.

As I mentioned earlier, the agreement also includes waivers. These illustrate the contradictions of the legislation before us. Indeed, we are told that this issue which concerns a First Nation is settled by handing out money, but the government does not care about what happens to the environment. This is significant when you read the following excerpt:

The Pictou Landing Micmac and members of the Pictou Landing Micmac who receive amounts from the proceeds of the settlement, including amounts arising from the trust fund, hereby waive any present or future cause of action against Canada based on flooding, breaches of property rights or nuisances arising from activities including the construction, operating, repairing, maintenance or cleaning of the Boat Harbour effluent treatment system or on any failure to meet related fiduciary, legal or other obligations.

There is a particular risk involved, and I am referring to this release from fiduciary responsibility. It may create a precedent, because the government must realize in certain cases in Canada, it has a fiduciary relationship with the First Nations. So if the First Nations are involved in litigation, they can say to the federal government: you are our fiduciary, so you have to defend us.

Though the government does not say so in so many words, it may be very tempting to consider that although there are major problems in a number of first nations and it has a fiduciary responsibility, that does not matter because in a few years, in this case 30 years, the federal government or the Crown will deal with that by giving substantial amounts of money, and the rest will be history.

This is not the first time we have seen this happen. It was also apparent in the case of Split Lake. Is this the way to deal with the Crown's fiduciary responsibility to aboriginal peoples; to say we will pay later? We should try to deal with the problems up front and not wait 20 or 30 years and then finally decide to give $10, $15 or $20 million more to settle the matter. We are concerned about this release from fiduciary responsibility.

Now, regarding transfer. The band transfers to Canada any cause for present or future legal actions against the Scott Paper Company, which is the polluter with respect to the agreement, Scott Maritime Ltd., its executives, managers, employees, respective representatives, Nova Scotia, and any other party whose actions caused or contributed to flooding, breaches of property rights or nuisances in any way resulting from building, operating, repairing, maintaining or cleaning the effluent treatment system in Boat Harbour.

Here again, we see very clearly that the native people, who had reasons to sue, are giving up and the government is taking over. It is not sure that the government, for its part, will sue the company to have it clean up the damage done to the environment.

But furthermore the agreement covers the future. I say that the band will waive any cause for legal action based on flooding, breaches of property rights or nuisances in any way resulting from any future building activities. This is quite straightforward. It means that should the company decide to expand and pollute even more, the government says that the native people have no right to sue, since it is now its responsibility. We really wonder about the government's environmental responsabilities in this issue.

Furthermore, this agreement is littered with expressions such as "reasonably established". I will give you a few examples. In our view, this agreement is full of holes and allows the government to escape all its responsibilities. Expressions like "reason-

ably established", "reasonable", "if at all possible", "reasonable measures" lead us to conclude that the gov ernment will have the upper hand in everything. This agreement gives it all the opportunities it wants to avoid doing anything to protect the environment.

On the other hand, I understand the government's position on jobs. Indeed, this company employs people in Nova Scotia, and I know that the unemployment rate in that province is well above the Canadian average. There are huge unemployment problems there and the government is afraid to close down this company for polluting the environment. At the present time, we must assume that the government is more concerned about preserving jobs; one must wonder how much it will cost to clean up these rivers. We are told that 86,000 gallons a day are being dumped in the river.

We can speculate on the final cost of all this environmental mis-management. We are very critical of the way the bill and the agreement approach the environmental issue and the aboriginal issue.

The government is not very convincing. It promises to consider ways to solve the environmental problem and to take reasonable steps to counter any harmful effects.

The implementation of programs reasonably necessary-again, we consider that all this reasonable stuff is a smokescreen behind which the government is hiding to escape its environmental responsibilities. To escape its responsibilities, the government is hiding behind a bill and an agreement.

A committee will be set up. Canada will appoint a six-member committee to oversee the implementation of a control program. There again, this six-member committee is simply an advisory committee. Aboriginal people will be represented on the committee, but the legislation gives it absolutely no power to say things like: Here are the control measures to put in place. Here is the way we want to solve the environmental question. No, there is nothing like that in the agreement. It is an advisory committee which will recommend some procedures to the government but, in the end, the government can simply forget to implement its recommendations.

The committee does not have any power and although the First Nations will be represented, we have no guarantee that they will always have 50 per cent of the members. Nonetheless pollution has crossed their land for more than 30 years. For 30 years, the government refused to see the problem and now they give almost no control to aboriginal people. It gives them only the opportunity to move out, without dealing with the basic pollution problem.

Coming back to the bill, it has, as I said, only four clauses, the first two being the short title and a definition of the agreement and who it applies to. But the main problem rests with clause 4, because it refers to a specific chapter of the agreement, as I mentioned earlier. We were not provided with this agreement and just recently received a copy. We took a look at its scope and, like in any agreement, one section refers to another and you end up having to examine three or four sections all relating to the relevance of clause 4.

In addition, on examination, a summary one I must say, as I indicated earlier, we found that 10 per cent of those concerned did not give up their lawsuits, for the simple reason that they could not be reached.

The bill before us today concerns the entire community. Ninety per cent of the community abandoned any potential claim, but there is this 10 per cent of uncertainty. What will this 10 per cent do? Will these people decide to opt out of the agreement and legislation and say: "Look, we never withdrew our cases. We want to sue Scott. We are totally against entrusting Canada with taking action on our behalf, with the risk of being unsatisfied with the ensuing settlement?"

These are the kinds of questions we are asking ourselves at this point. The Department of Indian Affairs will certainly be questioned on this bill when it is considered by the standing committee.

Therefore, our position is a little shaky. Of course, the Natives, the Micmacs of Pictou Landing went ahead and held a referendum. We have to respect that. They held a referendum and there was an 85 per cent vote for the agreement, even though the participation rate was 60 per cent. We still have very serious questions, not on the amounts at stake- because we know deep down that these people will be able to manage the money-, but on the future of that nation if they decide to stay there. And if they decide to move, what will the government's environmental commitments be?

Will the province of Nova Scotia take over and address the environmental issue? We simply do not know, as there is nothing specific in the agreement itself. So we finally decided to support the bill for reference to the committee on aboriginal affairs, although we will certainly be back here at third reading after asking many questions at the committee stage. We will support the bill for now but with all the reservations called for.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and I must say a bit of a habit to rise today to participate in a legislative debate on a bill that is a fait accompli.

Bill C-60, the Pictou Landing Indian band agreement, is another instance where statutory authority is being sought after an agreement has been signed and where the majority of compensation has already been paid out.

This debate will remind members of Bills C-33 and C-34 as well as Bill C-55. These were the Yukon agreements. Alas, we are getting good at passing legislation on behalf of the former Indian affairs minister and his department.

The circumstances behind Bill C-60 would suggest that this is a final step in the settlement of a specific claim brought by the Pictou Landing Indian band. In recent years there has been a great many such deals. In fact, information provided by the department indicates that by 1994, 632 such claims were received, 203 of the claims were settled and the rest are either in the process of settlement or have been rejected. About 20 of these claims have led to litigation of which the Pictou claim appears to be one.

Up to the end of 1992 the federal government had contributed $169 million and the provinces $39 million to specific claims, not including treaty land entitlement settlements which are a particular and separate type of settlement claim.

Specific claims arise from the alleged non-fulfilment by government of existing treaty or other obligations or claims arising from the alleged improper administration of reserve lands by the department. Bill C-60 would appear to address this latter category in that the Pictou band claimed breach of fiduciary duty because the department failed to obtain the band's informed consent before transferring riparian rights to the province of Nova Scotia on the Boat Harbour tidal estuary, which I presume is adjacent to the Pictou band reserve.

This transfer permitted the province of Nova Scotia to use Boat Harbour as a facility to treat effluent from the kraft paper mill owned by Scott Maritimes Limited.

The Pictou band commenced a lawsuit against the department of Indian affairs but a negotiated settlement gave rise to an out of court agreement to settle. This agreement was signed by the parties on July 20 of last year. The agreement provides for $35 million in compensation. As of April of this year, some $28 million of those moneys have been paid out and the remaining $7 million will be paid out by April of 1995. Twenty million of this money is to go into a trust fund to pay out claims to the Pictou band and to band members individually. The remaining $15 million of the total is to pay for band members to relocate "should it become necessary".

Allow me to look at these payouts more specifically. The cash settlements will be divided for purposes of compensation and mitigation as follows: $2,275,000 for band compensation and developments; $15 million for community development; $8 million for individual compensation, and $9.725 million for continuing compensation for a total of $35 million. As I stated earlier, $28 million of this total has already been paid out. There are two terms of the agreement that require parliamentary approval. The first is to provide that any claims coming forward from band members beyond those settled by the settlement payments to individuals can only be made from the $9.725 million portion which is part of the $20 million individual compensation and development fund.

The second requirement requiring parliamentary approval is to make certain that the settlement moneys are not Indian moneys within the meaning of the Indian Act. One might ask why this legislation was not tabled earlier to authorize moneys paid already not to be Indian moneys under the Indian Act.

I note from the agreement that the eligible use of moneys from the band compensation and development account are intended to provide and improve individual family and community self-reliance and include the following: resource rehabilitation and development to support increased viability of traditional and commercial resource pursuits and other resource harvesting; cultural and social support and development initiatives; business, economic and employment development initiatives; community infrastructure and housing development and reasonable, technical, legal and management activities in respect of the pursuit of band goals and objectives, including the implementation of this agreement.

Only time will tell how effectively these resources are used and if again $20 million of taxpayers money will help deliver the Pictou band to self-sufficiency. I understand there are currently 425 band members, 304 of whom live on reserve.

The individual compensation account breaks down as follows: $3 million has been distributed to all members of the band including those resident or non-resident before the effluent treatment system began which was away back, I believe in the 1960s. Another $5 million will be distributed among individual band members who were residents of the reserve for any period of time since Boat Harbour started to be used for treatment of effluent. This would suggest that in the latter case, the individual band member settlement amount would be approximately $16,500 per individual.

I wonder if this will improve the self-sufficiency of these individual Pictou band members. I sincerely hope it has had a positive impact and creates a new level of existence for these people.

This agreement has been a fait accompli for a year and a half, as I said before. The bill before us asks us to ratify two specific aspects of the deal which I would suggest is a couple of hundred pages long and excludes at least 10 other sections of the agreement. There are some basic questions to be asked that beg better understanding.

There is no way for parliamentarians to know whether the department officials succeeded in negotiating a deal in the best interests of Canada or not. It is an act of faith on our part to believe that this is the best possible deal for Canada. As I said, it is a done deal. It is a specific claim, meaning that it is specific to the particular circumstances of the case, unlike a comprehensive claim that may set a precedent for other situations. It is a one time deal with strict compensatory parameters.

There is a series of questions that arise as a consequence of this agreement and subsequently Bill C-60. One issue that comes immediately to mind is why we are here at all today. Usually specific claims do not require special legislation. Why is this agreement different?

In the agreement it states that the department failed to obtain informed consent in the 1960s before proceeding with this project. Did the department just move unilaterally or did it at least get some kind of consent? It seems rather draconian to just move ahead on such a clearly obvious breach of rights.

Turning to the terms of the lawsuit I cannot help but ask how much the band asked for and felt it was entitled to. With this concern comes the obvious question of why the lawsuit did not go to trial.

The province of Nova Scotia and Scott Maritimes Limited obviously benefited and continue to benefit from using Boat Harbour. Perhaps these two parties should pay part of the compensation awarded to the band. Why should they walk away and have the Canadian taxpayer pay the full shot?

This brings me full circle to my concern regarding the best possible deal. It has always intrigued me how we come up with these compensatory figures. I look forward to our review of Bill C-60 at committee stage. Perhaps some of my questions could have been answered in a briefing which the department kindly offered. Unfortunately, schedules and time precluded this much valued courtesy last week.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address the House on Bill C-60, the Pictou Landing Indian Band Agreement Act. I am pleased today to join my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in urging hon. members to give this bill quick passage through the House.

Boat Harbour has been a black eye on the face of Nova Scotia for a long time. The effluent from the Scott Maritimes pulp and paper mill at Pictou has created a situation where there is chlorine, furans and dioxins in Boat Harbour to an incredible extent.

This legislation is not about solving the dispute here. It is about fulfilling the government's commitments which it made in agreeing to settle the claim. My hon. friend from the Reform Party has asked why it did not go to trial. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of lawsuits in this country do not go to trial. They are settled before trial because the parties set out their claims, look at the facts, negotiate back and forth and try to avoid the tremendous cost which could have occurred in addition to the cost of settling, the tremendous cost of years of litigation.

It seems that when the government had an opportunity to settle the matter it was wise to do so. In that situation when we are hiring legal counsel to represent us in a case, we seek their advice on what the amounts might be that the party suing might be able to achieve or receive in a court case and follow that advice.

For all intents and purposes the provisions of Bill C-60 have already been accepted and are being implemented. However, the government undertook that it would introduce legislation in this House to fulfil certain commitments requested by the Pictou Landing Micmac Band and which were agreed to by the Government of Canada in the Pictou Landing settlement agreement.

This does not mean this bill is not important. In fact, it is extremely important for three reasons. First, it will ensure the claims by members of the First Nations in that area related to the effluent treatment system at Boat Harbour are to be directed to a fund established for that purpose under the agreement. As a result, it will protect both the Government of Canada and the Pictou Landing Indian band from further claims by individuals, a very important point.

Second, Bill C-60 will ensure the Pictou Landing Micmac band is responsible for managing the settlement moneys that have been and will be paid out by the federal government.

Third, this bill will confirm that the Government of Canada intends to live up to its commitments to aboriginal people, including those commitments made by previous governments. That is a very important point. We as a government have to live up to those kinds of commitments. We have to re-establish trust between the Government of Canada and native peoples across this country.

As the minister has indicated Boat Harbour is an industrial effluent treatment facility operated by the province of Nova Scotia. It serves the nearby Scott Maritimes kraft paper mill. Boat Harbour is adjacent to Pictou Harbour as members from Nova Scotia would know and it is about 115 kilometres northeast of Halifax. It is much closer to Charlottetown than it is to

Halifax; it is about 30 to 40 kilometres away from Charlottetown across the Northumberland Strait.

The Boat Harbour holding pond was created by blocking the entrance of a former tidal estuary to Northumberland Strait. Boat Harbour is currently surrounded by provincial crown land and by the Micmac band reserve.

It is important to point out that in 1966 when the idea came up of creating this effluent area at Boat Harbour the local First Nation was not at all happy about the idea. It was only after intense lobbying by the province of Nova Scotia, only after it was assured the effect of this effluent treatment system would be minimal that the band agreed to its being put there.

The point is that it was not minimal. The impact of this is tremendous. The pollution in Boat Harbour is unbelievable and certainly is far beyond what anyone would call minimal. The aboriginal people at Pictou Landing were definitely misled in this situation and are therefore entitled to redress which they have received through the settlement agreement.

The damming of Boat Harbour permanently raised the level of the harbour and flooded approximately 12 hectares of reserve land. That was a bit of a surprise. The harbour itself became devoid of oxygen almost immediately after the treatment facility commenced operations.

Over the ensuing 12 years the First Nation in that area made a number of representations to the Government of Nova Scotia seeking compensation for damage to its lands and for the flooding. Although the province made improvements to the treatment facility at that time, it stopped negotiating with the First Nation in 1982 and refused to recognize its claim.

The Pictou Landing Micmac Band then entered the federal government's specific claims process. In 1986 the First Nation filed suit against the federal government alleging breach of fiduciary duty.

It appeared they certainly had some grounds for making those allegations and for launching that suit. That of course is why the last government eventually settled, but it would seem to me that it had good reason to settle. An out of court settlement was finalized in the summer of 1993.

In addition to setting up programs to monitor the environmental and health impacts of the effluent treatment system, the government agreed to pay the Pictou Landing Micmac Band and its members $20 million in compensation. Out of this amount $3 million was to be distributed to all members of the First Nation regardless of whether they lived on or off the reserve. An additional $5 million was to be distributed among members of the First Nation who have lived on the reserve during the period of time the Boat Harbour facility has operated.

Also under this agreement a continuing compensation fund has been established to take care of special loss claims by members of the First Nation which would have arisen from the Boat Harbour problems. A total of $9.725 million has been allocated to this fund.

A further amount of $2.275 million was designated to compensate the First Nation for general impacts associated with Boat Harbour and to support worthy projects for the benefit of the First Nation.

In addition to the $20 million compensation, a $15 million community development trust fund has been set up and is now being administered by the Pictou Landing Micmac Band. These funds are available should members of the First Nation need to relocate in future in order to protect themselves from any possible future health hazards. I can imagine that if I were living next to a huge pond filled with chlorine, dioxins and furans, I might well consider moving and relocating too.

At a future date if Canada and the First Nation agree the moneys in the community development trust fund are no longer needed for that purpose the funds will be applied for other First Nation purposes. Both sides have to agree first.

In signing this agreement the Pictou Landing Micmac Band released Canada from responsibility and liability for past, present and future effects related to the Boat Harbour effluent treatment system.

The First Nation is also giving over to Canada all of its rights for possible legal action against Nova Scotia or Scott Maritimes related to Boat Harbour. This agreement does not mean that there will never be any claims made against the province or against Scott Maritimes. In fact we have been working with the province of Nova Scotia. Along with our urging and working with the province it is now spending $17 million to solve the problem, to improve the situation in terms of pollution impact at Boat Harbour which I think is a major accomplishment.

The settlement agreement was signed in July last year. Since then implementation has been proceeding well. Nevertheless this government still has work to do to fulfil its commitments under this agreement. That is why we are debating this bill today.

Specifically at the request of the First Nation the government agreed to introduce legislation to this House to fulfil certain commitments and provisions of the Pictou Landing Indian Band agreement. We are meeting this commitment through Bill C-60. Now it is up to hon. members to ensure that the honour of the crown is upheld by supporting this legislation.

In the Pictou Landing settlement agreement it was agreed that Canada would propose legislation to ensure two things: first, that the settlement funds will be the sole source of compensation for claims by members of the First Nation related to the Boat Harbour treatment system; second, that the settlement moneys are not to be considered Indian moneys under the meaning of the Indian Act.

These objectives will be achieved through Bill C-60 which is an administrative bill that imposes no additional obligations on the Government of Canada. This legislation ensures that any claims by members of the First Nation beyond those already settled by payments to individuals can only be made against the $9.725 million continuing compensation fund. This in turn will ensure that the settlement amount of $35 million is the full and final amount that the Government of Canada will pay with respect to this settlement.

Bill C-60 will also protect the First Nation against similar types of claims by limiting the claims of the members of the First Nation to the continuing compensation fund.

The provision that settlement moneys will not be considered Indian moneys as defined by the Indian Act is also important. First and foremost it will ensure that the intent of the agreement is met with respect to the Pictou Landing Micmac Band having complete control over the settlement moneys. Moreover the federal government will have no further liability or responsibility regarding these funds, which funds at the First Nation's request have been placed within a trust established pursuant to the settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement separates the resolution of the First Nation's lawsuit from any decisions regarding the future of the Boat Harbour treatment facility. Nevertheless the settlement agreement does require Canada to explore ways which might yield a solution to the environmental problem. That is very important.

Toward this end several federal departments are facilitating and working with the Pictou Landing Micmac Band and other concerned parties to achieve the rehabilitation of Boat Harbour. In fact the Department of the Environment is monitoring the Boat Harbour effluent system very carefully under the pulp and paper effluent regulations. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is also involved in monitoring the system there for its effects on the local fishing habitat.

I want to advise hon. members that the federal government is committed to ensuring the cleanup of Boat Harbour meets Canada's high environmental standards. This legislation will have no impact on this process. It will not get in the way.

As a party to the final agreement, the Pictou Landing Micmac Band has clearly indicated it wants and expects this legislation to be enacted.

To ensure that Bill C-60 meets with its understanding of a settlement agreement, the First Nation was consulted during the drafting of the legislation. Members of the First Nation are now awaiting Parliament's decision. They have seen the bill. They like it and want to see it completed. It makes sense and fulfils the terms of the agreement as the government sees it and as the band sees it.

In making our decision on this bill, I would ask my hon. colleagues to keep the crown's honour in mind. I would ask them to remember that the legislation in this case is the product of a clear and genuine commitment which was made at the request of the Pictou Landing Micmac Band more than a year ago.

I would also remind hon. members that the government's word was accepted by the First Nation in good faith despite the problems it has endured over the past 25 years. I would not blame them for not taking the government's word after what they have gone through in this country. We have an obligation to ensure that this First Nation's trust in government is well-founded. We must demonstrate to all First Nations across Canada that the federal government will indeed live up to its commitments to aboriginal people.

There is no reason to delay action on this legislation. The intent of this legislation is reasonable and honourable. It is time to put this legislation into effect so that members of the Pictou Landing Micmac Band can concentrate on building a healthy future for their children and their communities. With that in mind, I urge my hon. colleagues to give their unqualified support to Bill C-60.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to have a lot of knowledge about this agreement. My questions relate to the situation at the reserve and adjacent to Boat Harbour itself.

Are the conditions such that the member would anticipate a significant number of members from the reserve would actually choose to relocate? If they do choose to relocate is there a provision within the agreement that specifies a time frame by which they must exercise that option? In other words, is there a window that closes within I believe it is the $9.725 million allocated amount?