Geoff Regan

[Parliament Hill, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy.

As promised in last year's budget the cost of operating Parliament Hill has been reduced by millions of dollars. Can the spokesperson tell us what measures the Board of Internal Economy will take to reduce the cost of food services on Parliament Hill?

[Port Of Halifax, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring good news from the port of Halifax. In 1994 revenues of the port of Halifax were up 4.7 per cent.

There is more good news. There was an increase of 23 per cent in container traffic in the fourth quarter of last year. Sixteen hundred vessels called at Halifax last year. That was a big increase. It included 39 cruise vessels bringing 38,000 tourists to Halifax, the home of this year's G-7 and was a 22 per cent rise over 1993.

The future is bright for the port of Halifax. Officials there predict a 15 per cent to 25 per cent increase in container business this year.

The port of Halifax is the key to economic recovery in this area. It provides 2,500 direct and 4,500 indirect jobs to Halifax.

I am sure that members of the House will join me in commending the port of Halifax on a very successful year.

[Toughlove, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today in my riding of Halifax West many volunteers are out doing fundraising efforts for TOUGHLOVE Canada, a non-profit organization that counsels families in the use of non-violent discipline to resolve behavioural problems with troubled teenagers.

Many doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, parents, teachers and police in my riding have attested to the success of this program in dealing with these troubled teenagers. They have used these methods to change the behaviour of these troubled teenagers and create happier, healthier families.

Halifax West is the home of the national headquarters of TOUGHLOVE Canada. I want to wish these volunteers well in their worthwhile efforts.

[Trade, February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

The biggest concern in my riding of Halifax West is with jobs and the economy. The Prime Minister recently led a trade mission to Latin America with 200 Canadian companies.

Can the minister tell the House what this mission accomplished in terms of jobs and the economy?

[Pictou Landing Indian Agreement Act, December 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do not feel it is fair to say that I am an expert by any means. It is kind of the hon. member to say that I seem to have a lot of knowledge about this agreement but I think that is perhaps overstated.

However, it is fair to say that if I were living next to Boat Harbour which is filled with chlorines, dioxins and furans that I would certainly be considering moving or relocating, particularly if the problem were not solved quickly. One of the key things is what the province and other parties are doing which is working on solving the problem that is occurring.

With respect to the $9.725 million fund for relocation, as I understand it if there comes a point where there is a feeling that it is not going to be used, then the federal government and the band can come agree to change its use, but only in the case where both parties agree. Therefore, there is not a date per se but there is a provision that agreement is required from both parties in order to make that change.

I hope that answers the hon. member's questions.

[Pictou Landing Indian Agreement Act, December 12th, 1994]

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.

[Petitions, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from residents of Halifax West. They request that Parliament not amend the human rights legislation to include the phrase sexual orientation.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think this afternoon in this debate that many of us are in agreement. We in this House are very disturbed and share the sense of horror at the events that took place five years ago today. When we hear of these kinds of actions and hear about human suffering, we think of ourselves in those moments as one family, that it is one of our family who is suffering.

I want to ask the member a question. It seems to me that he mentioned that social conditions are very important to people who may become violent in their lives. I wonder what he feels is the role of the economy. Does he feel that a weakened or a stronger economy that may have some impact on these sensitive issues?

[Translation]

[Bloc Quebecois, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to challenge recent comments of the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

During the 1993 election, Bloc candidates said they would stay on as members of Parliament only up to the referendum. Yesterday, the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois said that the members of his party will stay even if the majority of Quebecers reject their party's mandate.

A member of the Parliament of Canada must realize that even if it is his duty to represent his riding, he must work for Canada first. Bloc members keep saying that Canada's institutions do not work.

If that is true-and it is not-why are they so determined to stay after a defeat in the referendum?

[Environmental Assessment Act, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its amendments seek to improve key elements of the federal process. The Act contains mechanisms whereby different levels of government can harmonize their processes through administrative agreements and reduce duplication and uncertainty.

These mechanisms are intended to facilitate the delegation of environmental assessments to the provinces and thus to make things easier for developers. Almost all the provinces in Canada are now negotiating harmonization agreements with the federal government. I sincerely hope that the Government of Quebec will do the same and negotiate a harmonization agreement as soon as possible, so that Quebec developers can enjoy a level of service comparable to that available in the other provinces of Canada.