John Duncan

[Petitions, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present again another petition on this course of action undertaken on behalf of Canadians who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.

The petitioners are concerned about making our streets safer. They are opposed to the current practice of the early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences.

The petitioners pray our streets will be made safer for law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of convicted murderers.

[Indian Affairs, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see that document tabled.

The minister has been consulting with select groups for 16 months. Can the minister assure the House he will soon conclude this process so this undertaking will not become another aboriginal royal commission which is now two years overdue and $40 million over budget?

[Indian Affairs, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to a question from my colleague for Skeena the minister of Indian affairs indicated his $5 million policy paper on self-government was not secret.

If it is not secret, will the minister tell the House why parliamentarians and Canadians have to rely on the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations to shed light on this undertaking and make the process public?

[Indian Affairs, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I expected more of a complete answer.

Can the minister confirm that his $5 million policy paper states that he is making provincial participation mandatory in self-government negotiations?

[Indian Affairs, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Ovide Mercredi, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, released contents from the minister's speaking notes surrounding his secret $5 million policy paper on inherent right to self-government.

Can the minister confirm that after 16 months of consultation his policy of self-government is based in the municipal style espoused by the Reform Party?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena and I and 13 host MPs completed an aboriginal town hall series in B.C. last week. This included eight communities and attracted over 1,600 people.

We delivered a distinctly different and welcomed point of view to the public. Many British Columbians are concerned that none of the negotiating parties in the process is vigorously representing non-native interests and that the process is secretive. Additionally, the total cost of the settlement based on recent leaks would be at least $8 billion and may exceed $18 billion.

Federal responsibility for treaty Indians is clearly established and there is also a federal obligation to ensure public interest is met. The current process is built on sand and will fail. Fundamental change is needed to create modern treaties that are affordable and lead to native self-sufficiency, finality of negotiations and equality of Canadians.

[Indian Affairs, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General recently stated some program spending of the department of Indian affairs fails to meet strategy objectives, exhibits management inadequacies, lacks appropriate performance and evaluation information and thus impedes accountability.

In addition, the department has not published an annual report since 1992. This deprives us of an opportunity to properly scrutinize efficiency of program delivery.

The federal budget calls for spending reductions in all federal departments except for Indian affairs. The government is asking Canadians to share in deficit reduction yet is increasing spending by 12 per cent over three years for Indian affairs. Much of Indian affairs' program spending is outside of constitutional, legal or policy commitments.

Given these concerns, the budgeted increase in Indian affairs funding is unacceptable and unfair.

[Indian Affairs, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday in Question Period the minister of Indian affairs stated that the Nisga'a of northwest B.C. won a Supreme Court decision in 1973 awarding them aboriginal land title. This is incorrect. The Nisga'a lost their 1973 appeal.

The latest word is the Delgamuukw case of 1991. This aboriginal land title case was dismissed by the Supreme Court of B.C. and subsequently by the Court of Appeal. The minister's premise is wrong.

My question was whether the intent of Nisga'a offer was to treaty protect a commercial fishery. The public deserves an answer, which the minister did not provide.

Between March 3 and 13, B.C. Reform MPs are holding a series of town hall meetings across the province to raise public awareness and understanding of the implications of current B.C. treaty negotiations.

[Land Claims, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, based on leaked information surrounding the Nishga land claim in northwest B.C., which includes a settlement offer of $125 million and 1,900 square kilometres of land, I understand the negotiations also include a federal offer for a treaty protected commercial fishery. This would provide a government guaranteed industry forever as opposed to a commercial industry.

Could the minister confirm that no commercial fishery will be constitutionally entrenched under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982?

[Pictou Landing Indian Band Agreement Act, February 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member for Central Nova in whose riding is the Pictou Landing band. I also enjoyed the speech of the Bloc member for Saint-Jean. However, if it had not been for the opening and closing statements, I would not know which way he would be voting.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words at third reading of Bill C-60, the Pictou Landing Indian Band Agreement Act. The legislation has received due consideration at second reading and careful review in committee. I thank the departmental officials who have provided us with a cogent and detailed explanation.

While my party and I had some concerns, particularly over ratification of an agreement after payment of $28 million of the $35 million package has already been made, we support the intent of the legislation.

I will give a quick background. In 1966 the crown failed to provide or to obtain the band's informed consent to transfer to the province of Nova Scotia its riparian rights on the Boat Harbour tidal estuary. This transfer permitted the province to operate Boat Harbour as a facility to treat effluent from the kraft mill owned by Scott Industries Maritime Limited.

In July 1992 the government approved a mandate to negotiate an out of court settlement of the lawsuit. It was ratified by vote

on July 5, 1993. The final agreement was signed on July 20, 1993. That was under the previous administration.

The final agreement provides that the band gives Canada a release from responsibility and liability for past, present and future effects related to the Boat Harbour effluent treatment system in exchange for compensation to the Pictou Landing band. As I mentioned previously, the total compensation was $35 million of which the band received $28 million at the end of April 1994 and will receive the remainder in April 1995.

The one outstanding question in my mind is: What has taken so long to bring the bill forward? I have asked the question and I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

There are two critical issues addressed in the legislation. First it will ensure that all future claims by members of the First Nations in that area will be directed to an established fund that the bill provides. This means that no further claims can be made against the crown in this instance. This is critical to me and my party. We therefore are satisfied with that arrangement.

Second, Bill C-60 provides that the Pictou Landing Micmac band is responsible for managing and disseminating the settlement money provided, a total of $35 million, $20 million of which will go to pay out claims to the band and to individual members. The remainder, $15 million, shall be used to pay band members to relocate should it become necessary. Once the allotment has been used, the band has no further recourse against the crown for further financial compensation.

Having addressed the two operative principles of the bill, I want to add that it is my hope the $20 million will help deliver the band to self-sufficiency. We feel that every agreement the government signs should ultimately bring more self-sufficiency to the band.

The Reform Party supports the conclusion of outstanding claims. The Pictou claim is a consequence of the non-fulfilment by the government of an obligation arising from the improper administration of reserve lands by the department. This breach of fiduciary responsibility and duty has now been settled.

I am confident members of the Pictou band will manage this settlement responsibly and I wish them well.