John Duncan

[Petitions, February 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of 78 of my constituents from Gold River and Campbell River, British Columbia, who call upon this Parliament to reject any further firearms control legislation, regulations or orders in council and rather focus on the misuse of firearms by violent criminals.

I support the petition.

[The Environment, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this has been an ongoing problem. It only ceased this week. This is happening because DIAND has abdicated its responsibility with its policy of devolving authority to band control.

In this case the Indian timber regulations are the legislation that control the forestry activity. This is giving loggers, taxpayers, the band and the department a black eye.

Will the minister ensure this legislation is enforced?

[The Environment, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are serious reports from the Stony Reserve in Alberta of logging activity which is illegal and harming the environment. The reports also state that a few are getting wealthy, tax free, as a result.

Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development ensure that violations of the Indian timber regulations in the Indian Act are quickly dealt with and the legislation and departmental policy strengthened to prevent a repeat occurrence?

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-18. Eleven months ago I rose to participate in the debate on this bill suspending the

operations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. At that time I questioned the political interference, the waste of millions of dollars and the fact that as politicians we were involved in that messy process at all.

I consider this whole thing to be unfair to the public. We are wasting taxpayers' dollars again, in the order of $5 million, and once again we will be soliciting their input. I have had discussions with many members of the public and they have lost the thread on this whole redistribution exercise, as have I from time to time. It is beginning to read like a bad novel.

Some of the debate that has gone on today reminds me very strongly of why politicians should not be involved in drawing lines on a map. Some of the objections are tantamount to that.

Eleven months ago I also expressed regret and concern for overturning a process which had been in effect every decade since 1867. I could not determine precedent for this action and nothing has changed my mind in the intervening time.

It remains a shame why we have gone through this process at all, and having gone through it, we have achieved so little. What we have before us today, in my view, confirms that fact. This is an exercise which retroactively thwarts a longstanding, non-partisan method of redistribution.

The Constitution sets out the formula for representative government based on the concept of equality of voting power, that all Canadians should have an equal voice in governing themselves. This concept has been modified over time to ensure equality and continuity. Today's report does very little, in my view, to solidify this notion. We had hopes for a workable report. This attempt does not meet our standards and that is why we submitted a minority report.

First, the total number of seats in the House is not reduced. They have increased from 295 to 301, which was the original situation with the Electoral Boundaries Commission reports that were previously made. We have gone through this whole exercise and we are right back at the same place we started.

We argue that it is time to reduce the cost of the precincts and reducing the number of seats is an important first step. There seems to be a notion that the more members of Parliament we have the more will be accomplished. We should not confuse more and motion with real progress.

The hon. member for Calgary West described the capping of the number of seats very well so I will not pursue that in my speech today. However, we have had a consistent message throughout this piece. I am a member of Parliament from British Columbia where we have the somewhat unique situation of getting additional seats. We receive two of the six additional seats in this proposal. Our message has been consistent. It is consistent whether we reduce the number of seats to 265 or whether the number goes to 301. The message is that B.C. should get its fair share, as should the other provinces and territories. We started this exercise on the basis that the Liberal government wanted to freeze the number of seats at the 1993 levels. That is not where we are now.

The recommendations on the quotient factor contained in the report do not deal effectively with the 25 per cent quotient factor or the what is called the population variance factor by some.

The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act specifies that a commission is to draw constituency boundaries in such a way that the population of each constituency is as close as possible to the quotient obtained by dividing the provincial population of eligible voters by the number of seats in each province. No constituency is permitted to have a population smaller than 75 per cent of this figure or greater than 125 per cent under this proposal.

Elections Canada reports that 51 of the 295 existing ridings exceed the current permissible population variances. By suspending the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act we have perpetuated present inequities. What we are being offered today as a consequence of Bill C-18 and suspending the work of the commission, is 25 per cent. Surely we should expect an improved situation as a consequence of this delay and study. That is not the case. In fact, the recommendation is worse and ultimately the situation will be too.

We are very concerned that the commission will continue to be allowed to draw maps that from the very outset vary up to 25 per cent from the electoral quotient. This will compound the quotient factor in light of population shifts between redistributions.

The Reform minority report advocates an allowable maximum variance of 15 per cent to ensure the primacy of equality of voting power over sociological considerations.

The report states that there may be some ridings that should be more or less than 25 per cent of the provincial quotient and that these ridings should be set out in a schedule to the act. What a contradiction. We are allowing a plus or minus variance from the 25 per cent. With a variance of 25 per cent there should be no exceptions, no need for a schedule, I might add a schedule without guidelines.

Can we really say there has been any substantive changes to the bill? When one considers the lack of reduction in the size of the House of Commons, one has to consider the conviction and the motives of the legislation. It is very difficult to justify discarding the work at great public expense of the existing Electoral Boundaries Commissions for these so-called changes.

[Petitions, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the other petition signed by 33 of my constituents requests that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code and therefore will uphold the current law disallowing euthanasia. I personally concur with these petitioners.

[Petitions, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present two petitions.

One is on behalf of 149 of my constituents from the riding of North Island-Powell River requesting that Parliament not amend the human rights code that would indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.

[Communications Security Establishment, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to debate on motion M-38 introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.

It is also a pleasure to support this motion. It is not only timely but essential to accountability. It is essential to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to authorize the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the operations of the Communications Security Establishment, or CSE.

This motion brings to light concerns expressed as early as 1990 in the book Spy Wars and more recently in the new book Spyworld written by Michael Frost, a former CSE employee, where it is alleged that this organization routinely snoops on law-abiding citizens. It compiles dossiers on everything and

everybody from Margaret Trudeau to Quebec separatists. It is open season on any unsuspecting Canadian citizen.

CSE is a unique entity in government. It normally comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence as its budget is hidden in the communications budget of the military. However, in reality it is a separate entity that receives its operational tasking from the deputy clerk for security and intelligence of the Privy Council. The political tasking comes from the cabinet committee on security and intelligence.

As we witnessed as a result of recent questioning in the House, the mandate of the CSE is questionable. There is no political accountability except to a group of cabinet ministers which is the most secret cabinet committee of government. Here we have an agency with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars listening to overseas phone calls and accountable to no one person. This is not ham radio and catching the BBC Sunday night opera. This is serious business. It requires serious attention.

We are told all this snooping is done to protect national security. Well the Diefenbunker is no longer a secret and we are about to mothball some CF-18s. There is no obvious external threat, so why so much resistance from the government to outside scrutiny?

While I am no big fan of SIRC, it is as good as anything we have for this purpose. SIRC has managed to keep an eye on our spies without exposing them to danger. We can work on the patronage elements of SIRC at a different occasion.

Why not let SIRC have a review capacity in CSE? Why should CSE be above the law? Why should its budget, mandate and methods not be scrutinized? The operative question is: Does CSE spy on Canadians? The Deputy Prime Minister says it has no mandate to do so, but the Deputy Prime Minister recently refused to answer direct questions regarding if in fact it had.

In September 1990 a report entitled: "In Flux But Not in Crisis" was tabled. This report was the work of a special parliamentary committee on the review of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. On page 153 it reported: "This organization clearly has the capacity to invade the privacy of Canadians in a variety of ways. It was established by order in council, not by statute and to all intents and purposes is unaccountable."

The passage goes on: "While the committee understands that this agency must be shrouded in secrecy to some degree, it believes that Canadians should be in a position to understand what the organization does and should not have to wonder whether their rights and freedoms have been infringed. The committee has evidence that both the RCMP and CSIS have asked the CSE for assistance and as such the committee believes that the Communications Security Establishment should have a statutory mandate that provides for review".

My congratulations to a member of that special committee, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, the member responsible for the motion before us today. He at least recognizes the gravity of the previous passage I just read from the report.

The Minister of National Defence unfortunately believes there is already sufficient review. To me, he is another of those do nothing, say nothing, status quo ministers who would rather stonewall than change. Things are just fine the way they are because they do not impact on his personal and private life.

The fact is this minister really does not have control of the CSE. What he controls is financial and administrative matters. The chief of the CSE reports to the Clerk of the Privy Council for policy and operations. This is not what I consider a fully constituted part of DND like the minister says it is.

The minister need only take a look at the government's response to the "In Flux But Not in Crisis" report entitled: "On Course: National Security for the 1990s" to see what it has to say about control of CSE and what is and what is not a fully constituted part of the Department of National Defence. The Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office are the real power and the issue. The Minister of National Defence is the filler in the sandwich.

I am not as naive as to believe that Canada does not need to intercept communications for intelligence purposes. It is part of the electronic information highway. There has to be some form of review and accountability, otherwise abuses can take place.

As the book Spyworld states: ``Employees of the CSE routinely listened to the conversations of Canadians as they tuned and tested their equipment''. I also believe there is nothing wrong with sweeping offices or encrypting phones. This is normal in today's age but I want to know what the CSE is doing besides this. I want to know that it is not abusing its powers. An external review agency seems the only way we can lift this veil of uncertainty, assure accountability and free the CSE from suspicion. That does not sound like such a bad thing to me.

I understand that the CSE is good at what it does. Let us make it even better. Let us support this motion for the good of all Canadians.

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

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?

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

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.

[Members Of Parliament Office Inventories, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the debate we have heard, I think we are in general agreement on this motion with the exception of some of the debate from across the floor.

I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the question of furnishings, supplies and equipment in the constituency office and in the House of Commons office of every member of Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for consideration.