Sue Barnes

[Speech From The Throne, February 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to you. To my colleagues around the floor of the House, I pledge my respect for their opinions and pledge that I will work with them toward the goal that I believe will create a better Canada for all of our constituents. I believe we come here with the same goals in our heads and in our hearts.

This is my third time in the House and I want to take the time to thank my husband John and my children Amanda, Devon and John Anthony.

By necessity all of us share our energy and our time. We know we always give our love to our families, but they share in our geographical separations that are occasioned by our work in the House and across this land.

It is a great pleasure and honour to be here among you. I am greatly honoured. Like all the other members of this House, I am learning my second official language. I am studying with a good teacher.

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing time with the member for Scarborough East.

I am well aware that the historical significance of having two founding nations sharing this land with our aboriginal peoples is the prime significance in the development, the history and the future of this country.

The inclusiveness I heard spoken in the Speech from the Throne and the response by our Prime Minister is at the heart of everything we should be looking toward when our setting our goals and plans. Social and economic ideas have to be integrated taking into account the real life of our constituents.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the constituents in London West who voted for me, as well as those who did not. I work on their behalf everyday and will continue to do so.

We all come here with special interests. My special interest since 1993 has been research and the economic development that has resulted.

When we formed the government in 1993, Canada's record was not good nationally or internationally. There were valid reasons. The state of our economy, the debt and the deficit were very real inhibitors. I am grateful that we have now set a very realistic goal of being among the top five in the developed world for allocating research dollars. I realize that not only will government have to invest research dollars into its own operations, but it will have to invest in our universities and industries so they can share in this very important endeavour.

Not only shall we be doing the basic science research, research which will translate into jobs and products, we will also need a trained workforce. With a department like Human Resources Development, we will be there for those people who are striving to learn. Over the past number of years we also put in place a number of plans. We now have the registered education plan which will allow people to take time out from their working life to retrain and update skills so they can more fully participate in their communities and take care of their families.

I am especially pleased that we have targeted special programs that have tested well already in certain jurisdictions. There is a need to help single parents. Sharing wealth and opportunity is very worthwhile, which is the theme of the throne speech. It is necessary for us to share this with our communities.

Last term I spent some time in the aboriginal affairs committee. I am very pleased that we are further looking at governance and inclusion. We will be putting hope and dollars back on the table so people can advance.

I have been in regions where young children have to separate from their families at the high school level to finish their early years of education. I am not talking about university or college, or a separation for a week or a day. I am talking about separation for a term. The infrastructure is not on site. Family nurturing cannot be done in the home.

I am aware that in the aboriginal community money is not always available to every person who is ready for post-secondary education. It comes parcelled from our federal government. We are looking for leaders in all of our communities but these leaders need tools. One of the basic tools, and I think all members in the House would agree, is an education.

People need housing. In the aboriginal communities there is a vast need to share housing dollars. They also need clean water. There are communities in Canada that do not have clean, accessible water. A lot of those are aboriginal communities. This is not right.

I think we understand the problems. In the document “Gathering Strength”, the government mapped out a long term solution. I am very happy and would be very willing, as I hope all members of the House and the broader Canadian public would be, to see an expansion of this very necessary work. This would enable us to hold ourselves proud together with our brothers and sisters in Canada and say that one community can strive for the same amenities that other communities have like public health and public access to the educational needs.

I will speak about our children. It is a cliché to say that our children are our future, but we help shape that future. The provinces have the primary responsibility for education. However, through an agreement with them, we are partners in those programs. We have assisted in many ways and will continue to assist.

Most employment statistics show that over half of the employees in Canada will need in excess of a secondary level of education. We need a very trained workforce. All communities need access to it.

I am very grateful that we are continuing to put money into our Internet access in urban communities. I understand the Minister of Industry will be handing out more. Seniors will have access to the Internet. I am also very pleased that our children will now have access and the capability to obtain knowledge in the new economy which many of us are striving for that in middle life.

The Speech from the Throne and our response signalled that our banking community will get the tools it needs with the legislation that hopefully will be placed before us again. That resolution will help Canada's economy modernize and be competitive in a global environment.

When I knocked on the doors of my constituents during my campaign for re-election, I was surprised that many people had put the environment at the front burner of their thoughts. They said it was worth spending money on. In the past environment was not my top issue. Today I am concerned about my health. I am concerned about clean water, clean air and the pollution from our industries and across our borders.

The value of forests and the value of sustainable development is also important. People have been talking intensely about this for many years but it did not gather public support. People had not related to the fact that an endangered species perhaps needs the same things we need to live and survive. We know now because we are a species sharing this environment.

I applaud the government for going ahead on the environment, on the health needs of our population, on research and on the new economy. I would be remiss to say that I did not applaud or fully support the economic development increase going to the global community. We share the world and we have a responsibility to share its resources and, where necessary, extend a helping hand.

We will have many opportunities over the next few years to debate these issues in the House. I wish all of my colleagues well in their work. I pledge to you, Mr. Speaker and the other members sitting in your chair, my co-operation and respect.

[Governor General's Award, October 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to congratulate this year's recipients of the Governor General's award in commemoration of the Persons case: Yvonne Bourgeois of New Brunswick, Sonia Bitar of Alberta, Elizabeth Mackenzie of the Northwest Territories, Sabine Sonnemann of Ontario, Cherry Kingsley of British Columbia, and Bindu Dhaliwal of Ontario, who received the youth award, a new award this year.

This past weekend I met with one of the recipients, Ms. Kingsley. She recounted how through most of her young life she lived with addiction, abuse and exploitation. At the age of 22 she reconnected with her first nations roots, taking action by spreading her story and encouraging other young women and youths to tell their stories. In addition to holding conferences, Ms. Kingsley now works as a consultant for the Ontario government on policy matters concerning youth and sexual exploitation within the province. Her efforts are but one example of how to make a positive change for women in our communities.

I thank all those remarkable women.

[Supply, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member opposite. I also know she works very hard because I have had the pleasure of working on committees with her.

First I will address the question that she raised with respect to the provocation defence and the criminal justice system. I am sure the hon. member is also aware that this defence has been used successfully in the past with women who have been repeatedly attacked by their spouses in a situation where there was ongoing abuse.

That is one of the areas we have to look at when we make changes to the criminal justice system. On the one hand it is seen as an out, but in other circumstances there are real reasons it is used as a valid defence. I see a need to examine this area. I believe it is currently being examined in order to look at how we can better get at the goal without necessarily changing the exact section of the code she is referring to.

I also want to pay attention to the comments made earlier in her remarks about child care. I remember being part of a woman's caucus in 1993 when we on this side of the House had a minister who was very much prepared to go forward to the provinces with child care policies. There was no take-up from many of the provinces. That was at a time when there were deficits in a lot of the provinces.

Today, though, a child care agreement has recently been negotiated inside the health care agreement with the provinces and territories. Money would be available for those provinces to choose where they would put the resources and programs in relation to their populations. I believe in Ontario the dollar amount is $800 million.

Some of those provinces may in fact choose to go with child care. I understand that B.C. and perhaps the member's area, although I am not certain of the latter, may go with increased child care. However, other provinces may very well choose to spend those extra resources in areas where the resources are most needed. I understand that where fetal alcohol syndrome is more of a problem some of the provinces are looking at increased spending in that area.

I understand my own province has not given any indication, and I know there is a dire need. The women's programs in my city could use more beds every night in our shelters.

I understand I am out of time. I thank the hon. member opposite. On the health care, I am sorry, but I will have to take that at another time.

[Supply, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

I want to speak on the subject of violence against women and girls as a health issue of grave concern.

As women have marched across the country, not only in Canada but around the world, governments have had to concentrate on and remind themselves of the enormity and complexity of this problem, a problem that continues in Canada despite the efforts of organizations, governments and individuals to eliminate it.

When we speak about violence as a health issue, we include violence in all its forms, physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual, which then includes things like abuse, date rape, stalking, violence in the home and in the workplace, and violence by family members, acquaintances or persons in positions of trust.

There is no doubt that all forms of violence seriously impact on the health and well-being of women. Along with immediate and more physical impacts of physical and sexual violence, there are many other possible consequences, which would include the possibility of HIV-AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned pregnancies and permanent pain, injury and disability.

Violence against women and girls has serious psychological impacts. They can become withdrawn, have depression and low self-esteem, have eating disorders and self-destructive behaviours which I have seen evidenced in my own constituency office with people having to deal with these issues. They can have physical problems that are a consequence of poor mental health.

We do not have a simplistic viewpoint. There is a whole range of areas to be considered. These all have an impact on women's ability to empower themselves and to interact with their community, with their family and with society. In a sense they have this area of their lives where they feel powerless. I think that is wrong and it is very difficult to overcome.

Health is a function of much more than biology and health services. Health is also greatly affected and impacted by the social and economic factors. The social impacts of violence against women can include hours of lost work, lost income, loss of home and isolation. These can all worsen one's health.

In March of 1999 Health Canada released its “Women's Health Strategy” which had a significant component of the government's health agenda. There were 64 commitments in the strategy which were based on a health determinants approach. As part of the strategy, Health Canada undertook to integrate a gender based analysis. We have talked about that many times in the House. I think the fact that gender based analysis is integrated into the department's programs and policy development work will have an eventual impact on what we are trying to do.

Gender based violence is a risk factor that women face and has wide ranging consequences for not only health but for the health system. We had recent negotiations at the UN's special session of the general assembly. It has been commonly referred to as Beijing +5. It did address the violence issue as a health issue. States recognized that while some advances had been made in the provision of specialized health services for women and children, there was a lack of a co-ordinated multidisciplinary approach responding to violence. We need to include not only health systems but education systems, media, workplace knowledge as well as the justice system.

As a result of the Beijing +5 commitments, we have a view now of a more holistic approach to the issue of violence against women and girls, including marginalized women and girls. That would also then encompass those areas of provision for appropriate health care and services which on the whole are not well integrated in all our communities in Canada at the present.

However, in the health sector we need to do more than treat the impact of violence. This has been mentioned a number of times today. We need to encourage and engage in preventing violence before it starts, in all of our systems. Health care services should also recognize the symptoms of violence and provide support to women and girls.

We also know that we have marginalized women and girls in our society, often aboriginal women, immigrant and refugee women, lesbians, women with disabilities, older women, and women of minority, racial, ethnocultural and linguistic groups. They need services that are sensitive to their culture, their situation and their life experience. Unlike the reform alliance, one size does not fit all and cannot help all the people that need to be helped.

Along with those groups, women in isolated and rural communities also have difficulty accessing the services they require. Community groups and non-governmental organizations have been active in these areas and are to be commended for their work to date, which is essential to achieving the holistic system we are after, that holistic response to violence.

I will give a few examples. Through the Health Canada health transition fund, the University of Montreal completed a project to implement and evaluate the use of a screening tool in local community health service centres for the detection of women abuse. Recently in my home town, the London based task force on the health effects of women abuse released a report recommending that health care providers screen female patients for abuse. The Centre of Excellence for Women's Health has studied the relationship between health and violence among aboriginal women, the impact of violence on women's mental health and the provision of health services to women diagnosed with mental illnesses who are survivors of trauma and abuse.

Through family violence initiatives, Health Canada supports research related to health consequences of violence against women, particularly with a view to encouraging and educating the health care sector to respond more effectively to violence against women as a health issue. This includes guidelines for physicians who are dealing with women abuse and the criminal justice system, a handbook for health and social service providers and educators and children who are exposed to women abuse, and a handbook for health and social service professionals responding to abuse during pregnancy, a particularly vulnerable time.

The National Clearinghouse on Family Violence contains many resources that provide information to aid women, including women from these marginalized areas of our country and from minority groups. I hope that women and men will access these resources.

The government will continue to promote respect for the physical and psychological integrity of all individuals. Health and well-being are necessary to women's full participation in society. Girls and women of all ages, I believe, cannot achieve any real equality until they are free from all forms of violence. I see around this House people who understand the issues, many in different parties but certainly on the government side of the House. We have to understand the problem while we work at the solution. Women and men, civil society, all governments and all members of the House must be engaged to eliminate violence.

I was very pleased on Sunday to come to Ottawa a day early to spend time with some of the people who came from London, Ontario to visit the Hill and participate peacefully in a demonstration that raises very significant issues for Canadians to understand, to take action on and to involve themselves in. The government has been working in its various departments to continue the work that has progressed since we have been here. I can only speak of the time since 1993, but this is not my first debate on these issues of violence against women. I hope that by the time the grandchild of the hon. member opposite, who just had a grandchild today, reaches the age where she or he can enter the House, it not be in a similar debate.

There are good people in the House and in the communities who believe this is an important area. The Alliance Party in particular demonstrated earlier today some misunderstanding of some of the basic theory that goes with some of the issues we talk about in the House and that we have to follow through with our policy and practice in our ridings.

There will not be a debate in the House on violence that I do not want to participate in because it is important to recognize it, not to hide behind the statistics that say everything is getting better. It is always important to stand up and say that there are still marginalized people, that we are still underserviced in many ways and that resources, both human and monetary, have to go into these areas for progress to continue to be made. I believe that the government, with its gender analysis, will help integrate all those solutions into the policy development of the government.

I thank the members of the House for participating in this worthwhile debate. I also thank the member from the opposition party who put forward this motion today.

[Violence Against Women, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, violence can take on many forms. It can be physical, psychological and sexual. Although violence can affect everyone, violence against women, particularly physical violence against women, is a predominant reality. The UN estimates that around the world one-quarter of the female population is severely abused at home. Battery is the world's leading cause of injury among women aged 15 to 44.

A report about violence against women, a focus on women, from the UN in 1995, reports that because of custom two million girls experience genital mutilation every year. That works out to five young girls every minute.

In Canada in 1997, 88% of all spousal violence victims reported were women and 65% of those women reported more than two instances.

The World March of Women brings attention to an important area of concern for all members of society, of all genders. Women and men have to work together to get at these causes and get the solutions on the table.

[Supply, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am not as concerned with the speech we have just had as I am with the speech made by the member of the official opposition.

I do not think the official opposition understands pay equity and women's issues. I believe the member of the NDP and her caucus understand these issues very well.

What I have a problem with is talking about it, dealing with it, then voting for it and encouraging NDP governments to support those same positions. This seems to be where the rhetoric comes first and the reality is that we do not quite get there.

Let us talk about pay equity in Saskatchewan. That government says it cannot afford it but we cannot afford not to do it.

This is a serious issue. That member, who was the previous leader of that party, voted against gun control. Gun control was a woman's issue. I know there were members of that party who clearly understood the issue. My concerns come from wanting to have both the actions and the words on this issue on the same page, which I believe would actually unite us in many respects.

I respect a lot of the members in that caucus for their stances and their positions. They have been very supportive in many cases. However, I was disappointed with what happened when we voted on gun control. I would like that explained to the Canadian public.

[Supply, October 16th, 2000]

I did S. O. 31s on that years ago.

[Firefighters' Pensions, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we have a very short time and many members wish to speak to the motion, so I will keep my remarks to the point.

I have listened to the debate today but, more important, I have had an ongoing dialogue with the firefighters in my community of London, Ontario. They do honourable work all hours of the day and night. They do it with safety. They do it with integrity. They do it with our interest at heart.

We have an obligation to listen to their concerns. That is what many of my colleagues around the House on all sides and I have been doing. I believe a valid point is made here. I add my voice to the people supporting the motion.

I have been lobbying the finance minister. In short order we should be looking at the reality of bringing in a regulatory framework that would provide the needed change. I will not restate the statistics. We know them. I will allow someone else to speak at this point.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-14, the Manitoba claims settlement implementation act.

Bill C-14 has been thoroughly studied before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and has been found to be a solid piece of legislation that will move Canada forward in meeting its obligations to Manitoba first nations.

As hon. members have heard in the House and in committee, the Norway House Cree nation in particular will benefit from Bill C-14. Part 1 of the bill will affirm in law certain elements of the Norway House master implementation agreement which is now being implemented to bring about resolution of matters arising out of the northern flood agreement. Part 2 of Bill C-14 will also benefit Norway House, both as a treaty land entitlement band and by facilitating implementation of the reserve expansion commitments in the first nations master implementation agreement.

Let me expand briefly on these two elements of the bill, after which I will comment on the strong messages of support that we have received for this legislation, heard primarily during the time that the committees had their meetings a while back.

There is nothing really new in part 1 of Bill C-14. Parliament has already approved similar legislation for three other northern flood agreement bands: the Split Lake Cree, the York Factory and the Nelson House first nations.

What we are being asked to affirm in law is simply that compensation moneys and fee simple lands provided to Norway House under its master implementation agreement can be managed by the community in conjunction with the corporate trustee and outside the cumbersome restrictions currently in the Indian Act.

Important safeguards are there. They are in place to ensure that the decisions made by the first nation council and the trustee are transparent, communicated to the community and are in its best interests.

Part 1 also gives effect in law to a locally administered and more effective approach to claims resolution than currently exists in the northern flood agreement itself. This new community based approach will deal with the vast majority of claims arising out of both the NFA and the Norway House master implementation agreement.

I ask hon. members to keep in mind that the Norway House master implementation agreement has been signed by the parties and that the implementation of the provisions of that agreement is currently under way. However, there is a commitment in the document and in the agreement to facilitate certain of its provisions through legislation and the government is determined to fulfil that commitment.

Giving the people of Norway House increased control over fee simple lands and compensation money provided to them under the MIA is an important step on the road to economic self-sufficiency and increased accountability. It will help enhance community confidence and community pride. In fact, it is already doing so.

Fred Muskego, a band councillor at Norway House, spoke about some of the benefits that have flowed under the master implementation agreement when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in March 1999. I would like to quote briefly from his remarks to that committee: “We have addressed our recreational problems we have on the reserve. We have a state of the art multiplex that was built because of the MIA. We have recreation programs for the young people, and even some of the older people benefit from them. We have had some housing come out of the MIA. We have programs for our alcohol problems and social problems. We have just put some money into the building of a church, a funeral home and meeting halls. Out of these MIA proposals we have created about 105 jobs”.

The items listed by the councillor are not the end of it. I understand that settlement proceeds have been used for a recreation complex which includes facilities for bowling, curling and skating, as well as a community hall and restaurant. I am also advised that in addition to the new homes and churches mentioned by the councillor, new projects approved by the community using settlement funds include day care, road improvements and other infrastructure improvement projects.

The first nation has also acquired a fishing lodge, and in partnership with industry has acquired interests in mining exploration. The first nation has also purchased some 500,000 pounds of fishing quota on Lake Winnipeg, thus beginning to re-establish a role in the fishery of Lake Winnipeg, a status which was eroded with the original flooding.

Economic development jobs, community infrastructure and social initiatives; these are all solid proof of actual advantages for people who require them and people to whom we have obligations, people who deserve their economic self-sufficiency. They are proof that a proper balance of resources, accountability and local decision making can bring about positive and lasting change in first nations communities and more important in first nations lives.

The settlement moneys under the master implementation agreement are being put to good use and wise use by the community itself. It makes the decisions.

Passing Bill C-14 will allow for all of the settlement proceeds to be managed in this way by that community. Without the bill, some of the proceeds would fall to be administered under the Indian Act requiring the involvement of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I alluded earlier to the fact that part 1 of the bill will also give effect to a locally administered process for resolving claims that arise under the Norway House master implementation agreement. That local process has been operating for about two and a half years now. It is proving to be a workable alternative to the cumbersome process that was in place under the northern flood agreement. Passing Bill C-14 will ensure that the local claims process continues to serve the individual claimants of Norway House.

Part 2 of Bill C-14 does introduce some new concepts that parliament has not seen in other legislation, concepts that should nevertheless be supported by all members of the House.

The goal of part 2 is to facilitate the transfer of lands to reserve status in order that Canada's land related obligations arising from claim settlement agreements across Manitoba can be fulfilled in a timely manner.

I believe that all members understand that a key component of a sound economic future for first nations is their land base. This legislation will improve the process by which new reserves are created pursuant to claim settlement agreements.

As I alluded to earlier, these agreements include treaty land entitlements and certain elements of the master implementation agreements signed by four of the five northern flood agreement first nations. As a first step in speeding up reserve expansions for all Manitoba first nations that have negotiated claim settlement agreements or that will do so in the near future, we need to get beyond the cumbersome process of obtaining an order in council to add lands to reserves. Canada already agreed to effect these reserve expansions when it signed the settlement agreements.

We need to improve the way third party interests on those lands are accommodated. The first nations have begun selecting their new lands. Many of these lands have been selected for their economic development potential in areas such as forestry, mining, tourism, commercial buildings and farming.

There will continue to be further land selection activity of this kind under these agreements in the coming years. Under the treaty land entitlement framework agreement which benefits 20 Manitoba first nations, up to 450,000 hectares are to be set apart as reserve land over the next three to five years. Seven other first nations have treaty land entitlement claims that could involve up to another 62,000 hectares of land.

As my hon. colleagues have stated, the timely provision of these entitlement lands is needed to support claims implementation and the evolution of a vibrant on reserve economy. The business ventures on existing and future land selections under these agreements will require the co-operation and partnership of third parties.

We need to give these first nations the flexibility to aggressively seek out lands that have economic development interests or potential while ensuring that the rights of existing landowners and title holders can be accommodated.

This is what part 2 of the legislation is all about. It contains a number of provisions that will achieve these goals, and they are very laudatory goals.

For example, part 2 will empower the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to set apart as reserves any of the land selected by Manitoba first nations under a claim settlement agreement, eliminating the need for an order in council.

Part 2 of the bill will also allow for the finalization of agreements with third parties in a timely manner, which provides certainty and protection to all. It establishes more effective mechanisms for accommodating third party interests identified in the reserve creation process.

Specifically part 2 will allow Manitoba first nations to strike deals on third party interests as soon as a parcel of land is identified for reserve status. This will enable the first nations to accommodate different kinds of third party interests before land is officially added to a reserve, or to negotiate new rights that will come into effect upon reserve creation.

This latter aspect, negotiating new third party interests in addition to negotiating replacements of existing interests, is particularly noteworthy. As a result of this provision we will see first nations pursue emerging economic opportunities on their chosen lands immediately rather than experience the freeze on development which now occurs pending resolution of the land's status.

Part 2 of Bill C-14 is not creating any new entitlements for first nations or imposing any new obligations on governments or landowners. It is simply making an existing process work better so that we speed up the implementation of the claims and facilitate first nations' use of their lands and resources to generate social and economic benefits for their community.

I have already quoted from the remarks made by Fred Muskego, a band councillor for Norway House Cree nation. He appeared before the committee on March 11, 1999. He expressed full support for Bill C-14, noting from his firsthand experience that the northern flood agreement was difficult to implement and that virtually every claim resulting from the agreement had been challenged and usually ended up in court.

He stated very clearly on behalf of the entire council and community that Bill C-14 is in the “best interests” of the Norway House people. Why? Because the MIA makes the Norway House Cree the masters of their own destiny. It lets the community decide how to spend its compensation moneys and makes the political leadership accountable. Canadians want that and so do the first nations. In his words, the MIA is an “avenue for the future of our children”.

Manitoba Hydro, which is a party to the northern flood agreement and the master implementation agreement, was also represented before the committee. Mr. Bettner, associate corporate counsel for the utility, had this to say:

From Manitoba Hydro's perspective, the [master implementation] agreement and this legislation provide a number of positive benefits for all parties. First and foremost, it provides the parties with the opportunity to build a new and effective relationship by resolving issues which have, over the years, resulted in anger, mistrust, uncertainty, adversarial arbitration, and delays in delivering the compensation and benefits spoken to in the northern flood agreement. It provides certainty for the past, the present and the future.

Those are strong words from a key partner in the process. I remind hon. members that Manitoba Hydro has accepted additional responsibilities as a result of the master implementation agreement. The utility is eager to move forward even with those additional responsibilities in the partnership because it knows a new millennium and a new way is before us.

It does not end there. Mr. Bettner also spoke in favour of part 2 of Bill C-14, noting that it would allow Canada and the first nations to move and more effectively accommodate existing and potential third party interests in land. He said before the committee:

Part 2 provides a relatively seamless framework for developers or other land users and will hopefully forestall the loss of opportunities where the need to resolve land use issues is an early and paramount consideration. Part 2 will be a benefit to Manitoba Hydro in its ongoing dealings with first nations...in that it will provide the ability to resolve the ongoing land interests in a timely manner.

Gord Hannon of the Manitoba Department of Justice also stated full provincial support for both parts of Bill C-14. Mr. Hannon told the committee that a wide range of stakeholders were consulted on the treaty land entitlement framework agreement supported by part 2 of the legislation. These included the mining and forestry industry, Manitoba Hydro and municipal governments. Mr. Hannon said:

It is fair to say that there has been a high level of general consultation in Manitoba and, I hope and believe, a high level of understanding of the objectives in the framework agreement.

I could go on at length about the many benefits of this bill and the support it has received in committee. We have heard the arguments and there are always arguments pro and con. The bill has been studied from all angles. The validity of the Norway House master implementation agreement has even been confirmed by a court of law. Now it is time to move forward.

By emulating proven federal legislation and by introducing useful new mechanisms, Bill C-14 will help Manitoba claim settlements accomplish their objectives quickly and effectively.

If hon. members support the goals of this government set out in “Gathering Strength”, goals of honouring treaty land entitlements, of supporting strong communities and people, of building the capacity for economic self-sufficiency and of renewing Canada's relationship with aboriginal people, then I urge them to vote in favour of Bill C-14 so that it can be sent to the other place.

In closing, I would like to say that the time I have spent as chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development has been a most proud and useful time. I have learned more than I could ever give.

[Health, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has announced the government's intention to develop a new regulatory process for Canadians to access marijuana for medical purposes. Some Canadians who suffer with illnesses like AIDS, cancer and other conditions already have access through the current process.

I would like the Minister of Health to outline for us what he is proposing to improve the system for the future because Canadians who are suffering today need this.