Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was agreement.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Liberal MP for Provencher (Manitoba)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 36% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers December 3rd, 1998

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Yukon on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning contamination at the Marwell tar pit within the city of Whitehorse.

The site is not under the administration and control of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The land has been under the control of the Government of Yukon since 1965-66.

In 1994 the department worked in partnership with both territorial and city of Whitehorse officials to assess the site in question. As part of the assessment process, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development funded two pilot studies investigating the effectiveness and feasibility of each of the two remediation options identified. This work was funded under the Arctic environmental strategy which was established in part to assist communities with issues such as this.

Departmental officials in Yukon have and will continue to offer expertise and assistance to territorial and community officials in assessing and remediating contaminated sites within Yukon. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in conjunction with an established public policy advisory group will address agreed upon priorities within the constraints of available funds.

Finally, the Government of Canada recognizes that the north is a dynamic and important part of Canada. That is why we work closely with our partners in a broad range of initiatives affecting the environmental, political and economic aspirations of northerners. That is why the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will continue in its efforts to address environment issues in Yukon.

Division No. 297 December 1st, 1998

Madam Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to respond to the hon. member for Halifax West on past mining activities in Deline, Northwest Territories.

The Government of Canada is very concerned with potential impacts of historical uranium mining and other activities at the Port Radium uranium mine located at Great Bear Lake, Northwest Territories.

Along with the Minister of Health and the Minister of Natural Resources and the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development met with representatives of the community of Deline on June 10, 1998 in Ottawa.

The outcome of this meeting was a commitment by the ministers to work in a partnership with the community to try to address three subject matters. First, the immediate and long term health concerns of the community including assessments on health and the environment. Second, to establish a co-operative approach and a joint committee that includes administrative and financial assistance for the participation of the Deline community. Third, to establish a common understanding of the history and the impacts of the Port Radium mine and related activities.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development wrote to confirm that all parties will work co-operatively and will provide the community with discussion papers to assist in implementing those commitments.

On August 26 and September 15, 1998 departmental officials met with Deline Chief Raymond Taniton in Yellowknife and Ottawa respectively to open up a dialogue with the community and to investigate how to move ahead on this very critical and important issue. This work continued through meetings and correspondence in October and November.

We have recently reaffirmed our commitment to provide contributions to the community to assist its participation in these important investigations and to conduct biological sampling programs in the—

Indian Act November 27th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla for his interest in this issue and for all his efforts to bring greater certainty and equity to landlord and tenant relationships on reserves.

The member has not made this a partisan issue, nor should he have. We thank him for that.

The House has heard the circumstances which prompted the member's interest and the reasons behind his sponsorship of the bill. Certainly none of us can argue with his motives or quarrel with the very real needs of his constituents which he has properly identified.

The situation at the Driftwood mobile home park in Penticton was extremely unfortunate. No one can feel anything other than great disappointment that the situation ended the way it did. Certainly no one wants to see these unfortunate incidents repeated.

Along with the hon. member, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was personally involved in trying to bring all the relevant parties together in the hope of resolving that situation. Unfortunately these efforts were not successful.

While I do not support the bill for reasons which I will explain in a moment, I do share its ultimate goal to improve landlord and tenant relationships on reserves in Canada.

I do not believe the bill is the best way to achieve that goal. Sometimes in trying to remedy the particular circumstances of a legitimate and specific situation, our efforts lead to solutions that do not lend themselves to general application across Canada, in this case for all reserves.

In our haste to right a wrong we lose sight of the wider issues and broader concerns that involve all Canadians and all first nations. I believe this is the case with this proposed legislation.

Let me focus on three major concerns I have with Bill C-402. It is too limited in scope. While it does address some of the issues concerning leases, it does not address the numerous other kinds of residential leases that presumably deserve the same kind of protections and certainty intended by the bill.

If we proceed with this legislation we create two classes of leasehold interests on reserves, those which fall under provincial legislation and those which do not. This may be an unintended consequence but it is also an unacceptable result and cannot be supported.

Second, the bill would bring confusion, not clarity, to the issue of landlord and tenant relations on reserves.

Third and most important, I have grave concerns about the process of addressing landlord and tenant relations on reserves.

This legislation offers one solution, to bring the reserve under the relevant residential tenancy legislation of the province in which it is located. But there has been no consultation with first nations to see if this is their preferred option.

It returns us to the old paternalistic approach of Ottawa knows best. It attempts to substitute our judgment for that of first nations. It attempts to alter the relationship between first nations and provincial governments without consulting those governments as well.

In “Gathering Strength”, the government's response to the the royal commission on aboriginal peoples, we made it clear we were not prepared to return to the ways of the past.

We said we had learned from our past mistakes and we were determined not to repeat them. Instead we wanted to develop a new partnership with first nations based on mutual trust, respect and consultation. This legislation fails that very important test.

Quite apart from the commitments made in “Gathering Strength” for greater consultation the federal government has a legal fiduciary duty to consult first nations on any significant changes which might affect them. This legislation also fails that important test.

The issue of determining the appropriate laws to govern landlord and tenant relations is at its core an issue of governance. In “Gathering Strength” the government pledged to work with first nations to promote self-governance and this legislation again unfortunately fails that test.

I am very concerned this legislation prejudges the outcome of several processes currently underway, processes which I believe should be allowed to run their course unencumbered by interference from Ottawa.

As the member knows, the Indian taxation advisory board which has an excellent record and is highly respected for its mediation of sensitive first nation issues is overseeing a consultation process on this issue in British Columbia involving the province, first nations representatives, park operators, tenant representatives and officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The first workshop was held a little over a year ago and another is scheduled to take place over the upcoming months.

There are also discussions concerning the development of land regimes under self-government proposals and the proposed first nations land management act, Bill C-49, currently being debated in this House. These discussions may well deal with some of the points in Bill C-402.

A whole range of issues dealing with land management is currently the subject of consultations involving my department and the assembly of first nations and Bill C-402 pre-empts a potentially important aspect of those discussions as well.

I do not know what proposals will emerge from these various consultations. It may be that a recommendation will come forward that band bylaws dealing with residential premises are the best way to deal with landlord-tenant issues.

This is how the Westbank band council in British Columbia has decided to proceed and time will tell if bylaws are the best instrument for this kind of enforcement.

The point is that we should not prejudge the outcome. Let us allow the consultations to proceed. Let us allow those with the greatest interest and most concern to meet in good faith and to see what solutions they might suggest.

That is what “Gathering Strength” is all about. That is what promoting self-government is all about. It is not about Ottawa rushing in to fix all the problems and to provide all the answers. It is about working with first nations and other parties to seek honest answers and make honourable, reasonable concessions. In short, it is about partnerships, not paternalism; co-operation, not control.

For all of these reasons I respectfully oppose Bill C-402. Let me say again how much I appreciate the initiative of the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla. While we may disagree on this particular approach, I know that we share the same concerns and seek similar objectives and goals. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. member and others in a spirit of co-operation, collaboration and consultation.

Senator Selection Act November 26th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Churchill on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning the urgent social problems at the Shamattawa First Nation.

Again the government is very concerned and deeply disturbed about the conditions facing the Shamattawa First Nation and is taking action. We have been meeting with the Shamattawa First Nation over the past few months to formulate long term solutions to improve life for residents of this community.

At the most recent meeting of November 20, officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Health Canada met with the chief of the Shamattawa First Nation and Grand Chief Francis Flett whom I know personally of the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak. They discussed ways to improve conditions for youth in the community to address the high rates of solvent abuse and suicide.

One proposed solution is for the first nation to build an arena and recreation facility that would address these social problems and combat boredom among youth. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is pleased to commit $400,000 toward the construction of this complex, and the first nation anticipates starting construction in the spring.

The department has also identified $33,000 to assist first nations in the development of their own long term human resource strategy. This strategy will target education and employment opportunities for youth, giving them more opportunities for a brighter future. We did not stop there or our efforts will not stop there.

In the 1996-97 budget for the Shamattawa First Nation, in addition to the regular capital outlays for such things as housing which affects the social conditions and the psychological conditions of the people on reserves, we have committed $2.86 million to housing, which will provide 33 additional houses for the Shamattawa community, and $4.73 million to a water treatment facility.

To conclude, we are working very diligently in this regard. I thank the hon. member for her questions. We are working on these very serious problems in a number of communities across Canada with the aboriginal leadership. We want to resolve them as much as the hon. member for Churchill does.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act November 26th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is looking for “irrefutable evidence” that fraud of some sort did not take place. We have heard this talk all day. We have heard it on many bills, on C-49. The member again raises Nisga'a. I am confused at this because each one of the members has said that they support C-56 but spend 10 or 20 minutes of their precious time in the House pouring vinegar and ashes all over the deal. I want to know whether they support it or not.

I would like to read something into the record for the member. I wish that he would do his homework before he speaks to these kinds of matters suggesting, and I say this respectfully, that there was some improper tampering.

On November 25, the federal court, trial division dismissed a motion that was brought forward by some band members. They had a right to bring these motions forward with respect to the second vote that took place on the Norway House agreement. On this basis the court found “that nothing improper or illegal had occurred in holding the second referendum for the ratification of the master”. The federal court has ruled on this matter. It was open to the people to challenge it, as they did.

If the hon. member had read the facts on this and investigated that side of the case, he probably would not have risen in the House and made those kinds of allegations and suggestions. This has been through a proper court of jurisdiction which found that nothing occurred that was wrong, improper or illegal.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act November 26th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would caution the member in the debate on this bill in his use of language about buying votes. These are serious allegations and I would caution the member.

First Nations Land Management Act November 26th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely delighted that the Reform Party has come such a long, long, long way in the last five years and is now coming around to support aboriginal women and native rights in Canada. That is a great thing. I want to commend the hon. member for his good, decent and necessary work in that area.

I want to make a couple of points. I will get to the questions of accountability with respect to the legislation before us and address the hon. member's concerns. He is concerned, and I think rightly so, about the division of matrimonial property on divorce or separation. I believe that he has missed the point entirely in this piece of legislation. Hon. members who read it carefully will find that some of the member's concerns and objections very clearly will be dealt with.

Only two days ago the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was discussing issues such as poverty on reserves in many first nations communities. In that particular instance it was Inuit communities. Members from the Reform Party requested that the minister come before the committee. We had arrived at this place because the Reform Party members had concluded through their own logic, and I followed it closely, that in this particular instance it was not the problem of the Inuit leadership that had caused these difficulties. We brought in the department officials and they agreed at the end of the debate and two or three or four hours of discussion on it that it was not the department officials, that maybe it was the minister's responsibility.

Perhaps, just perhaps, one of the reasons there are difficulties in these communities that we are all concerned about or we ought to be concerned about is because there is not sufficient funds going to these communities to do the job. The leaders who came before the committee made a compelling argument that they are doing their best with scarce resources.

If the salaries of all the chiefs and councils across the country were cut in half and their flight privileges to go to meetings or whatever were taken away, do we honestly think that would clear up the problem in Canada? Is our analysis so superficial that we would honestly believe and debate this kind of thing in the House and that we would think that would be an answer to these difficult problems? I really do not think so and I do not think that any member can stand and say that with a straight face in the House of Commons.

Talking about representation, one of the signatories to Bill C-49 is a band from the area of the member from Prince George. The chief and council met with the member and said that surely if the Reform Party believes in the grassroots notions that its members always talk about, then a vote in the community involving the women of the community as well would hold some weight. If it were true and if they held true to their own values and principles, then it would hold some weight in terms of swaying that particular member of parliament to support this legislation.

The vote was 381 to 51 for the community in Prince Albert to support Bill C-49. The member from Prince Albert ignored the grassroots and stood in this House to say it was unconstitutional and all sorts of silly things which are not true. Where is the grassroots there?

Another member from the Reform Party only two weeks ago found three aboriginal people. Out of a community of some 30,000 aboriginal people he found three in his entire constituency. He equipped himself with a tape recorder and a camera and went about diligently looking under stones, trees, carpets and beds to find somebody in the community who would criticize the leadership so that he could come back to the House and say that he had discovered a great evil in Canada and he was going to lay it bare in front of the Canadian people.

I ask the hon. member if in fact his colleague from Prince George and that band had voted for this particular bill 380 to 50, is that not grassroots representation?

First Nations Land Management Act November 26th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to speak to Bill C-49, the first nations land management act. This bill ratifies a framework agreement that will enable 14 first nations to opt out of land management provisions of the Indian Act.

Hon. members whose constituencies include one or more of these first nations will attest that they have been leaders in land administration for many years. This historic land management initiative is brought forward at their request. It is the result of government to government negotiations that will enable these first nations to implement their own land management regimes.

Those who have been following the negotiations of the framework agreement on first nations land management will be aware as well that the process has brought the 14 signatories together in a spirit of co-operation. They will continue to co-ordinate activities through a land advisory board which they will have to establish to help them with the development of land codes, negotiation of individual agreements, model laws and monitoring of the process.

The first nations through the board will also establish a resource centre, develop training programs and maintain records in relation to the first nations land codes and amendments.

The land advisory board is a tool that first nations have developed to build partnerships among themselves and to build capacity in their communities. This is a road to self-government. It is a road to self-reliance.

When decisions can be made at the local level without departmental approvals, the first nations will be able to respond more quickly to economic opportunities. The first nations will have the legal capacity to deal directly with banks to borrow, contract, expend and invest money.

Revenues, profits and fees from reserve lands administered by these first nations will be available as security for loans from financial institutions. These specific first nations will have the authority to enter into co-management arrangements with other jurisdictions to develop integrated land and resource use co-management systems that can serve as security.

From the date a land code takes effect, moneys other than those derived from oil and gas activities will be collected and managed by the first nations. Specific accountability mechanisms are being built into these land codes to ensure financial accountability to members. Capital moneys derived from oil and gas activities would continue to be held in accordance with the Indian Oil and Gas Act.

Another benefit of this legislation for first nations is the limitations it places on alienation and expropriation. These are important provisions. They speak to the sacred bond that first nations hold for their land.

The Indian Act permits surrender and sale of reserve lands but has no provision requiring the replacement of sold lands. The bill before us removes these provisions from first nations operating under the land code. They would be able to alienate reserve lands but only if they were exchanged for other lands that would become reserve lands.

This bill does not remove the federal government's expropriation powers. The Indian Act gives the governor in council power to permit expropriation of reserve land by provincial or local authorities for public purposes.

This bill continues to permit the governor in council to expropriate land for the Government of Canada, provided such expropriation is justifiable and necessary for a federal public purpose that serves the national interest. Certain minimum steps would have to be satisfied. Compensation would have to be paid. This would include land of equal or greater size and of comparable value to the land expropriated.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the 14 first nations that are taking part in the framework agreement are eager that this legislation be passed so that they can start managing their lands in accordance with this new regime. The people of those communities have a great deal at stake in how we proceed. It means jobs, economic growth and a secure livelihood for many people in those communities.

This legislation is about much more than land management. It is about self-reliance. It is about economic opportunity. It speaks to the new relationship that we are building with aboriginal people, one based on the principles of mutual respect and recognition, responsibility and sharing.

In January this government launched a new action plan for aboriginal people called “Gathering Strength”. This plan set the direction for a new course that would bring real and practical improvements to the lives of aboriginal people. The spirit and vision of this plan is captured in the proposed legislation before us today.

I and the signatories to this agreement urge all members to support it. I therefore move:

That the question be now put.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act November 16th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully for the past couple of hours to a number of interventions made by members of the Reform Party.

I appreciate the comments made by the member of the New Democratic Party. His interventions speak very clearly to the problem of the misuse of language and the misrepresentation of the issues we are dealing with. I find the debate quite interesting as we debate the northern flood agreement.

We have heard talks about self-government, dealing with the Nisga'a deal, references to RMs, the most recent intervention from this member claiming that he speaks for the people of Manitoba on aboriginal issues and talking about the participation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at this rather odd undertaking at the Airliner Inn in Winnipeg. I find the debate is moving off into areas that are not intended in this bill.

This bill is about a bill of compensation that was properly addressed by the New Democratic member from Winnipeg. It is a bill about compensation. The member for Selkirk—Interlake talked about the fact he lives on the inlet. So do I. We were transferred to Norway House when they were building the power lines. My father was a pilot for the government air services for many years in 1950s. We spent a summer there.

I believe the hon. member misses the entire point of the debate about compensation. Some of his colleagues have referred to that. The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest has spoken to it very clearly. This is a question of hydro flooding these lands in northern Manitoba and doing it improperly without consulting the native people. I wonder, for example, whether the provincial minister who is responsible and is signatory to this agreement talked about that at the Airliner Inn in Winnipeg.

This is an agreement about compensation. It is an agreement about a contract and a breach of contract. There is a settlement between the parties, Manitoba Hydro, the Government of Canada and the first nations people, in this case the people of Norway House who voted on the bill. He referred to the cottage owners in Lake Winnipeg. Is it not proper, is it not right, that when somebody floods somebody's land, that the first nations people would be compensated for the lands that were flooded, that this is the proper thing for the Government of Canada and Manitoba to do? They all signed the agreement.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act November 16th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-56, the Manitoba claims settlement implementation act. I am pleased to speak in support of this proposed legislation which will address outstanding commitments to Manitoba first nations and pave the way for greater economic self-reliance and self-government.

Hon. members will recall that when this government unveiled “Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”, we made a commitment to renew the relationship with the aboriginal people of Canada. This is not a goal that can be achieved overnight. It will involve many steps, large and small. Bill C-56 is one such step.

The new partnership called for in Gathering Strength must be built on a foundation of trust and co-operation between Canada and first nations governments and communities. To establish that trust we must first of all fulfill our historical obligations to aboriginal people. Bill C-56 will help us do that for a number of Manitoba first nations. Although this proposed legislation is technical, its overriding objective is quite simple: to facilitate the implementation of claim agreements in Manitoba.

In doing this, Bill C-56 will address a number of specific commitments set out in Gathering Strength. It will affirm and honour treaties, which are the cornerstone of Canada's relationship with its aboriginal people. It will strengthen the capacity of first nations governments to make decisions about community lands and moneys as they move toward effective, legitimate and accountable self-government.

By overcoming obstacles that have slowed progress in the past, Bill C-56 will foster economic growth and development, consistent with our Gathering Strength commitment to support strong communities and people.

As hon. members can see, the bill has two parts. Part 1 deals with the flooded land master implementation agreement signed by the Norway House Cree Nation last year. Part 2 relates to the establishment of reserves in Manitoba under claim settlements, including treaty land entitlement agreements.

I want to make it clear at the outset that Bill C-56 will not give effect to any settlement agreement. The goal here is simply to ensure that land claim agreements, including those that may be negotiated in the future, can be implemented quickly and effectively.

I will review the key elements of Bill C-56 for the benefit of hon. members, particularly those across the way, who may not be familiar with the proposed legislation.

Part 1 of the bill is specific to a single Manitoba first nation, the Norway House Cree Nation. Hon. members will recall that Norway House was one of five Manitoba first nations that were severely affected by flooding caused by the hydroelectric projects in northern Manitoba in the early 1970s.

In an effort to address the devastating impact of the flooding on first nation communities, property and traditional livelihoods, Canada and other affected parties negotiated the northern flood agreement in 1977. Unfortunately the passage of time has shown the agreement to be flawed and difficult to implement. Despite years of effort, little progress was made in implementing many of its important and key elements.

In 1990 the parties to the northern flood agreement were able to reach consensus on a process for resolving the many outstanding issues. The proposed basis of settlement has provided a framework for negotiating master implementation agreements with four of the five affected first nations, the most recent being with Norway House.

I am pleased to report that the Norway House master implementation agreement is now being implemented. However, part 1 of Bill C-56 is needed to affirm certain elements of the agreement in law, just as previous legislation passed in this House has affirmed elements of the other three master implementation agreements.

Specifically Bill C-56 will ensure that any lands provided to Norway House in fee simple title will not become special reserves under section 36 of the Indian Act. This will enable the people of Norway House to use and control these lands as they see fit without the often burdensome administrative requirements the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must impose under the Indian Act and other federal legislation and strict management rules.

In a similar vein, Bill C-56 will ensure that compensation moneys owed to Norway House will not be administered as Indian moneys under the Indian Act. Instead these moneys will be paid to and administered by a trust that has been established by the Norway House Cree Nation and which operates under its direction with proper accountability safeguards in place. Again, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will have no role in managing these moneys.

These exemptions from the Indian Act will have two strategic outcomes. Most importantly they will increase the Norway House Cree Nation's self-reliance and self-government capabilities. At the same time they will lighten the administrative load for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The third thing this part of the legislation will do is give the master implementation agreement precedence over the northern flood agreement when a claim arises that could be settled or adjudicated under either agreement. The adjudication process set out in the master implementation agreement is widely regarded as being a superior approach.

Finally, part 1 of Bill C-56 will ensure that Canada has access to the provisions of the Manitoba Arbitration Act when dealing with disputes under the master implementation agreement.

The Norway House Cree Nation will also benefit from part 2 of the bill which is intended to advance the implementation of claim agreements in Manitoba by facilitating the transfer of lands to reserve status.

Gathering Strength calls for the development of vibrant on reserve economies. In order to do that we need to expedite the process of establishing reserves.

By way of background, part 2 of Bill C-56 has its origins in the issue of treaty land entitlements. As hon. members are aware, not all first nations received the full amount of land promised to them when they signed their treaties. For the past several years this government has been working to resolve this historical injustice by providing additional reserve lands to first nations with treaty land entitlements, including 26 first nations in Manitoba.

As part of this process, it has become clear that we need better legislative mechanisms to facilitate the transfer of lands to reserve status. Toward this end, part 2 of Bill C-56 will empower the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to set apart as reserves any of the lands selected by Manitoba first nations under a claim agreement. This will avoid the lengthy and cumbersome process of obtaining an order in council which is the approach currently used to establish reserve status.

However, the main objective of part 2 is to establish more effective mechanisms for accommodating and protecting third party interests that are identified during the reserve creation process. This will give first nations reasonable access to a broader range of lands that have development interests or potential. It will also significantly reduce the time required to add lands to reserves.

The sooner lands are identified and added to the reserve, the sooner they can contribute to the economic and social progress of the community. The key is to allow a first nation to consent to a third party interest on lands it wants to add to the reserve before those lands have actually been granted reserve status. The current wording of the Indian Act does not allow for this. A first nation can only consent to the creation of interests on land that is already part of the reserve, not on land that is simply being proposed for reserve status.

This effectively eliminates from consideration many parcels of land that have an existing third party interest, even something as basic as a right-of-way. The first nation cannot deal with the third party interest until the land is granted reserve status. The holder of that interest is unlikely to agree to the transactions without a guarantee from the first nation that its future rights will not be at risk.

Bill C-56 addresses the issue by giving Manitoba first nations a pre-reserve designation power as well as a pre-reserve permit granting power, each power being aimed at accommodating different kinds of third party interests. It also deals with the process first nations must follows to grant such interests.

The pre-reserve powers will not only apply to existing interests but will also allow a first nation to negotiate new rights that will come into effect upon reserve creation. This will ensure that first nations can take advantage of the development opportunities on their selected lands even before the reserve status is granted.

As I noted earlier, the impetus for the legislative changes set out in part 2 of the bill has been the desire of Canada, the Government of Manitoba and first nations to expedite the settlement of treaty land entitlement. At the same time these mechanisms will be made available to all other Manitoba claim settlement agreements, existing or future, that involve additions to reserves. These include the Norway House master implementation agreement dealt with in part 1 of Bill C-56, as well as the other three master implementation agreements signed under the northern flood agreement.

As a treaty land entitlement first nation Norway House will also benefit from the proposals to facilitate the transfer of lands to reserve status, which explains my earlier comment that Norway House will benefit from both parts of Bill C-56.

There is nothing controversial about the proposed legislation. It does not create new powers for first nations governments. Nor does it impose new obligations on Canadian taxpayers. In fact it will do the opposite by relieving the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of some if its administrative responsibilities and by speeding the process of reserve creation. It also establishes clear cut legal mechanisms for protecting both third party and first nations interests in lands selected for additional reserves.

This is simply a good, clean piece of legislation that will move Canada forward in addressing its commitments to aboriginal people, strengthening the capacity for self-government and improving socioeconomic conditions on reserves. It deserves the support of hon. members, particularly hon. members of the Reform Party. I urge them to join me in voting to send Bill C-56 to committee for proper, due and quick review.