Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of privilege. It is not even a matter of being a good point of order. What we have here is the beginning of a debate.
The debate being proposed by the member opposite is a debate about the impact or the capacity of enforcement officers both departmental and aboriginal officers to conduct their responsibilities.
This is very technical that there is a late signing of an aboriginal fisheries agreement. The agreement in question this year has been the subject of a lot of discussion, questions in the House, a great deal of media. It is now the subject of a review by a former Speaker and a public panel. There has been some acknowledgement of some problems. The agreement in question primarily is on the lower Fraser. The group in question is the Sto:Lo. But this is one of 47 agreements. There are 47 agreements.
If the member chooses to focus on some areas of difficulty and draw from them the conclusion that the entire program, the planet as we know it, the fishery as it has been conducted, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and every last fish are all subject to a totally uncontrolled situation, that is his right as a member of this House. But to extrapolate from it that the answer given is misleading when there are 47 agreements and not just one is improper. It is wrong and is an abuse of the whole principle of a question of privilege.
What we have here is a debate. Mr. Speaker, if you would like to provide for a debate, you well know in the years we have shared together in this place that I am always tempted to engage in such.