John Cummins

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on this issue today. In this year of 2004, close to two million sockeye went missing on the Fraser River somewhere between Mission and the spawning grounds. These are the worst returns in history on this cycle, even worse than the returns after the Hell's Gate slide back in 1914. This a tragedy. There is no question about it.

Here is what it is akin to. If fish were trees it would be akin to clear-cutting one-quarter of the Fraser River basin, because these fish are on a four year cycle. There are thee other cycles to go, but in my view there will not be a fishery on these stocks until probably 2020 at the earliest. Things will not be back to normal before then.

DFO's response to these problems has been to blame factors beyond its control. It suggests that the echo counter at Mission was not functioning properly. It suggests that there may have been problems with counts on the spawning grounds. It suggests that warm water temperatures again may be the problem.

All of these issues were raised back in 1992 and 1994 as a defence when fish went missing. They were addressed by Mr. Fraser and Dr. Pearse in 1992. Both of them looked at the echo counter and found that it was functioning properly. The spawning counts were fine. Temperatures were not a big issue in 1992, but they were somewhat of an issue in 1994. In fact, combined with that there were higher water flows and a higher discharge in the river, which increased problems for the fish. Again, though, former Speaker Fraser said that at most there would be a 15% mortality from these sorts of things.

When the department addressed this issue and listed the problems, the only issues that it did not raise were management issues themselves and the issue of enforcement. I will give an example of why the department should have raised those issues. In 1998, the run size on early Stuart was similar and actually statistically the same as the run size this year, at about 180,000 sockeye. In that year the department shut down the fishery for a little better than three weeks in July and only allowed one day of fishing during that time in order to get a sufficient number of these early Stuart fish on to the spawning grounds.

It was similar as well in 1987. It was a similar number and the fishery shut down. It was shut down purposely so that it would get an adequate number of early Stuart spawners on to the gravel.

This year was entirely different. It was the same run size, but instead of shutting down the fishery DFO allowed fishing every day during the month of July. When I raised this issue with departmental officials in British Columbia, they were at a loss to explain that. They said, “We'll have to get back to you”. I said, “Get back to me? This issue is current”.

What happened in 1987 and what happened in 1988 is current. The people managing the fishery now should be able to explain why they are operating differently than they did in 1987 and 1988. Why was it okay in 1987 and 1988 to shut it down? Why was it okay this year to allow fishing every day?

They could not explain it. The government said that we needed an inquiry, so it appointed Mr. Williams to head an inquiry of stakeholders. That is like asking the accident victims to investigate the accident.

When Mr. Fraser conducted his inquiry, he was a man of great experience: a former Speaker of the House and a former fisheries minister, a man with a long history of studying and responding to fisheries issues in British Columbia.

To support him, he had either five or six people, five Ph.D.s and one lawyer who was a specialist in these matters of environmental law and so on. He had with him five people who were accustomed to conducting investigations and accustomed to looking into these sorts of issues. One gentleman was an echo sounder specialist. Another gentleman was a statistician. They were people whose very training taught them how to investigate and search for answers to these mysteries. It was not a committee of stakeholders.

The commission that the government has put forward is doomed to failure because it simply does not have the resources to do the job that should be done.

As well, we heard from many members of the commercial fishing industry. In fact, I think everyone from the commercial fishing industry who addressed the committee, and members of the sport fishing industry as well, felt that the government appointee in this particular instance, former Justice Williams, had a bias in these issues, not that he is a bad man, but he comes to the table with a bias and they felt that it would be inappropriate for him to conduct this investigation.

If we are going to get to the root of the problem here, we do need an investigation. We need the ability to subpoena witnesses and take testimony under oath. Let me refer back to Speaker Fraser. Speaker Fraser gave testimony again before the committee in Vancouver. In his report, he addressed that very issue and his inability to get to the bottom of the question. He told the committee and, as I have said, wrote in the report that he went as far as he could in his report to answer the questions and address the issues, but he ran into a stone wall because he lacked that ability to bring the people before him who could give the kinds of answers we need.

Let me give an example of how this works. This committee cannot even afford the kind of protection to departmental witnesses that a House of Commons standing committee offers. Our fisheries committee back in 2001 took testimony from a member of the Coast Guard, a gentleman who gave very explicit testimony which did not put the department in good light. He was threatened with disciplinary action by DFO for appearing before a House of Commons standing committee.

In 1996, I was asking questions about the operation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. A memo went out from the minister's office to the extent that any DFO official who talked to me, had any information or was requested for information by me had to advise the minister's office within 24 hours of any discussion they had with me.

Why should we expect that now suddenly today there is going to be an open discussion here and we are going to hear the true story?

Mr. Radford, who is the acting regional director of fisheries management, is quoted in the national media this morning. His comments were that there is no real problem here, that there is nothing the matter. He said that investigating wrongdoings is what a judicial inquiry is for. He said that there were no wrongdoings here. He asked what there was to investigate. He said, “But it's not the lowest run on record for this cycle either”. Not the lowest run? Let him come forward with the information. I have the information. I searched it out. It is the lowest run on record.

Then he goes on to say that I say it will be 2020 before the fish are back to normal. He trashes that idea. He says there are all sorts of variables that come into play. Yes, there are, but prudence--and we should be operating this fishery with prudence--suggests that it will be 2020 before the fish return to anywhere near the numbers that we have today. That is three cycles. It is not a long time.

He goes on to assure me that the minister is interested in getting to the bottom of the key issues, and I am sure he is. However, he can demonstrate that quite clearly by recognizing the will and the wish of the people of British Columbia, the fishing industry in British Columbia, including many native organizations, that there be a judicial inquiry into this mess.

[Question No. 23, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted. As you well know, I am sure it was your intervention and the good work of my friend across the way that got those two questions answered.

I have as well Question No. 14, which was asked way back on October 12, and is now past due. When could we expect to see that one answered? It has to do with the purchase of the used hovercraft for the Coast Guard on the west coast. We would like the answer on that one as well.

[Question No. 7, December 8th, 2004]

With regard to the environmental and economic issues posed by the development of halibut or sablefish aquaculture: ( a ) has a comprehensive environmental impact analysis of halibut and sablefish aquaculture been completed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Fisheries Act, the Navigable Water Protection Act or some other authority and what were the findings; ( b ) has a comprehensive economic impact and cost/benefit analysis of halibut and sablefish aquaculture been undertaken to determine the total impacts and net economic benefits to British Columbia and Canada been completed and what were the findings; ( c ) have the locations of nursery and juvenile rearing areas of various species of halibut and sablefish in coastal inlets, bays and fiords of British Columbia been established and if so where are they; ( d ) have guidelines been developed for the siting of halibut and sablefish aquaculture that would prohibit placement of halibut and sablefish net pens in nursery and juvenile rearing areas in coastal inlets, bays and fiords; ( e ) have authorizations or approvals been given for the establishment of halibut and sablefish net pen aquaculture operations in the coastal waters of British Columbia and if so what are the locations; ( f ) is a sablefish hatchery operation or operations, that would have as its objective the providing of stock for sablefish aquaculture operations, under construction and if so what is its location or locations and what measures have been undertaken to ensure that its production will not be placed in net pen aquaculture operations in Canadian waters until assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act have been completed and authorizations given under either the Fisheries Act or the Navigable Waters Protection Act; ( g ) has Fisheries and Oceans Canada undertaken or funded research into the development of halibut and sablefish aquaculture and if so what were the results and what species of sablefish were studied; ( h ) have provincial authorities licenced halibut and sablefish aquaculture operations in Canadian coastal waters without Canadian Environmental Assessment Act assessments and if so what is the specific location of each licence; ( i ) which of the sites licenced by a provincial authority are within five nautical miles of nursery or juvenile rearing areas of wild halibut or sablefish; ( j ) what studies or research have been undertaken or funded to ensure that these provincially licenced sites are not within five nautical miles of a halibut or sablefish nursery or juvenile rearing area; ( k ) what studies or research have been undertaken or funded with regard to diseases and parasites associated with halibut or sablefish aquaculture, their possible transfer to wild stocks, and what were the findings; ( l ) what studies or research has been undertaken or funded with regard to the level of escapes from net pens, whether escaped halibut and sablefish tended to migrate north toward Alaska or south toward California in the manner that wild stocks do and what were the findings; ( m ) what is the level and composition of waste from Fisheries and Oceans Canada experimental halibut and sablefish aquaculture operations or experimental operations funded or authorized by Fisheries and Oceans Canada; ( n ) what is the cost shared funding arrangement for the research and development work undertaken by Fisheries and Oceans Canada; ( o ) what is the cost to Fisheries and Oceans Canada with regard to all research and development activity involving halibut and sablefish aquaculture, including staff time, salaries and contributions; ( p ) what is the nature of the consultations with halibut and sablefish fishermen with regard to the development of halibut and sablefish aquaculture; ( q ) what measures have been established to compensate fishermen should halibut and sablefish aquaculture lead to a collapse of wildfish stocks or a reduction in fish caught; ( r ) what measures have been established to compensate fishermen should the production and marketing of farmed halibut and sablefish aquaculture lead to a decline in market prices for halibut and sablefish and a resulting loss of the income by fishermen; and ( s ) what measures have been established to restrict or prohibit the export of live halibut or sablefish broodstock?

(Return tabled)

[Question No. 5, December 8th, 2004]

With regard to the environmental and economic issues posed by the development of salmon farm aquaculture sites in bays and inlets along the coast of British Columbia: ( a ) have guidelines been developed for the siting of open net salmon farm pens that would prohibit placement of salmon net pens in salmon nursery and juvenile rearing areas or migration routes in coastal inlets, bays and fiords and, if so, which of the farm sites presently in operation are in violation of these guidelines and which conform to the guidelines; ( b ) have authorizations or approvals been given for the establishment of salmon farm net pen aquaculture operations in the coastal waters of British Columbia and, if so, what are the locations, who is the operator of each approved site and what is the nature or type of authorization or approval given; ( c ) have species other than salmon been approved for these sites, if so what sites and species are involved and are these species now present in any of these approved sites; if so, which ones; ( d ) have provincial authorities licenced salmon farm net pen aquaculture operations in Canadian coastal waters without Canadian Environmental Assessment Act assessments and, if so, what is the specific location of each licence; ( e ) how many salmon farm sites are in operation without authorization and are awaiting approval under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, name or identify the sites and operator of each site; ( f ) what recommendations has the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development or the Office of Sustainable Aquaculture made to expedite Canadian Environmental Assessment Act environmental assessments and have individual site assessments been reduced or eliminated; ( g ) which of the sites licenced by a provincial authority and presently in operation are within five nautical miles of nursery or juvenile rearing areas or migration routes of wild salmon; ( h ) what studies or research have been undertaken or funded with regard to diseases and parasites associated with salmon net pen aquaculture, their possible transfer to wild stocks, and what were the findings; ( i ) what such diseases or parasites have been found at salmon net pen sites in each of the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, and what was the location of each farm site having these diseases or parasites; ( j ) has either the Pacific Fisheries Resources Conservation Council or Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientists ever advised the government of problems with sea lice and disease emanating from salmon sites that threaten wild salmon runs; if so, when, which farms and what wild stocks were involved; ( k ) has there been baseline research conducted of sea lice infestation on fish stocks on British Columbia’s central or north coast; ( l ) what is the level and composition of waste from net pen salmon aquaculture operations by farm site presently in operation; ( m ) what is the authorized density of fish at each site, and which of these sites exceed the authorized limits; ( n ) has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans established a carrying capacity for bays and inlets that may have a number of farm sites; if so, what is the carrying capacity by bay or inlet where such carrying capacity has been established and where such limits have been met or exceeded; ( o ) have PCBs been found in farmed salmon, how many times and at what level; ( p ) how many persons presently involved in salmon farm environmental assessments or reviews have been formerly employed by the British Columbia department responsible for aquaculture development and expansion; and ( q ) how many persons presently involved in salmon farm environmental assessments or reviews have been formerly employed by fish farm companies, who are they and which companies were they employed by?

(Return tabled)

[Petitions, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member opposite from Richmond would probably like to have his name on the bottom of the petition I have today. The petition recognizes that two million sockeye salmon were missing on the Fraser River this past summer. The petitioners are unhappy with the inquiry that the government is proposing be undertaken now.

Therefore, they call upon the government to initiate a judicial inquiry into the missing salmon.

[Fisheries, December 7th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, if fish were trees, the government sat idly by while one-quarter of the Fraser River basin was clear cut this summer.

In July and August approximately two million sockeye disappeared from the Fraser River between Mission and the upriver spawning grounds. This disaster will cost the British Columbia economy between $170 million and $500 million in 2008. Why? Because there will be no fishery in 2008, the next year in the cycle. There will be no commercial fishery, no sport fishery and no food, social and ceremonial fishery for natives. It will be 2020 before things return to normal.

What has been the government's response? It has put a Liberal friend in charge of the normal regular post-season review, and hopes the issue will go away.

What the industry and the people of British Columbia want is a judicial inquiry into the management of the fishery this past summer.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, December 6th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, listen to them over there. It is unbelievable.

That is what the agreement does. Members opposite do not understand the effects of their own legislation and that is what bothers me the most.

When we go back to the Constitution, the notion of aboriginal rights were thrown in without definition. Nobody knew what it meant. Nobody took the time to define it. It was thrown in and we have been debating it ever since. It has been expensive. We have had court case after court case and then we get nonsense like the bill that is before us today, which is opening the doors to nothing but lawsuits and ongoing negotiations that will never end.

When will the members in this place wake up? To suggest that this place changes with every election and somehow there is no continuity is beyond the pale. The issue is that these notions should have been carefully defined by the House so that parliaments that follow would have an idea of what was meant by terms like “inherent right”. That is the issue. That is our job and we are not doing it.

Our job is to ensure that there is clear definition. Our job is to ensure that the definitions are clear so that if there is a problem and the matter ends up in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court knows what Parliament's intention was.

The debate we have had on the bill, this non-debate, this debate that gets thrown out at the last minute so that it is impossible for members to adequately prepare is the problem. Members opposite do not want to discuss the issue. They do not want clear definition. They do not want the people of Canada to be heard on these matters. They are simply not concerned with the effects of their actions.

We could look at the estimates over time and the money that was spent time after time in negotiating these agreements. How does it improve the life of native people in this country? We should think back to Davis Inlet. There was $152 million spent to move the poor people of Davis Inlet from one location to another. The government said that would fix the problems of drug and alcohol abuse, of sexual abuse and all the ills of the community. The government said it would fix it by moving those folks from community A to community B.

Has it fixed anything? Not a thing. The problems go on, and why? Because every morning when those kids wake up in Davis Inlet, nothing has changed. Whether they wake up in the old community or whether they wake up in the new one, it does not matter. The kids look out their windows at the street and they see the broken down snowmobile, the pick-up truck that is not running, or the stray dog. The vista does not change from day to day. It is all the same.

Nothing ever changes. They cannot better themselves because there are no economic opportunities there. There is nothing to make their lives better. Then the young people turn on the TV and they get pictures coming in from Los Angeles, from Toronto, from London, and they ask, “How can those people live like that? Why not us?”

The government spent $152 million to move them from one community to another to improve nothing, to provide no economic opportunities and to provide no hope for those individuals to improve their lives. The money was spent and the government members feel good. They spent money but they got nowhere. They fixed nothing. That is going to happen here. Nothing is going to be fixed.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, December 6th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is somewhat confused. The effect of the bill is to create a third order of aboriginal government.

Article 7.7.2 and article 7.7.4 prescribe the following hierarchy of government: one, federal legislation of general application; two, territorial legislation implementing Canadian international agreements; three, Tlicho laws; four, territorial legislation of general application; and five, specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho. In other words, Tlicho laws prevail over territorial laws and also over federal laws relating to the Tlicho. My friends from Quebec would love to have an agreement like this, I am sure.

On taxation and royalties, the Tlicho get about 2% of the royalties of the two existing diamond mines in their area. Any future mineral or subsurface development on Tlicho lands would result in a payment of the royalties to them.

Premier Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador would love to get this agreement. He would love to get 100% of the royalties that accrued and should be accruing to Newfoundland and Labrador from the oil resources off that shore. He cannot get it. These folks can.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it gives me a great deal of pleasure to address this bill today, but I am sorry I cannot. I am troubled by the bill. It is deeply perplexing. The bill in a sense is probably one of the first of over 600 bills which will be like this.

Before I embark on a critique of the bill and the problems that I see in it, I want to lay before the House the Conservative Party position on these issues because it is important. Our position on these bills is reasonable and shows an understanding of the problems that face native people in the country. If the positions we have taken were followed in the document we are debating today, there would be a glimmer of hope.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that self-government must occur within the Constitution of Canada. That is an important point and one which I will address later in my speech.

We believe that the settlement of all outstanding comprehensive claims must be pursued on the basis of a clear framework that balances the rights of aboriginal claimants with those of Canada, and I might add with Canadians. The Supreme Court itself has stated that in any agreement reached with native people there has to be an understanding that others have acquired rights and there has to be a balance between the aboriginal right and the rights of other Canadians. I do not see that in the bill.

The Conservative Party believes that self-government agreements must be structured to ensure constitutional harmony so as not to impede the overall governance of Canada, which is another point that I will address more fully later.

To ensure fairness and equality, a Conservative government would ensure that the principles of the charter applied to aboriginal self-government, which is almost an impossibility as the House will see.

The Conservative Party believes in giving aboriginal governments the power to raise their own revenues. Aboriginal agreements reached with the federal government must represent a final agreement in the same manner as was achieved in Nisga'a. Let me correct that. Aboriginal agreements reached with the federal government must represent a final agreement, and I will stop there.

We are told the agreement is a culmination of two separate negotiations. The first was the negotiation of a comprehensive claim, which has been carried out pursuant to the 1986 comprehensive claims policy. In this respect, the agreement is similar to the Nisga'a agreement. Secondly, the negotiation of self-government arrangements are based upon the 1995 inherent right policy. In this respect, the agreement follows the Westbank agreement.

Before I go on with my comments, I want to bring to the attention of the House something that I think is critically wrong with the process that we are engaged in today. The bill and the agreement are being put before Parliament on an all or nothing basis. We are told that the government has received advice that Parliament lacks the capacity to amend the provisions of the agreement. It is for this reason that the legislation was introduced by way of a notice of ways and means motion on October 19.

To suggest that the agreement is beyond the capacity of Parliament to amend is a serious flaw in the process. Who negotiated the agreement? Who and what authority was given those negotiators? That is not clear. I am not aware of it. I do not know and I do not think there is a member in the House right now who could tell us who the individuals were that negotiated the agreement, what relationship they had with the area under discussion and what relationship they may or may not have had with the native bands involved prior to the negotiations. Who are they?

In my own riding, the Tsawwassen agreement will be coming forward for signing shortly. The negotiators are not familiar with my community. They regularly ignore the wishes of the local community, the Delta Council and others. They are just grey bureaucrats.

These grey and unseen bureaucrats have negotiated an agreement which in a sense is binding on all of us. Today we are either going to accept the total package or reject it. We have no right to say that we like a part of it, but ask people to go back to the table to some changes because this or that aspect of it may be unworkable. That is what we should be doing. We are here to represent the people of Canada, yet we do not have a say. Who gave the instructions and who detailed and told the negotiators what was on the table?

We are told that there are 39,000 square kilometres of land. That is half the size of New Brunswick. To put it in a way that people in British Columbia understand, that is 25% larger than Vancouver Island, and 3,000 people are involved. What were the instructions? Was the negotiator prepared to give away 60,000 square kilometres of land if the demand had been made? Nobody knows and in fact there are conflicting demands for the land.

That is a serious problem with the whole process. When these sorts of agreements come before the House, the House should debate them thoroughly, especially these first agreements, and establish guidelines that can give some direction to negotiators in these agreements and to negotiations that are ongoing. Instead, we are here to rubber stamp it, and we know that will happen. The government members will rubber stamp the bill and others, because they do not want to cause any kerfuffle, will agree with this as well. Many may do it thinking that this is the best way to go.

I do not. I oppose the legislation and I do so for a variety of reasons.

In the first instance, the bill lacks finality. In agreements signed in days gone by, the language was at the end of the bill: cede, release and surrender. In other words, the band which received its reserve lands and its governance, whatever way or nature that may have taken, signed off and said that it ceded, released and surrendered any further claims. That is not the way this bill goes. In fact, this is not the final draft.

If another band gets more, these folks can come back to the table and demand more. In other words, we are committing the Government of Canada, and Canadians, to continue this process for decades because there will be no end. There will always be that juggling to try to get a little more.

If anybody wonders how that works, just think back in British Columbia, for example, and the teachers' negotiations. Board A would come in and would be in negotiations. The smaller board would sit back, let the other guys go first and see what happened. Everybody would wait for the wealthy board to sign off, and it would become the benchmark. Everybody else then tried to reach it.

I guess that is collective bargaining rights, but does it really work? Does it deal with the marketplace in any way, shape or form? No. Yet that is what we face when the language is not final. All it means is that some day down the line, when somebody else comes up with a better deal, there will be a request to reopen the negotiations.

I mentioned in the beginning that there were two areas from which this agreement flowed, or two separate sets of negotiations, one being based on the 1995 inherent rights policy of the Liberal government.

This is a policy which has not really had the benefit of the scrutiny of Parliament. It is a policy which was created by the government but was not openly debated in this place. In fact, when the first bill that was negotiated on this came through this House last fall, the government tried to rush this thing through in one day. When it did return, there was not much in the way of discussion to really create an understanding of what was meant by this bill. That is the problem with everything that seems to be going on here.

What does this inherent right policy mean? How is it going to impact not only the governance in native lands but on other Canadians living in that particular area covered by the treaty?

Let us back up for a minute and put the notion of inherent right into perspective. Section 91 of the Constitution, if my memory serves me correct, lists the powers of the federal government. Section 92 lists all the powers of the provincial government.

The Constitution says quite clearly that there are no other powers available. The powers that are vested in the provincial government and in the federal government cover the spectrum of powers that are available. There is no room in the Constitution for other powers. Some may ask about municipal government, where does it fit in?

Municipal governments are a delegated form of government. Their authority flows from the provincial government. The provincial government gives municipalities certain powers which actually belong to it. It says these are local powers. These powers are better managed by local government than they are from Victoria, in the case of British Columbia, or from Edmonton, in the case of Alberta, to mention two of the finer provinces.

If the federal government takes all its powers from section 91, the province takes all its powers from section 92, and municipal governments derive their powers or operate with a delegated form of authority from the provincial government, where then does this inherent right power flow from?

When the government recognizes inherent right to self-government, it is saying that right flows from section 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, the inherent right to self-government is not one which is delegated by either the federal or provincial government, but in fact it has equal footing. It flows from section 35 of the of the charter and that gives it the ability to trump federal or provincial law. It is as simple as that. This is not complex. This is simple stuff that is quite easy to understand for anyone who takes the time to think it through. How then does the charter apply? Government would tell us that the charter will apply. But how can it?

If the Tlicho government were operating because it has an inherent right, how then can we say that the charter would apply? That is an intrusion on the inherent authority of the Tlicho government. Therefore, it will likely be rejected in the courts.

The court will say, how on one hand can it be said that these folks have an inherent right to self-government and on the other hand say that they are constrained by the charter? It does not follow. It cannot be had both ways. We cannot say they have an inherent right and then at the same time turn around and say that their rights are constrained.

In fact, if we look at Bill C-14, it recognizes that very point. The bill says and contains this remarkable section relating to international matters. In article 2.2.9 of the agreement, it states:

Nothing in the Agreement shall be interpreted so as to limit or extend the authority of the Parties to negotiate and enter into international, national, interprovincial, and interterritorial agreements--

By implication this suggests that the Tlicho government has the authority to enter into international agreements.

In fact, if that authority does not exist in that manner, the Government of Canada is required to consult with the Tlicho when international treaties are going to impact on them. That is clear from reading the agreement. If an international agreement is going to impact on the Tlicho people, then they have a right to be consulted and to have their concerns addressed. However, how far does it go? That is not clearly defined.

Will the Tlicho people have the right to veto an agreement because it somehow impinges on their right? I think the whole issue is very confusing. However, the very broad language that is contained in this treaty puts a remarkable restriction on power that is constitutionally reserved for the federal government.

This is one agreement in over 600 that we are going to enter into in this country. I look at the Tsawwassen Indian Band, in my own neighbourhood, located a mile or so north of the international boundary at Point Roberts. There are ongoing issues between the province of British Columbia and the state of Washington, or in essence between Canada and the United States. There are fisheries issues there.

If we were to go right along the coast then, any band that says it has an interest in fish on the west coast of Canada, any band from Alaska down to the border at Washington state, would have an interest in fish, sign an agreement, and demand the same right that the Tlicho First Nation has. How do we manage this? Every band has a right to veto. Every band has a right to be consulted on a matter which affects all Canadians.

The Magna Carta was signed in 1200. Essentially, the signing was to limit the authority of the lords. It has grown from that point to the point where we are sitting here in this House of Commons, as members of Parliament, representing the people of Canada. The Government of Canada is supposed to be the authority over the lands of Canada and sharing that responsibility with a province.

This agreement sets up one group of Canadians and says that this group will have the final say on a lot of legislation that will be introduced in this place.

[Question No. 21, December 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, just last week I mentioned that Questions Nos. 5 and 6 had not been answered and I still have not had a response to them.

Today I would like to point out that I am still waiting for an answer to Question No. 7. Mr. Speaker you should know that I first asked the question on September 24, 2003. I asked it again on February 2, 2004 and then again on October 5, 2004.

I know from access to information that the questions were answered. I know as well from access to information that one of the respondents to these questions was ordered to rewrite the response to put it in a more positive light.

These order paper questions are to be answered in a straightforward, honest and forthright manner. I am concerned that one, I am not getting the answer, but two, I am not getting a straight answer.