John Cummins

[Income Tax Act, April 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we did contemplate putting the indexing factor into the bill. The reason we left it out was simple. It simplified the matter. We felt it was an issue that could be dealt with in this Parliament, for this Parliament and by this Parliament, so we left it at that one figure. However, philosophically, I have no difficulty whatsoever with agreeing to that sort of amendment.

[Income Tax Act, April 15th, 2008]

moved that Bill C-520, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Home Buyers' Plan), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-520 will increase from $20,000 to $25,000 the amount of money first time homebuyers can borrow from the savings they have accumulated in their RRSPs. This will be the first adjustment in the borrowing limit since the home buyers' plan was created in 1992.

This increase in the $20,000 loan limit to $25,000 will help first time buyers in every region of the country and will allow couples to withdraw up to $50,000. This increase will allow new homebuyers to maximize their down payment.

The home buyers' plan was proposed by finance minister Don Mazankowski to allow homebuyers to have access to their own retirement savings. Mazankowski viewed it as a win-win. In the 1992 budget he said, “The Plan will stimulate the housing market without reducing tax revenues or risking retirement savings”. It was a win-win in 1992 and it is a win-win in 2008.

Canadian homebuyers like the plan. According to the Department of Finance, Canadian homebuyers have used the plan more than 1.6 million times since 1992. They have borrowed more than $16 billion from their own savings.

Clearly, homebuyers prefer to borrow from their own savings rather than borrow from the banks and pay interest. As popular as the home buyers' plan is with homebuyers, its value has been eroded since 1992 by the dramatic increase in the cost of housing in many parts of Canada.

Home prices have climbed 152% in metro Vancouver since 1992, severely eroding the value of the original home buyers' plan put in place by Don Mazankowski. If the home buyers' plan were to keep pace with the rise of home prices in metro Vancouver, the plan's borrowing limit might have increased to well over $50,000.

The increase proposed in Bill C-520 is a very modest proposal that builds upon recent tax measures, such as the reduction in the GST from 7% to 5% and the creation of the new tax-free savings account, all which give Canadians an increased opportunity to buy their first home. This is the least we can do for aspiring homeowners in British Columbia and, indeed, throughout Canada.

The British Columbia Real Estate Association told the finance committee earlier this year that the borrowing limit should be increased to $25,000. It was a laudable recommendation, worthy of our support today.

The finance committee agreed. In its February report on the budget it recommended that the Minister of Finance:

--increase the amount that can be withdrawn from a registered retirement savings plan to purchase or build a qualifying home for the holder of the plan or for a related person with a disability.

Bill C-520 will enact the increase recommended by the B.C. Real Estate Association and supported by the Canadian Real Estate Association. While a recommendation to increase the borrowing limit to $25,000 may have come from British Columbia, it also has widespread support throughout the country.

The actions that will flow from this private member's bill will address one of the most fundamental desires shared by most Canadians: to own a home. A home is more than just a roof over one's head or a place to hang one's hat. It is a symbol of permanence, an investment in something bigger than one's own property. It is a connection with the community.

The privately owned home is perhaps the strongest keystone in the building blocks of a community and the strongly shared values that flow from being part of a community. We are often buoyed when we hear that the housing market is booming because we know that housing construction is a huge economic driver. In some parts of the country, it is the only economic driver.

We have also welcomed news in the last decade that has pointed to the growing rate of home ownership. In fact, some would argue that the home buyers' plan introduced in 1992 helped to drive the expansion of home ownership with a rate of home ownership increasing from 62.3% in 1992 to 66.1% in 2001.

However, we must dig deeper into the statistics to see an alarming trend that runs contrary to the positive results I have just quoted. Statistics show that young people are struggling to meet the promise of home ownership. Home ownership rates in the first time homebuyer age groups are well below the level of two decades ago.

According to research by the Vanier Institute of the Family in a 2004 report entitled “The Current State of Canadian Family Finances”, the home ownership rates for those households aged 34 and under fell from 44% in 1981 to 41% in 2001.

Among households aged 35 to 44, home ownership rates plummetted from 72% in 1981 to 67% in 2001. The report reveals that both of these groups had flat earnings for almost two decades.

The lower home ownership rates are confirmed by a Statistics Canada analysis which indicates that there was a slight increase in the proportion of young adults living with their parents and 41% of Canadians aged 20 to 29 were living with their parents in 2001 compared to 33% in 1991 and 28% in 1981.

The decline in home ownership among the young is due to factors which are not measured in traditional analysis of affordability. The latter generally concentrate on mortgage payments on a typical dwelling versus average incomes. Such analyses tend to exaggerate the effects of lower interest rates and do not take into account other important factors which together determine whether someone is able to afford to purchase a home. For many young Canadians, purchasing their first home is extremely difficult, particularly accumulating a down payment.

The challenges faced by first time homebuyers are not clearly understood by many housing analysts and policy makers. It is important to note that the decline in home ownership rates among the young is not a reflection of diminished desire to own a home. Research shows that this desire is as strong as ever. While most people wish to own a home, home ownership has become less viable for a large proportion of Canadians.

This bill takes direct aim at that decline. It helps young Canadians meet the challenge of coming up with a down payment. The home buyers' plan is unique in that it both encourages savings and it maximizes down payments available to homebuyers.

It addresses directly two important Canadian desires that strengthen the economic health of our nation by strengthening the economic health of individual Canadians: buying a home and putting away savings. These are worthy financial goals for ordinary Canadians and worthy goals for a nation that believes in home ownership and believes people are most able to care for themselves when they have cared for their long term financial success.

The program is only of value if it reflects the realities of the marketplace. Bill C-520 does just that. It raises the borrowing limit for registered retirement savings plan holders to a level that is close to its real value when it was introduced in 1992, when we compare it to the rate of inflation identified by the CPI. It recognizes that the average price of a home has risen more than three times as fast as the rate of inflation since the program was introduced.

By encouraging home buying activity we would be driving an important economic engine that produces many economic spin-offs. These spin-offs include increased tax revenues that will flow to government. I have not done the economic modelling necessary to verify any figures but my belief is that this measure in terms of its tax deferral implications should be revenue positive.

It is worthwhile to take a brief look at the history of the home buyers' plan. The home buyers' plan exists today because of the determination of two finance ministers, one Conservative and one Liberal, Don Mazankowski and the member for LaSalle—Émard, to let homebuyers have access to their own retirement savings when borrowing for their home.

Then finance minister Don Mazankowski, in his February 1992 speech, announced a plan to allow homeowners to use their retirement savings for down payments for first home purchases. Mr. Mazankowski told Parliament that the plan would stimulate the housing market without reducing tax revenues or risk retirement savings.

The Mazankowski plan was introduced as a temporary measure. As one of my first statements in the House, I rose on January 31, 1994, to ask the new government to extend the home buyers' plan. While I do not claim any credit for the extension of the plan, the new Liberal government made the plan permanent in the 1994 budget a short time later.

The finance minister of the day, the member for LaSalle—Émard, indicated that he made the program permanent so as to continue supporting the housing market and further encourage home ownership. In his 1998 budget, the former finance minister amended the home buyers' plan to enable persons with disabilities to have greater access to the plan by allowing existing homeowners to use the home buyers' plan to purchase a more accessible home or a home for a disabled, dependant relative.

It is worth noting that the regulatory impact statement printed in the Canada Gazette on January 6, 1999, when these changes were made, did not identify any cost to the federal treasury in extending the plan to persons with disabilities. I take this as another indication that Finance Minister Mazankowski was correct in 1992 when he said in the House that the home buyers' plan did not create any revenue loss for the federal treasury.

The House of Commons finance committee in February recommended to the Minister of Finance that the 2008 budget:

—increase the amount that can be withdrawn from a registered retirement savings plan to purchase or build a qualifying home for the holder of the plan or for a related person with a disability.

This recommendation had all party support.

The Bloc Québécois, in its own chapter in the finance committee's report, specifically supported an increase in the amount that a home buyer could borrow from a retirement savings account:

To make home ownership more accessible, the Bloc Québécois supports the recommendation to increase the amounts available under the Home Buyers’ Plan (HBP).

I would now like to address a number of questions that arise when we talk about increasing the borrowing limit from an individuals' earnings to $25,000, or $50,000 if both spouses have an RRSP.

First, has the home buyers' plan been successful? Over the last five years, almost 600,000 Canadians have made withdrawals from their RRSPs under the home buyers' plan, totalling over $16 billion. Since the introduction of the home buyers' plan in 1992, about 1.6 million Canadians have borrowed from their savings accounts for their first-time home purchases. On the average, first-time home buyers borrow $10,000 from their retirement savings accounts, for a total of $16 billion. That is $16 billion borrowed without any cost to the government and without any cost to home buyers, because home buyers borrow from their own savings. It is a program that first-time home buyers absolutely support. Clearly Canadians prefer to borrow from themselves rather than borrow from the banks and pay interest to the bankers.

Second, is there a negative impact on the government's tax revenues? There is no impact. The former minister of finance, Don Mazankowski, who introduced the home buyers' plan, advised Parliament in February 1992 that the $20,000 would have no impact on government's tax revenues:

The Plan will stimulate the housing market without reducing tax revenues or risking retirement savings.

If the $20,000 limit had no impact on government tax revenues in 1992, then $25,000 would have even less impact on government tax revenues in 2008.

Third, does the home buyers' plan assist retirement security for Canadians? Yes. Before the home buyers' plan, Canadians had to make a choice, either save for retirement or save for a house. The home buyers' plan allows Canadians to do both. The home buyers' plan is a means to strengthen home ownership at no cost to the Canadian taxpayer. Borrowed savings are invested in a principal residence, which is a pillar of security for retirement.

Since the home buyers' plan was introduced in 1992, the rate of home ownership has increased from 62.3% in 1991 to 66.1% in 2001. The home buyers' plan is unique among support programs for home ownership in that it encourages savings and maximizes down payments. By emphasizing the down payment, the home buyers' plan helps the home buyer to minimize the level of indebtedness over time.

Fourth, what has happened to home prices since 1992? Residential home prices rose 85% nationally between 1992 and 2006. Since 1992, home prices in metro Vancouver have increased 152%. The 152% increase in home prices in metro Vancouver has eroded the value of the home buyers' plan. Nowhere in the country is the need for an increase in the borrowing limit in the home buyers' plan to $25,000 greater than in metro Vancouver.

In closing, let me reiterate that there are no negative consequences to increasing the amount that first-time homebuyers can borrow from the savings they have accumulated in their RRSPs from $20,000 to $25,000. Rather, this increase would result in a greater number of young Canadians being able to participate in the dream every young person has, to own their own home, which would be very positive both for young people and for Canada.

[Tsawwassen First Nation, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Bertha Williams' family has lived on the Tsawwassen reserve for generations. More than half of all Tsawwassen band members live off reserve yet are able to vote on the proposed treaty and the reserve's land use plan. This upsets her.

In a recent speech, Bertha stated:

A lot of our elders...are new to our community...They lost their status years ago. They went off, got married, they didn't want to be labelled as native....

These elders...don't know our history...don't know our culture.

Bertha states emphatically:

I have never surrendered my birthright...I have never left my homeland....

[But] we are outnumbered...The majority of those who are voting band members live off the reserve.

There are people that live in Alabama, Los Angeles...across the Prairies...They are band members but they have no intention of ever living on the reserve. Yet they are voting on our business.

A lot of them have never even visited the Reserve. It is just ludicrous how they have so much to say on our livelihood...I see it as the demise of my people.

Bertha's complete speech can be heard at johncummins.ca.

[Income Tax Act, March 3rd, 2008]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-520, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Home Buyers' Plan).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to my bill, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Home Buyers' Plan) This bill would amend the Income Tax Act to increase the home buyers' plan loan limit from $20,000 to $25,000.

The home buyers' plan currently allows individuals to borrow up to $20,000 from their RRSPs to purchase their first home. Home prices are substantially higher today than when the $20,000 limit was put in place in 1992. The home buyers' plan is the only mortgage program that focuses on first-time home buyers. The increase in the loan limit to $25,000 would help first-time home buyers in every region of the country.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, February 8th, 2008]

With regard to the fishing organizations or groups of fishing licence holders who, excluding fees for commercial fishing licenses as set under the regulation, provide monies, fish quotas or allocations to fund Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) activities on an annual basis for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007: (a) in each year, what fishing organizations or groups of license holders have paid for science, DFO administration, enforcement or other departmental activities by an allocation of quota from their fishery; (b) in each year, what fishing organizations or groups of license holders paid for science, DFO administration, enforcement or other departmental activities by way of a cash contribution to the department or its contractor; (c) in each year, what is the total value by fishing organization or groups of license holders of the cash contributions or quota allocations aforementioned; (d) what science, administration, enforcement or other departmental activities carried out in 2005 and 2006 and not paid directly from the department’s ‘A’ base budget will be undertaken and paid for by an allocation from the department’s ‘A’ base budget for 2007; (e) how much did each fishing organization or groups of license holders pay DFO, by way of an allocation of quota or cash contribution, for activities such as science, administration, enforcement or other departmental activities for 2005 and 2006; (f) which fishing organizations or groups of license holders has the department agreed to reimburse wholly or in part for their cash contribution or quota allocations to cover the department’s science administration, enforcement costs or other activities from previous years, indicate how much or what portion of what was collected by year will be returned to the fishing organization or groups of licence holders; (g) did the department indicate that it would need to curtail fishing opportunities unless fishermen agreed to contribute money or fishing quota to fund departmental activities and, if so, what are the nature of the fishing opportunities at issue and the fishermen or fishing organization involved; (h) were the amounts raised from fishermen and their organizations reported and accounted for in the department’s spending estimates submitted to Parliament in each of these years, if so, indicate where and in what manner and form, and, if not, why; and (i) has the Auditor General ever reported on or advised the department on its method of collecting funds from fishermen or their organizations or with respect to the use of fish quotas or allocations to fund departmental activities, if so, when and what actions were taken to implement the Auditor General’s advice?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 12th, 2007]

With regard to the expansion of the Roberts Bank Port Facility to include a third berth and a second terminal as per the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and related Side-Agreements, the Memorandum of Agreement between the Tsawwassen Band and the Vancouver Port Authority, and the related Settlement Agreement between the Tsawwassen Band, Canada, British Columbia (B.C.), Vancouver Port Authority, B.C. Ferry Services, B.C. Rail Ltd and B.C. Transportation and Financing Authority: (a) how many acres (or hectares) of farm land will be used for Roberts Bank port and rail related developments now underway or under study; (b) with the completion of the Roberts Bank port expansion, including both the third berth and second terminal, what plans, if any, are there to use the Brunswick Point farmlands; (c) is the affected Roberts Bank farmland presently protected by the B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve designation; (d) does the Tsawwassen Final Agreement address the issue of farmland protection and if so, how; (e) will the farmland continue to be protected by the Agricultural Land Reserve designation following ratification of the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and, if not, why; (f) did the Vancouver Port Authority undertake to work jointly with the Tsawwassen Band to ensure the removal of the Agricultural Land Reserve designation from the farmland and, if so, why and what alternate measures did it put in place to protect farmland adjacent to the Roberts Bank port, rail and highway expansion; (g) did the Vancouver Port Authority agree to jointly develop with the Tsawwassen Band a container handling facility on the farmland protected by the B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve designation and, if so, why did the Vancouver Port Authority enter into such an agreement rather than develop container handling facilities further inland in a less environmentally sensitive area; (h) did the Vancouver Port Authority agree that the land would be leased at lease rates based on comparable market equivalent rates for industrial lands associated with port terminals; (i) has the Vancouver Port Authority considered the secondary destruction of farmland and wildlife habitat from the expanded rail yards and the construction of the container storage area on the environmentally sensitive lands adjacent to Roberts Bank and, if so, what measures has it put in place to protect farmland and the ability of wildlife now making use of the area to continue to be able to rely on these farmlands; (j) how much farmland and wildlife habitat will be destroyed as a result of the rail yards and rail line expansion both on the farmland and Deltaport Causeway as part of the Roberts Bank port expansion and how much will be destroyed as a result of the related highway construction; (k) did the Vancouver Port Authority consider the use of less environmentally sensitive land further inland for the storage of containers as well as the unpacking and reshipment of the containers and, if so, what are the options considered and why did it not adopt such options for the port; (l) what part of the farmland adjacent to Roberts Bank is available for the wintering of migrating waterfowl of the Pacific flyway and how many birds did the farmland adjacent to Roberts Bank support in the winters of 2005, 2006 and 2007; (m) has the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment noted snow geese and trumpeter swan crowding in the over wintering areas adjacent to Roberts Bank; (n) what studies have been undertaken by the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada as to the impact of the loss of this land following ratification of the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and the further development of the Roberts Bank port and related rail and highway infrastructure; (o) what impact on the over-wintering of migratory waterfowl did the studies identify with regard to the loss of habitat due to the Roberts Bank port third berth construction and related rail and highway development and are the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada working with B.C. to ensure that there will be a zero net loss of habitat; (p) was culling of the snow geese and trumpeter swan population considered as an option and, if so, how many birds would have to be culled due to the loss of farmland and wildlife habit to the Roberts Bank port development; (q) has the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada (i) enumerated the number of barn owls that inhabit barns on farm land in the vicinity of Roberts Bank, (ii) considered the impact of the loss of nesting areas on the barn owl, (iii) identified the number of barn owl nesting areas that have already been destroyed and (iv) has any federal government agency put in place a plan to protect the barn owls and their nesting areas; (r) has the loss of this farmland to port expansion and related container storage and rail and highway infrastructure construction been studied by Agriculture Canada as to the effect on the economic viability of the remaining farms as viable farm units and, if so, what studies have been undertaken; (s) has the Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) considered or studied the effect of the loss of the farm land and wildlife habitat on the quality of life and the value of residential property on the Tsawwassen Indian Reserve; (t) has the CMHC considered or studied the effect of the loss of farmland and wildlife habitat on the Tsawwassen and Ladner communities and in south Delta generally and, if so, what effects on the quality of life of the residents and the value of residential properties were identified; (u) did the Vancouver Port Authority agree to support efforts to remove the Wildlife Management Area designation or to refrain from so designating water lots at Roberts Bank and, if so, did the Port request the Province to refrain from making the Wildlife Management Area designation and, if not, has the Port requested the Province to designate the remainder of the Roberts Bank area a Wildlife Management Area and, if not, why; (v) has the Vancouver Port Authority received from B.C. the water lots identified in the Memorandum of Agreement and, if so, which water lots were received; (w) what measures has the Vancouver Port Authority put in place to ensure that migratory birds are not displaced from the foreshore area and that eelgrass beds are not destroyed during port expansion and have these protective measures been in place since the beginning of the Roberts Bank port expansion; (x) have eelgrass beds been destroyed or otherwise impacted and migratory birds been displaced from the foreshore by the work thus far in 2007 and, if so, what are the impacts and the mitigation plan for the loss of the eelgrass beds and the displacement of migratory birds; (y) have studies been undertaken or consideration given to the impact on migratory waterfowl from the shell fish aquaculture operation referenced in the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and, if so, what impacts on migratory waterfowl were considered; and (z) has the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada considered any plan to fill in the foreshore area between the causeways for the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal and the Roberts Bank port and, if so, what would be the impact be on fish and wildlife habitat?

[Ways and Means, December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the record to show that I am opposed to ways and means Motion No. 5, an act to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 16th, 2007]

With regard to the land areas and persons who reside within the area covered by the Tsawwassen Territory as set in the Tsawwassen Final Agreement: (a) what is the number of persons who currently reside in the Territory; (b) how many persons reside in the Territory and how many of these persons are under the Indian Act members of the Tsawwassen Band in (i) each of the Gulf Islands, (ii) the City of Richmond, (iii) the City of Vancouver, (iv) the Municipality of Delta, (v) the City of White Rock, (vi) the City of Surrey, (vii) the City of Burnaby, (viii) the City of New Westminster, (ix) the City of Coquitlam, (x) the City of Port Coquitlam, (xi) Langley City, (xii) the Municipality of Pitt Meadows, (xiii) the Municipality of Maple Ridge, (xiv) the Township of Langley, (xv) the Greater Vancouver Regional District Electoral Area “A”; (c) what was the population of the Tsawwassen Indian Band on an annual basis from its establishment to December 31, 2006; (d) what were the land holdings, in hectares, of the Tsawwassen Indian Band on an annual basis from its establishment as a band to December 31, 2006; (e) if the Tsawwassen Indian Band landholdings were decreased in any year, for what reason did the decrease occur and what, if any, compensation or payment was provided to the Band; and (f) what other bands, tribes or aboriginal organizations have territorial claims that overlap Tsawwassen Territory?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 20th, 2007]

With regard to the waters of the Tsawwassen Territory, both in the Strait of Georgia, the Fraser River and elsewhere, as set out in the Tsawwassen Final Agreement and Side-Agreements: (a) what was the nature of the vessel traffic in the Tsawwassen Territory in 2006 both on the Fraser River and the Strait of Georgia; (b) how will vessel traffic in the waters of the Tsawwassen Territory be impacted by the Final Agreement and what studies have been undertaken on the impacts of the Final Agreement on vessel traffic; (c) in addition to the Strait of Georgia and the Fraser River, what are the additional bodies of water within the Territory; (d) what species of fish or shell fish were caught by recreational and commercial fishermen within the Tsawwassen Territory in the years 1986 to 2006; (e) what was the number or quantity and the landed value of fish and shellfish caught under commercial license by species in each year during the period 1986 to 2006; (f) how many commercial fishermen were licensed to fish for any area within the Tsawwassen Territory in each year during the period; (g) how many recreational fishermen were licensed to fish in the area within the Tsawwassen Territory in each year during the period; (h) how many commercial fishing licenses by species were held by fishermen for any part of the area within the Tsawwassen Territory in each year during the period; (i) how many hours of fishing time were authorized for the Tsawwassen Indian Band to undertake food, social and ceremonial fisheries by species for each year during the period; (j) how many pounds of fish were landed by the Tsawwassen Indian Band for food, social and ceremonial fisheries for each year during the period; (k) how many sockeye salmon could have been caught under the Tsawwassen Fishing Right Allocation for each year if it had been in place during the period, and what was the total catch of Fraser sockeye for each year during the period; (l) how many members of the Tsawwassen Indian Band as registered under the Indian Act were resident on the Tsawwassen Indian Reserve for each year during the period; (m) what studies have been undertaken to identify the impacts of the creation of the Tsawwassen Fishing Right on other recreational and commercial fishermen who have traditionally fished in what is now the Tsawwassen Territory, in particular the displacement of traditional recreational and commercial fishermen; (n) if the 0.78% of the Canadian commercial total allowable catch for Fraser sockeye that is being transferred to the Tsawwassen Band had been fished by the Tsawwassen Band what would the total catch be in pounds for each year during the period; (o) what measures have been put in place to guarantee that those recreational and commercial fishermen who have traditionally fished in the area that now constitutes the Tsawwassen Territory will be able to continue to fish in the public recreational and commercial fisheries unimpeded; (p) what would have been (i) the value, in number of fish, of the 0.78% allocation of the Canadian Commercial Total Allowable Catch to the Tsawwassen Band for Fraser sockeye for each year during the period as provided under the Final Agreement and accompanying side-agreements, (ii) the total Canadian commercial catch of Fraser sockeye for each year, (iii) the average allocation to the Tsawwassen Band for the period based on the 0.78% allocation; (q) what would have been the value, in quantity and dollars, of the 3.27% allocation of terminal commercial catch of Fraser River chum salmon to the Tsawwassen Band for each year during the period; (r) what would have been the value of the 0.78% allocation to the Tsawwassen Band of the Canadian commercial total allowable catch of Fraser River pink salmon for each year during the period; (s) what would have been the value of the five commercial crab licenses to be issued to the Tsawwassen Band under the Harvest side agreement for each year during the period; (t) what is the size limit going to be for crab taken under the Final Agreement and Side-Agreements for food, social, ceremonial and commercial purposes; (u) what is the quantity and value of the crab taken by the band for food, social and ceremonial fisheries for each year of the period; (v) what was the quantity and value of each species caught during food, social and ceremonial openings or under such licenses and exported to the United States or any other country for each year during the period; and (w) does the Final Agreement and Side Agreements provide for self catch monitoring and reporting by the Tsawwassen Band and, if so, how does that differ from the reporting and catch monitoring planned for those public recreational and commercial fisheries that will still be able to operate within the Tsawwassen Territory following the implementation of the Final Agreement?

[Petitions, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of residents of various communities on Vancouver Island and in Kimberley and the surrounding area as well.

The petitioners are expressing their concern about the impact that Bill C-45, the proposed new fisheries act, will have on them. They decry the fact that they were denied input into the drafting of the bill. They are calling upon Parliament to withdraw it and to accept input from recreational and commercial fishermen and others.