|
John Cummins, M.P. --- Delta - Richmond East, British Columbia, Canada
www.johncummins.ca
|
(from Supreme Court of Canada website) Excerpt from Stewart McDonald's Motion filed in the Supreme Court of Canada for a Rehearing in Kapp: PART I OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Until June 27, 2008, when this court delivered its ruling, R. v. Kapp had never been about affirmative action programs under s. 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the view of the Appellant fishermen, Kapp was about racial segregation of their own workplace. In the view of the Crown, Kapp was about fisheries management.
2. The position of the parties offered the Court two choices. It could adopt the approach of the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) in which it held that the police powers of the state authorized the segregation of American citizens into separate rail cars based on skin colour under the guise of “separate, but equal.” Or the Court could adopt the principles espoused fifty years later by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. the Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) in which it declared that separate is inherently unequal.
3. This learned Court adopted the Plessy approach by focusing on the question of legislative authority which precluded an analysis of whether racial segregation of Canadian citizens is consistent with the equality of a free and democratic Canada. Harlan J. was the courageous dissenting Justice in the Plessy appeal. His words are as applicable in this appeal as they were in 1896 in the United States:
“In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is therefore to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a state to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race… the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Case…The thin disguise of ‘equal’ accommodations for passengers in railroad coaches will not mislead anyone, nor atone for the wrong this day done. (Plessy v. Ferguson)
4. The Appellants do not claim to be in the same position as Americans who fought the odious “separate, but equal” doctrine for 50 years from Plessy to Brown (such a claim would dishonour their struggle), but as held by this court in the appeal concerning an off-reserve Indian prosecuted for consuming alcohol alongside Canadians of other races:
“The social situations in Brown v. Board of education and in the instant case are, of course, very different, but the philosophic concept is the same.” (Drybones)
5. Until Kapp, it had been more than 60 years since this court held that a “Negro” could be refused entry to a bar (Christie v. York) or a “Chinaman” could be barred from working under a B.C. timber licence (B.C. v. Brooks-Bidlake & Whittall). Without further clarification, Kapp means that enshrining equality rights in the Constitution Act, 1982 turned back the clock to the time when government and this Court could cast aside non-favoured racial groups at their pleasure. As it stands today, this Court is the only court in any western democracy to rule that segregating its citizens by race in the workplace is a step towards equality.
6. The Appellants do not challenge affirmative action programs for Canadians of aboriginal ancestry. Non-segregationist programs have been a factor in the B.C. commercial fishery since prior to 1968, more than fifteen years before the 1984 Report of the Commission on Equality in Employment.
7. The Appellants do not Challenge the racial segregation of their workplace under the thin guise of affirmative action which is the result of this Court’s “basic starting point” in the development of s. 15(2). The Appellant brings this motion to speed the further development of the principles of s. 15(2) and reverse serious errors in the decision of this honourable Court which changed the result of the Kapp appeal and eliminated the equality rights of the appellants in their workplace:
a. The Court erred in transforming the Crown’s pleading that the object of the program was fisheries management into a pleading that the object of the program was the amelioration of conditions of a disadvantaged group, thus immunizing racial segregation from Charter scrutinizing by redefining it as affirmative action under s.15 (2). In doing so the Court took the conduct of the prosecution out of the hands of the Crown and prevented the Appellants from knowing or responding to the case against them. The Court convicted the Appellant fishermen on a ground expressly denied by Parliament, the Crown, the evidence and principles established by this Court.
b. The Court erred in reversing the trial judge’s findings of fact on the tow issues required to establish a program as protected under s. 15 (2):
i. The trial judge, based on evidence of valuable real estate, businesses, substantial income and the number of millionaire band members, held that the Musqueam and Tsawwassen were financially healthy. Relying on a stereotype, this court held that all aboriginal groups in Canada are economically disadvantaged and therefore the Musqueam and Tsawwassen bands are economically disadvantaged.
ii. The trial judge held that the object of the program was not ameliorative based on the plethora of inconsistent reasons offered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and a legislative declaration by the Minister of Fisheries that the object of the program was to control aboriginal poaching;
This Court has long held that a fundamental principle of appellate review is that findings of fact by a trial judge may not be reversed except in the case of a palpable and overriding error;
c. The Court held that when a legislature declares that a particular program is an ameliorative program it should be granted “significant deference,” but the Court erred when it granted no deference to the legislature’s and Crown’s denial that the object of the Musqueam and Tsawwassen-only commercial fishery is amelioration;
d. The Court erred when it did not consider that the rights guaranteed by the Charter are subject “only” to such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society by way of s. 1. Racial segregation of a workplace is not a reasonable limit on the guarantee of equality in the Charter in a free and democratic society.
8. These verifiable errors were not ancillary or unimportant topics: these demonstrable errors were explicitly and substantially relied upon by the Court. Individually, and in combination, each error is fatal to this Court’s conclusion that a fifteen year old racially segregated commercial fishery for the Musqueam and Tsawwassen bands is a forward step along the journey to achieving equality in Canada.
***
13. This Court mischaracterized the exclusive fishery enjoyed by Musqueam and Tsawwassen fishermen as merely a 24-hour head-start on one particular day during the fishing season. This reflects a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the segregated fishery. It is a fifteen year old completely separate commercial fishery operating under its won licensing, catch reporting and regulatory regime. The claim of the Appellants requires a clear understanding and appreciation of the form and breadth of the racial segregation endured by the appellants:
a. This segregation is in law. The Musqueam and Tsawwassen bands fish under preferential rules allegedly authorized by the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations. The public commercial fishery, in which the Musqueam and Tsawwassen also fish, is authorized by the Fishery General Regulations and the Pacific Fishery Regulations.
b. This segregation is institutional. The Musqueam and Tsawwassen fishery is managed through private discussions between the Musqueam and Tsawwassen and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans from which the Appellants are excluded even though the fishery is a public resource. The public commercial fishery is managed by the Pacific Salmon Commission, a joint U.S./Canada commission created by international treaty to eliminate the damage caused by management balkanization.
c. This segregation is physical. Musqueam and Tsawwassen fishermen fish in private openings under preferential rules and regulations while all other Canadians must remain tied up watching from the dock or face arrest, jail, prosecution, fines and possible loss of their catch, vessel and licence.
PART II – THE ISSUES
16. The issues “B,” “C” and “D” below demonstrate the need for this Court to further develop the law with regards to s. 15(2):
A. Whether this Court overturned findings of fact by the trial judge in the absence of a palpable and overriding error and transformed a material ground taken by the Crown and, if true, what remedy is appropriate?
B. Whether s. 15(2) programs are immune from scrutiny under the Charter?
C. Whether an affirmative action program is constitutional when the target group is highly over-represented in the target workplace, has suffered no discrimination or barriers to entry in the target workplace and is already advantaged in the target workplace?
D. Whether racial segregation of a workplace can ever be justified in a free and democratic society? PART III - ARGUMENT (A) Whether this Court overturned findings of fact by the trial judge in the absence of a palpable and overriding error and transformed a material position taken by the Crown and, if true, what remedy is appropriate?
A. The Musqueam and Tsawwassen Are Not Economically Disadvantaged
18. As this learned Court held at para. 37 in Kapp “the focus of s. 15(2) is on enabling governments to pro-actively combat discrimination,” but there was no history of discrimination against Canadians of aboriginal ancestry in the B.C. commercial fishery and the Musqueam/Tsawwassen are not disadvantaged in the fishery or economically, so there is nothing to ameliorate and no historical or factual basis to justify a s. 15(2) program.
19. Citing a stereotype, this Court held that the Musqueam/Tsawwassen are economically disadvantaged at paras. 59-60:
… More particularly, the evidence shows in this case that the bands granted the benefit were in fact disadvantaged in terms of income, education and a host of other measures…If the target group is socially and economically disadvantaged, as is the case here…. (emphasis added)
20. The trial judge found that there was no discrimination against aboriginals in the B.C. commercial fishery and that aboriginals are advantaged and over-represented. Reliance on this paragraph to justify a s. 15(2) program in the commercial fishery is misplaced. Further, it is the Musqueam and Tsawwassen bands who participate in the impugned program - not all “aboriginal people” in Canada. The trial judge firmly rejected this false stereotype that all aboriginal groups in Canada, including the Musqueam and Tsawwassen, are economically disadvantaged:
[194] . . . it is unlikely that financial disadvantage is one of their problems . . . both of these bands and their individual members are likely healthy financially. [197] From the evidence I was led to conclude that the Musqueam Band is located on a well-situated urban reserve on the outskirts of Vancouver and controls relatively valuable property. This property and other business interests of the band produce a substantial income available to the band for the benefit of the band and the members of the band. As a result, the real estate and personal possessions of the band members, described by the witnesses and evidenced by photographs, are at least of a standard and quality representative of the community at large. There was other less tangible evidence that was consistent in indicating that finances are not a particular problem for band members. [198] . . . With regard to the Tsawwassen Band also I conclude that in some respects they are disadvantaged, but financial disadvantage is not one of the problems. (emphasis added)
21. Evidence heard by the trial judge included that there were 1,069 Musqueam members as of December 31, 2000 of whom 501 lived on the reserve and the reserve comprises 254 hectares or just over ½ acre per every man, woman and child. Further, the band owns the Musqueam Park sub-division which has 74 homes whose owners pay tax and lease payments of $15,800 to $16,000 per year to the band for a total of $1,169,000 annually. The Band also collects tax revenue from a second housing development which is twice the size of Musqueam Park. The Band owns a townhouse development of approximately 150 units which produces gross revenues of about $4.5 million annually. The Band collects also collects land lease revenues from the Shaughnessy Golf Course and the Eaglequest Golf Course. The Musqueam also have a number of commercial lands and activities off-reserve including a hotel, warehouses and docks for building and repairing ships. The Band received $10 million in 1984 for damages relating to the Shaughnessy golf course and compensation for the expansion of the runway at the Vancouver International Airport. There are also many businesses on the reserve including a catering business, cigarette sales, hair salons, art studios, legal services, a native personnel service. The business affairs of the band are of sufficient scope and complexity that the band retains full-time legal counsel. Some band members are very well-to-do, some send their children to private school, some are on social assistance – it was reported that there are at least six millionaires living on the reserve. There was no evidence submitted to the Court of the level of Indian Affairs or other government funding provided to the band or additional assets and income that the band may have.
22. There are 301 members in the Tsawwassen Band of whom about 180 members (60%) live on the reserve. The Band received more than $4.5 million in Indian Affairs funding during 2002-2003 or about $25,000 per man, woman and child living on the reserve, plus additional funding from other federal departments. The Band or band members own businesses or lease land to a variety of businesses on the reserve including billboard leasing, restaurant, water slide, go-cart track, paint ball games and consulting businesses. Some of the band land is leased out to farmers. The band also developed and receives taxes from an 85 unit condominium development, it received lease revenue and continues to receive tax revenues from a 99 lot housing development and it has developed 21 beach lots. The band itself also employs a number of band members in various band departments. The band owns 650 acres of valuable real estate in metropolitan Vancouver or over 2 acres per each man, woman and child.
23. Although the Defence led evidence to establish the economic status of the Musqueam and Tsawwassen, the Crown refused to provide Musqueam and Tsawwassen financial statements. The government never, in fact, even conducted any financial analysis of the bands eligible for the program. As held by the trial judge at para. 199:
“Even if financial disadvantage were an issue there was no economic study or assessment done prior to or during the pilot sales fishery concerning the economic need of the bands and the financial rewards the fishery would produce…”
24. The trial judge also held that Musqueam and Tsawwassen housing was comparable to housing in the greater Vancouver area at paras. 197 and 198:
the real estate and personal possessions of the band members, described by the witnesses and evidenced by photographs, are at least of a standard and quality representative of the [Vancouver] community at large. . . there was no evidence of housing problems…
25. The stereotype that all aboriginal groups are economically disadvantaged does not correspond to the actual circumstances and characteristics of the Musqueam and Tsawwassen bands. Nor does it justify reversal of Kitchen P.C.J.’s finding of fact that “the evidence demonstrated that both of these bands and their individual members are likely healthy financially.” At para. 200, the trial judge summarized the problem with holding that the fishery is an ameliorative program:
Since financial disadvantage is not a consideration with these bands, and if the Department demonstrated no interest in the financial aspects of the pilot sales fishery, it is difficult to understand what other disadvantages the pilot sales program was intended to remedy.
26. As stated by Mendez in Complaint and Redress Mechanisms Relating to Racial Discrimination in Canada and Abroad:
A]ffirmative action programs are only legal if they rest on findings of disadvantage….
27. In Law, this Court held that “…one should not unwittingly or otherwise use judicial notice to invent stereotypes or other social phenomena which may not or do not truly exist.” As restated by Abella J. and McLachlin C.J. at para.18 in Kapp, it is discriminatory to base a decision on a stereotype or generalization “that does not correspond to a claimant’s or group’s actual circumstances and characteristics.”
B. The Object of the Impugned Program was Not Ameliorative
28. The Court held at para. 61 that the impugned program:
. . . is protected by s. 15(2) as a program that “has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups.”
29. The Court based its decision on two principals it established in Kapp for determining whether or not a program qualifies for s. 15(2) protection:
a. the legislative goal rather than the actual effect is the paramount consideration (para. 44); b. a legislative declaration of an affirmative action program should be granted “significant deference.” (para. 49)
30. In May 1993, the Minister of Fisheries who imposed the program testified before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries that the purpose of the impugned program was to control aboriginal poaching:
With respect to these experiments, the three experiments with reference to the sale of fish, hey are not dictated by Sparrow case. We are not saying that we have to do this because of Sparrow. We are doing this because we think it’s the best public policy, because we know for years and years in British Columbia and elsewhere there’s been poaching of fish. We call it poaching. The aboriginals say they have the right to do it. The aboriginals have been taking fish and selling the fish illegally in great quantities… We are trying to avoid that by getting so that we know and agree with the aboriginals, on an experimental basis, how much fish they can take and sell, and we can regulate how it’s being sold...
31. The Minister of Fisheries never suggested, inferred or mentioned in any way that the object of the program was to ameliorate the conditions of a disadvantaged group. This may explain why the Crown denied an ameliorative object at paragraph 11 of its factum:
The position of the Respondent is that the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy and Pilot Sales Program were primarily aimed at the management of the fishery, and did not have as their sole or primary object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged groups or individuals.
32. The trial judge also found that DFO’s object was not ameliorative:
[186] It is difficult to discern the real purpose of the pilot sales fishery . . . Fisheries Minister John Crosbie gave control of poaching as the reason for the program. [187] . . . he also mentioned that the program was to be an experiment. This is a second justification given for the program. [188] . . . This literature also asserts that the Sparrow Case requires that this type of opportunity be afforded to Aboriginals. This is clearly not the situation. [189] . . . Department literature also mentions the fiduciary duty society has to the Aboriginal community and how this has prompted the Department to move ahead of case law . . . [191] Most significantly, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have given economic development and an ameliorative purpose as the reason for pilot sales program. But there is a real suspicion that this is an ex post facto justification . . . [210] . . . Several reasons have been proffered at various times. There has been no consistent rationale for the program.
33. This evidence and the position of the Crown proves that the impugned program did not have “as its object the amelioration of the conditions of a disadvantaged individual or group” as is required if the program is to be protected by s. 15(2) of the Charter.
C. Applying the Standard of Review
34. An appeal court cannot overturn the findings of a trial judge in the absence of a palpable and overriding error. This fundamental principal of appellate review was summarized by Iacobucci and Major JJ in Housen v. Nikolaisen, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 at paras. 1- 4:
A proposition that should be unnecessary to state is that a court of appeal should not interfere with a trial judge’s reasons unless there is a palpable and overriding error. The same proposition is sometimes stated as prohibiting an appellate court from reviewing a trial judge’s decision if there was some evidence upon which he or she could have relied to reach that conclusion. . . . The role of the appellate court was aptly defined in Underwood v. Ocean City Realty Ltd. (1987), 12 B.C.L.R. (2d) 199 (C.A.), at p. 204, where it was stated:
The appellate court must not retry a case and must not substitute its views for the views of the trial judge according to what the appellate court thinks the evidence establishes on its view of the balance of probabilities.
While the theory has acceptance, consistency in its application is missing. The foundation of the principle is as sound today as 100 years ago. It is premised on the notion that finality is an important aim of litigation. There is no suggestion that appellate court judges are somehow smarter and thus capable of reaching a better result. Their role is not to write better judgments but to review the reasons in light of the arguments of the parties and the relevant evidence, and then to uphold the decision unless a palpable error leading to a wrong result has been made by the trial judge. (underlining added)
35. At para. 59, Abella J. and the Chief Justice refer to unspecified “evidence” of economic disadvantage, but as further stated by Iacobucci and Major JJ in Housen at para. 56:
…the narrowly defined scope of appellate review dictates that a trial judge should not be found to have misapprehended or ignored evidence, or come to the wrong conclusions merely because the appellate court diverges in the inference it draws from the evidence and chooses to emphasize some portions of the evidence over others.
36. By the standards developed and enforced by this Court, it was a serious error to reverse Kitchen P.C.J.’s findings of fact that the Musqueam and Tsawwassen bands are financially healthy and that the object of the program was not ameliorative. Had this Court abided by the palpable and overriding error test, it could not have held that the Musqueam and Tsawwassen bands are economically disadvantaged or that the impugned program has as its object amelioration. Instead of being protected by s. 15(2), it would have been plain that the program is prima facie discriminatory (as held by Bastarache J. at para.116) and the heavy burden would have been on government to justify racial segregation of the Appellants’ workplace.
Although that argument carries considerable weight, it does not address the basic point that the collective claims were simply not in issue at trial. To frame the case in a different manner on appeal would retroactively deny the respondents the opportunity to know the appellants’ case.
38. Individually and in combination, each fact and process problem is fatal to the conclusion that a race-based commercial fishery for the Musqueam and Tsawwassen is an affirmative program protected from Charter scrutiny by way of s. 15(2). The end result of the Court transforming the object of the impugned program from fisheries management to affirmative action is that it resulted in the Appellant fishermen being convicted on a ground denied by the prosecution.
39. The Appellant fishermen do not object to s. 15(2) becoming the primary issue before this Court for the same reason that they did not object to s. 25 being introduced on appeal by an intervener - the Appellants want a definitive answer from this Court on the constitutionality of the racial segregation of their workplace. Their simple request is to know and meet the case against them and have the case based on the trial judge’s findings of fact except in the case of a palpable and overriding error.
40. As to the power of this Court to provide a remedy, Parliament and the justices of this Court anticipated a rare need to correct errors, clarify difficult analysis or further develop the law respecting an appeal by establishing Rule 76 which permits rehearing, clarification or the submission of further argument as per the request of the Appellant fishermen. PART III - ARGUMENT
(B)
To what extent is an affirmative action program subject to Charter scrutiny under s. 1 or s. 15(1)?
41. Affirmative action programs under the authority of s. 15(2) of the Charter are an exception to the general rule of equality. As such, these exceptions should be narrowly construed; however, as a “starting point,” Kapp virtually eliminated Charter scrutiny of affirmative action programs. The immunity begins with its interpretation of the purpose of s. 15(1) at para. 37:
The focus of s. 15(1) is on preventing governments from making distinctions based on enumerated or analogous grounds that have the effect of perpetuating disadvantage or prejudice or imposing disadvantage on the basis of stereotyping.
42. Nothing in s. 15(1) restricts its operation to discrimination that is “perpetuating disadvantage or prejudice or imposing disadvantage on the basis of stereotyping.” The s. 15(1) equality guarantee is unequivocal: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law ….”
43. This Court applied each factor in the s. 15(2) analysis in a manner that minimized the possibility and scope of Charter scrutiny of s. 15(2) programs. Some of these factors include:
a. Creating a one way street between subsections (1) and (2) by holding that s. 15(2) informs s. 15(1), but subsection (1) does not inform 15(2) (para. 37);
b. Prohibiting an analysis of the means or effect of a program except for the benefit of those inside the program (para. 49);
c. Moving directly from a finding of differential treatment to determining whether the treatment stems from a s. 15(2) program to avoid the “symbolic problem” of finding that the program discriminates (para. 40);
d. Allowing a program with many objectives, or as in the case of this appeal, an alleged incidental ameliorative effect to satisfy the “has as its object” requirement stated in s. 15(2) (paras. 50-52);
e. Allowing disadvantage based on an invalid stereotype of historical discrimination to justify an affirmative action program without regard to the current status of the M/T bands or even a cursory review of the history of the specific workplace in which the program is targeted (para.53).
44. The Court also immunized s. 15(2) from Charter scrutiny by not answering issues which are very important to those excluded or being discriminated against by a s. 15(2) program such as: When is a program finished? What percentage of existing workers in a workplace can be displaced to make way for the target group? These questions are highly relevant to the Appellants’ workplace.
45. It was not the intention of the framers of the Constitution to exempt s. 15(2) programs from Charter scrutiny. Testifying before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, Jean Chretien, the Minister of Justice stated in reference to s. 15(2):
It is simply an assurance that an affirmative action program based on a recognized ground of non-discrimination will not be struck down only because it authorizes reverse discrimination for the purpose of achieving equality. (emphasis added)
46. The statement of the Minister of Justice is very helpful because it shows that: a. Parliament accepted that s. 15(2) would result in “reverse discrimination” but expressed confidence that Canadian citizens would share its belief that differential treatment was sometimes necessary in the pursuit of equality and did not feel it necessary to avoid a purely political symbolic problem by pretending that no discrimination would occur under s. 15(2);
b. Parliament expected judicial review of s. 15(2) programs but wanted to ensure that a program would not be struck down “only” because it authorizes reverse discrimination, rather it would take something more serious to strike down a s. 15(2) program.
47. The Minister’s statement is also useful because it is consistent with the plain language of s. 15(2). “Does not preclude” is not the language of notwithstanding or immunity. It simply means that the object of the program cannot be attacked, but it ensures Charter scrutiny of the means and effect of the program. As Professor Gibson [The Law of the Charter: Equality Rights (1990) at p. 300] wrote:
In other words, although an affirmative action program cannot be struck down...because it has an ameliorative object, it can be invalidated if the means employed to achieve that goal impinge unjustifiably upon equality rights or mobility rights. Any other interpretation would mean that a law program or activity would be immune from constitutional scrutiny, no matter how unacceptably it might violate equality or mobility rights in the course of implementing that object. Since restrictions upon constitutional rights ought to be narrowly construed, that interpretation should be avoided . . .
48. Michael Peirce, a proponent of expansive affirmative action programs, whose law review article [A Progressive Interpretation of Subsection 15(2) of the Charter, (1993) 57 Sask. L. Rev. 263] advocating a “progressive” interpretation of 15(2) was quoted approvingly by the Court concluded in the quoted law review article that:
If the dominant purpose of the program [as in this appeal] is not amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged groups, and the program is discriminatory even in light of s. 15(2), then the scheme may be struck down under s. 15(1).
49. The language of other sections of the Charter also informs the scope of s. 15(2). Section 32(2) stated “Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.”
50. Section 33(1) states that “Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.”
51. Unlike s. 15(2), these sections clearly exclude legislation from s. 15(1) review. The absence of the words of immunity and notwithstanding from s. 15(2) were not a mistake. As noted in Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes [at 162]:
It is presumed that the legislature uses language carefully and consistently so that within a statute or other legislative instrument the same words have the same meaning and different words have different meanings.
52. The drafters of the Charter also included a limitation on the scope of s. 15(2) with the words “has as its object.” In recognition of the fact that s. 15(2) programs may be discriminatory, but may help attain Canada’s objective of equality, the “has as its object” provision limits s. 15(2) programs to those which are carefully designed and implemented with the “object” of ameliorating the conditions of a disadvantaged individual or group. This helps to protect the sanctity of the equality guarantee by only allowing programs to violate s. truly have an ameliorative object. Programs with incidental ameliorative effects or a pith and substance that is at its heart fisheries management, for example, do not satisfy the “has as its object” test.
53. Most important, there is also the Charter guarantee. The unequivocal language of s. 1 guarantees the rights of the Charter “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Affirmative actions programs do not enjoy blanket immunity from s. 1, but s. 1 does protect carefully developed and implemented affirmative action programs that “can be justified in a free and democratic society.”
54. This Court in Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497, at page 537 reached the same conclusion:
At the same time, I would not wish to be taken as foreclosing the possibility that a member of society could be discriminated against by laws aimed at ameliorating the situation of others, requiring the court to consider justification under s. 1, or the operation of s. 15(2). The possibility of new forms of discrimination denying essential human worth cannot be foreclosed.
55. The net effect of the starting point in this Court’s s. 15(2) analysis is that it grants government a blank cheque to discriminate against Canadians for broad purposes not related to any specific disadvantage and entirely at the arbitrary discretion of any Minister with the assurance that those excluded or negatively affected cannot seek justice in any Canadian court. PROBLEMS IN KAPP DECISION Fisherman Seeks Rehearing - Motion Filed - August 27, 2008 Stewart McDonald, one of the fishermen in the Kapp case, has filled a motion with the Supreme Court of Canada asking that the Court rehear some of the issues arising out of the June 27, 2008 Supreme Court decision. Fisherman Life - August 2008 - Editorial on Kapp Decision "What the Court did do, however, is confirm that awhile all Canadians are equal under the Canadian Constitution, some are more equal than others. In short, our government has the right to discriminate against some Canadians in order to carry out Affirmative Action programs to individuals or groups the Government deems disadvantaged. There is no need for the government to prove the necessity for any such program or to validate that it is accomplishing that goal. Government simply has to state the program's intent to improve on some perceived disadvantage and then they are free to discriminate against other Canadians. What is said about this judgment is that it is clear that the Court failed to take into account certain facts of the case. Even though the Crown admitted that the primary function of the Pilot Sales Program was not to ameliorate a disadvantaged group, the Court ignored this. The previous trials had all shown that the Musqueam and Tsawwassen bands are, in fact, two of the wealthiest in the Province. But the Supreme Court ignored this evidence and took the position that as some First Nations are disadvantaged, ergo, all are disadvantaged." National Post - July 26, 2008 - Orwell Goes Fishing "John Carpay's analysis of the precedent-setting Supreme Court decision on race-based fisheries is unfortunately accurate. It is troubling that the court is prepared to use the Charter to protect racial segregation in the commercial fishery." Vancouver Sun - July 23, 2008 - Supreme Court Should Reconsider Its Fishing Decision "The Musqueam, one of the wealthiest aboriginal bands in B.C., was found by the court to be an economically disadvantaged group. (The trial judge, on the other hand, reviewed the same evidence and concluded that the Musqueam were in the enviable position of being financially well-off. This was not a disputed fact at trial.) The Supreme Court based its legal conclusions on a demonstrably mistaken view of the record. Given what can charitably be called a bizarre decision riddled with obvious errors, it now has an obligation to reconsider its decision." * * * The Trial Judge, in his decision at trial, stated:
National Post - July 22, 2008 - Dividing the Catch "On June 27, the Supreme Court of Canada gave its stamp of approval to racially segregated commercial fisheries in British Columbia, and did so in the name of "substantive" equality." "In R. v. Kapp, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed its 80-year-old precedent, ruling that race-based policies and programs do not violate the Charter's section 15 equality rights as long as the government declares that the program is intended to help a disadvantaged group." "In short, the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a race-based policy which is ineffective and counterproductive, and which applies to a workplace that doesn't need it."
Vancouver Times Colonist - July 17, 2008 - Supreme Court Erred on Race-Based Fishery "It is also troubling that our highest court would make findings of fact contrary to the evidence. The Musqueam, one of the wealthiest aboriginal bands in B.C., was found to be economically disadvantaged by the Supreme Court. The trial judge on the other hand reviewed the dame evidence and concluded that the Musqueam were in the enviable position of being financially well-off. Given what can only be called a bizarre decision riddled with errors, the Supreme Court now has an obligation to reconsider its decision." Ottawa Citizen - July 16, 2008 - Top Court Must Reconsider Race-Based Fisheries Ruling "Columnist Leonard Stern's analysis of the precedent-setting Supreme Court decision on race-based fisheries is unfortunately accurate. It is indeed troubling that the court is prepared to support racial discrimination. The fundamental provision of the Charter guaranteeing equality under the law is designed to protect Canadians from racial discrimination. In an Orwellian interpretation of the Charter's section 15 protection against discrimination, the court has decided that section 15 is really a stick by which government can impose racial discrimination to achieve economic equality between groups." Sault Star - July 16, 2008 - Supreme Court of Canada Ignored Facts "The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that a government program caused fishermen to suffer racial discrimination. Justice Basterache concluded that 'the fact that the program is race-based is established beyond doubt' and that 'the disadvantage' suffered by commercial fishermen 'related to racial differences,' as did the majority decision." Windsor Star - July 15, 2008 - Supreme Court Ignored Facts "The majority concluded that the racially segregated fishery was saved from being unconstitutional because the discriminatory program's 'aims correlate to the actual economic and social disadvantage suffered by members of the three aboriginal bands.' But that is where the wheels come off. At trial, the court actually examined the financially privileged position of the Musqueam and Tsawwassen Bands and concluded 'that it is unlikely that financial disadvantage is one of their problems ... the evidence demonstrated that both of these bands and their individual members are likely healthy financially.'" Calgary Herald - July 14, 2009 - No Right to Fish Traditionally, both Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada were guardians of our rights and liberties, but no more. With the ratification of the Tsawwassen Treaty by Parliament and the Supreme Court decision in Kapp, racial segregation is the law in Canada. Equal access to the fishery, enjoyed for 800 years since Magna Carta, is out the window. Belleville Intelligencer - July 9, 2009 - Supreme Court Ignoring the Facts "The Supreme Court ignored the facts and found that the Musqueam and Tsawwassen Indian bands, amongst the wealthiest in the country, were disadvantaged thus triggering the affirmative action provision in the Charter that protects an otherwise unconstitutional program. Given its error in interpreting evidence essential to its finding, the Supreme Court has an obligation to reconsider its decision. Both the Crown and the appellant should apply to the court for a rehearing." Victoria Times Colonist - July 8, 2008 - Bad Decision on Race-Based Fisheries "Traditionally there are two arguments invoked to justify racial preferences in allocating resources and opportunities: First, that such preferences are necessary to compensate for past wrongs and to give disadvantaged groups a leg up; and second that they are necessary to ensure diversity of perspectives and ideas. The court declared that the system for allocating fishing rights is legal, but what's disconcerting is that the court relied on the first argument. The problem with using reverse discrimination to compensate historically disadvantaged groups is that this approach was discredited long ago." Calgary Herald - July 6, 2008 - Our constitution's illiberal approach to race "In R v. Kapp, released just before the recent long weekend, the Supreme Court of Canada said it was fine for the federal government to discriminate and to divide Canadians in the West Coast commercial salmon fishery." Ottawa Citizen - July 5, 2008 - Racism Goes Legit "The Court's good intentions, expressed in a troubling decision last week, take the country to a place we don't want to go, one where it's acceptable to confer and withhold rights according to race." National Post - July 2, 2008 - Dealing With Our First Nations What was the Object of the Race-Based Program? The federal government, in defending its race-based program, said that the program did not have as its sole or primary object the amelioration of a disadvantaged group.
Yet the Supreme Court held that the object of the program was the amelioration or relief of a group suffering disadvantage. Are the Musqueam Disadvantaged? No one would seriously consider the Musqueam and Tsawwassen economically disadvantaged yet the Supreme Court in a bizarre finding concluded these economically secure communities were "disadvantaged." It is a counterfactual finding because appeal courts have no authority to create new facts or new evidence, they must rely on the evidence and facts given and established at trial. Their job is to ensure there were no errors of law. They must rely on the evidence on the record. The Supreme Court said the evidence proved disadvantage. The Supreme Court stated:
The Supreme court never explains what evidence of disadvantage if any in the trial record that it is referring to. Not Economically or Financially Disadvantaged The Trial Judge, based on the evidence, concluded that the Musqueam and Tsawwassen were not disadvantaged. In his decision at trial, the judge stated:
Not Disadvantaged in the Fishery
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA RULES ON KAPP Issue before the Supreme Court (Case Summary): Whether federal action to segregate a workplace by race or ancestry is consistent with section 15 of the Charter - Whether a federal fisheries program which imposes segregation, by race or ancestry, on the commercial salmon fishery in public navigable waters is consistent with section 15 of the Charter. Held: The majority acknowledged the racial basis of the distinction made by the federal government program.
· “In our view, the appellants have established that they were treated differently based on an enumerated ground, race.” (paragraph 29) · “Therefore, we are satisfied that the appellants have demonstrated a distinction imposed on the basis of race, an enumerated ground under s. 15.” (paragraph 56)
But the Court held that the race-based program had as its “object the amelioration of the conditions of a disadvantaged group.”
The Court specifically found that the Musqueam and Tsawwassen Bands were economically disadvantaged:
Therefore the claim of discrimination under section 15(1) of the Charter failed not because there was no discrimination but because the race-based program had as its object the amelioration of the conditions of a disadvantage group as described in section 15(2) of the Charter and the Musqueam and Tsawwassen were held to be disadvantaged as compared to non-aboriginals. Decisions on Racial Segregation/Discrimination - Pre Charter John Murdock v. Quebec Labour Relations Bd., Quebec Superior Court (1955) Rogers v. Clarence Hotel (B.C. Court of Appeal, 1940)) Christie v York, Supreme Court of Canada (1939) Loew`s Montreal Theatres v. Reynolds (Quebec Court of Appeal, 1919) Barnswell v. National Amusement (B.C. Court of Appeal, 1915) Johnson v. Sparrow (Quebec Superior Court, 1899) Documents Relating to Discrimination/Non-Discrimination Queen Victoria - No Exclusive Fishery Granted - British Columbia Factum - Fishermen of Japanese Origin in B.C. - Exclusion from Fishery - Reference to Supreme Court of Canada Fishermen of Japanese descent seek fishing licences (1927) "It is our opinion that the licensing powers of the Dominion Government in this regard are purely regulative, and so that they can keep a record of fishermen, but that when fishing is to be allowed all [Canadian citizens] have a right to partake of that privilege without distinction or preference. Any other attitude on the part of the Department in our opinion is depriving these [Canadian citizens] of their right to fish, and is not a regulation for the protection of the fish, but would be a regulation against the civil rights of these people." Annual Report 1924-1925 - Reduction in Orientals in the Fishery Annual Report 1925-1926 - Reduction in Orientals in the Fishery "The department's policy of eliminating the Oriental from the fisheries of the province with a view to placing the entire industry in the hands of white British subjects and Canadian Indians appears to be working out well as is shown in statement No. 10, which covers a very large proportion of the total number of licenses issued which Orientals were permitted to hold." Elimination of Orientals from Herring Fishery - 1924 (from National Archives) "Primarily the reason for the present Act was the desire to eliminate the Oriental and make it possible for the white man or Canadian Indian to enter the herring dry salting business." Legislation - Racial Segregation/Discrimination White Ladies Employment Act, (Saskatchewan, 1912) The Separate Schools Act, 1886 (Ontario) Education Act, 1865 (Nova Scotia) Trial Court Decision Nisga'a Treaty and the GST Letter to Prince George Citizen, June 3, 2008 Cabinet Exempts Nisga'a from Federal GST The Order-in-Council issued under the First Nations Goods and Services Tax exempts the Nisga'a from paying the GST to the federal government and provides that a Nisga'a GST will be collected on Nisga'a Treaty lands for all transactions whether they involve Nisga'a citizens or non-Nisga'a citizens. The tax money collected will go to the Nisga'a Band government. Tsawwassen Treaty Before Parliament BC Outdoors - Sept/Oct Issue - Parliament Rejects BC Concerns on Treaty Third Reading John Cummins was not given an opportunity to speak in Parliament at Third Reading. Here are the notes for the first part of the speech Mr. Cummins would have given if he had been allowed to speak. The second part of Mr. Cummins' speech would have involved reading excerpts from the presentations to the House of Commons Committee that Bertha Williams and Bill Otway sought to make. The House Committee studying the Treaty Bill had refused to hear from members of the public impacted by the Treaty. There was not a Third Reading debate as such. Instead the House agreed to "deem" there had been a Third Reading. ("deem that bill read a third time and passed") Second Reading Report Stage Debate (Cummins Amendments) The Cummins amendments were printed in the House of Commons Notice Paper on June 11, 2008. The amendments dealt with land, fisheries, taxation and the protection of Parliament's ability to protect the rights of Canadians. Debate on the Cummins Amendments Speech by John Cummins, with Comment from Bloc M.P. Lemay and response. Speech by Liberal M.P. Bagnell, with Comment from Mr. Cummins and response. Speech by Bloc M.P. Lemay, with Comment from Mr. Cummins and response. Speech by NDP M.P. Crowder, with Comment from Mr. Cummins and response. Speech by Liberal M.P. Russell, with Comments from Mr. Cummins and response. Speech by Conservative M.P. Albrecht, with Comments from Mr. Cummins and response. Some of the M.P.s made reference to the taxation provisions in the treaty, particularly with regard to the taxation by the Band government of non-band members who form the majority of residents on the Tsawwassen Reserve or what will become Treaty Lands. Library of Parliament - Taxation Of Non-Members Study by House of Commons Committee The Committee met on June 4, 2008 following a two day visit to Nunavut. The Committee did hear from the Minister of Indian Affairs whose department negotiated the treaty on behalf of the federal government and Chief Baird who negotiated on behalf of the Band. The Committee declined to go to British Columbia or even to hear witnesses from British Columbia who are impacted by the Tsawwassen Treaty Bill. It chose to hear only from those who supported the Treaty and Treaty Implementation Bill. The Committee completed within about sixty seconds its detailed clause by clause consideration and passage of the Treaty Implementation Bill and the two volume Treaty together with the numerous side-agreements on fisheries, taxation and other matters. Refuses to Hear Witnesses From British Columbia Letter to Aboriginal Affairs Committee, June 3, 2008 The Final Agreement was negotiated behind closed doors. The public, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, were shut out of the process so it is essential that those most affected by the treaty now have the opportunity to be heard. The Committee's Clerk has advised me that the Aboriginal Affairs Committee is not prepared to meet those impacted by Bill C-34. A Committee that is not interested in knowing if there are deficiencies in the legislation and in correcting them is a sham. Request to Committee - BC Fisheries Survival Coalition - June 2, 2008 We are wiring a second time concerning Bill C-34 which is the legislative foundation for the Tsawwassen Final Agreement to request that the Committee travel to BC so we and others with and interest can make submissions. Refuses to Hear Bertha Williams - June 2, 2008 Second Reading Hansard - Second Reading Debate - May 15, 2008 Hansard - Second Reading Debate - May 16, 2008 Notes for Speech at Second Reading - May 16, 2008 Let the record show Mr. Speaker, the Real Beneficiaries of the Treaty are the new band members, many of whom live outside of Canada and the Vancouver Port Authority who was able to get port expansion without environmental objections from the Band. Mr. Speaker, this treaty negatively impacts lifelong band members and reserve residents like Bertha Williams. It will mean the destruction of valuable farmland and the loss of habitat for migratory birds. Its legacy will be a more segregated and divided nation. To vote for this Treaty would do a disservice to my constituents both aboriginal and non-aboriginal and a disservice to the people of my province and my country. I will not do that. Problems in New Fisheries Act B.C. Wildlife Federation - May 1, 2008 Statement on New Fisheries Act now coming before Parliament Sportfishing Defence Alliance - May 1, 2008 Letter from Bill Otway to Minister of Fisheries B.C. Wildlife Federation - May 5, 2008 Letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper Letter to the Minister of Fisheries - October 5, 2007 Richmond News - April 29, 2008 MP Swims Up Stream on Fisheries Delta Optimist - April 23, 2008 Hearn Tells Cummins There Are Enough Salmon in River Letter to Fisheries Minister - April 8, 2008 "Your response to my analysis is a serious concern because it appears that your department simply does not understand the implications of the Tsawwassen Treaty's salmon allocations to the Tsawwassen Indian Band." Letter from Fisheries Minister - March 3, 2008 "In this report you contend that First nations will become entitled to the entire allocation of Fraser River sockeye, and that the commercial and recreational fisheries on these stocks will end. Actually, the treaty process will provide certainty and predictability for all harvesters." Letter to Fisheries Minister - November 26, 2007 "I am enclosing a copy of my report on the Tsawwassen Treaty .... The report raises serious questions about whether the federal government and its treaty negotiators have a handle on the quantity of fish consumed by the Tsawwassen Treaty and other treaties to be signed in the coming months and years."
Report:
Review of Commercial Salmon Allocations - Garden City Lands Letter - President of Canada Lands Company - April 2, 2008 Richmond Review - March 12, 2008 - Musqueam Own Half DFO Release - March 18, 2005 - Announces MOU DFO Backgrounder - March 18, 2005 - Garden City Property MOU Home Buyers' Plan - Bill C-520 News Release - March 3, 2008 First Time Home Buyers' Plan to be Improved Bill C-520 - An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (Home Buyers' Plan) Hansard - January 31, 1994 Feds Hike Limit - Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows Times - March 7, 2008 Letter - Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver - March 26, 2008 Debate - Second Reading - April 15 2007 Bill C-520 will increase from $20,000 to $25,000 the amount of money first time home buyers can borrow from the savings they have accumulated in their RRSPs. This is the first adjustment in the borrowing limit since the Home Buyers' Plan was created in 1992. 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 with the community. Speech - Bloc Quebecois - Paul Crete M.P./Depute Developments on Tsawwassen Treaty News Release - April 18 2008 Court Decision Undermines Tsawwassen Treaty The recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Lax Kw'alaams undermines the legal basis basis of the fisheries component of the proposed Tsawwassen Treaty. The legislation to implement the proposed Tsawwassen Treaty must not come back to Parliament for Second Reading until the fisheries component of the treaty has been removed. Indian Affairs Minister Responds to Cummins Letter from Indian Affairs Minister - April 2, 2008
"In response to your request for a detailed analysis of the effects of treaty allocations on other fishers, the Department has not conducted such an analysis."
"... the Honourable Loyola Hearn, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, will also be responding to your correspondence addressing your specific concerns regarding fish allocations and possible impacts on the fishing community." Letter - to Indian Affairs Minister - January 28, 2008 "I would ask that you:
Letter - from Indian Affairs Minister - January 21, 2008 "Analysis by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of the potential, cumulative result if all treaties were settled, has concluded that there will be room in the fishery for non-Aboriginal fishers. There is no justification for vies that the present approach for treaties will leave no place for non-treaty participants." Letter - to Indian Affairs Minister - November 26, 2007 "I am enclosing a copy of my report on the Tsawwassen Treaty .... The report raises serious questions about whether the federal government and its treaty negotiators have a handle on the quantity of fish consumed by the Tsawwassen Treaty and other treaties to be signed in the coming months and years."
Report:
Review of Commercial Salmon Allocations - Cummins Responds to Fisheries Minister Letter to Fisheries Minister - April 8, 2008 "Your response to my analysis is a serious concern because it appears that your department simply does not understand the implications of the Tsawwassen Treaty's salmon allocations to the Tsawwassen Indian Band." Letter - from Fisheries Minister - March 3, 2008 "In this report you contend that First nations will become entitled to the entire allocation of Fraser River sockeye, and that the commercial and recreational fisheries on these stocks will end. Actually, the treaty process will provide certainty and predictability for all harvesters." Letter - to Fisheries Minister - November 26, 2007 "I am enclosing a copy of my report on the Tsawwassen Treaty .... The report raises serious questions about whether the federal government and its treaty negotiators have a handle on the quantity of fish consumed by the Tsawwassen Treaty and other treaties to be signed in the coming months and years."
Report:
Review of Commercial Salmon Allocations - Bertha Williams - Tsawwassen Community Leader Hansard - Members Statement - April 2, 2008 Speech - Bertha Williams - February 23, 2008 YouTube - Bertha Williams Canadian Geographic - April 8, 2008 issue Bertha Williams - Lifelong Tsawwassen Resident Land Use Plan Letter to Minister of Indian Affairs - March 4, 2008 Land Use Plan - Option # 1 Option # 2 Option # 3 Tsawwassen Resident, Bertha Williams, February 23, 2008 Williams - Address to Delta-Richmond East Conservative Association AGM National Post - February 8, 2008 End the Double Standard - by Mark Milke - The sort of racial discrimination embedded in the Tsawwassen Treaty, and others like it, represents the antithesis of an ethnically neutral and liberal society. GOVERNMENT ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF TREATY ALLOCATIONS ON FISHERMEN Letter from Office of Minister of Indian Affairs - February 1, 2008 Letter to Minister of Indian Affairs - January 28, 2008 Letter from Minister of Indian Affairs - January 21, 2008 TREATY WORKSHOP - TAX MATTERS Letter to Minister of Finance - February 4, 2008 Department of Finance Presentation to Tsawwassen Band Members B.C. Government Presentation to Tsawwassen Band Members Band's Presentation to Tsawwassen Band Members Tax Impact for Individuals (3) Benefits to TFN Government (5) Response to Question - Overlapping Claims to Tsawwassen Territory Question - What other Bands, Tribes or Aboriginal Organizations have territorial claims that overlap Tsawwassen Territory? News Release - December 6, 2007 Federal Bureaucrats Up to Dirty Tricks Editorial - Delta Optimist - December 5, 2007 Treaty Not Living Up to Its Billing News Release - December 5, 2007 The Tsawwassen Treaty - Who Gets the Money? Tsawwassen Registered Population, March 2007 Tsawwassen Registered Population, October 2007 Tsawwassen Registered Population, 1976 - 2006 News Release - December 5, 2007 Cummins Opposes Tsawwassen Treaty Motion in Parliament News Release - November 30, 2007 Report - November 30, 2007 Who Pays and Who Gets to Keep the Money Article in Delta Optimist - November 28, 2007 There's Not Enough Fish in the River - M.P.'s Report Report - November 27, 2007 News Release - November 27, 2007 Report on the Implications of the Salmon Allocations in the Tsawwassen Treaty Editorial in the Delta Optimist - October 31, 2007 Little Time Left for any Real Debate Backgrounder on the Tsawwassen Treaty - October 31, 2007 Tsawwassen Treaty: Right of the Band Government to be Consulted Statement on the Tsawwassen Treaty - October 30, 2007 Tsawwassen Treaty: A Final Settlement? Article in Vancouver Province - October 24, 2007 Some Libs can't stomach Tsawwassen Treaty Letter to Editor, Vancouver Sun, October 24, 2007 Response to Commentary on Treaty - "Trust Tsawwassen Nation" Motion for the Production of Papers in Parliament - October 19, 2007 P-31 - Impacts of Roberts Bank Expansion - Tsawwassen Band-VPA Questions in Parliament on Tsawwassen Treaty - October 19, 2007 Question 62 - Area and Population of Tsawwassen Territory Question 63 - Roberts Bank Port Expansion and Tsawwassen Treaty Debate in B.C. Legislature on Tsawwassen Treaty - October 17, 2007 Blair Lekstrom, M.L.A. (Peace River South) Dennis MacKay, M.L.A. (Bulkley Valley-Stikine) Op-Ed in Delta Optimist - October 13, 2007 MP Says He Must Vote Against TFN Treaty Article in Delta Optimist - October 10, 2007 News Release - BC Fisheries Survival Coalition - October 5, 2007 Coalition to Hold Tsawwassen Treaty Plebiscite in Delta Statement on the Tsawwassen Treaty, October 4, 2007 Tsawwassen Treaty: Where I Stand Developments in Kapp Appeal in Supreme Court of Canada Article in Delta Optimist - October 6, 2007 Op-Ed in Globe & Mail - October 4, 2007 Still Hooked by the Fight for a Race-Free B.C. Fishery Article in Globe & Mail - September 14, 2007 Key Challenge to Fishing Rights Leads Court's Fall Agenda Factum of B.C. Fishermen Part I - Facts - Finding of Fact by Trial Judge Part I - Facts - Factual Errors of Appellate Courts Letter to the Minister of Fisheries - October 5, 2005 News Release - August 3, 2007 Fisheries Announcement about Elimination not Integration Letter to the Editor - Globe & Mail - July 19 2007 AFN's Actual Comments to Indian Affairs on Poll Tsawwassen Treaty Ratification Referendum Op-Ed in Delta Optimist - July 18 2007 TFN Deserves Better Than Gov't Vote-Buying Tactics Article in Toronto Star - July 16 2007 Ottawa, B.C., Dangling Cash to Get Treaty Signed, MP says News Release - July 13 2007 "Guilty as Charged" - The Tsawwassen Deserve Better Article in Hamilton Spectator - July 13 2007 Vancouver MP Says Province Bribed Natives to OK Treaty Getting Gateway and Corridor Project Right Article in The Tyee by Rafe Mair - July 23, 2007 Statement by John Cummins on Alternate Rail Corridor Route Map Proposed Route for Rail Line Map Loss of Environmentally Sensitive Farmland to Container Storage Article in Langley Times - July 11 2007 Delta MP Pushes Rail Alternative Article in Vancouver Province - July 10 2007 MP Pushing Electric Freight-only Rail Route Editorial in South Delta Leader - July 6 2007 John Cummins Pitches A New Route Port Merger Article in Delta Optimist - June 23, 2007 Cummins Has Concerns on Possible Port Merger Funding Science: Has DFO Complied With Fisheries Act (Larcoque)? Letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - February 20, 2007 Response from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - March 19, 2007 House of Commons - Order Paper - March 30, 2007 (not yet answered) Question (Q-190) Selling Fish to Fund DFO? Related Documents House of Commons - Order Paper - March 30, 2007 (not yet answered) Question (Q-189) Roberts Bank Port Expansion Statement - Roberts Bank Port Expansion - March 22, 2007 Rail operators are already out there trying to buy land from farmers adjacent to Deltaport in order to build a huge new rail yard next to the container yards. Backroom planning has gone on without public knowledge and those negotiating the Tsawwassen Treaty settlement package must have been part of it. Were all members of the Tsawwassen Band aware of how much their backyard will change as a result of these plans? Just like everyone else who lives in South Delta, Tsawwassen Band members are going to see their own quality of life seriously eroded with a port development as massive as this unfolding next door to them. (printed in Delta Optimist, April 7, 2007) Article in National Post - March 8 2007 British Columbians Cool to PM's Fishery Probe Pledge, Says Minister Letter to Editor - Vancouver Sun - March 8 2007 Cummins Says Fraser River Fisheries Inquiry Up to the Prime Minister The Department resisted providing a key report on their enforcement failures to the review conducted by Justice Bryan Williams until after Williams had completed his report. The Department then undertook an internal inquiry and concluded that too much information had been turned over to the review. It vowed not to be so open in the future. I accept that the Minister might prefer not to have an inquiry but it was not the Department or the Minister who promised to undertake a judicial inquiry into the Department's failures on the Fraser; it was the Prime Minister who made the commitment. The Department of Fisheries and its Minister can fight the Prime Minister on the inquiry but in the end the decision to call an inquiry rests with the Prime Minister. House of Commons - Order Paper - March 2, 2007 Question (Q-184) - Effect of the Tsawwassen Treaty and related Side-Agreements on the fishery in the lower Fraser River and the Gulf of Georgia. House of Commons - Order Paper - February 28, 2007 Question (Q-181) - The Tsawwassen Treaty covers all or part of about 15 B.C. municipalities. The question seeks to identify the people and municipalities now in the so-called Tsawwassen Territory as set out in the Treaty. It appears that the Tsawwassen Territory covers all of Richmond, Delta and Langley City together with all or part of Vancouver, White Rock, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Township of Langley, GVRD Electoral Area "A", Galiano, Mayne, North Pender, South Pender, Saltspring and Saturna. Letter to the Prime Minister - Fraser River Flood Control - February 27, 2007 There has been an increasing awareness and a growing concern in Lower Fraser communities of the dangers of flooding in the late spring or early summer. ... Action must be taken now that demonstrates the federal concern for and understanding of the likelihood of flooding. Response from Prime Minister - May 1, 2007 House of Commons - Order Paper - February 16 2007 Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers P-11 - .... A copy of the document entitled "Without prejudice proposal to Tsawwassen First Nation regarding settlement of alleged impacts relating to the Roberts Bank Development and the proposed expansion" as referenced n the 2004 Memorandum of Agreement between the Tsawwassen Indian Band and the Vancouver Port Authority with regard to the expansion of the Roberts Bank Port. P-12 ... A copy of the 2004 Memorandum of Agreement between the Tsawwassen Indian Band and the Vancouver Port Authority with regard to the expansion of the Roberts Bank Port. P-13 - ... A copy of the Tsawwassen First Nation Own Source Revenue Agreement, a side agreement to the Tsawwassen Final Agreement between the Tsawwassen Indian Band, Canada and British Columbia. P-14 - ... A copy of the Tsawwassen First Nation Tax Treatment Agreement, a side agreement to the Tsawwassen Final Agreement between the Tsawwassen Indian Band, Canada and British Columbia. P-15 - ... A copy of the Tsawwassen First Nation Implementation Plan, a side agreement to the Tsawwassen Final Agreement between the Tsawwassen Indian Band, Canada and British Columbia. P-16 - ... A copy of the Tsawwassen First Nation Real Property Tax coordination Agreement, a side agreement to the Tsawwassen Final Agreement between the Tsawwassen Indian Band, Canada and British Columbia. P-17 - ... A copy of the Tsawwassen First Nation Fiscal Financing Agreement, a side agreement to the Tsawwassen Final Agreement between the Tsawwassen Indian Band, Canada and British Columbia. P-18 - ...A copy of the Tsawwassen First Nation Fisheries Operational Guidelines, a side agreement to the Tsawwassen Final Agreement between the Tsawwassen Indian Band, Canada and British Columbia. P-19 - ... A copy of the Tsawwassen First Nation Harvest Agreement,a side agreement to the Tsawwassen Final Agreement between the Tsawwassen Indian Band, Canada and British Columbia. P-20 - ...A copy of the long term lease for Water Lot "A" at the Deltaport in Tsawwassen transferred to the Vancovuer Port Authority from the province of British Columbia as part of the Deltaport Third Berth Project. Letter to Editor - Victoria Times Colonist - January 31, 2007 In his letter, my colleague Loyola Hearn, Fisheries and Oceans Minister, would have us believe that treaties will have little impact on non-aboriginal fishermen. I would remind Mr. Hearn that there are more than 90 bands on the Fraser River and he has already signed off on three treaties, at Tsawwassen, Prince George and Yale. If the fisheries allocations from these treaties were replicated for the 90-odd Fraser River bands there would be no fish left for the commercial and recreational fisheries. PROPOSED NEW FISHERIES ACT Review of Bill C-45 - British Columbia Fisheries Survival Coalition - April 9, 2007 Article in Richmond News - March 6, 2007 Statement on Bill C-45 - Sportfishing Defence Alliance - February 9, 2007 Some Thought and Comments on Bill C-45 Letter to Editor - Cape Breton Post - January 29, 2007 New Federal Fisheries Act Shifts Power to Government The question fishermen should be asking is: "Why do we need a new federal Fisheries Act?" The bureaucrats at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have never identified just what the problem is with the venerable old fisheries act that has stood the test of time since Confederation. Nor have the bureaucrats explained how the new fisheries act would remedy those unidentified problems in the old Fisheries Act. It is worth remembering that the current Act considers fish to be a resource owned by the people of Canada and that there exists a public right to fish. The new Act regards fish as a resource owned by the Government of Canada, to be allocated to whomever the Minister of Fisheries wishes. The new Act considers fishing a "privilege" to be bestowed by the Minister rather than a right. The new Act gives the Minister and his bureaucrats power and authority never contemplated by the current Act. News Release - December 18, 2006 Fishermen Will Be Worse Off Under New Fisheries Act Bill C-45, the proposed new Fisheries Act, may devalue fishing licences held by commercial fishermen. I am concerned this Bill may be attempting to extinguish the public right to fish and turn fishing into a privilege totally at the whim of the Minister and his fisheries bureaucrats. The Supreme Court of Canada and Canadian courts over the last two centuries have said that fishing is a right not a privilege. If the right to fish is extinguished by C-45 the Minister has all the power and fishermen will have no rights except the "privilege" granted at the whim of the Minister. News Release - December 13, 2006 Bill C-45 May Threaten Public's Right to Fish
The new
Fisheries Act,
Bill C-45,
introduced today by Fisheries Minister Hearn looks much like the
Bills introduced by his Liberal predecessors. Fishermen Win Right To Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada Supreme Court of Canada - December 14, 2006 The Nanaimo Daily News, Supreme Court will Hear B.C. Fishery Appeal, December 15, 2006 TSAWWASSEN FINAL AGREEMENT News Release - February 14, 2007 Land Value of B.C. Treaties May Exceed $113.9 Billion Total aboriginal treaty settlements in B.C. could cost taxpayers more than $113.9 billion, with the value of land package alone for the Tsawwassen settlement setting the bar for future settlement costs. News Release - February 8, 2007 Article in Victoria Times Colonist - February 8, 2007 Treaty Worth Millions More Than Estimated, Says Tory MP The Tsawwassen First Nation treaty initialled by the federal and B.C. governments in December has a value of about $300 million - more than four times the official $70-million estimate provided, says a Tory MP. John Cummins' estimate of the market value of the 434 hectares of land the band is getting from the Agricultural Land Reserve was endorsed by an official with the Corp. of Delta. Tim Koepke, chief federal negotiator on the Tsawwassen deal, said the $70.1 - estimate includes the $24.6 million valuation for the two parcels of ALR property. Tsawwassen Chief Kim Baird, who called Cummins' assessment "misleading" and "extreme," said the band hired an appraiser who put the land value at $66.7 million. LETTER TO EDITOR - VANCOUVER SUN - JANUARY 8 2007 Right to a Common Public Fishery Is Firmly Rooted (Published January 10, 2007) There is no Canadian counterpart to the Boldt treaty unless one turns to more recent treaties such as the Tsawwassen treaty signed on December 8th by Jim Prentice. The Tsawwassen treaty would guarantee a percentage of the Fraser River fishery to the Tsawwassen band. There are some 90 bands on the Fraser. If all were to have treaties similar to the Tsawwassen, virtually 100% of the Fraser River fishery would be guaranteed to those aboriginals who had signed such treaties and would exclude those fishermen, aboriginal and otherwise who are not beneficiaries of one of these new treaties. Article in Delta Optimist - December 20, 2006 Treaty Value Pegged At $70 Million The Tsawwassen treaty is officially valued at $70.1 million, leaving some local politicians to say it ahs been purposely undervalued. ... the Delta Optimist estimates the treaty to be worth somewhere between $300 million and $600 million. ARTICLE IN GLOBE & MAIL - DECEMBER 14 2006 MP Fighting Native Treaty Alone John Cummins knows he's fighting this one alone. First, the treaty recently signed with the Tsawwassen First Nation affects only his constituents in Delta, B.C. No one else much cares, especially politicians in Ontario and Quebec. Second, criticizing the treaty means criticizing his own governing party and its leader, the Prime Minister. Few of his caucus colleagues have an appetite to do that. Most are trying to get into cabinet. LETTER TO EDITOR - NATIONAL POST - DECEMBER 14, 2006 2006 Native Treaty Unfair to Canadians What we do know is that the 2006 treaty provides not merely the opportunity to fish, but also a guaranteed quantity of fish that takes priority every every other Canadian. Some of the best farmland in the country is to be removed from B.C.'s Agricultural Land Reserve so it can be used for a port expansion, at great expense to the residents of Delta and of the Tsawwassen Reserve. ARTICLE IN EDMONTON JOURNAL - DECEMBER 9 2006 PM Promises Native Band Share of Fishery - Treaty Clears Way For Port Expansion Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed his government Friday to a modern-day treaty that will give a West Coast native band a guaranteed quota of Fraser River salmon, a mover that has angered one of Harper's MPs and disenchanted many of his long-time loyalists. The treaty, also controversial because it awards the Tsawwassen First Nation more than 200 hectares of prime coastal farmland that can now go to industrial use, is valued by the native band at about $119 million. Conservative MP John Cummins, a long-time loyalist, publicly criticized the treaty as creating a "racially based" fishery because a side-agreement awards the natives a share of the salmon fishery - from 0.7 to about three per cent, depending on the species. That has also drawn the ire of some West Coast fishermen, who say Harper has abandoned his promise to oppose a fishery with preferential quotas. But there are far larger stakes than fish at plan in this treaty. Both the federal and provincial governments are hoping to expand a container port that sits just off the waterfront property of this tiny B.C. native band. A treaty will make it possible for a major expansion because the Tsawwassen want to use some of the 207 hectares they will be granted to build warehouses and storage facilities for the millions of containers that could be arriving from Asia in years ahead. ARTICLE IN GLOBE & MAIL - DECEMBER 9 2006 Will Public Buy Treaties That Change B.C.'s Face? The treaty signed yesterday by federal and provincial negotiators with the Tsawwassen band is far more controversial. And will likely be the deal that truly awakens British Columbians to what is afoot here and how the treaty process is going to affect their lives. News Release - December 12, 2006 Read the Fine Print Before Signing Treaties News Release - December 8, 2006 The Tsawwassen Final Agreement to be initialled today is not good for the people of Delta, the Lower Mainland, British Columbia or for all Canadians. Victoria Times Colonist, Other Views, December 15 2006 Conservative MP John Cummins has a good point when he asks why treaties being negotiated with the Lheidli T'enneh, Tsawwassen and other First Nations need to establish quotas for food fish. Letter to Prime Minister - December 11, 2006 The residents of Delta-Richmond East are perplexed as are sports and commercial fishermen by the decision to have Mr. Prentice sign the Tsawwassen Treaty on behalf of the Government of Canada on December 8, 2006. Letter to Prime Minister - December 6, 2006 Only last week I raised concerns with you about proceeding with a Final Agreement with the Tsawwassen, an Indian Band in my riding. Today I am advised by Mr. Prentice that our government is signing the Final Agreement with the Tsawwassen by the weekend. If Mr. Prentice goes forward with signing the Tsawwassen Final Agreement, I will be forced to vigorously oppose Mr. Prentice and the treaty which he has signed. Letter to Prime Minister - October 24, 2006 The proposed Tsawwassen treaty must be reviewed to ensure that it does not treat the right to a common fishery as something to be trade in treaty negotiations. If aboriginals wish to increase their participation in the fishery they should use part of the money given in the treaty settlement to purchase licenses, in that way their participation and right to fish would be on the same terms and the same basis as other Canadian citizens. The existing treaty mandates that direct federal negotiators were created by the former Liberal government and should be revised in light of the fact that Canada has a new government with a renewed desire to end policies that se rights as race-based rather than common to all citizens. If fish continue to be on the treaty table then your commitment to end race-based segregation in the fishery will be only a memory. Treaty negotiators are carving them in stone in our constitution by creating two classes of fishermen. Your commitment was to end race-based fisheries, not carve them in stone. Historical Document - October 31, 1848 - Queen Victoria Approves Public Fishery for B.C. We the Lords of this Committee, have taken the same into consideration and having inquired into the whole matter, do this day agree humbly to report to Your Majesty that, in our opinion, it is essential, in order to ensure the more effectual colonization of Vancouver's island, that certain amendments should be made to some of the conditions inserted in the said draft grant, and that certain further conditions should be inserted therein; and we, therefore, humbly recommend that Your Majesty should cause amendments and further conditions to be inserted in the said grant, to the following effect; viz, --That the grant of the fishing of all sorts of fish in the seas, bays, inlets and rivers within or surrounding the said island be omitted from the said draft grant. Historical Document - June 19, 1849 - Hansard - Debate on Vancouver Island Constitution By the draft of the Charter as then proposed, the whole of the fisheries in the neighbourhood of Vancouver's Island would have been exclusively confined to the company. It was perfectly monstrous that the Colonial Office should for a moment have entertained such a demand, and still more so that Earl Grey should have approved of such a proposition. We have before us a copy of his letter approving of this monstrous monopoly. Why, it was a wonder that they did not call upon the Government for powers to exclude the colonists from the very air they breathed. This provision has now been altered, and the fisheries are left as free as is the air. LHEIDLI T'ENNEH FINAL AGREEMENT (PRINCE GEORGE) Letter to Prime Minister - November 28, 2006 Since we last spoke I have taken the opportunity to review the Lheidli T'enneh Final Agreement with regard to its implications for the fishery and to your commitment to end race-based fisheries programs. I am enclosing my review of the Final Agreement's fisheries chapter for your consideration. I would very much like to sit down and discuss the Lheidli T'enneh Final Agreement with you together with its implications for other Final Agreements that will be signed in the very near future. One in particular is of concern to me, the Tsawwassen Final Agreement which involves the Tsawwassen Indian Band in my riding. The fisheries provisions are only one of my concerns with the Lheidli T'enneh Final Agreement. Governance issues, rights to water, forest resources and natural resources all deserve careful evaluation before decisions are taken on signing additional agreements. Letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs - November 28, 2006 I have taken the opportunity to review the Lheidli T'enneh Final Agreement with regard to its implications for the fishery and the Prime Minister's commitment to end race-based fisheries programs. I am enclosing my review of the Final Agreement's fisheries chapter for your consideration. It is my belief that the Lheidli T'enneh Final Agreement as a model agreement has far reaching implications for British Columbia. Letter to B.C. Caucus Chair - November 28, 2006 It is my belief that the Lheidli T'enneh Final Agreement as a model agreement has far reaching implications for British Columbia, in particular those parts of the province outside of the City of Vancouver. B.C. Caucus may wish to further discuss the Lheidli T'enneh Final Agreement together with its implications for other Final Agreements now prior to decisions on signing additional agreements. Letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs - October 16, 2006 At the same time as the Prime Minister has publicly committed his government to ending race-based fisheries you are, according to your letter of October 10, 2006, negotiating and signing treaties that will constitutionalize race-based segregated fisheries and treat a common right of citizenship as a commodity to be traded in treaty negotiations. The agreement that your officials have negotiated with the Prince George Indian Band fits the Liberal model of trading the right to a common fishery in treaty negotiations and constitutionalizing a race-based segregated fishery through the inclusion of fish in treaties or related side-agreements. Letter to the Chair of Cabinet Committee on Operations - August 2, 2006 I would ask that you review the proposed treaty apparently entered into by federal officials. If the newspaper story is correct, the treaty provisions should be rejected. Otherwise, you will have committed the government to a racially segregated fishery, a position that is inconsistent with the principled stand taken by the Prime Minister and yourself, to end government sponsored race-based divisions in the fishery. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW FRASER RIVER PORTS AUTHORITY Letter to Minister of Transport - December 8, 2006
A new Fraser River Port
Authority should have responsibility for: We need a port authority for the Fraser River that will make Public Safety, Emergency Planning and Flood Control, and the Environment a priority. A merged Vancouver Port Authority cannot and would not. Its priority is its shippers. ARTICLE IN VANCOUVER PROVINCE - DECEMBER 3, 2006 Merging Ports A Lose-Lose Situation At first glance, the proposed merger of Vancouver Port Authority with the Fraser River and North Fraser port authorities looks like a merger made in heaven. Letter to the Minister of Transport - October 24, 2006 After consulting with fishermen and others who rely on the river, it is clear that there is an additional area of responsibility that should be addressed by the proposed New Port Authority. The additional area of responsibility is for the Fraser River Debris Trap which has performed an important role in keeping debris out of the lower river thus assisting safe shipping. Letter to the Minister of Transport, October 2, 2006 The needs of the Fraser River estuary and indeed the entire lower Fraser are vitally important, too important to be left to the vagaries of a fundamentally different port authority whose interests and whose priorities cannot and should never be the Fraser River. Letter to the Prime Minister, October 2, 2006 We should be mindful of the fact that the Fraser is more than a working river with log rafts and tugboats pulling barges. It is at its core a living river teaming with salmon and everything we do must recognize and respect this essential nature of the Fraser. There is no substitute of an authority dedicated to the lower Fraser whose sole responsibility is this vital waterway. The people who live along the river and who depend upon it know intrinsically that their interests would be lost in a super Vancouver Port Authority. DELTAPORT EXPANSION Letter to Minister of Fisheries - July 14, 2006 There have been a number of concerns about the assessment process which I have brought to your office's attention. Due to these concerns and the importance of the project to the people of Delta it is important that the public have adequate time to reflect on the report and make their concern know. It would be appreciated if the public consultation period might be extended until at least the end of September to ensure the interested public has adequate time to review the report and respond. YALE AGREEMENT-IN-PRINCIPLE Letter to the Minister of Fisheries - March 14, 2006 Following the signing of the Yale treaty agreement-in-principle (AIP) by your colleague the Hon. Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs, on March 9, 2006 there is now an urgent need for answers to a few of the more obvious questions on the impact of the fisheries component of the Yale treaty. Given these commitments how do you intend to provide fish for (i) coastal natives, (ii) up-river natives and (iii) commercial and recreational fishermen in the public fishery who rely on Fraser River stocks? How is the legal trade or barter of these treaty fish to be distinguished from their illegal sale? Does it not make the work of fishery officers even more difficult or even impossible? Is the Department now simply authorizing the sale of food fish under another name? Letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs - March 8, 2006 I have learned through the media of the federal government's intention to enter in an Agreement-in-Principle with the Yale Indian Band in British Columbia, what Yale Chief Robert Hope called a "Fish Treaty." The Yale agreement spells the death knell of the non-racially segregated commercial and recreational salmon fisheries on the Fraser River. What fish are left to commercial and recreational fishermen operating ni the non-racially segregated public fishery? I am disturbed by the Yale agreement and would ask that you not sign it. The Yale agreement is inconsistent with the Conservative Party's B.C. election platform and contrary to the joint fisheries policy agreed to at the union of the Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance Parties. GROUNDFISH MANAGEMENT PLAN Fisheries Committee - October 17, 2006 Post Election Release of Leaky Condo Documents by CHMC ARTICLE IN VANCOUVER PROVINCE, JANUARY 16 2006 CMHC Denies Claims: Agency Responsible, Class-action Suit Says The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. has denied all allegations in a class-action lawsuit claiming the federal housing agency was responsible for the West Coast's multimillion-dollar leaky-condo crisis. In a one-page statement of defence filed in the Supreme Court of B.C., CMHC said it "denies each and every allegation of fact contained in the statement of claim" except for the names of the representative plaintiffs, the addresses of their condo and itself as defendant.... [The lawyer for the plaintiffs], John Singleton, said internal CMHC documents show the CMHC knew the design of stucco buildings, combined with energy-efficient requirements, caused the water damage and it had a duty to pass along that knowledge to homeowners. RECENTLY RECEIVED DOCUMENTS ON LEAKY CONDOS Meeting of CMHC Board of Directors - August 20, 1981 The President explained that the moisture problem was first identified approximately three years ago in Newfoundland .... The problem was now occurring elsewhere in Canada, particularly in coastal areas .... In response to a question, Mr. Hession said this was not the same kind of problem as the one concerning urea formaldahyde foam insulation and was not expected to result in a class action. Memorandum to CMHC Minister - Moisture in Buildings - August 27, 1981 It has become evident to the Corporation that there has been a significant increase in the incidence of moisture induced damage in frame construction. ... the damage appears to be occurring in the exterior walls. There is an apparent close relation between energy conservation attempts and high levels of moisture accumulation. In some cases, structural deterioration of the wall has resulted. The worst conditions have been encountered in the coastal areas, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the problem is confined to those regions. The National Building Code Committee considered a request from the Minister of Energy, Marc Lalonde, to strengthen the Energy Conservation Measures in the National Building Code on an urgent basis. The Minutes state the position of the B.C. representative: "Mr. Currie was of the opinion that the Measures should continue to be published as a separate document suitable for adoption by the provinces. He noted that the Measures have not been adopted in B.C. One reason for the non-adoption relates to concerns about the possible effect of energy conservation on the structure (houses) as a whole. Problems have been reported ...." At the same meeting National Building Code Committee heard a conflicting request from the President of CMHC to reconsider the Energy Conservation Measures in the National Building Code because CMHC research had found a link between the Energy Conservation Measures in the Code and the incidence of moisture induced damage in the exterior wall of recently constructed houses. The greatest incidence of the moisture damage is found in coastal areas. The Minutes state the position of the B.C. representative: "Mr. Currie said that there are problems of condensation on the West Coast." Record of Decision of CMHC Management Review Committee - October 13 1981 The reference to "public statements" in the terms of reference be deleted and no statements be made during the research period. ARTICLE IN VANCOUVER SUN - DECEMBER 19, 2005 Possible Compensation For Leaky Condo Victims While the Tory B.C. platform includes a number of old promises... , the platform includes newer promises to: - Review the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's handling of "construction regulations and leaky condos." The promise stems from MP John Cummins' research indicating that CMHC knew in the early 1980's that federal building codes were causing moisture damage. HOUSE OF COMMONS - NOVEMBER 25, 2005 Hansard - House of Commons Order Paper Question in Parliament: What is DFO's Policy on Malachite Green? Background Document: DFO Press Lines on Detection of Malachite Green in Two Fish Farms and Q & A. Background Document: DFO Policy on Use of Drugs and Chemicals on Fish Background Document: CFIA Checks Outs DFO Use of Malachite Green HOUSE OF COMMONS - NOVEMBER 24, 2005 Hansard - House of Commons Order Paper Motions for the Production of Papers: Aquaculture - Handling of Malachite Green by Department of Fisheries. Background Document: Dorothee Kieser email of May 20, 2005 - DFO' Use Of Malachite Green at a Hatchery Background Document: Aleria Ladwig email of June 14, 2005 - Malachite Green Stored at Hatchery and DFO Office HOUSE OF COMMONS - NOVEMBER 23, 2005 Hansard - House of Commons Debates - Routine Proceedings HOUSE OF COMMONS - NOVEMBER 23, 2005 Hansard - House of Commons Order Paper Question in Parliament: Leaky Condos - Why Did Government Only Seek to Protect Itself? NEWS RELEASE - NOVEMBER 22, 2005 Doumet Family's Fortune Minerals Wrong Choice for Ridley Terminals HOUSE OF COMMONS - NOVEMBER 22, 2005Hansard - House of Commons Order PaperMotions for Production of Papers - Sale of Ridley Terminals to Fortune MineralsHOUSE OF COMMONS - NOVEMBER 22, 2005Hansard - House of Commons Order PaperMotions for Production of Papers - Uncovering What the Government Knew About Leaky Condos HOUSE OF COMMONS - NOVEMBER 18, 2005Hansard - House of Commons Order Paper Motions for Production of Papers - Uncovering What the Government Knew About Leaky Condos NEWS RELEASE - NOVEMBER 16, 2005 Cover-up Continues in Leaky Condo Fiasco: Liberals Refuse to Allow Tabling of Documents OTTAWA--
Today both the Minister of Natural of Natural
Resources and the Minister of Housing continued the leaky condo
cover-up refusing to answer a question in the Commons from John
Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East) into the demand from the
Department of Natural Resources (formerly Energy, Mines & Resources)
to CMHC to cover up the leaky condo disaster. HOUSE OF COMMONS - NOVEMBER 15, 2005 Hansard - Opposition Motion on Access to Information Act Degradation of Access to Information Background Document: DFO Tracking of John Cummins Access To Information Request on Sablefish Transfers Background Document: DFO Tracking of John Cummins Access to Information Request on Cap Rouge Background Document: DFO Tracking of John Cummins Access to Information Request on Fish Farm Sites Background Document: Letter to Justice LaForest, October 31, 2005 - Political Tracking and Intervention of Access to Information Requests at Fisheries and Oceans Background Document: Letter to Justice LaForest, October 12, 2005 - Problems in CMHC's Handling of Leaky Condo Issue and Administration of Access to Information Act HOUSE OF COMMONS - NOVEMBER 15, 2005 Media Report: "B.C. MP Loses Bid to Get Condo Information", Vancouver Sun, November 16, 2005 Background Document: Original Complaint to Speaker, Hansard, October 3, 2005 Background Document: Original Complaint to Speaker, Hansard, September 28, 2005 Background Document: Government's Answer to Question 151 on Leaky Condos, September 26, 2005 NEWS RELEASE - NOVEMBER 10, 2005 Ridley Sell-Off to Doumet Family Contrary to Government's Stated Divestiture Policy OTTAWA-- "The scramble by Minister of Transport to sell-off Ridley Terminals to the Doumet family is contrary to his own stated policy on Port Divestiture," said Cummins. "The Minister has failed to ensure the international competitive position of the port, has failed to establish a publicly accountable rate setting agency, and has failed to ensure that Ridley will be managed in a competent and responsible manner." For complete text click here: (more) NEWS RELEASE - NOVEMBER 10, 2005 The Smoking Gun: CMHC Under Pressure to Cover-up Wet-Wall Problem OTTAWA-- “A smoking gun exists. There is now clear and unassailable evidence that not only did CMHC know full well there was a serious wet-wall problem caused by the federal government’s energy conservation measures but that CMHC was under pressure to cover up the problem to protect the National Energy Program,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond-East) For complete text click here: (more) Background Documents: Letters from CMHC President to Deputy Minister of Energy LETTER TO CMHC MINISTER - NOVEMBER 9, 2005 End the Cover-up Now "What you have written is untrue. Your letter continues the cover-up of CMHC's knowledge of the wet-wall problem in 1981 and if failure to warn home owners of the problem in those early years." For complete text click here: (more) Background Document: Letter from CMHC President to National Building Code Committee of National Research Council Background Document: Response to CMHC President from National Building Code Committee of National Research Council CHECK OUT OUR NEW LEAKY CONDO SECTION NEWS RELEASE - NOVEMBER 4, 2005 Who Will Profit From Ridley?
OTTAWA--
“Ridley Terminals will be very profitable by the end of 2006
according to the terminal’s corporate plan,” said John Cummins, M.P.
(Delta-Richmond East). For complete text click here: (more) Ridley Terminals - 2005-2009 Financial Projection LETTER TO JUSTICE LA FOREST - OCTOBER 31, 2005 Political Tracking and Intervention of Access to Information Requests at Fisheries and Oceans DFO administers the Act so as to allow the (i) Legislation and House Planning Branch of the Privy Council, (ii) the Minister’s Office, (iii) the Executive Secretariat that supports the Minister, and (iv) the department’s Communications branch to track and intervene in the handling of information requests in a manner designed to protect the government from embarrassment rather than to dispassionately provide the public access to departmental records. For complete text click here: (more) NEWS RELEASE - OCTOBER 26, 2005 Feds Set to Repeat Australian Failure in Ridley Privatization Privatization of Australia’s Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal in 2001 has been a disaster the federal government seems determined to impose on Ridley Terminals,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East). For complete text click here: (more) NEWS RELEASE - OCTOBER
24, 2005 NEWS RELEASE - OCTOBER 20, 2005 WHO BENEFITS FROM RIDLEY TERMINAL DEAL? The future of Ridley would now be bright except for a recent decision of the federal cabinet. On September 29, 2005 the Martin cabinet took the highly unusual step of issuing a Cabinet directive with the force of law ordering Ridley’s Board of Directors and Management not to enter into long term coal contracts, contracts that would guarantee the future of Ridley as a profitable coal port. For complete text click here: (more) Cabinet Directive - Ridley Board Ordered Not to Enter Into Long Term Contracts - September 29, 2005 LETTER TO JUSTICE LA FOREST, OCTOBER 12, 2005 Problems in CMHC's Handling of Leaky Condo Issue and Administration of Access to Information Act Brought to Attention of Justice La Forest While [CMHC lawyer Tyler] is acting on behalf of CMHC in court on "leaky condos" he is at the same time, in his capacity as Access to Information Co-ordinator, withholding "leaky condo" documents from me under the Access to Information Act and drafting answers for the Minister to my letters and Parliamentary questions on "leaky condos". For complete text of letter click here: (more) ARTICLE IN VANCOUVER SUN - OCTOBER 6, 2005 Leaky
condo lawyer in 'conflict': MP: Representing CMHC in condo case, he
also was responsible for disclosing documents in B.C. cases ARTICLE IN DELTA OPTIMIST - OCTOBER 5, 2005 MP
can't get leaky condo answers: Cummins Trying To Determine
Role Federal The federal government won't be
answering allegations that it knew a building code regulation would
lead to leaky condos, MP John Cummins has been told. For complete text of article click here: (more) HOUSE OF COMMONS - OCTOBER 3, 2005 Hansard - Cummins Seeks Answers on Leaky Condos
If ministers do not wish to answer they ought to say so, but they
ought not claim that they are unable to answer, as the Minister of
Industry and the Minister of Labour have done. They are able to
answer, but have chosen not to. For a complete text of statement in Parliament click here: (more) ARTICLE IN RICHMOND REVIEW - OCTOBER 1, 2005 MP claims leaky condo cover-up John Cummins says feds are stonewalling his pursuit of answers If Ottawa was
complicit in the development of B.C.'s billion-dollar leaky condo
disaster, it doesn't plan to release any more potentially damning
documents to the public. For complete text of article click here: (more) ARTICLE IN VANCOUVER SUN - SEPTEMBER 29, 2005
Ottawa covered up leaky condos,
MP claims: It knew about problems with insulation regulations since
1980, a Delta MP says For complete text of article click here: (more) Ottawa accused of cover-up over leaky condos - National Post - September 29, 2005 (more)
Feds
accused of cover-up; Obscured role in leaky condos, rot caused by
insulation standards,
Hansard - September 28, 2005 - Government Refuses to Answer on Leaky Condos: (more) CMHC REFUSES TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS UNDER ACCESS TO INFORMATION - AUGUST 25, 2005 - LETTERS TO MINISTER (more) NEWS RELEASE - SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
Government Refuses to Answer Leaky Condo Question NEWS RELEASE - SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
Parliamentary Tribute to
Chuck Cadman "Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to rise to say a few words about our friend, Chuck Cadman." (more) Text of tribute to Chuck Cadman as it appears in Hansard: (more) HOUSE OF COMMONS ORDER PAPER - SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 USE OF DRUGS AND CHEMICALS AT FISH FARMS QUESTION Q-179 — Mr. Cummins (Delta - Richmond East): With regard to the regulation of fish farm sites to govern the environmental consequences of fish farms on wild species, parasites, release of drugs, chemicals and toxins in the marine environment and human health. For complete text of parliamentary question click here: (more) LETTER TO FEDERAL PUBLIC SAFETY MINISTER - SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 CUMMINS QUESTIONS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO DEAL WITH WEST COAST NATURAL DISASTER For complete text of letter click here: (more) LETTER TO VANCOUVER SUN - SEPTEMBER 22, 2005
Re: Facts, not myths, about
sockeye run, Sept. 20
For complete text of letter click here: (more) LETTER TO RCMP - ADVISING OF BLACKMARKET ACTIVITY - SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 Cummins asks RCMP to shut down black market fish sales
Dear Deputy Commissioner
Busson: UPDATE: RCMP DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RESPONDS TO LETTER
"Thank you for your letter
dated September 12,2005 regarding the intention of some to use the "Given that this matter falls under the mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Ocean, they will be conducting inquiries into your concerns and will respond to you directly." For complete text of letter click here: (more) NEWS RELEASE - SEPTEMBER 9, 2005
Reality Therapist/Prison
Warden a New Top Dog at DFO (No Kidding) LETTER TO JOHN CUMMINS - SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 Access to Information Commissioner Condemns DFO
"In my view there was no lawful justification for the poor service
that you received and I will so inform F&O." NEWS RELEASE - AUGUST 30, 2005 THEY LOVE ME, THEY LOVE ME NOT DELTA—“DFO spent yesterday picking petals off daisies,” said John Cummins, M.P., Delta - Richmond East. “In the end they chose continued black market sales over fish for commercial and sport fishermen.” (more) NEWS RELEASE - AUGUST 29, 2005 NO TO DFO DELTA – “BC fishermen should reject the government’s latest offer of a limited commercial fishery,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta–Richmond East). (more) NEWS RELEASE - AUGUST 17, 2005 Fishery Officers Face Threats to Their Safety Delta, B.C. —“Greg Savard, Director of Conservation and Protection for Fisheries and Oceans in the Pacific Region, is misleading the public when he downplays the violent reaction of Cheam fishermen to DFO enforcement efforts,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East). (more) Related pieces of information: Sportfishing Defence Alliance letter to federal Minister of Justice and Attorney-General and BC provincial Attorney-General (more) Scientists hold out faint hope for salmon runs: Water temperature blamed as experts give the fish another week to show up, The Vancouver Sun, August 16, 2005 (more) Fishermen await salmon returns as river tensions rise, Chilliwack Progress, August 16, 2005 (more) RCMP probe clash between natives and fisheries officers: Fraser River tensions rise after DFO boat rammed and Cheam band ignores regulations, The Vancouver Sun, August 18, 2005 (more) LETTER TO EDITOR OF VANCOUVER SUN - AUGUST 3, 2005 Your editorial suggests that the recent rejection by the Supreme Court of Canada of aboriginal demands for preferences involving timber in the Maritimes should lead to the negotiation of race-based preferences in British Columbia. When the Supreme Court has already concluded there is no basis for special preferences, it makes no sense why we would ignore this decision and create special raced-based preferences for resources.
For complete text
of letter: (more) LETTER TO EDITOR OF NATIONAL POST - JULY 27, 2005
I
agree with your
editorial
that it is absurd to conclude that the intent of treaties written in
1760 and 1761 would be to “guarantee members of one race the right
to flaunt Canadian commercial and environmental laws” in the 21st
century.
For complete text of letter:
(more) NEWS RELEASE - JULY 25, 2005 TIME FOR OTTAWA TO SHOW LEADERSHIP IN PORT STRIKE RICHMOND – Conservative MP John Cummins (Delta – Richmond East) today challenged the federal government to show leadership and bring an end to the five-week-old truckers’ strike that is blocking business at Vancouver ports. (more)
NEWS RELEASE - JULY 20, 2005 Supreme Court Decision May Prove Helpful in BC
The
court’s reasoned approach to treaty rights in Marshall and Bernard
offers encouragement to those who seek to reconcile aboriginal
demands for special rights with the realities of modern society. SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION - JULY 20, 2005 Supreme Court rejects aboriginal logging claim
In summary, what the treaty protects is not the right to harvest and
dispose of particular commodities, but the right to practice a
traditional 1760 trading activity in the modern way and modern
context. The question is whether the logging here at issue is the
logical evolution of a traditional Mi’kmaq trade activity, in the
way modern eel fishing was found to be the logical evolution of a
traditional trade activity of the Mi’kmaq in Marshall 1. NEWS RELEASE - JULY 15, 2005 Supreme Court to Render Decisions on “Marshall Treaties" OTTAWA
-
“The Supreme Court
of Canada will be issuing decisions on the so–called “Marshall
Treaties” on Wednesday, July 20th in the Joshua Bernard
and Stephen Marshall appeals,” said John Cummins, M.P.
Delta-Richmond East. Supreme Court of Canada Announcement on Court Decisions: (more) Statement of Facts and Law of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia argued before the Supreme Court of Canada (more) Stephen Marshall - Nova Scotia Supreme Court Decision: (more) Stephen Marshall Appeal Decision (NSSC) - April 9, 2002 News Release: (more) Stephen Marshall on Donald Marshall (NSSC) - April 17, 2002 News Release: (more) Oral Traditions, Wampum Belts, Land and Logs: An Assessment of Testimony in a Nova Scotia Mi'Kmaq Case (expert testimony at trial for the Attorney-General of Nova Scotia) by Alexander von Gernet, Ph.D, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Toronto at Mississauga (more) Chief Augustine at trial, direct and cross examination on qualifications and expert testimony, December 2, 1999 (more) Marshall's lawyer's attempt to withdraw Augustine's testimony following the von Gernet report, May 17, 2000 (more) Bernard Decision - Trial - April 13, 2000 (more) Vancouver Sun, July 5th, 2005 'Ottawa losing' in fish farm PR war: Richmond MP Cummins says environmentalists are 'telling the truth' "To a large extent, the department
is seen as not fulfilling its duties as regulator of the aquaculture
industry and preserver of B.C.'s wild Pacific salmon stocks," states
the analysis, obtained through Access to Information by Conservative
MP John Cummins. For complete story: (more) Access to Information documents on Pacific Region Sea Lice Communications Strategy: (more) LETTER TO EDITOR OF OTTAWA CITIZEN - JUNE 30TH, 2005 Re: Ottawa Citizen, June 29, 2005, Salmon Farms, Fishing Can Coexist by Hon. Geoff Regan
Geoff Regan’s letter
extolling the virtues of his Department’s regulation of the fish
farm industry is consistent with the media lines supplied by the
Department’s Sea Lice Communications Strategy playbook.
For complete text of letter:
(more)
QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT - JUNE 28, 2005
CUMMINS QUESTIONS THE GOVERNMENT ON FISH FARMS
The government was asked a number of questions today on the use of drugs, chemicals and toxins at fish farms and their impact on wild stocks, the marine environment and human health. (more) QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT - JUNE 22, 2005 Order Paper Question No. 174 - House of Commons The Government was asked a series of
questions based on the anthropological and historical study
undertaken by Professor Alexander von Gernet for the Department of
Justice entitled, The Early History of Lobster Harvesting Among
Natives and Newcomers in Atlantic Canada, and the transfer to
aboriginals in the Maritime Provinces access to lobster for food,
social and ceremonial purposes (Sparrow) and commercial purposes
(Marshall). (The Department of Justice has used the von Gernet
report in a court case in Nova Scotia.) Excerpts from the study The Early History of Lobster Harvesting Among Natives and Newcomers in Atlantic Canada: HANSARD - FISHERIES COMMITTEE - JUNE 16, 2005 MINISTER GRILLED ON HIS RESPONSE TO FRASER RIVER REPORT Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East,
CPC):
Mr. Chairman, I'm not exactly
overwhelmed by the response here this morning. The minister
suggested that there was urgency in the Fraser River situation, and
I agree. He suggested that the urgency was intensified by the low
returns of Fraser salmon last year. Well, there were pretty good
returns to the river. The problem was an issue of enforcement. LETTER - JUNE 16, 2005 Letter to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans We continue to discuss Bill C-52
with various commercial and recreational fishing interests across
Canada. There are few who agree to granting your officials
unfettered authority to create licence conditions that could have
the effect of sending a licence holder to jail. For complete text of letter: (more) LETTER - JUNE 13, 2005 Letter to Ontario Federation of Hunters and Anglers I wish to advise
you that I cannot support the amendments to the Fisheries Act
contained in Bill C-52. LETTER - JUNE 08, 2005 Letter to Ontario Minister of Natural Resources "You have not
challenged the Committee’s conclusion that s. 36(2) of the Ontario
Fishing Regulations is illegal. As a Minister of the Crown you
cannot rely on a provision that is patently illegal merely because
it is administratively convenient. NEWS RELEASE - JUNE 07, 2005 Fisheries Ministers Mislead Ontario Fishermen OTTAWA - “The
Ontario Minister of Natural Resources and his federal counterpart
are misleading Ontario fishermen,” said John Cummins, M.P.
(Delta-Richmond East). “The Ministers are claiming that they will
have to shutdown the Ontario fishery if they do not get their way in
Parliament.” HANSARD - JUNE 06, 2005 Second Reading Debate on An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): "Bill C-52 would make it a criminal
offence to break an unpublished secret law written by unaccountable
bureaucrats. Regulations under the Fisheries Act make those who write regulations accountable to Parliament. The Fisheries Act provides for open, public and accountable regulations. Bill C-52 would remove that. These amendments would undermine that scheme of open, public accountability that is built into the Fisheries Act." (more) Bill C-52: (more) Disallowance Report: The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, Second Report (Report No. 75 - Disallowance): (more) NEWS RELEASE - JUNE 06, 2005 Bill Gives Unlimited Powers to Unaccountable Fisheries Bureaucrats OTTAWA—“Bill C-52’s amendments to the Fisheries Act puts fishermen at the mercy of unaccountable Department of Fisheries & Oceans (DFO) bureaucrats,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East). This legislation, if approved by Parliament, will give Fisheries bureaucrats the unfettered ability to put in place their own regulations to govern the lives of fishermen, the ability to give access to fish to friends of the government and to discriminate between groups of fishermen. Under Bill C-52 fishermen will have no recourse to challenge DFO bureaucrats: fishermen will not be able to challenge such offensive regulations in court because Parliament will have given the bureaucrats a free-hand to put in place their own form of regulations without ever publishing them and without any form of public scrutiny. Appeals to Members of Parliament will be of little avail if this legislation were passed. The only recourse would be for a Member of Parliament to seek to have Parliament change this dangerous law...(more) NEWS RELEASE - JUNE 06, 2005
Minister Advised His Changes to Fisheries Act Were “Undesirable” Committee's Letter of Concern to Minister: (more) NEWS RELEASE - JUNE 3, 2005
Bureaucrats Seek Power to Jail Fishermen HOUSEHOLDER - SPRING 2005 Dear Constituent, John Cummins, M.P. CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE VERSION OF 2005 HOUSEHOLDER IN PDF FORMAT: (more) NEWS RELEASE - May 19, 2005 CUMMINS SPEAKS ON BEHALF OF B.C. HOMEOWNERS “Mr. Speaker,
over a month ago I provided the minister responsible for CMHC with
documents received under access to information that made it clear
that in 1981 CMHC was aware of the “leaky condo” problem in British
Columbia but failed to issue a public warning to homeowners and
builders because of concerns about liability and defaulting
mortgages. Listen to the audio clip: http://media.conservative.ca/audio/20050519-Cummins.mp3 LETTER - May 18, 2005 LETTER TO CMHC MINISTER FROM JOHN CUMMINS, M.P. ON BEHALF OF HOMEOWNERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA "Why then in the years immediately
after 1981 was the National Building Code continuously changed to
further mandate construction practices which worsened the problems?
Why did CMHC fail to effectively to address this disaster in the
making? For complete text of letter: (more) CMHC
Letter to Government of British Columbia Advising of Problem For complete text of letter: (more) QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT - May 18,
2005 With regard to
government measures that result in the build-up of moisture in the
wall cavity of buildings and their inability to dry-out: HANSARD - FISHERIES COMMITTEE - May
17, 2005 HOUSE OF COMMONS - May 16, 2005 Tabling Petitions on Judicial Inquiry for Fraser River Sockeye Salmon Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): "Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from British Columbians who are concerned about the management of the Fraser River fishery"...(more) NEWS - May 11, 2005 MR. HARPER'S ADDRESS TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS - MOVES 2ND NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC): "Madam Speaker, I rise today to perform what is the most essential job for any Leader of the Opposition, and that is to hold the government to account. At the end of this speech I will be holding the government to account in the most direct way possible by moving yet another motion of non-confidence in this government, but before I do so, I feel I owe it to this House to explain the reasons why this step has become necessary. Click here for the complete text of the speech in PDF format:
NEWS RELEASE - May 10, 2005
No Money for Fishery Officers Yet DFO Had Surplus OTTAWA - “Fisheries policy in British Columbia is driven by fear of violence by natives according to Larry Murray, the Deputy Minister of Fisheries,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East)...(more) NEWS RELEASE - May 7, 2005 A
Japanese-Canadian Fisherman’s View The Petition by Hunger Striker Ngo Thien Hiep Mr. Ngo Thien Hiep: "Dear sirs and madams, how could we earn enough money to make our living, and from our fish-selling income as such, how could we make enough money to pay for the costs of repairing our boats, nets, and other necessary fishing equipments every year? We are, like other fishermen, human beings, why were we discriminated by a group of people, who was in charge of this business?"...(more) NEWS RELEASE - May 6, 2005 Hunger Strike in Fifth Day RICHMOND - “Hiep Thien Ngo is in the fifth day of a hunger strike protesting the fisheries policies of the federal government,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East). Heip Thien Ngo came to this country as an immigrant believing all Canadians are equal in the eyes of the law. He decided to go into the fishing business, worked hard and bought a boat and licence, all in the hope of earning a living for his family... (more) DESPERATE PLEA FROM VIETNAMESE FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION Hansard - Fisheries Committee, December 2, 2004 - Vancouver Hearing Ms. Kim Nguyen
(Spokesperson, B.C. Vietnamese Fishermen's Association):
" This year my husband went out fishing and he caught fewer than 500
fish. According to the statistics, area E gill-netters have caught
239,000 fish, and we have about 403 area E licences. If you take
that average, and if each fisherman takes fewer than 600 fish from
the water, at the price that fishermen get paid for fish, which is
about $10 a fish, the average fisherman's income this year is only
$6,000. That hardly pays the start-up costs. Now we have come to the
end of the season, and everybody is saying we've lost the fish; we
are losing the fish going to the spawning grounds. THOUGHT CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP MEANT EVERYONE TREATED EQUALLY Testimony of Kim Nguyen in 2003 in BC Provincial Court at Kapp trial: Ms. Kim Nguyen:
1992 when the pilot sales coming, we cannot fish. We sit in dock. We
see the pilot sales going out, and we commercial fishing, too, but
we cannot go out. The fish is our life. We don't have anything else
at that time, just when we depend on the fishing. We really worry.
We're frustrated. Where the income from if we don't have any
fishing. And we have lots of stress for that time, and things
changed so quickly we didn't even know that. It's really hard for
us. We never think about that. We thought the fishing is our -- all
our life was spent for the fishing. Hansard - Fisheries Committee, May 5, 2005 Head of DFO Science Unsure of the Source of Sea Lice Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Dr. Watson-Wright, in a March 26 article by Peter O'Neil in The Vancouver Sun, Dr. Brian Riddell said that fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago are the probable source of a huge increase in lice found on wild salmon in 2004. You wrote a letter to The Vancouver Sun shortly thereafter, and you took exception to that, noted that comment, and you said that DFO is looking at all causes of sea lice on wild salmon. My question is this: Is it not true that the most likely source of sea lice, the millions of salmon with lice on salmon farms has not been investigated as a source in any directed research by DFO to date?...(more)
Hansard from Fisheries Committee, May 3, 2005 - Melvin Report To Be
Considered Behind Closed Doors, MPs Prevented From Studying the
Report Prior to Closed-Door Meeting NEWS RELEASE - April 28, 2005 Documents Reveal Illegal Activity in Fishery OTTAWA— “Senior officials in the Department of Fisheries believe that poachers have vandalized the property of honest fishermen who refuse to quietly go along with their illegal activities,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East)... (more)
Document
Released under the Access to Information Act regarding vandalism and
intimidation by poachers: NEWS RELEASE - April 26, 2005 Deadline Set for Receipt of Melvin Report OTTAWA - “The Fisheries Committee has issued a formal request to the Deputy Minister of Fisheries for the Melvin Report,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East)... (more) NEWS RELEASE - April 22, 2005 High Level CMHC Documents Implicate Corporation OTTAWA - “Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation (CMHC) documents reveal the government agency believed in 1981 that moisture induced problems were causing rot and structural damage in newly constructed homes, particularly in coastal areas,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East).... (more)
CMHC DOCUMENTS: HOUSE OF COMMONS - April 19, 2005 Tabling Petitions on Judicial Inquiry for Fraser River Sockeye Salmon "Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today from residents of British Columbia concerned about the mismanagement of the Fraser River sockeye." (more) NEWS RELEASE - April 19, 2005 CMHC Must Address Its Failure to Warn Homeowners OTTAWA - “Internal Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation documents reveal the Corporation (CMHC) was aware in 1981-82 that a serious moisture problem was causing damage in housing across Canada, particularly in coastal British Columbia and Newfoundland,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East)... (more) "I would ask that you let me know what actions you will be taking to address the failure of the Corporation to warn homeowners and potential homeowners of this looming problem...." See full text of letter to CMHC Minister: docs\LETTER TO CMHC MINISTER ON LEAKY CONDOS.pdf NEWS RELEASE - April 19, 2005 COMMITTEE AGREES TO REQUEST THE MELVIN REPORT OTTAWA - On April 14, 2005 the Fisheries Committee agreed to a demand from John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East) that the Committee request a copy of the Melvin Report from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans... (more) C-38 (The Government's Same-Sex Marriage Legislation) 2ND READING SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS - APRIL 19, 2005 "Mr. Speaker, I support the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." (more) PDF copy of speech:
NEWS RELEASE - April 14, 2005
Fishermen Should Beware OTTAWA - "The bureaucrats and the Fisheries Minister who brought us the Fraser River disaster in 2004 now see fit to do to fishermen in 2005 what then did to the sockeye in 2004," said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East). "The gang that couldn't shoot straight would now restructure the public fishery without any evidence their plans will lead to more effective management of the resource." ...(more) NEWS RELEASE - April 14, 2005 OTTAWA - "Fisheries Officers have been advised to expect severe cuts to their ranks in the Pacific Region. We are in danger of repeating the 2004 disaster with a weakened enforcement unit at DFO," said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East)...(more) NEWS RELEASE - April 13, 2005 Memo Reveals Armed Poachers Still Pose a Threat to Fishery Officers OTTAWA - “Weapons in the hands of poachers are still a concern for Fisheries Officers patrolling the Fraser River,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East). Internal Department of Fisheries documents received under the Access to Information Act reveal that weapons continue to be a threat to Fisheries Officers. In a January 11, 2005 memo the Detachment Supervisor for Conservation and Protection Field Units in Mission and Chilliwack requested “weapons profiles” on poachers his men have to deal with so that they will not be faced with any “surprises”...(more) Documents released under the Access to Information Act: docs\A-2004-00425 - FRASER RIVER SUMMARY REPORT 2004 - WEAPONS (2).doc HOUSE OF COMMONS - April 13, 2005 Tabling Petitions on Judicial Inquiry for Fraser River Sockeye Salmon "Madam Speaker, I have a petition today from people in British Columbia requesting a judicial inquiry into the disappearance of 1.3 million sockeye in the Fraser River." (more) NEWS RELEASE - April 12, 2005
Fisheries Minister Shuts Down
Williams OTTAWA - "The Minister of Fisheries has shut down the investigation into his Department's management of the 2004 salmon fishery in British Columbia," said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East). The Williams Committee was scheduled to finish the second half of its review in the next few weeks and submit Part II of its report in May. It was to deal with the evidence of illegal fishing in the Somass River on Vancouver Island and problems in the management of other Fraser River salmon stocks. The hearings have already been held ...(more) NEWS RELEASE - April 7, 2005 The Williams Report Offers Crumbs to Fishermen Rather Than An Action Plan OTTAWA - "Vancouver lawyer Bryan Williams seems to think more negotiations, more studies, more reports and more meetings will protect sockeye runs in 2005," said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East) "Williams knew nothing about the sockeye fishery before he held public hearings throughout British Columbia and unfortunately he appears to have learned little about the fishery after hearing from fishermen and fishery officers... (more) NEWS RELEASE - March 22, 2005 Commons Committee Critical of Fisheries Department OTTAWA -“The report on the management of the 2004 Fraser River sockeye fishery released by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans provides some commendable recommendations relating to the long term management of the Fraser fishery but offers little direction to the Department on how to improve its sorry record of fisheries management,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East)...(more) Ensuring a Future for
Fraser River Sockeye - An Action Plan for the 2005 Season The purpose of these recommendations is to ensure the survival and enhancement of Fraser River sockeye. Implementation will ensure the adequate management of the 2005 Fraser River fishery and allow time for more comprehensive restructuring of Fisheries and Oceans Canada...(more) NEWS RELEASE - March 22, 2005 Statement In Parliament on Fisheries Committee Report OTTAWA - “Today the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has rejected the government’s claim that warm water temperatures were primarily responsible for the 2004 Fraser River sockeye disaster, laying the blame squarely on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans,” said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East)...(more) NEWS RELEASE - March 21, 2005 Committee Set to Unveil Report on Missing Salmon OTTAWA - The House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries is set to make public on March 22nd its report into the disappearance of Fraser River sockeye in the summer of 2004. It will include a supplementary report, Ensuring a Future for Fraser River Sockeye, by John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-Richmond East)... (more) THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS has the honour to present its SECOND REPORT. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee has studied the 2004 Fraser River sockeye salmon harvest and is pleased to report as follows: (more)
| News Latest | Media | Photos | Documents | Issues | Experience | Biography | Links | Home |
|
|
.Jpg)
.JPG){kind=link}