Cummins, despite his expertise and experience, was thrown off the all-party House of Commons fisheries committee yesterday because he does not support the Harper Administration’s policy on native land claim treaties. John thinks proposed changes will weaken the public fishery, hurt efforts at fish habitat protection and artificially boost the fish farm industry, which environmentalists claim threatens native fish populations.
But instead of having that voice legitimately raised, Mr. Harper is moving to silence it. Remove it. Conservative whip Jay Hill, said the government had no choice. Dig this quote: “We need to have all of our committee members solidly on side with the government’s agenda.”
And, dear voters, so much for what an MP does in Ottawa. Even on an all-party committee where MPs are supposed to be acting as independent agents.
And this begs the question: If John Cummins, fishery expert, is thrown off the fishery committee because he disagrees with the government’s fishery policy, who will represent the fishers in his area, or the rest of the country?
The people running the government right now are toying with democracy, pushing the limits to see how far they can go, and how much MPs can be bruised and bullied into submission. Thank goodness for guys like John Cummins, as few and far between as they may be amid Conservative ranks.
http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2007/02/17/the-defiant-fisherman/
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on February 19, 2007]
Note: http://www.garth.ca/web...

Jay Hill, another backward thinker from the city of Prince George, BC. His brother in ignorance, Dick Harris, is the MP for my section of the city.
Quite frankly I consider both of them to be embarrassments.
Then again, this town is noted for being pig headed.
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush
I've seen Cummins on TV many times expounding his race theories.
What amuses me about ideologues, in general, is the contradictions they advocate. Conservatives are supposed to be red hot on the "property rights" issue, but in his case, forgetting them for personal reasons and bury it under racism.
The First Nations have fishing and certain other rights because of the original "property rights" issue and not because of their race. These rights have been ackowledged by the British Crown, with instructions to Canada to observe them, yet almost 150 years later, they're still negotiating what they really mean? That they happen to be of the same race is coincidental and has nothing to do with property rights.
I wonder whether Cummins would be so hot on the subject if the beneficiaries of these few, minimal rights would be multinational corporations?
Can anybody imagine the compensations and royalties our governments would have to pay if Canada had been expropriated from Weyerheauser, or ALCAN, for example?
Ed Deak.
---
When you are up to your ass in alligators it is difficult to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp
---
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
-Max Planck