Mr. Chairman, I bring this up in relation to the number of articles over the past month or two in regard to different groups claiming forestry rights, either through treaty or claims. At this point in time, they are not referring so much to claims, because the claims are not in place, but there is, if I recall correctly in the correspondence I have seen, some reference to priority harvesting rights through treaty rights. Obviously, this whole issue, and it is controversial, would be more easily addressed if people and groups were aware that as they claim the forest rights, they also claim the responsibility to reforest and protect their forest, at their cost.

If this government is not gaining any revenue from the product, from the forest, then obviously, whoever is gaining the revenue from the resource should to some degree, have the responsibility of protecting and reforesting. This would seem to address who owns what timber in the southern part of the Mackenzie. My main concern with the aboriginal groups claiming forestry and the preferential right to harvest that forest, is along with that comes the responsibility to protect it and replant if they do cut down the timber. They should be responsible to replant. That is my point to this whole question, Mr. Chairman.