John M. Cummins

[Petitions, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition organized by a member of my constituency which calls upon the government to address the issue of video violence on the Internet and in video games.

The concern of my constituents is with the relationship in the criminal code between the words violence and sex, in that violence cannot stand alone as an issue in the criminal code. They think it should. They think the two should be separated and that the violence depicted in videos should be enough to disallow minors purchasing them.

[Petitions, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition this morning organized by a constituent of mine, Mr. Cran Campbell.

The petition deals with violent material on the Internet and on interactive video and computer games. It addresses the problems associated with that material and the negative impact it has on our children. It brings to the fore the notion that the term obscenity in the criminal code has a linkage between sex and violence. It suggests that the linkage should be eliminated and that we should be able to deal with the notion of violence alone.

The petitioners call upon parliament to enact appropriate legislation to protect our children from these violent videos.

[Petitions, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House a petition organized by one of my constituents, Mr. Cran Campbell.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the level of violent material on the Internet in interactive video and computer games. They want the House to understand the detrimental effects that this interactive marketing of violence has on children and on society.

They also want to express their concern with the definition of obscenity in the criminal code and the fact that there is a linkage in the criminal code regarding obscenity between sex and violence. They feel this issue should be addressed by the House to protect Canada's children from this exploitive marketing of violence.

[National Defence, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in parliament the defence minister suggested that if there were an earthquake in the lower mainland of B.C. the Canadian military would be able to respond just as it did during the ice storm in Quebec or during the Saguenay or Red River floods. What nonsense.

The defence minister should talk to the Prime Minister who knows from his many overflights of B.C. on his way to China that much of the province is mountainous. There is only one highway into the lower mainland. It and the two rail lines are vulnerable to slides and slumping, which could close them indefinitely during a major quake.

The lower Fraser valley and the Fraser delta are dissected not only by the Fraser River and its many arms but by several other rivers as well, giving rise to a large number of bridges, all of which would be at risk during a quake.

We needed the special skills of the army engineers who were based in Chilliwack. Now that they are gone we can only thank God for our generous American neighbours and give the infamous Trudeau finger to Liberals everywhere.

[National Defence, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is pathetic. A state highway collapsed in Puget Sound, highway overpasses were shut down and the Seattle airport was shut down.

If, no, when a major quake strikes British Columbia the lower mainland of B.C. will be isolated from the rest of Canada. We will have to rely on Americans for our safety. Why has this government abandoned British Columbia?

[National Defence, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's earthquake centred 35 miles southwest of Seattle caused my daughter's teacher in Delta to stumble against her desk while my daughter's classmates dived under their desks.

When the big one hits the lower mainland, help is now 750 miles away in Edmonton because the government shut down the military base in Chilliwack. That means that U.S. army engineers will be in a better position to help British Columbians than our own Canadian army.

Why must Canadians look south to our U.S. neighbour for help, for their safety? Why has the government abandoned the third largest city in Canada?

[Fisheries, February 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the supreme court has stated that the purpose of recognizing aboriginal rights was to reconcile aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. The government's response to the Marshall decision has failed miserably on this point.

We have obtained documents under access to information which show that the Prime Minister received advice on the Marshall decision from the Privy Council, contrary to what we hear from the minister.

How does the minister explain away this contradiction? Will he table the legal opinion on which his policy is based?

[Fisheries, February 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a plan which will result in the buyout of 20% of maritime fishermen.

Privately the minister has stated that the government is prepared to spend almost $500 million on his plan, which will gut fishing communities in the maritime provinces. The minister claims that this destructive policy is the government's necessary response to the Marshall decision. Will the minister table the government's legal opinion that obliges him to proceed with this destructive and divisive plan?