John M. Cummins

[Petitions, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the third petition I have, over 1,000 petitioners have signed on. They are expressing concern about the government's handling, so to speak, of the purchase of a replacement hovercraft for Sea Island in Richmond. They note that the 20-year-old hovercraft that is being touted and is probably going to be purchased as a replacement hovercraft is certainly unsuitable for the task at hand. They call on Parliament to ensure that when a replacement hovercraft is made available, and they want that to happen soon, it is one that is going to be capable of doing the job.

[Petitions, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have to present today concerns the addition of sexual orientation as a protected category under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The petitioners express concern that religious freedom may be impacted by this inclusion and call on Parliament to protect the right of all Canadians to their religious beliefs.

[Petitions, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.

The first petition has to do with the definition of marriage. The petitioners ask that Parliament confirm the traditional definition of marriage and provide constitutional protection for same.

[Fisheries, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was a participant in a fisheries committee fact-finding trip to the east coast recently.

In community after community fishermen complained about the failure of the department to make fishery allocations in a fair and transparent manner.

Would the parliamentary secretary not agree that the Kelleher arbitration on Pacific halibut was an open and fair process and would he urge the minister to implement those recommendations as soon as possible?

[Fisheries, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the allocation of halibut between commercial and sport fishing fleets on the west coast has been in dispute for a number of years.

In an effort to resolve the dispute, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans appointed an independent arbitrator to meet with fishermen on both sides of the issue and recommend a solution. The transparent arm's length process was completed a year ago.

Fishermen are here in Ottawa today anxious to know when the minister will implement the arbitrator's findings. The minister has had the arbitrator's recommendations for a year. When will he implement them?

[Coast Guard, October 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a fishing vessel out of Caraquet, New Brunswick went down early Monday morning. Two fishermen are presumed dead. The vessel was out in 50 knot winds and 20 to 30 foot seas near Anticosti Island.

The vessel's distress calls went unanswered because there was little or nor search and rescue coverage in the area at that time. Two search and rescue stations, Rivière-au-Renard and Saint-Pierre on Quebec's north shore, were not open as they had no staff and no vessels. This region has five relatively large vessels on the books. However three of the vessels were in the Arctic, one was in lay-up and the other was in dry dock for repairs.

Why was there no Coast Guard rescue capability in the area when it was obvious to everyone that a hurricane was on its way? Does the government not know that lack of coverage means no chance to save a life? It means loss of life.

The Liberal government has decimated the once proud Canadian Coast Guard search and rescue service since it came to office in 1993 and has put the lives of everyone on the water at risk, whether on the east or west coast.

[Privilege, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my compelling case I would like to bring to your attention a couple of passages from Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , in particular pages 226 and 227, where he notes:

--contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.

At page 235, he states:

What constitutes an improper means of interfering with Members' parliamentary work is always a question depending on the facts of each case.

According to a Speaker's ruling from March 21, 1978, at page 3975 of Hansard , it states:

If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should...leave it to the House.

The member is entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, over the past couple of years there has been increasing concern about the ability of the Coast Guard to perform its functions. Much of the information that outlines the impact that these cuts have had have come from concerned members of the Coast Guard.

Now in an effort to stem the flow of information to parliamentarians, the commissioner of the Coast Guard has ordered all staff members who talk with a member of Parliament to report their conversations within 24 hours. This effort at intimidation is intended to shut down the flow of information to myself and other concerned parliamentarians.

The directive that went to employees immediately raised concerns. Let me quote a September 2 memo from one Coast Guard manager. He said “I am getting inquiries about this form. It appears they are being denied access to their elected member of Parliament and feel this is violating their rights. Please provide me with more clarification on what is the intent of this form and when it should be used”

I think the reality here is that the rights of members of Parliament are being impeded, so to speak, by this order by the commissioner of the Coast Guard.

Surely, as I indicated, many of the issues and concerns that have been raised over the past year about the inadequacies of the Coast Guard and its inability to perform its functions have come from members of the Coast Guard themselves who are concerned about the public's safety.

There is no whistleblower protection, no protection for these members if they come to us as members and seek our assistance and try to assist us.

The commissioner of the Coast Guard is attempting to intimidate Coast Guard staff and, in effect, is preventing myself and other members of Parliament from carrying out our duties.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that there is a prima facie case of privilege I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my hon. friend that my leader is concerned about the BSE issue. In fact he led a delegation to Washington and spoke with representatives of the congress, the senate, as well as the president's people on this very important issue. I think it is quite inappropriate to chastise us on that issue.

The issue we have before us is an issue that is here because of the actions of the government. The member talked about three courts in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec finding that maintaining the traditional definition of marriage was contrary to the Charter of Rights. What I find curious and what I would like the member to comment on is that the Supreme Court of Canada, as recently as 1995 in the Egan case, found that marriage was the union of one man and one woman; that is to say that the Supreme Court of Canada found in favour of the traditional definition of marriage. It was fully aware of the obligations that the Charter of Rights imposes on all of us. Justice La Forest stated that because of its importance legal marriage may be viewed as fundamental to the stability and well-being of the family.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the issue being debated here is the amount of money the government is spending on roads. The fact of the matter is, as I stated before, that 99% of federal transfers to provinces for road and highway development was spent east of Ontario. Nothing is coming west. That is the issue here. There are huge moneys taken out of British Columbia every year on federal excise taxes on gas. There are huge moneys taken out of British Columbia every year on taxes on the harbour, on Vancouver Port, on Surrey Fraser docks and on the federal airport. These are federally mandated facilities. Huge revenues accrue to the federal government for those facilities and virtually nothing comes back in infrastructure support. That is simply wrong.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the facts are simple and very direct: 99% of federal transfers to provinces for roads and highways are spent east of Ontario. That is a given. The issues the member mentioned about the piddling amounts for other matters in British Columbia just do not rate on the Richter scale when we look at the amounts of money that are spent elsewhere.

Just as an example, I now have on my desk a stack of announcements by Liberal members from the Maritime provinces, a stack that is so thick, and again, I have only been collecting them since October. These are moneys spent on harbours in the Maritime provinces and yet we cannot get money for dredging in the Lower Fraser River, which is extremely important not only to keep the water flowing in the river but to prevent flooding of a large part of the lower mainland that is protected by dikes. The money is simply not being spent there.

The issues I mentioned, the Vancouver port, the Surrey Fraser docks and the international airport in Vancouver, are federally mandated facilities and all the government does is take money out of those facilities, bring it into the big general pot here in Ottawa and then spend it elsewhere. Some of that money has to come back to support infrastructure in British Columbia. It has to. There is just no question about it. Fairness requires it, but there is also a dramatic need, for a variety of reasons, that this money should be spent in British Columbia where it is earned.