Norman E. Doyle

[Violence, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, December 6 is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. This day coincides with the sad anniversary of the 1989 Montreal massacre when 14 young women were tragically killed at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal.

It is a time to pause and reflect on the phenomenon of violence against women in our society. It is a time to reflect upon and give serious consideration to those men, women and children all over the world who live daily with the threat of violence or who have died as a result of violence.

It is also a day for all of us as a community to speak out on this issue and to rededicate ourselves to taking concrete action in our daily lives to prevent and eliminate violence against women.

[Rights of the Child, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this week marks the anniversary of the 1959 United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

At no point in our history has it been more important to speak out clearly on the devastation our planet is wreaking upon its children. Numerous wars in every corner of the world have caused the displacement and death of countless children. Child labour in many parts of the world have robbed children of the fun and innocence of childhood.

In our part of the world poverty and homelessness continue to eat away at the fabric that binds together families with children.

It is the right of children to live in peace, to be cared for, nurtured and educated. It is their right to enjoy a quality of life that we would want for ourselves. We in the House would do well to rededicate ourselves to that end.

[Canada Labour Code, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of our party to have a few words to say on Bill C-340, which proposes an amendment to section 132 of the Canada Labour Code. Section 132 of the Canada Labour Code was an item we dealt with in the House a year or so ago when there was a major revision or updating of the Canada Labour Code. It deals with the right of a pregnant worker or a nursing mother at work to remove herself from a hazardous situation in the workplace.

It is very difficult to understand how anyone could vote against the bill, against motherhood. It is not a votable motion, but to speak against this kind of bill is absolutely mind-boggling.

It allows for a woman in such a position to be transferred to a safer position in the workplace and sets out the terms and conditions under which she might obtain fair compensation if she had to withdraw from a very hazardous situation in the workplace.

Obviously it is only fair and compassionate to err on the side of safety when it comes to the health of an unborn infant or a newborn infant who is still nursing. Radiation or chemical pollutants that may be in doses acceptable to an adult may cause very severe harm to and problems for a child in the womb or a newborn infant still dependent upon the mother's milk.

As a strong supporter of life and family issues, I therefore have no hesitation in supporting section 132 in that it provides a woman with options other than quitting her employment.

However, Bill C-340 takes the issue a step further in that it makes provision for a woman covered in section 132 to apply for provincial benefits instead of the relevant federal benefits. That would obviously be beneficial to the woman in the case where provincial benefits are better for the woman or more generous than those that may be offered through federal legislation under section 132.

Bill C-340 is sponsored by a Quebec member and it is no secret that Quebec has some of the most progressive and generous family benefits in the western world. Being a supporter of these benefits I would agree with a provision that provides a pregnant woman or a nursing mother with the best possible package of benefits if she has to withdraw from a hazardous situation in the workplace.

Proposed subsection 132.1(2) would allow a woman to apply for provincial benefits and also indicates that the relevant provincial agency may refuse the application, in other words, opting for provincial benefits is certainly not automatic but the right to apply would be guaranteed. Proposed subsection 132.1(3) would guarantee that the application must be processed by the provincial authority under normal rules.

Proposed subsection 132.1(4) reaffirms the right of a female worker to avail herself of provincial benefits and remedies if she is approved for them by the relevant provincial authority.

Proposed subsection 132.1(5) allows for the establishment of federal-provincial agreements to regularize the terms and conditions wherein a female worker under federal jurisdiction could opt for provincial benefits. That is standard practice in a federal state. Such agreements allow for the seamless application of rights gained at the federal level but delivered at the provincial level.

Finally, proposed subsection 132.1(6) allows for the exercise of provincial benefits under section 132 without prejudice to any other rights and responsibilities under the Canada Labour Code.

In short, Bill C-340 would allow a female employee to have access to the most generous package available for the protection of her unborn or recently born child. We in the PC Party have no hesitation in supporting the bill.

[National Security, October 31st, 2001]

Speaker, the security of Canada's borders continues to be of great concern to all of us. We have greatly increased our security at airports and at our border crossing sites with the United States of America. However Canada is a country with a long coastline and many harbours. Government needs to be vigilant of the dangers presented by lax security in this important area.

For example, the oil refinery at Come by Chance, Newfoundland receives oil deliveries by tankers from all over the world. Ships crews are free to come and go while the oil is being off loaded. It is therefore difficult to understand why the local Canada customs office serving the area has been de-staffed. There is nobody minding the ship.

Surely this is a glaring gap in our security perimeter and government would do well to plug such gaps immediately.

[Constitution of Canada, October 30th, 2001]

As my colleague from Brandon--Souris said a moment ago, it is probably the best kept secret in all of North America. We need to tap into the tourism potential to be had in Labrador.

There is a great future for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in these areas.

[Constitution of Canada, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, many economic opportunities await Labrador. All one has to do is look at what is happening now in Labrador with respect to Voisey's Bay, which is possibly the largest nickel find in the world. Labrador will be a recipient of a lot of the benefits which will come from that great mining operation.

We can look at hydro power in Labrador. The mighty Churchill Falls is a story in itself. There are many more rivers to be developed in Labrador and great hydro potential to be had there.

We must not forget the great tourism potential which is virtually untapped in Labrador. Labrador has to be one of the most beautiful parts of the world.

[Constitution of Canada, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the constitutional amendment which officially changes the name of the province of Newfoundland to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This might be a symbolic change but it is a very important and substantive one in my view.

I congratulate the Minister of Industry, Newfoundland's regional minister, for having taken the initiative to implement the change. He started the process back when he was premier of Newfoundland and today we see the culmination of that initiative. I support him and congratulate him on having taken that initiative.

Let me congratulate also my colleague the member for Labrador. He spoke very eloquently today about Labrador and its beauty, culture and people, and well he should speak well of the people of Labrador. He is the first native born member from Newfoundland to come to the House of Commons. I congratulate him on that. He is a good member for Labrador and one whom I am very pleased to work with on this matter.

Anyone who has lived in Labrador knows its beauty and culture. And the people of Labrador, what fine people they are. The regional minister from Newfoundland lived in Labrador for a number of years as did I. The member for Labrador belongs to one of the most beautiful parts of our province.

The territory we know as Labrador was awarded to Newfoundland in 1927 by the British privy council. Both the island of Newfoundland and Labrador changed hands between the British and the French on many different occasions during the history of the European settlement in North America. Labrador eventually ended up as part of Newfoundland.

In the early part of the 20th century it was generally understood that Newfoundland owned the coast of Labrador. However the governments of Newfoundland and Canada, which at that time represented the province of Quebec, could not agree on just how far inland the coast extended. At the time both Canada and Newfoundland were dominions within the British empire. That meant they both ran their own domestic affairs but the British privy council in London had the final say over foreign affairs and disputes between the two dominions.

Newfoundland had previous experience going up against Canada in London at the beginning of the 1890s. It was not a positive experience. The Newfoundland colonial secretary Sir Robert Bond negotiated a free trade fisheries deal with the American secretary of state Mr. Blaine. The Bond-Blaine treaty as it came to be known raised the ire of Canada's maritime provinces. The maritime provinces were upset that Newfoundland had done an end run around them and had gained duty free access to American markets for its fish products. Ottawa took the matter up with the British privy council in London and in 1891 London quashed the treaty.

Canada even at that time was not familiar with free trade but Newfoundland back in the 1890s had negotiated a free trade agreement with the Americans called the Bond-Blaine treaty. It was in that context that Canada and Newfoundland, unable to settle on the Canada-Newfoundland boundary in Labrador, put that dispute to the judicial committee of the British privy council.

This time the privy council came down in Newfoundland's favour. It ruled that the word “coast” meant territory from the beach to the height of the land in the interior. That accounts for the highly erratic nature of the Quebec-Labrador boundary. It skips across the tops of the hills and the mountains in the interior of Labrador. That is how Labrador became a part of the Dominion of Newfoundland back in 1927. Labrador was part of Newfoundland when it became Canada's 10th province in 1949.

I have no hesitation in supporting an official name change that reflects a reality that has existed since 1927. When this resolution passes, and I believe it will probably get the unanimous support of the House, the province of Newfoundland becomes the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This will officially recognize Labrador's status in the province with its own unique geography, culture and history.

Now that our federal minister has made that change and its name is secure, I sincerely hope he will make a few more changes for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have spoken to him on a number of occasions here in the House on the equalization and health care issues for Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the St. John's harbour cleanup which is very important to the people of St. John's.

The minister has been able to make a change to the Constitution of Canada to reflect the name of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Hopefully he will be able to make a few more changes which will be just as substantive as this one today. We support including Labrador in the official name of the province. We remind the minister that there are many pressing problems facing Newfoundland and Labrador which he has to deal with as well.

Three cheers for the minister for having made this change, but let us not confuse anyone who may not be aware of our history. We have owned Labrador since 1927; there is no question about that. In 1927 the privy council awarded Labrador to Newfoundland. The Government of Canada confirmed it and supported it as well. The resolution simply and officially makes the long overdue name change to reflect what happened back in 1927. Any individual or province who was not aware of that before is certainly aware of it now.

I thank the minister for his initiative.

[Marriage Capacity Act, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-264. The bill would make two changes in the current Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act. The first would be to change the title of the act to the marriage capacity act. The second of course would add section 4.1, which would state:

A marriage between two persons is not invalid by reason only that they are of the same sex.

At the outset, I want to say I cannot support the bill. Obviously, as the title of the act being amended indicates, there are prohibitions on who can marry. Close blood relatives, for instance, are forbidden to marry because of possible birth defects to any children arising out of the marriage. Brothers and sisters may not marry. A divorced person may remarry but not to a child of the previous marriage.

Marriage is considered to be an activity for mature individuals, given the rights and responsibilities that go along with that. Therefore, in this country we do not permit children to marry each other or an adult to marry a child. Both parties to a marriage must be of an age and of an intelligence to understand the serious nature of the institution into which they are entering.

I cannot stress enough the word institution. Institutions are a deep rooted part of our culture and are something that should not be lightly tampered with and should not likely be changed.

Our society, as we are all very much aware, has evolved and these days common law heterosexual or opposite sex couples have the same rights and obligations to property as do married couples. The House, as we are all very much aware as well, recently passed a law extending certain rights with regard to pensions and what have we to common law, homosexual or same sexual couples.

However, at the same time it should be pointed out that the House went out of its way to insert a clause in that legislation reasserting that while being a couple was one thing being a married couple was entirely different. That clause went out of the way to state that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman only. That must be maintained.

The hon. member's proposed title change takes the emphasis off who may not marry and replaces it with an emphasis on who may marry. I do not support the new emphasis because I see it as eroding a basic concept of our law, namely that marriage is restricted to opposite sex couples only.

I want to make it perfectly clear that heterosexual people have to be tolerant of other ways of life. However, I would submit that it is time for homosexual people to be tolerant of the heterosexual way of life as well, which is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That is very clear in the legislation.

Similarly, the new section 4.1 says that being a same sex couple should not preclude the union being regarded as a marriage. That is diametrically opposed, as I said a moment ago, to the clause that was inserted in the bill, which restricted marriage to opposite sex couples only.

The other factor here of course for many of us is that a marriage, whether performed by a judge or a clergy person, is deemed to be more than just a sexual union between a man and a woman. A marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our society. It is one of the basic building blocks of a family. It is therefore also a spiritual union between a man and a women, a union uniquely designed for the conception and nurturing of children.

That is not to say, of course, that all married people have children, they do not. However, the potential is there and the institution lends itself very well to that potential should it ever become a reality.

A family, of course, is under pressure from many different directions in this fast-paced secular world in which we live. In all conscience I cannot support motions or bills which would put additional pressure on the institution of marriage, as marriage is one of the central pillars of family life.

Again, let me be clear. I do not support discrimination against same sex couples, however, they do not fit the recognized definition of a marriage because marriage is union of two people of opposite sexes.

I would like to quote what I recently read in the Australian Melbourne Herald Sun . The Australian prime minister, John Howard, said that the reality of homosexual liaisons did not mean that same sex couples should be granted the right to marriage. He went on to say that the institution of marriage should be protected.

He said that the continuity of our society depended on there being a margin around things like that, around marriage. He added that many people, he being one, saw marriage as one of the bedrock institutions of our society.

The Vatican recently stated that the impact on the family needed to be one of the prime considerations in all political action. There is not a major religion on the face of the globe that does not value the role of family in our society today.

I have made no secret of my personal belief that the family is central to the well-being of our society. I also feel that one of the central pillars underpinning the family is marriage and marriage, by definition and by law, is the union of a man and a woman. Because of that, I cannot support the hon. member's bill.

[Poverty, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this week we mark the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.

Some years ago the House unanimously passed a motion to eliminate child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Not only has child poverty not been eliminated, it has actually increased. Food banks and school lunch programs abound all across our nation.

Impoverished children come from impoverished families. Canada is a prosperous nation by international standards but wealth in this nation is not always equitably distributed. The unemployed, single parent families and aboriginal families have great difficulty making ends meet. In many third world countries outright famine is a cruel daily reality.

It is time to rededicate ourselves to the eradication of poverty and we would do well to remember that poverty, wherever it exists, is everybody's business.

[Finance, September 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's current equalization program dictates that the lion's share of Atlantic Canada's resource revenues is claimed by the federal government under the current equalization clawback arrangement.

The Minister of Finance knows the political importance of reducing the equalization clawback because he never fails to raise the issue when he is on the campaign trail. This summer the minister toured the Atlantic provinces in preparation for his leadership bid and he again raised the prospect of reducing the equalization clawback.

Instead of just raising the subject to obtain delegates or votes, I challenge the minister to bring the equalization issue to the floor of the House where we can actually make changes instead of just talking about them. Atlantic Canada needs more than just rhetoric on equalization. We need action.