Norman E. Doyle

[Port Security, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canada, the U.S. and other marine countries have to comply with a new international ship and port facility security code by July 1.

The U.S. government has given port operators nearly $700 million to improve security measures.

To the best of our knowledge, this government has not provided any money to maritime industry stakeholders to protect Canada's ports. Could the minister tell us why?

[Question No. 58, April 21st, 2004]

To which and to how many foreign trawlers did Canadian authorities issue citations for illegal fishing on the Grand Banks between 1992 and 2003?

Return tabled.

[Question No. 57, April 21st, 2004]

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, what was the substance of all reports generated between January and October, 2003 on the amount of cod and other “moratoria species” that have been caught, or are suspected to have been caught, by foreign fleets on the Grand Banks

[Question No. 55, April 21st, 2004]

What quantities of fish were caught on the Grand Banks by foreign trawlers and landed in Newfoundland and Labrador ports between October 2001 and October 2003?

[Petitions, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of the residents of St. John's East.

The petitioners state that the assistance of the Government of Canada is required for the provision of affordable disability support, such as an adaptive device program for all Canadians who are blind, visually impaired, or deaf and blind.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation permitting the Government of Canada to work with other levels of government to ensure that all Canadians receive access to affordable adaptive devices.

[Gertrude Crosbie, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Gertrude Crosbie of St. John's, who died on Saturday at age 78.

Mrs. Crosbie and her late husband Bill formed a local Cerebral Palsy Association in 1961 and opened Virginia Waters School for Children with Cerebral Palsy in 1968.

Gertrude Crosbie was a tireless volunteer with many causes: CNIB, YWCA, Meals on Wheels, the Newfoundland Historic Parks Association and the Maritime History Archives at Memorial University.

In recognition of her efforts on behalf of the community, Mrs. Crosbie was awarded an honorary doctorate from Memorial University and the Order of Canada.

I am sure all hon. members join me in passing on our condolences to her family and friends and our thanks for a life well lived in the service of her fellow citizens.

[Bell Island, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today is budget day and the people of Bell Island in St. John's East are wondering what the Minister of Finance has in store for them.

For the benefit of my colleagues, let me say that Bell Island once had the largest iron ore mine in the world. It was one of the few places in North America directly involved in World War II, when ore carriers were torpedoed at the dock.

The mine closed in 1966. As a result, the population was considerably reduced. Tourism is now a local growth industry, with tours and theatre groups putting the old submarine mine tunnels to good use once again.

I want to remind the Minister of Finance that small rural communities like Bell Island are still in need of economic development. Bell Island stood on the front lines during one of the darkest periods of our history and I urge the Minister of Finance to remember this when he brings down his budget so that communities like Bell Island can have a secure future as well.

[Fisheries, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on this motion which calls on Canada to assume custodial management over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. The real problem revolves around the fact that fish roam the entire expanse of the continental shelf, which is irregular in shape, while the laws of nations governing fisheries extend only out to 200 miles.

The nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap are outside the 200 mile limit and are subject to the laws of NAFO. Outside the 200 mile limit we are supposed to let fisheries violators be tried in their own courts. Foreign courts have been notoriously slack in punishing their nationals for rules broken off of our shores, an ocean away.

The Northwest Atlantic ground fishery was the greatest fishery in the world. For a long time this fishery fed the world. We brought this fishery into Confederation back in 1949. A combination of neglect by Ottawa and rampant foreign overfishing over the past few decades has led to the diminishing of the stocks. Not only are these stocks being diminished, but they are being devastated as well.

The northern cod has been pushed to the brink of extinction. This has been devastating to the economies of many coastal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador in particular and in Atlantic Canada in general. This is more than a local problem; it is a Canadian problem. These fisheries are a very important world food source that some nations and fishing interests have nearly destroyed. Canada has a duty not only to its own people but also to the people of the world to intercede before it is too late.

I said earlier that the failure of the northern cod fishery devastated many coastal communities. It and certain changes to the EI system were really responsible for about 50,000 people leaving my province over the last decade or so. It has had a very bad effect on us. Had Canada not blown our fisheries, many of those people would not have had to leave the many outport communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and settle in other parts of Canada, namely, Fort McMurray and many other places.

When we say that Canada should extend custodial management outside the 200 mile limit, that does not mean we are pleased with the management inside the 200 mile limit, because the management inside has been very bad as well. Ottawa has never taken the fishery seriously in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has never taken the fishery seriously in Atlantic Canada. It readily trades fish quotas in exchange for market access for the manufacturing concerns of central Canada. Fisheries management in the overall scheme of things in Ottawa is not even on the stove, let alone on the front burner.

Yes, we did win a share of the say in the management of offshore oil and gas, a non-renewable resource. We are grateful for the power, but we still receive very little in the way of royalties. The federal government is doing a very bad job on managing our fisheries. It has done a very bad job generally in managing offshore oil and gas revenues, to which we are certainly entitled in our province.

I think it will go down in history as a great miscarriage of justice that has been done to Newfoundland and Labrador because of the bad management at fisheries.

I know my time is up, so thank you, Mr. Speaker, for those few words.

[Sponsorship Program, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, following the statement made by my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest, today's Toronto Star states that the organizer of the music festival in Victoria, B.C., himself a strong Liberal, was told of a secret slush fund that ministerial aides could help him access for constituency projects.

He was told there was no application form, no process other than to write a letter to a Mr. Tremblay at Public Works. Two cheques totalling $50,000 were delivered to B.C. by a Montreal advertising firm with Liberal connections. Guess what, its commission was already paid.

How can the Prime Minister claim that he did not know about the sponsorship program when ministers from across the country were dipping into that slush fund? Lopping off the heads of a few Crown corporations will not do it this time. The rot in this scandal is as wide as it is deep.

Yes, there was a secret slush fund and all Liberals knew about it.

[Criminal Code, February 23rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak today to Bill C-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, in the area of child exploitation and child pornography.

In the last session of the House I spoke to a motion on this issue and made particular reference to the Sharpe case. Mr. Sharpe was found guilty of possession of child pornography with respect to certain photographs in his possession but was found not guilty with regard to certain written material in his possession. The reason for him being found not guilty was what caused such a public uproar, as we all remember. The courts found first, that his written material did not openly advocate committing illegal acts with children and, second, that his written material had some artistic merit.

I am of the view that without exception all child pornography should be illegal. Child pornography does not lead to openly advocating a certain lifestyle to be harmful to children. It can induce and promote illicit behaviour by its very existence. It helps establish a permissive atmosphere in society that is conducive to the sexual exploitation of children.

In a similar vein, I cannot for the life of me understand how child pornography can be regarded as having artistic merit. This reason, in particular, caused outrage among the general public. In its guidelines on hearing this case, the court ruled that if the alleged material had even minimal artistic merit, then the person must be found not guilty. In other words, if an article is 90% pornography and 10% art, then art has to carry the day. The person must be found not guilty.

I do not have a legal background, but as anyone in this Chamber who has a legal background knows, courts rule on fine points of law but it is we in Parliament who give them the fine points to rule on or leave loopholes that allow for a fine-tuned argument to slip through.

In this context, I have trouble with the latest twist in the law that allows for a not guilty verdict if the alleged pornographic materials have some degree of public good. I have been told by people in the legal profession that, if anything, the words “public good” have a much broader concept than artistic merit.

Artistic merit could be claimed as for the public good in a piece of written material which could otherwise be simply viewed as child pornography. All it takes is a good lawyer and one could argue that there is public good in just about anything. Instead of plugging the legal loopholes of artistic merit, it can be argued that government has actually widened the loophole.

This points out a fundamental difference between our party and the governing Liberal Party. If I were to err, I would rather err on behalf of children and child protection. The government, however, is reluctant for some reason to slam the door on child pornography because it might somehow infringe upon the constitutional rights of the pornographer.

Forgive me, Madam Speaker, but I must confess that this is the very least of my worries. I would not want to go to my grave as having erred on behalf of the pornographer. When children are involved, they deserve the benefit of the doubt and the full protection of the law.

We need to have a sober second look at this business of public good versus artistic merit. It is not an improvement at all.

The bill would make it an offence for an adult to interfere sexually with a person under the age of 14. I feel that the age of consent is too low and that it should be raised to at least 16. Is the government not aware that recent polling has indicated that 80% of the general public favours an increase in the age of consent from 14 to 16. Most parents want to see the age of consent increase from 14 to 16 and some would argue, and rightly so, that even 16 is too low.

I am sure the government is aware that a couple of years ago provincial ministers from across Canada passed a resolution to have the age of consent raised to 16. It is beyond me why the government has not listened to the various provincial ministers who want the age of consent raised.

We do advocate criminalizing sex between adults and children under the age of consent. We also believe that the government should be in favour of raising the current age of consent from 14 to 16.

The bill would also make it an offence for someone to sexually exploit a young person between the ages of 14 and 18 under his or her care, influence or authority. That makes sense and it is something I am sure we can all agree with, but it is already against the law. Therefore I am unclear as to how a slightly different wording will improve things, but we would support it.

The bill would create a new offence for voyeurism, which is a positive step. The bill would strengthen maximum sentences for sexually exploiting children but judges would still have a lot of leeway in passing sentence. We feel that sex crimes involving children should have mandatory sentences with little or no room for flexibility. The message has to be made clear that if people sexually exploit children they can expect no mercy from the court system. This is the message that pedophiles should be receiving from the government.

However the bill fails to prohibit all sex between adults and children and so it leaves children vulnerable to exploitation by sexual predators. The bill does not increase the age of consent. It still treats 14 year old children as consenting adults as far as sexual activity is concerned.

On the issue of pornography, the bottom line is that if the government is to err then it is willing to err on the side of an adult possessing child pornography. We on this side of the House are only willing to err on the side of child protection.

A government under pressure to provide more protection for children tends to come up with an awful lot of complicated, cumbersome legalese. We want to see laws that outlaw all forms of pornography period. The law should be made very clear on that.

I support strong laws protecting children, laws with no loopholes or wiggle room. If we in Parliament set the tone, I am sure the courts will follow suit. However if we are wishy-washy on the issue and not strong in our defence of children, if we are not strong in the laws we write, we will have no one to blame but ourselves if the court allows people to slip through the loopholes that the House provides for it. I therefore cannot support the bill.