Norman E. Doyle

[Petitions, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of 75 people from the city of St. John's. The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to the polluted condition of St. John's Harbour.

The petitioners request that the House encourage the federal, provincial and relevant municipal governments to financially support the sewage treatment system required for the St. John's Harbour cleanup.

[West Coast Ports, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted that legislation has not been required and that the two sides are again back to work and work is continuing.

The west coast ports have suffered grievous damage as it is. Canadian industry as a result of what has happened over the last short while has once again got a black eye with its overseas customers.

In the House we are faced with emergency legislation very often. We are told that we have a crisis and that we have to bring in legislation to prevent an economic catastrophe. In cases where we have such catastrophes, where the national interest is at stake, there has to be a better way of settling these issues. People have the right to strike and they should not have that right taken away all that lightly. If and when it is deemed to be in the public interest to deny a group of workers the right to strike, they should be offered some sort of arbitration process in lieu of having that right taken away.

Here we have an industry with a very long history of strikes and lockouts that is capable of having a stranglehold on the economy. We are pleased that the strike is not going ahead but there has to be a better way to deal with these issues.

[Employment Insurance, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, recent Statistics Canada data on changes to the employment insurance program indicate that St. John's, Newfoundland, was one of the hardest hit among Canada's 28 large cities. The EI changes are costing the economy of St. John's about $78 million annually, with only 40% of the unemployed in the St. John's region qualifying for benefits at all.

The Liberal government has made it more difficult for workers to qualify for benefits and those workers who do qualify receive fewer benefits for a shorter period of time. Many workers have been eliminated from the benefits system altogether. This is unconscionable, given the massive surplus in the EI fund.

What has happened to the employment insurance fund for the unemployed? It is high time that EI became UI again.

[Canada Elections Act, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say a few words on this bill on behalf of my party. I am sure the sponsor of the bill is well meaning but we have to ask ourselves if this is the way we want to go in Canada.

The use of colourful symbols to identify the various political parties on the ballot is quite common in many third world countries. There are probably countries where the photo of a candidate is next to his or her name on the ballot paper. In countries where there is a high degree of illiteracy it would make sense. It also makes sense in countries where there are a multitude of local or tribal languages where even a literate person could become confused.

Canada is not a third world country. We have a high literacy rate and we only have two official languages. Therefore we do not see the need for this amendment to the Canada Elections Act.

As well, I say to the hon. member that the wording of the proposed amendment leaves a lot to subjective interpretation. Who decides which names are similar enough to be confusing on the ballot paper? Will there be a similarity test? He did not indicate that. If they fail a similarity test, do not get their picture on the ballot and lose the election by a small margin, is that a valid reason to have the election declared null and void? What would happen if they had a twin with each individual running for a different party? Surely the picture would only add to the confusion.

The other valid factor is sociological. Many studies have shown that good looking people who are photogenic tend to be regarded more positively by others than people who are not so good looking. What if they are a bright, articulate, spirited, public minded individual but very plain to look at, not really good looking like the hon. member happens to be? What would happen in that case? Publishing their picture in that case could be detrimental to their electoral chances.

Another factor which has to be taken into consideration is incumbency. An incumbent already enjoys a big advantage in an election campaign. We are all very much aware of that. An incumbent generally has a 20% to 25% advantage going into an election campaign. Putting the incumbent's picture on the ballot would only add to the incumbent's advantage. I do not know if the hon. member would agree with that line of thought. If one happens to be a rather plain looking challenger then the picture would only add to the individual's disadvantage. It would only add to his chances of not getting elected. At some point in this debate I would like the hon. member to address some of the little problems I have given him to think about.

Simply put, I do not see any pressing need for this change. I feel we could be opening a Pandora's box of potential new problems if we approve the bill. Under the current circumstances as presented by the hon. member we would not have any choice but to vote against his bill. During the course of this debate the hon. member may be answering some of the concerns I have made known to him today, and hopefully we will see.

[Canada Millennium Partnership Program, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of this House the shameful way the federal government is handling the approval of project grants under the Canada Millennium Partnership Program.

Next year, the year 2000 AD, marks the 1000th anniversary of the arrival of the Vikings in Newfoundland. However, the Millennium Bureau of Canada has refused to fund an application from the Viking Millennium International Symposium. We could not find a project more millennium related than a 1000th anniversary, but still it was turned down.

Indeed, of the 301 projects approved under phase II of the program, only four were approved from Newfoundland, less than 1% of the total funding, even though Newfoundland comprises 2% of the population of Canada.

This simply is not good enough. I call upon the federal government to rectify the situation immediately.

[Newfoundland Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the minister that a constitutional amendment would be needed.

Even though Newfoundlanders make up a disproportionately large percentage of the Canadian Armed Forces, our per capita share of defence spending is lower than the Canadian average. That means we receive less than our fair share of the economic benefits associated with the presence of military units in our province.

The Minister of National Defence talks about elimination. What about amalgamation? If the minister decides to amalgamate the forces, would he not agree that a constitutional amendment would be needed?

[Newfoundland Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, back in 1949, the Canadian Constitution, then known as the British North America Act, was amended by the addition of Newfoundland's Terms of Union with Canada. That amendment is now known as the Newfoundland Act, and section 44 says that Canada will provide for the maintenance in the province of Newfoundland of appropriate reserve units of the Canadian defence forces which will include the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. That is in the constitution.

Will the minister not agree that a constitutional amendment would be needed to eliminate the Royal Newfoundland Regiment which is actively being considered by DND?

[National Defence, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me go to the parliamentary secretary again. A national defence proposal to reduce and overhaul the combat role of Canada's reserves is a dramatic policy reversal which would virtually destroy the militia within a few years.

Will the parliamentary secretary be a little more clear? Surely he can indicate if such militia groups as the Royal Newfoundland Regiment are on the chopping block.

[Royal Newfoundland Regiment, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.

I come from a province where Canada Day is also Memorial Day. On July 1, 1916 the Royal Newfoundland Regiment was all but wiped out in the first day of the battle of the Somme.

Can the minister assure me that the proposed downsizing of Canada's armed forces reserves will not result in the elimination of the current Royal Newfoundland Regiment?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

It was 35%.