Dan McTeague

[Criminal Code, October 22nd, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-460, an act to amend the Criminal Code (unsolicited electronic mail).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill today, which addresses the serious issue of unsolicited electronic mail, commonly referred to as SPAM, and the practice of selling electronic mail addresses without obtaining permission from the address owner.

The bill would amend the Criminal Code by creating two new offences: those of sending unsolicited electronic mail and selling electronic mail addresses without obtaining prior consent from the owner. The bill provides a sentence of imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of $250,000 or both for any person convicted of either of these new offences. For any second or subsequent offence, the penalties increase to imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of $500,000 or both.

Canadians are of course concerned and fed up with receiving hundreds of SPAM messages on their computers. Legitimate companies are also having a hard time doing business on the Internet, which is being flooded by SPAM. It is well past time to stop this unwelcome intrusion and enact appropriate penalties to deter those who would try to profit without any care for the damage they create.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Contraventions Act, October 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I only have three minutes to debate such a substantive issue but such is the case when one tries to rush debates and provide select committees to put important legislation before the Canadian public without proper knowledge of what is occurring.

I just heard the member and her concern about poor people. I think we are all concerned. However the hon. member, like many in the House, is completely oblivious and ignorant to the fact that in one out of four marijuana grow ops in this country, of the estimated 50,000, children live in those homes.

We understand the implications of those who are farmers and those who are forced to cultivate this product, people who come from other parts of the world and have to pay off the money they owe to the people who brought them to this country, many of whom are of Asian descent and who are kept in a position of enslavement.

I am willing to talk about this issue, but I think it is important that we understand some of the very important implications.

In its most recent document Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario states that there are some 15,000 grow ops in the province of Ontario and 50,000 across Canada. They produce approximately three million to six million kilograms of marketable marijuana. The price tag is about $12 billion a year. If that is the case it would appear to be the largest single cultivation of agriculture product in this country.

Who controls it? Organized crime.

Clearly, when we consider that for a $25,000 investment we can have a return of $600,000 on a given home, is there any wonder there is a proliferation?

The legislation is deficient. It does not provide minimum sentences. It is one of the reasons that the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada, just a few weeks ago, as the same the Globe and Mail and others were deriding us because we happened to meet with the American officials to talk about a cross-border problem, pointed out that organized crime was leaving the United States in favour of Canada because we want to have some kind of, relatively speaking, easy legislation as it relates to marijuana.

It is nice to give people a fine for possession. My concern is about the infrastructure of this industry.

While I am on that subject, the fact that there is in this country today, and in this legislation, no provision to provide the equivalent of a breathalyzer test is, in my view, unacceptable. It sends the wrong message to individuals. It does not protect motorists. It does not protect people.

Studies have pointed out very clearly, and I am reading here from several sources, that research has indicated that 5% to 12% of drivers may now drive under the influence of cannabis and this may increase as much as 25% as a result of this legislation. It is clear to us that if we want to prevent the carnage we need to do something to address the issue of no protocol as it relates to people who drive cannabis impaired.

The cross-border issue is a serious one but I am more concerned with the issue of organized crime. These people do not have fanciful discussions about benign products, about the utilization of marijuana. They are in fact there to make money. That money winds up in various other forms of exploitation of the poor, of people who are down and out, of individuals who have no choice but to follow the dictates of organized crime. When one considers $12 billion--

[Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Shame. Say it is not so.

[Income Tax Act, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by the hon. member opposite. I am very interested in the fact that the hon. member from the NDP spoke about the dirty gas and all the other problems that would be caused by the closure of this facility.

To the hon. member who answered his question, I know one of the reasons why the number of refineries in this country has dropped dramatically. I am very disappointed by this situation, and obviously I am not justifying it.

Two or three players control this industry in each region. Petro-Canada is also a serious cause for concern in Newfoundland, where it just closed not only its refinery but also its gas station franchises.

One of the legitimate reasons for this closure is simply the amount of sulphur in the gas. To obtain a profitable product, there must be a balance with the United States, and there are other products available with 30 million particles per million.

As the hon. member knows, Canada went ahead on the issue of sulphur reduction in gasoline. It is one of the reasons the major oil companies have decided they may shut this. Does he not see a concern as far as going ahead of the international market on sulphur in gasoline and that this is maybe one of the reasons it is so expensive?

[Perdita Felicien, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to the outstanding athletic achievement of Perdita Felicien of Pickering.

On August 27 Perdita took on the world by winning gold in the 100 metre hurdles at the world track and field championships in Paris. She accomplished this feat in the record time of 12.53 seconds breaking all previous Canadian records. Her victory is the first medal by a Canadian woman at the track event since the event was first held in Helsinki in 1983.

Perdita, celebrating her 23rd birthday a day after this momentous win, will finish her studies at the University of Illinois where she has twice been named national female athlete of the year by the U.S. Track and Field Coaches Association. She is also a two time Canadian champion in hurdles and holds the Canadian indoor mark in 60 metre hurdles.

Perdita has brought pride to herself, her family and her country and I join her family, friends and fellow athletes in wishing her well in her future scholastic and athletic endeavours.

It is on to Athens for Perdita. She is Canada's newest Olympic hope.

[Foreign Affairs, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last January I met a man whose act of compassion and human kindness many would have difficulty duplicating.

Justin Rodway not only agreed to meet with me in England and discuss the tragic loss of his father, Christopher Rodway, in a Riyadh bomb blast, but also to write a letter requesting the pardoning of William Sampson and the two other individuals directly accused of the bombing.

The letter was sent to the Saudi government. A copy was also provided to Mr. Sampson's lawyers for inclusion in their appeal.

Under Saudi law, only the eldest son of a murder victim can request clemency for those sentenced to death for the crime. Justin's letter ensured the accused would not be executed if the death sentence were upheld. The letter would also help in obtaining a royal pardon.

Justin Rodway is in Ottawa today. With him is Mrs. Barbara Sampson, William's mother. She is a woman of great personal strength and one who never gave up hope that her son would be released.

On behalf of this House, I welcome them to Ottawa. I extend best wishes to the Sampson family and of course special thanks to Justin for his steadfast belief in the justice system and in the innocence of Alexander Mitchell, Raf Schyvens and Bill Sampson.

[Competition Act, May 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions between the parties and there is agreement in the House to defer the recorded division requested on Bill C-249 until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, May 13, 2003.

[Competition Act, May 9th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments that have been made and I extend to all my colleagues my sincere congratulations and gratitude for the work they have done on this.

We know that legislation is often imperfect but we do try, as a Parliament, from time to time to change the directions in terms of the support that exists for this bill. I am pleased to say that it is worth the challenge that will be presented by the House at an appropriate time. It is my hope that we can pass this bill as soon as possible so that the dangerous precedent that has been set in the status quo is not used at any time soon. I think that would be responsible.

I point out to my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party that this would be as important for consumers as it is for workers. It is an important bill for Canadians and certainly speaks loudly to the point that members of Parliament can and do become involved in issues with which the government normally does not have an opportunity to involve itself. The private member's process does indeed work.

[Competition Act, May 9th, 2003]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank the member on the other side who brought to the attention of the House the fact that Sunday will be Mother's Day.

I want to wish a happy Mother's Day to all my constituents and to all Canadian women who will be celebrating that important day.

I am pleased to rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-249; it has been a few years. It deals with a substantive, important change to the Competition Act. I would like to thank the industry committee, including its chair, the member for St. Catharines, as well as my colleague the vice-chair, representing the Alliance, and members of all other parties for their work in making this such an important milestone as far as private members' bills are concerned.

The bill has as its origins the need to ensure that the loophole created in 1986, which in effect allows anti-competitive activity, not occur unless factors other than efficiency are considered. The case that was before the House dealt with Superior Propane and that issue saw a potentially damaging merger take place. The reality is that the language of the act was in dire need of change as a result.

I am pleased that Bill C-249 as amended has the support of the competition commission, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and a substantial number of consumer groups across the country.

As the competition commissioner said at committee on March 31:

The bill seeks to ensure that consumers are not left out of the equation when considering mergers involving efficiency claims. It would also safeguard competition to the benefit of consumers and the [Canadian] economy.

I want to point out that nowhere else in the world is there an efficiencies defence that is used to promote a potentially damaging merger that would see consumers and the competitive process harmed, not in the United States, not in Europe, not in Australia, nowhere around the world. Other competitive processes always try to at least balance the interests of consumers and the interests of those who are trying to create certain types of innovations and efficiencies.

Unfortunately, the act was left wide open for interpretation. It is correct and appropriate, as the committee quite rightly pointed out rather substantially, not only for this Parliament, that the issue be fully addressed. The commissioner also suggested that the act in itself is an important public knowledge document that allows consumers to certainly be aware of the fact that any quantifiable efficiencies would be treated appropriately.

Former Federal Trade Commission chair Robert Pitofsky pointed this out on the question of efficiencies:

My view is that the acceptance and clarification of the role of efficiencies in defense of mergers has been, on balance, a useful development in the United States. If there are no significant efficiencies, enforcement agencies and judges can be much more comfortable finding that particular mergers are anti-competitive--

His concern, which I think speaks very much to the concern we have here in Canada, was that benefits can only happen if they are likely to be passed on to consumers and efficiencies cannot be achieved in a substantially less anti-competitive way.

More important, I believe that the position taken for some years by groups and organizations that have tremendous concern with this precedent and with the wording of the act agrees that efficiencies in terms of merger review should not be stand-alone, that in fact they should be compared to all other factors. The amendment prescribed by the industry committee is appropriate and correct and I believe that Parliament must pass this bill. More important, I am pleased to have the support of my government as well as the Competition Bureau on this matter.

[Competition Act, May 9th, 2003]

moved that Bill C-249, an act to amend the Competition Act, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

(Motion agreed to)