Dan McTeague

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, May 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting in favour.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in our parliamentary parlance: ditto.

[Petitions, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer to the House literally thousands of petitions that call upon Parliament to review current legislation as it relates to child pornography. In light of the three charges today in Toronto, it is certainly timely.

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting in favour of the motion.

[Eid al-Adha, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my best wishes to all Canadian Muslims on the occasion of Eid al-Adha or the festival of sacrifice, one of the most important Muslim holidays. It concludes the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Eid al-Adha lasts three days and commemorates Abraham's faith. Abraham was about to sacrifice his son when a voice from heaven stopped him and allowed him to sacrifice a ram in his son's place.

During the festival, families sacrifice a cow or a ram in memory of Abraham's obedience. They eat a portion of the meat and give the rest to the poor. This celebration reminds us of the importance of sharing what we have with those in need.

Canadians and the House of Commons are committed to fostering and treasuring Canada's diversity. We all benefit from the rich heritage of Canadians of different ethnicities.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 2003]

I hear someone calling from the other side. I ask hon. members to understand that we are all on the right side on this issue. When it comes to children no amount of debate or division will be tolerated or accepted in an environment where we have to work together. If this is a step in the right direction, then let us keep the momentum going.

I call on my colleagues in the Alliance, in the Bloc Quebecois and in the NDP to approve policies and ideas that are there to have as their fundamental idea the purpose of advancing the protection of children.

In that context, we must listen to what the police are saying. The police have called for this kind of legislation at the same meeting you, Mr. Speaker, and I attended with the hon. members. Much remains to be done but this is a very good and important step in the right direction.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this bill, which I consider rather an important one.

As colleagues in the House will know, the issue of child exploitation is one that without a doubt is of concern to all Canadians and certainly to all parliamentarians.

We want, to the fullest extent possible, to ensure that we have legislation that above all not only gives the impression of valued protection for the most vulnerable members of our society but also at the same time provides an assurance that in fact good legislation that is written here and the proposals made by the House in fact meet the test of ensuring that children are protected.

I thank all colleagues from all parties of the House who last year at this time participated, for the second time, in a forum to deal with the vagaries and the rather emotional side and reality of child exploitation. Compliments of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canadian customs officials, the Toronto police force, under the very capable hands of Paul Gillespie and of course his predecessor, as well as the Ontario Provincial Police Project P's Detective Inspector Bob Matthews and Dr. Peter Collins, it became very clear to all those who did attend the meeting that Canada indeed has a serious problem.

At that time it became clear to many of us and we issued an issues and options paper, in which many members of Parliament agreed that the fundamental concern to arise out of the Sharpe decision was that the issue of the community harm test was set aside. In her wisdom, Madam Justice McLachlin of the Supreme Court suggested at the time that the risk to children, however small, would nevertheless be outweighed by a charter challenge. I take it that Madam Justice McLachlin at the time thought, of course, that this was an appropriate course.

The Minister of Justice has rightly and correctly identified what I believe to be one of the most fundamental and key deficiencies in that ruling, and that is to ensure that what the public expects as a good and as a right of a good to protect must also be included heretofore in any decisions by the court.

Clearly I have spoken on previous occasions about the tensions that exist from time to time between the courts, the justices in the country and of course decisions that are made here in the House of Commons, but I take it that this is an acceptable, proper, appropriate and timely compromise.

As members of the House know, last month Toronto police issued what was in fact a view, in conjunction with Project P, that less than 5% of those who have been charged or who have been alleged to be involved in a child pornography ring from the United States have to this point been convicted. I suggest and submit that it is a matter of enforcement. It is one of the reasons that I as a member of Parliament, with many members on this side of the House, have taken the initiative and also have talked about the need for more coordination, for combined forces, if we wish, a strategy to ensure that we put the weight of all enforcement agencies toward making our good laws work.

Members across the way and in our party also understand, as do most Canadians, that the laws themselves are very strong but that perhaps the laws are insignificant or fail the test of protecting children if we cannot find a better way of enforcing them.

I think one of the most serious problems we have is to try to educate the judiciary, the crown attorneys, et cetera, as to how to combat child pornography. In the last round of bills, I was also very pleased to see Bill C-15A, which I voted for, with which for the first time a provision on Internet luring was put into legislation. In fact, in my community and in communities across the country that piece of legislation has been used on more than one occasion. More needs to be done and there is no doubt that I give full compliments to the intent of the House, which is to ensure that we keep our legislation modified and up to date.

However, I believe much more work needs to be done. It is interesting that on this issue the House, in my view, need not divide itself. We can always say that there is need for improvement and I am willing to talk to any member of Parliament about all the issues we have put forward: mandatory penalties; issues dealing with the police and the crown lacking the necessary resources to ensure the appropriate investigation and prosecution of child pornography and related crimes; that crimes receive the appropriate penalty; and that this becomes a priority in light of the harm it does to children. Of course we understand this because it is a harm that has no boundaries. It is an infinite harm.

A child who is exploited is a child who ultimately continues to be exploited in the long term. Martin Kruze is a young individual from my community who was assaulted by people who were in a position of authority. The Criminal Code already covers that. Martin brought his story forward. There have been countless stories, not necessarily with the belief that legislation can always cure these problems.

We have to recognize in the House the necessity of providing effective and timely enforcement to our enforcement agencies, whether that be the RCMP, the OPP, the QPP, or whoever, to ensure that we have a modicum of protection for young children, particularly those who represent, in essence, the future of our country.

I have concerns about other areas that we need to address in the options and issues paper that was presented in April of last year, issues that arose in part out of the Sharpe decision, both the one in 1999 and the one again much later. However I believe there is an opportunity for us to consider that attacks against children are nothing less than a hate crime. What they are doing is in fact targeting children and their inability to protect themselves. There are people in our society who believe that if they cannot be caught that it is somehow a licence to do far more damaging things.

The second issue we raised had to do with the need to ensure that we apply a community standards test similar to the Butler decision. I am reading the proposed legislation and it calls for a community harm or community good standard. I compliment the minister on that because I think it will be important to clarify the decisions and the differences that we are seeing in legislation.

It is not my job to disparage the Supreme Court of Canada or anyone. It is quite to the contrary. It is to find ways in which we can make this a much easier task.

I urge the House of Commons to consider perhaps relaxing legislation dealing with some of the Supreme Court of Canada rulings, for instance in Stinchcombe, which said that in order to address someone who is exploiting children on the Internet, rather than having to get a warrant, which takes two weeks, to seize the evidence and then to have someone catalogue 100,000 to 200,000 images, that we use the same standard that we would in a drug case. A simple sample would be presented and it would be sworn in as evidence, which would obviate the need to deplete the resources of enforcement agencies. I think that is an area on which we should be holding a summit in this Parliament and certainly on the Hill to ensure that all police, crown attorneys and judges have an opportunity to deliberate on this very important issue.

It seems to me that we have in many respects nothing less than goodwill toward protecting our children. We must ensure that our legislation and our enforcement procedures are consistent with the modern world.

To that end, I encourage the Minister of Justice to continue to improve what is known as the category of lawful access, to ensure that police forces and agencies across the country have that ability. In fact, this Minister of Justice and previous ministers of justice have signalled the importance at various conferences around the world, but we need to ensure that the sophistication of those who are using the Internet to attack children, and ultimately the attack is permanent and leaves permanent damage to a whole generation of children, is combated using proper, up to date technology.

It is important for us as members of Parliament to speak about the resources that are necessary. It is not just a question of co-ordinating and creating a combined force or combined strategy. We need to get serious about the amount of money needed to do this. It is an important line item in my view in terms of the budget.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to comment on the position taken by the member for Yellowhead. I am certainly one of those members who can assure the member that most Canadians understand the five principles and have understood them for many years.

Short of the current difficulty we find ourselves in, we, and certainly the people who I spoke to over the weekend who carry no bias, political or otherwise, certainly agree with the Romanow committee report and are very much in favour of a system that provides a comprehensive plan to attack what many see to be serious deficiencies in the system, notwithstanding the strains that have encompassed it over the last little while.

Could the hon. member tell me whether the CMA supports the general thrust of Romanow? Concerns have been raised about the NAFTA investor privilege found in section 11 of NAFTA, an exemption that was tried before. From a U.S. study that was done some 11 years ago, does he not see that the public way of delivering medicare is much better and more affordable than the private system that he has proposed? Does he not see that Romanow would be the right way to proceed on this, notwithstanding the objections that he has just raised?

[Organized Crime, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, marijuana grow houses are increasing at a rapid rate throughout Canada. It turns out that it is obviously a very lucrative opportunity for organized crime.

There are estimated to be over 10,000 grow houses in the GTA alone. In the last year we have identified 126 across Durham region, of which 70 were in my riding.

Aside from the serious threat to public safety, peace officers and firefighters, could the Solicitor General indicate to the House, given all the electricity that is lost and other concerns, whether he has a process for this?

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, those are excellent questions and I know the member for Yukon has shared these views very passionately.

The example is that the United States, which of course is home to many of the national brand name manufacturers for which Canada is home to none except for the warehouses and our generic industry, has already demonstrated that this abuse must stop. Senator McCain and Senator Schumer led the charge in the United States. In Canada our industry committee tried to do the same. Unfortunately there seems to be a deliberate attempt not to try to tackle the real issues.

I know the hon. member finds this interesting. There are some in this House who may want to suggest that generic drugs are more expensive in Canada than anywhere else in the world. They are 400% less in Canada than they are in the United States after we take into account the difference in the dollar valuation. That is as a result of what happened 20 to 30 years ago when we brought in the ability for compulsory licensing.

It is very clear that Canada remains the only nation in the world, after this floor order goes into place, that has automatic injunctions which costs everybody. We have to stop be the world's international thumb-sucking dolts on this one.