Joe Comartin

[Criminal Code, October 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to be here up on my feet since the election. There are so many of my colleagues I want to acknowledge, and I want to thank the constituents of Windsor—Tecumseh for re-electing me, I have to say with some pride, with a substantially larger plurality than in the last election.

It is actually not a pleasure standing here today to deal with this bill. It is not a pleasure because the topic around child pornography is just so difficult. As a parent or any adult looking to provide reasonable protection for the children of our society, most of us I think would find having to deal with this issue regrettable.

But it is a reality and it is one that has been with us for a long time. It is one, however, that we have to recognize. In particular, the reason we have to deal with it is that it has become much worse for our society and for the entire globe because of the advent of new technologies and, in particular, the use that pornographers are making of the Internet.

Looking back to 10 or 20 years ago, the production of child pornography was minuscule in comparison to what it is today. It is a reality that it has grown so much and is being produced so much more now, because it can be made available to much larger audiences. Unfortunately, in a number of cases those audiences are young children themselves. Not only are they the victims, but oftentimes it is distributed to them over the Internet. We need to deal with that.

In addition, the new section that has come in with regard to voyeurism is badly behind in terms of the time scope in which we should have dealt with it. Again, because of the advance of technology, the availability and the means by which voyeurism can be pursued, it is much greater than it was a decade or two ago. I applaud the government for bringing in that section.

I have to say that I am glad we are doing this. I think we are using this format only because we do have a minority government. Normally we would be doing this after second reading and the government would be looking for support in principle. The government would not get that from our party at this time.

This is one of the sections that causes me some problems, that in spite of the methodology used, it would be clear intent to gather this material surreptitiously, whether it be by a recording or by any other fashion. I am not quite sure why we are providing an escape here and a defence around the use of the public good. This is something that needs to be explored much more extensively in committee and it needs to be justified by the government. It will be one section that my party will be looking very closely at, either by amending it or in any way improving it so that it does not provide a defence when one should not be available.

The other issue that has probably caused the greatest amount of difficulty in Bill C-20, the legislation prior to this bill, is around the whole issue of some defence regarding artistic merit. It is interesting to listen to the Conservatives in this regard, because the defence of artistic merit was put into the Criminal Code back in 1993 under one of the former Conservative administrations, just shortly before they were turfed out of office. It is interesting to listen to the current Conservative Party attack it with such vigour when this defence originally came from that party.

The reality is that because of the Sharpe case, the use of artistic merit as it is in the Criminal Code now is clearly not acceptable. The position that we take as a party, as I hear the Bloc has as well, is this. We recognize that because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in fact the courts are going to intervene when a person from the arts and cultural community comes forward and says, “This is not a crime. I have a right under my freedom of expression to pursue this”. So a balance has to be found.

Again, the Conservative Party can take the position that it is going to close all the loopholes, but it is living in fantasyland if it thinks the courts are going to ignore the fact that we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Therefore, as responsible members of the House, we have to recognize that fact. We have to build in a structure within the legislation that will provide absolute maximum protection to our children but will survive any challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the goal all members of the House should be striving for.

To simply stick our heads in the sand and say we are going to close all the loopholes and we are going to absolutely ban child pornography is too simple. We have a responsibility to take on a greater role and find the necessary wording that will protect our children absolutely as far as possible, and at the same time we must give direction to our courts, so that when the artist comes forward and shows it is appropriate for the material being produced, it does not offend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it still protects our children.

We know we have to do that. I think even the Conservatives agree with this. In the area of publication of material around legal productions, legal textbooks, case reports within the medical field and the education field, psychologists, sociologists, social workers and psychiatrists all are going to have access to material and be producing material that would be child pornography if it were being produced for any intent other than an educational one. We recognize that.

However, we also recognize that we are going to be faced with that in the arts field as well. We have to find the proper framework within which the courts can guide themselves and be guided by us as the elected members of our society who are responsible for this area.

I do not believe we have accomplished that with this legislation. I do not believe the double-barrelled test of legitimate purpose and seeing that there is no risk of harm to the children is going to meet that. It simply does not go far enough in providing direction to the courts.

I practised criminal law for an extended period of time early in my professional career. I must admit that when I looked at this section I said, “This is ideal for the defence criminal bar”. I practised in that area for seven or eight years.

We can do better than this. I believe that. We are going to have to do better than the legitimate purpose test that has been established here. If we do not, we are going to have litigation for the next five to ten years in front of our criminal courts, probably all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada again. We may not, and I believe will not, achieve the result of providing that maximum protection to our children and at the same time balancing off constitutional rights under the charter.

I want to move off that point to several others. It was interesting that The Globe and Mail this morning raised another issue. I believe there are several others like that which question the amount of discretion we are giving to the courts. Again, I believe it is our responsibility as the legislators responsible for this bill to get more into the bill, to give the judges in the country more direction and more guidelines. They would welcome that. It is our responsibility.

I will conclude by saying that there is a balance that has to be struck, where we are looking to protect our children as much as possible, but recognizing that in this country we do operate under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have to balance it off in that regard.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, like all parties in the House, the NDP supports the legislation. I suppose the hypocrisy of the situation is that since the 1970s we have worked in this area on the need to buttress the laws that we have to protect the environment around the Atlantic coast in particular.

The problem we have today is that we have legislation before the House, an almost empty House, on the verge of an election.

Earlier this week the government was actually trying to convince our party and I think some of the other parties that the legislation had some chance of getting through both the House and the other chamber before the election was called. We can see the absolute unlikelihood of that happening in that everybody knows the election will be called between this coming Sunday and the next, and that the Senate has already adjourned. It has gone.

There is absolutely no chance for this legislation to pass, in spite of the representations by the Minister of the Environment or his department and the government generally, even though environmental groups have desperately wanted the strengthening in this legislation for decades.

It was interesting to listen to the parliamentary secretary today when, in response to some criticism from one of the other parties, he said that they did not want to put it off for another year, when in fact that is what they have done. This legislation, which we badly need and which we have needed for a long time, will not go anywhere.

In preparation for today I went back and looked at some of the material coming out of the government. We were talking about this problem in 1971. A study was done from 1994 to 1999, more than five years ago, by the same department telling us that we are losing 300,000-plus birds every year. That is no surprise.

Even though we had a lot of information that preceded that study, during that period of time the study clearly identified the cause: oil was deliberately and with full intent being dumped by ships off our Atlantic coast.

The government's attitude, in terms of the its lack of responsibility for this problem, is that the U.S. government moved on the problem a number of years ago. The reason that is so significant is that ships coming in from other parts of the world knew that if they went into U.S. waters and did what they were doing in Canadian waters they would probably be caught and be heavily fined.

What happened, big surprise? The ships did not bother waiting until they got into U.S. water. They dumped their bilge into Canadian waters, which is why the problem is so bad for Canada.

The Atlantic coast is a major shipping area. Ships move into the area from all over the world, combined with major migratory birds moving through the same area. It is a cataclysmic type of circumstance, and it has been heightened by the fact that the U.S. moved on its legislation much more appropriately earlier than we did, leaving the owners of those ships, their captains, people directing the ships, the opportunity to dump their bilge in our waters, off our Atlantic coast in particular.

We are faced with the reality that we are going to have another year, and we do not know how many more, of the government, should it get re-elected. The reality is that it has not dealt with it.

I could not help but think, as I was preparing my comments today, about what would have happened if we would have had a different administration. I want to pay particular tribute to the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the member for Davenport, for all of the tremendous work he has done.

I wonder what it would have been like if the member for Davenport had been the environment minister during the current Liberal administration from 1993 onward. I can say with some degree of certainty that he would have had this legislation before the House a long time ago. The only criticism I have of the member is that his government probably would not have supported him and the legislation probably would not have gone through the House. However he would have pushed for it, and that is to his strong credit.

The environmental community, across the maritimes in particular, has strongly pushed for this legislation. All of the parties are in support of the legislation. It would increase the fines and it would make it easier for us to get convictions, which has been a problem in the past.

The one concern I have with the legislation is its administration. Services will need to be put in place to make it possible for the public service to enforce the legislation but I do not see any commitment on the part of the government to put additional resources into play, both in terms of staff and equipment, if the legislation is going to be used effectively.

However it is definitely a step forward. The tragedy of course is that it has come so late. We will not see this legislation again until we come back in the fall, and we only know by way of speculation what may happen at that point.

The NDP support the legislation and would very much like to see it in place.

[Hamilton East, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the voters in the provincial riding of Hamilton East elected Andrea Horwath as the NDP member for that riding. They did it overwhelming, by a 63% vote. They sent a message to the provincial Liberals that they cannot break their promises and that they cannot be mean-spirited in denying the party official status.

They also sent a message to the federal Liberals about how disgruntled they were with the shoddy treatment of the current federal member for Hamilton East. I was in the riding a number of times and they were very clear with those messages.

Yesterday was Andrea's day and her supporters. I want to extend my congratulations to all of them for a job well done.

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

They festered it.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is pleased to indicate to the House that we, like the other parties, are quite interested in having this bill referred to committee. We recognize that it has a significant role to play in dealing with drivers and conductors of other vehicles who are in an impaired condition, both in terms of identifying them and dealing with the results of them breaching the law.

There are clearly some positives in this bill, but there also are some negatives. This bill has become a pressing issue in the form of its necessity because of all the debate that we have had around Bill C-10, which would have the effect of decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana.

I must say that from my period of time when I was practising criminal law, I am not sure we are going to see any increase in the number of people driving while impaired due to the consumption of marijuana. That conduct is going on now. In many respects, because it is completely illegal now, I would suggest it is worse than it will be once it is legalized and have the result at that point of people knowing when and how much they can consume, and generate more appropriate conduct in terms of the safety of the general public.

I think because the maximum consumption allowed, in terms of possession, is 15 grams, people will know that is the limit. They will also know that because they are limiting themselves in that regard, they have to limit the consumption in terms of its impact if they are driving or, what would be obviously preferable, that they do not drive at all, or conduct any other types of mechanical devices on public roadways, waterways, or airways, if they have consumed any marijuana whatsoever.

I am actually looking for an improvement in the number of people who would be conducting themselves in more appropriate and safety conscious fashion.

The other point that I would like to make with regard to the legislation itself--and it is one concern that we have and I am not sure we are going to be able to overcome this as we go through the legislative process, it is one that will have to be overcome by changes in practice of law enforcement--is the fear we have that this type of legislation could in fact be used in a discriminating fashion against visible minorities, against the aboriginal Métis population, much as we are seeing some of that occurring now in other areas of law enforcement.

This one is much more open to that type of abuse because it would allow a police officer unreasonable grounds to stop someone, conduct the investigation, and then carry on to insist that they provide urine or blood samples, saliva samples, et cetera. So it is more open to abuse.

The use of the breathalyzer and the use of the assessment whether somebody is impaired due to alcohol is more clear-cut. The evidence that was heard at both Bill C-10 and other investigations into the legalization of marijuana made that quite clear. It is easier for a police officer to identify people who are under the influence of alcohol than if they are under the influence of marijuana or some other drug. However, because of that difficulty, it is then easier for police officers who are being abusive of their authority to camouflage the fact that they are in some way or another discriminating.

I do not want to suggest in any way that this is rampant in our society and certainly within our police forces, but we do have exceptions and we have seen that across the country, in a number of ways, over the last good number of years as we have followed those types of abuses. This legislation, therefore, will have to be closely analyzed to see if there are any ways that we can reduce that type of abuse flowing out of these amendments.

The other point I would like to make is with regard to how some of the tests actually would be conducted. This is one of our concerns with the legislation. The legislation as drafted provides that a blood sample would have to be taken by a qualified medical practitioner. Obviously of concern are the rules we are going to have to put in place under this legislation to guide how that blood sample is taken. They must be very clear cut and very directive and, as much as possible, limiting in terms of invasion of privacy and invasion of the body's well-being.

That wording is in the legislation. I applaud that. It specifically says that the medical practitioner has to do an analysis as to whether the sample taking will in any way cause further injury to the individual. That is important, but I think we have to go even further.

With regard to the taking of other samples, we run into all sorts of practical problems. The committee reviewing this will have to look at some of these issues. For instance, in taking urine samples, there is the whole issue of how one monitors the person. There is the whole issue of the invasion of privacy. Is there a full search of the individual, including body cavities, in case the person is carrying around a urine sample? These are all issues we have had to deal with in enforcement of drug laws in other areas and we are going to be confronting them again under this legislation.

We as parliamentarians will need to be conscious of those problems when drafting the legislation. As much as possible, we will need to be prepared to provide direction to the enforcing officers so that abuse does not occur but samples can still be obtained in a fair and just way.

The additional point I would like to raise, which is one that we heard earlier from the member from the Bloc Québécois, is the issue of funding. There is no provision in the legislation for cost sharing on the expenses that are inevitably going to come out of this, first with regard to training our police officers right across the country on what they are required to do and what they are entitled to do and in effect teaching them how to do it.

Based on my own experience when I was practising law, at the time when the breathalyzer was coming into effect we had a lot of difficulties with it, including a lot of litigation as to what was required for the person to be properly trained and for the equipment to be properly used.

It is an expensive process to prepare our police forces right across the country for what is being proposed under this legislation. It is being mandated by the federal government. While we might pass these amendments to the code, while doing that we are not providing any financial resources. That burden, then, as so often has happened with this government, is going to fall onto provincial and municipal governments. Neither one of those levels of government, with the exception of one or two of the provinces, is in any kind of shape to take on additional costs for their policing.

One of the results may very well be that municipal police forces simply may not even attempt to use the bill because they cannot afford to train their officers and may not be able to afford some of the necessary equipment. For example, there will be a need for specific storage facilities for keeping both blood and urine samples and that is going to be expensive. Other types of equipment may very well be necessary on site in the police stations across the country. If that is not provided for by at least some significant amount of funding from the federal government, we may see police forces across the country simply refusing to use this legislation because they cannot afford to.

We have these concerns. However, because of what we are doing with Bill C-10 and the need generally to bring under control the consumption of drugs of various sources and the conducting of vehicles, it is very important to proceed with this legislation.

[Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources indicated last week that the RCMP was investigating allegations against Atomic Energy of Canada and its agents regarding bribes and kickbacks in its attempt to obtain a contract to construct Candu reactors in Bulgaria.

Could the government confirm that the RCMP is in fact investigating this matter, and whether any steps have been made to encourage the whistleblower to come forward by ensuring that person will not suffer penalties for so doing?

[Infrastructure, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speak, my question is for the parliamentary secretary for P3s. For 10 years we have watched as corporate scandals have cost investors and pension plans money while this Liberal government has done nothing. The most recent example was Borealis Capital exploiting the Ontario municipal employees' pension plan.

How convenient that the Prime Minister's friend, Richard Mahoney, has close ties to Borealis, a company that is trying to make a quick buck at taxpayer expense for a P3 tunnel in Windsor.

Why are the Liberals willing to hand over public infrastructure to their friends when it is so clear that their friends keep showing they cannot be trusted with public money?

[The Environment, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Ontario College of Family Physicians released a report on pesticides. The report found that exposure to pesticides caused acute health risks to adults and children, as well as potentially deadly impacts on fetal development. According to Health Canada, pesticides cannot be registered if they have the potential to cause birth defects. We now know that is clearly the case.

Given this evidence, will the government move immediately to ban pesticides and implement a specific ban on their cosmetic use?

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion and the issues that surround it. It is one that we have been considering for quite some time and, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle indicated, is one that we have placed before the House on previous occasions.

I believe there is a mood in the country that wants us to address these types of issues. We tout ourselves as a democracy, and we have every right to do so. However, to say that we are a perfect democracy would in fact be a fallacy, and we should not do that. Nor should we ever be satisfied that our democracy, whatever stage it is at, could not use improvement. I believe that is the stage we are at with regard to this issue, and probably have been for some period of time. I believe the Canadian citizenry accepts that.

We have had a great deal of debate over the last number of years about democratic reform. We know we need to reform the rules of the House in a large number of ways. We have had that need for quite some time.

From experiences we have had under the previous prime minister and the one before him, we know that further limits should be placed on the Prime Minister's Office. From opinion polls and other soundings we have taken from the electorate, we know proportional representation is an idea that is badly in need of implementation in Canada. We saw that by the independent law reform commission report just a few weeks ago.

Similarly, we are in a situation where the idea of fixed dates for elections at both the federal and provincial levels is one that the Canadian electorate wants to see implemented. We heard from our colleague from Quebec about the poll the province took, and the sense it has of the electorate. As much as 82% of the population in Quebec is saying that it should have fixed dates. I believe that is a fairly accurate reflection of the electorate across the country.

We have heard all the talk of an upcoming election in the last few months. I am constantly asked what the date is. When I say that I do not know, that it is up to the Prime Minister or his advisers, the universal response is that it is just not a good system, and it is not the way the system should work in a real democracy.

I think it speaks to Canadians from coast to coast who feel very strongly that democracy should function with rules that are fair, fair to all parties, to all candidates and to the electorate. There is a strong feeling in the country that not having fixed dates is not fair. I hear this when I canvass door to door or in public meetings.

The Canadian electorate has identified that it is not fair. The Prime Minister, as have many prime ministers before him, has tried to manipulate the situation in the country by the use of opinion polls and by sometimes spending large sums of money. We have seen the Prime Minister in these last months running around the country giving away $1 billion to $2 billion that supposedly we did not have. He has tried to manipulate the circumstances of the election, setting the groundwork that is most favourable for the party that is in power currently and using public finances to make that route more appealing. There is this sense in the country that it is not right and it is time that we changed it.

I believe we are at a stage where the government could set an example. It is an opportunity for the government to provide some leadership to the provinces. We have heard that British Columbia has already moved on this. It is time for the rest of the provinces to do it. One way to ensure that they do it would be for the federal government to take that step first.

I have listened to some of the debate put forward by my colleague from Sarnia. He said that was not the way it was done elsewhere. That has never been an excuse for us not doing what is right. We just cannot say that everyone else does it that way so we should also. There are times when democracy needs to advance and this is one of those occasions. If other countries in the world are not prepared to do that, then why should we not do it and provide some leadership.

In fact my friend from Sarnia was wrong. There are some other parliamentary democracies that have fixed election dates. We should pressing along with the theme that this is a new democratic development and is one that we should pursue. Then we would be a leader. We have the opportunity to do that.

The provinces have an opportunity to be a world leader to other parliamentary democracies. It may not work exactly the way we want it to work. We may have to experiment a little with it. However, ultimately as a society and as a vibrant democracy we will work this out and it will be step forward for democracy.

I wish to make one other point and it is one that I do not often hear come up in this discussion. It is the question of costs. Obviously, when we have something as fundamental as free elections, costs cannot be the controlling factor. I am not going to suggest that. However, it is an issue that we need to address.

When we look at the government and its history, the Liberals have called three elections. All three elections have been after periods shorter than four years, which seems to be the accepted timeframe for elections in our democracy. We have an extra cost there. If we figure it out and follow that kind of agenda, we have an extra election every decade or 12 years. The country would save money if we had fixed election dates every four years. Therefore, in every dozen years we would only have three elections as opposed to four.

It is difficult to give an exact figure, but the last figure I saw was that elections cost the country somewhere between $40 million and $60 million. When everything is taken into account, I have heard estimates as much as $100 million. We are not talking peanuts. Cost is a factor that we have to take into account.

The other cost is the cost to the political parties, the candidates and the electorate. I saw this recently in the 2003 Ontario provincial election. Because of statements from the governing party, there was great expectation that the election would be in the spring. People opened up their offices, hired staff, put in telephones, all those mundane expenses that add up to a lot of money. Then the election was postponed into the fall. People had expenses for six months of what would normally be a six week period to two months. These are added expenses that we would not never have to incur if we had fixed dates.

There are strong reasons for having fixed election dates. It is a question of democratic development moving ahead.

There is a cynicism about politics and we all know that. We see that with the number of people who do not vote, among our youth in particular but across all age groups. This is one of those steps forward. We could be saying to people that democracy is vibrant, that it is worth voting and participating. If we had a fixed election date, it would be one of those reforms that would say to people that they could stop being cynical about politics, that they could feel good, that we had fair rules, rules that would show the vibrancy of our democracy.

[Earth Day, April 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today is Earth Day, a day to recognize the importance of the environment to all who share this planet. What began as a small grassroots celebration some 34 years ago is now recognized in more than 100 countries and by hundreds of millions of people.

Canada first officially recognized Earth Day in 1990. Since then, largely through the efforts and leadership of a number of environmental groups and activists as well as labour organizations, such as the Canadian Labour Congress, and Canada's first nations, some important progress has been made on environmental issues. Regrettably, there is still much work to do, and the government has much to learn from those efforts.

Finally, on Earth Day, I invite all to celebrate the importance of the steps, small and large, we can all make to create a sustainable future.