Paul Szabo

[Criminal Code, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in the questions and comments, but I have missed a couple of opportunities, so I thought I would take this opportunity to express a couple of views about Bill S-4.

We have seen this bill before. As a matter of fact, we have seen the bills on drug trafficking and issues such as auto theft and identity theft. These are all amendments to the Criminal Code, and I have to wonder why the government has not put together an omnibus bill to deal with these.

These are all very similar in terms of the concerns for public safety issues and dealing with organized crime. Many of the witnesses would be the same. The efficiency of this place would be improved substantially if these were in an omnibus bill.

I know what the government is doing. It is basically saying that if it puts the bills out one at a time and milks them through all the stages and the press releases, et cetera, it leaves an impression somehow that it is being tough on crime. Well, if it wants to be tough on crime, it should pass legislation, not just talk about it. That is what is happening here.

Many of the issues we talked about today in debate are privacy related. The Privacy Act came in about 25 years ago, when the computer of the day was the Commodore 64. Technology is very important. It is not just about smart cards, it is that the legislation we have to protect the privacy of Canadians is way out of date.

One of the big problems, in my view, is that the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for this act, has said before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics that he is quite happy with the way the act is operating. That is unacceptable.

We had a bill on human pathogens and toxins. That bill prescribed the rules whereby private information on the health of certain Canadians would be shared with offshore jurisdictions and allowed to be passed on to others. The Privacy Commissioner did not even appear before the health committee. Why is that?

I hope that when the issue gets to the Senate the Privacy Commissioner will have an opportunity to express her concerns about this important issue, for which she had asked for a privacy impact assessment two years ago. The government has not taken her up on this. Why?

The House has to understand that when we address crime, it must be a comprehensive approach. It cannot just be punishment. It has to be prevention, remediation. It has to be a whole host of things, and I have not seen it. All I see are little rinky-dink bills for increased penalties or mandatory minimums.

We do not even have the resources for the policing authorities across the country to enforce the laws we pass here. We are not doing the job.

[Criminal Code, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it has to do with crime prevention. At the privacy, access and ethics committee, we found that the commissioner has had difficulty establishing legitimacy of a public education mandate. It would seem to me that, if the Privacy Commissioner were to have the support of the government for a public education mandate, Canadians would start to participate in an important aspect of crime and that is crime prevention.

[Criminal Code, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was very informative. The list he provided of preventive techniques that Canadians could use would be a good addition to any member's householder.

At the very end of his speech, the member talked about the cost of enforcement and policing. It has been a concern expressed in this place for a very long time. Whether it be about dealing with grow ops, gang violence and now auto theft, all seem to be related to organized crime.

We continue to pass laws which deal with the problem from a standpoint of penalties, et cetera, but they do not seem to have been much of a deterrent. We also have to be on the ground doing the job.

The Government of Canada is passing these laws and imposing that responsibility upon the provincial and municipal regional jurisdictions to apply the laws, but is there any indication from the policing authorities across the country that they have the resources? It is almost self-defeating if there are not the dollars to enforce the laws that are passed in Ottawa.

[Petitions, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions I am pleased to present again another petition concerning public safety officers.

The petitioners would like to point out to the House that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of their duties on a daily basis and that the employment benefits of these public safety officers often provide insufficient compensation to the families of those who are killed while on duty; and finally, that the public also mourns that loss of these police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty and wish to support in a tangible way the surviving members in their time of need.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to establish a fund known as the public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families and public safety officers killed in the line of duty.

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, June 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments on this bill. It is a matter that has come up from time to time.

I believe the last time it came up was in the early 1990s, and one of the issues was the public's perception of who criminals are. I recall at the time that a very large proportion of those who committed crimes in fact turned out to be family members and close friends as opposed to those people one might think would be bad from the get-go.

I want to ask the member if there is updated information, or is this the kind of information we should have from experts in committee?

[Petitions, June 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and as certified by the clerk of petitions, I am pleased to present yet another petition on a matter referred to as the public safety officers compensation fund. Firefighters from across Canada come to Parliament Hill each year to advise parliamentarians of some of the key priorities that they have and would like us to consider. This petition deals with the first priority of the firefighters for the last three years.

These petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of their duties on a daily basis and that employment benefits of these public safety officers often provide insufficient compensation to the families of those who are killed while in the line of duty.

Finally, the public also mourns the loss of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty and wish to support in a tangible way the surviving families in their time of need. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to establish a fund known as the public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.

[Criminal Code, June 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this has come up before and perhaps you will check it. When an hon. member is a sponsor of a bill from the other place, the member does have an opportunity to make brief comments to the House and maybe the member did want to say something.

[Committees of the House, June 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Privacy Act: First Steps Towards Renewal”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report within 120 days of its presentation.

I want to recognize the extensive and good work of all hon. committee members. We heard from the Privacy Commissioner, from many witnesses and from the minister himself.

The Privacy Act has not been amended in any meaningful way in over 25 years. This report mentions 12 significant areas where we believe the minister should give serious consideration to amending this important act on behalf of all Canadians.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, June 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member has to do with the prohibitions.

Starting with clause 5, which deals with the prohibitions, it states:

No person shall manufacture, import, advertise or sell a consumer product listed in Schedule 2.

If we look at schedule 2, and this is my concern, schedule 2 includes a fairly specific list, such as glasses that contain cellulose nitrate, baby walkers with wheels, et cetera. There are 14 items, the last one being lawn darts with elongated tips. This seems like a very small list relative to the range of consumer products out there.

Clause 6 then goes on to state:

No person shall manufacture, import, advertise or sell a consumer product that does not meet the requirements set out in the regulations.

This is the problem. I am concerned about the way we craft these things. We have schedule 2, which purports to be a comprehensive list of the key items or types of items, but then there is this catch-all, the regulations, which parliamentarians in either House will not see until after the bill has passed all stages in both Houses and received royal assent.

This causes me some concern. On occasion we have required that the regulations proposed by order in council, by the government, must go through committee for comment prior to being promulgated. I wonder if the member would agree that because of the importance of this legislation in terms of consumer protection that Parliament should be engaged in ensuring that the regulations are appropriate?

[Petitions, June 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions, I am pleased to present yet another petition on behalf of public safety officers in Canada.

These petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that police and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk on a daily basis, and that employee benefits for public safety officers often provide insufficient compensation to the families of those who are killed while on duty.

The petitioners also point out that the public mourns the loss of public safety officers killed in the line of duty and wish to support in a tangible way the surviving families in their time of need.

The petitioners, therefore, call upon Parliament to establish a fund known as the public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.