Dear Constituents,

On February 2nd, I was pleased to support and to participate in the Mississauga Peace Vigil at City Hall. On the cover, I am pictured addressing the hundreds of citizens who came out to support a peaceful resolution to the conflict with Iraq.

Finally my term as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has come to an end. I will continue to serve on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and remain as a member of the Subcommittee on Government Estimates. I have also been asked to serve on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. I am looking forward to these new responsibilities particularly because of the high priority that our riding places on environmental issues.

I also remain very active on Bill C-13 concerning Assisted Reproduction and Related Technologies. I attended most of the public hearings before the Health Committee and have worked very hard to improve the Bill. Following two years of study by the Committee, the Bill is now before the House of Commons at Report Stage where members who are not on the committee can propose and debate further changes which have not been dealt with previously. The Speaker has ruled that 64 motions are eligible for debate and 46 of these were submitted by myself.

There is no certainty that this Bill will become law due to major deficiencies which have been identified. Even if the Bill is defeated, the Government would be able to quickly table a new Bill to prohibit cloning, genetic engineering, surrogacy for profit and the purchase and sale of reproductive material.

That Bill would pass quickly in the House of Commons since the prohibitions have the support of all parties. The regulation of fertility clinics and researchers and the rules related to stem cell research continue to be very delicate issues which do not yet have Parliamentary or public support.
Recently, a constituent wrote to me to complain that my Householder was not being used effectively as a communications tool. Their suggestion was that I should report on the Bills before Parliament and disclose how I voted and why. They also pointed out that I have not included information on other current events.

I am only permitted to issue these householders 4 times per year. In addition, once I have written the report, it takes up to 6 weeks to get it printed, shipped to the Mississauga post office and delivered to your home. Needless to say the information in this report cannot effectively deal with emerging issues. As such, I have tried to put together reports which cover a variety of items which might be of general interest. Your suggestions would appreciated.

Most constituents who have a particular interest in a specific subject usually call, write, email or fax me about their questions or to provide me with their opinions. Every evening in Ottawa, I spend some time returning calls or write responses to mail and most get answered within 48 hours depending on the volume.

If you have a need for more information on any subject related to the Federal Government, my Mississauga office has very capable staff who can help you get information or answer your questions. If necessary, they know how they can quickly contact me for consultation or for me to call you back directly. As well, I have a WEB site www.paulszabo.com which has links to all of my work and speeches since 1994 as well as links to every government agency and department and general information links. You can also fax or email me. The numbers are on the back cover.

Your feedback on the content of my Householders or on any other matters of interest to you is most welcome and I will continue to do the best that I can to respond to your needs.

Sincerely,

Paul Szabo

As Canadians have become ever more conscious about the need to take steps to preserve and protect our environment, we all know that each and every one of us makes an impact on our environment. To this end, the fuels we put into our vehicles can play a significant role in our environment's future.

One of the emerging fuels is ethanol which is an alcohol-fuel alternative that can be produced from fermented sugar or converted starch. In Canada, ethanol has traditionally been made from starch contained in agricultural crops such as corn, wheat and barley.

Ethanol is different from conventional transportation fuels such as gasoline and diesel. It contains oxygen, something conventional fuels lack, as well as carbon and hydrogen. What is important about this is that oxygen permits ethanol to burn more completely than conventional fuels, which is better for our environment and means that emissions do not linger in the air. It is also estimated that one litre of gasoline produces 70% more atmospheric carbon dioxide - a harmful greenhouse gas - than one litre of biomass ethanol. The fact is that ethanol helps to reduce air pollution and also delivers improved vehicle performance to consumers.

Canada has an abundance of raw materials for the production of alcohol fuels such as ethanol. New technologies are also providing opportunities to produce ethanol from innovative sources such as grass, hay and forestry products in the form of wood chips. The Government of Canada has also supported new research. Last year we provided $2.7 million in support of research that will help turn plant fibre into an environmentally friendly fuel for vehicles. The Government has also made a commitment to increase ethanol production to over 1 billion litres per year by 2010. That production would be enough ethanol to blend into 35% of all gasoline used in Canada. Watch for ethanol.

On February 4-5, the First Ministers agreed on a Health Care Accord to renew and sustain public health care for Canadians. The Health Care accord 2003 reaffirms the five principles of the Canada Health Act:

1. Universality (available to all in Canada)
2. Portability (available in all Provinces and Territories regardless of where you live)
3. Comprehensive (covers all medically necessary services)
4. Accessibility (services are reasonably available across Canada)
5. Publicly Administered (funded by Governments)

The Government of Canada is increasing by $17.3 billion its support to health care over 3 years and which will rise to $34.8 billion over 5 years. This includes:

• $16 billion for a five year Health Reform Fund for primary health care, home care and catastrophic drug coverage.
• Creating a new Canada Health Transfer by April 1, 2004 to enhance transparency and accountability and ensure predictable annual increases in health transfers.
• $2.5 billion in Canada Health and Social Transfers to relieve existing pressures.
• $1.5 billion for a Diagnostic and Medical Equipment Fund.
• $600 million to continue the development of secure patient records.
• $500 million for research hospitals through the Canada Foundation for Innovation.
• Extension of transfers to 2007-2008 and provide an additional $1.8 billion in new money thereby increasing transfers by $9.5 billion over the next five years.

The Governments have also agreed to create a health Council that will report regularly on the quality of our health care system.

Much of my work in Ottawa has been dedicated to improving public awareness of the risks associated alcohol consumption to expectant mothers and to those who drive vehicles. In 1995, I started a national awareness campaign called "Drink Smart Canada" which has produced and distributed thousands of pieces of literature and posters all across Canada. Copies of these are available through my office and I also have established a toll free number 1-888-463-111 for people across Canada to call and request copies of posters, literature and my book "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome - The Real Brain Drain".

Over the years, Mothers Against drunk Driving "MADD" has been very supportive of my work and I have always supported their programs to make Canadian roads safer from impaired driving.

For some time now, MADD has been encouraging the Government of Canada to lower the legal limit for blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to 0.05% from 0.08%. They have argued that coupled with enhancing police enforcement, lowering BAC will effectively fight this violent crime, and will significantly reduce the number of Canadians being killed and injured in alcohol related crashes.

The facts speak for themselves:

• Given the margin of error accepted by our courts, most police will not consider laying an impaired driving charge unless both of the driver's evidentiary breathalyzer readings are 0.10% or higher.
• Based on this real-world threshold for criminal charges, an average 200 lb man can drink over six bottles of regular beer (12 ounces at 5% alcohol by volume) or over a bottle of wine (26 ounces at 12% alcohol by volume) in a two hour period and then drive, and will not likely be charged or convicted.
• Similarly, an average 130 lb women can drink over 3 bottles of beer over a two-hour period and not be charged.
• Impaired driving is the single largest criminal cause of death and one of the largest criminal causes of injury in Canada.
• According to a 2001 Transport Canada report, Canada ranked highest among eight selected OECD countries in terms of the percentage of fatally-injured drivers who were impaired, even though most of these countries have far higher rates of per capita alcohol consumption.
• Studies in laboratories on driving simulators and on closed access roadways have established that significant impairment of critical driving skills, including vision, psychomotor tasks, reaction time, vigilance, information processing, and divided attention tasks, begins at levels well below 0.08% BAC.
• In 2000, the American National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration concluded that the majority of the driving population is impaired in some important measures at BACs as low as 0.02%.
• The International tend has been to reduce the legal BAC limits to 0.05% or lower. These include Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia, and Sweden.
• Every jurisdiction that has lowered its BAC limit has experienced some traffic safety benefits such as the reduction of drinking and driving, and decreases in alcohol-related crashes, injuries and deaths.
• A recent Canadian study on the international experience, reported that the lowering of the criminal BAC limit to 0.05% could result in reductions of 6% to 18% in total crash fatalities, or between 185 and 555 fatalities per year.

For further information, visit the MADD Canada web site at www.madd.ca or call their Mississauga office at 905-813-MADD.

Family issues have occupied a large part of my work as a Member of Parliament over the last 9 years. Whether it be the taxation of the family, child poverty, domestic violence, divorce, fetal alcohol syndrome, child pornography or stem cell research, they all have one thing in common - children. In my view, there are very few challenges for us that are more important to ensure the healthy outcomes of our children - our future. Currently, Parliament is debating Bill C-20 which attempts to address the Supreme Court decision which found that artistic merit is a valid defence in matters related to child pornography. I have come out strongly against the decision and feel that Bill C-20 does not go far enough to protect our children from being exploited by very sick people.

On January 27th, I addressed the House of Commons on this Bill for about 20 minutes. The following are a few extracts which you may find of interest:

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fully concur with the last speaker in that there is no more important issue for Parliament to address at this moment than this bill and particularly within this bill, the issue of the protection of our children from exploitation.

Throughout my parliamentary career I have tried to concentrate on children's issues and family issues for one reason, which is that I believe Parliament must be the voice for those who have no voice.

This is the time to raise the bar to the level that should be addressed by the justice committee in doing its work. This is the time to raise the questions that need to be addressed. This is the time for us to have an influence as to the direction of this review.

For that reason I am rising to share what I would think are not only the views of myself and my constituents but the views of the vast majority of Canadians. The existence of child pornography in any form whatsoever is an abuse of children and it must be stopped, period. I could not say it more clearly.

I was concerned that this bill had some fuzziness to it. There was this new concept which I am not very familiar with called public good. I made inquiries of people from a number of backgrounds to give me examples. I need examples as a lay parliamentarian to understand what constitutes public good. Even among the people I spoke with, I got various opinions as to what the understanding was.

My understanding is that we cannot yet find the proper defence to the whole issue of artistic merit which is flowing from the Sharpe decision and which is still harbouring the problems within the judicial system for Parliament and for Canadians. We cannot seem to put a stake in the heart of artistic merit. People who argue or feel that possession of materials depicting pornography relating to children somehow has any merit whatsoever are very troubled people who need help.

That is a societal view. I always thought that the Supreme Court of Canada should not be a body that is there to make law or to interpret the law in a way which makes new law, but rather to apply the laws of Canada. I always thought that the Parliament of Canada was the highest court of the land. Yet time and time again this place has been very consistent …

It is important that parliamentarians raise the rhetoric, raise the emotion, get Canadians engaged and make sure they understand. If Canadians do not understand the issue, they will be concerned that we have not done our jobs. I do not want the issue to continue to go around in circles.

In the materials provided to members of parliament, Bill C-20 will strengthen child pornography provisions. With regard to artistic merit, it does acknowledge that it will only narrow and not fully address child pornography. This is clearly an area that raises my interest in the debate at second reading.

It will also create a new category of sexual exploitation. It will increase maximum sentences in certain areas, facilitate the testimony of children and also introduce the new offence of voyeurism. Those are good and positive things. I think they will earn the support of the House, subject to proper review…

There was a statement made by an eminent child psychologist and researcher. His research had shown that back in 1999 in Canada, 25% of our children enter adult life with significant emotional, behavioural, academic or social problems. The monetary and social costs are so enormous that investing in children is an imperative, not an option.

I cannot believe there is anybody in this place who would not agree that investing in our children, protecting our children and being the voice of children in Canada is anything but our responsibility. We have to embrace this passion and let Canadians know.

We have to also understand that it will not be acceptable to have soft or partial solutions. As the courts get into court-made law rather than applying the laws of Canada and rather than reflecting the social and moral values of Canada, we need to take a stand. Public good will not make it.
I cannot say to my constituents that it is not child pornography if it can be demonstrated that it serves the public good. That is a non-starter. I say to justice officials and the minister that it is a non-starter.

… These are issues I want the justice committee to look at. I want the committee to make sure when Canadians are told the language that they will not balk and ask questions. Public good as a concept raises more questions than it provides answers. This is wrong. The legislation should be addressing the issues. There is no issue that is more important to address at this time. We have been going around in circles on this issue for years.

There is no artistic merit in abusing children. There is no artistic merit in depicting children in horrendous ways. There is no question in my mind that Canadians abhor child pornography. Those who perpetrate it, who possess it, who produce it and who distribute it are problems in our society…

I do not want to argue about what artistic merit there may be. In my view the answer is clear. This is an issue that is clear for all Canadians.

I want the courts to know how Parliament feels. I want Canadians to know how Parliament feels. I encourage members to rise in their places and say what is in their hearts and to tell the House what their constituents have said to them about this issue. I do not believe there is any disagreement on these issues...

It is troubling to me that once people reach the age of consent, once they become adults, all the rules and all the concerns that we express with regard to the exploitation of children get thrown out the door and that same type of degradation and exploitation of human beings no longer is a problem. In our society, a terrible crossroads occurs when the values we hold with regard to children are not the values we hold for men and women.

We need to reflect very seriously on the social and moral values of our country. Parliamentarians have to be looked to for setting the tone and the example. We need to make sure that the legislation we deal with is put through a filter that reflects those social, moral and family values.
We cannot have it both ways. We are weak on obscenity with regard to adults and we want to be champions with regard to children. I am not sure whether our case is strengthened by having two sets of rules in terms of the degradation of human beings and the exploitation of women, children and anybody else …

I hope we can talk seriously about what happens with the notwithstanding clause. We have to start talking about this. I understand that section has been used rarely, two or three times, in very rare and obscure circumstances. If parliamentarians were to consult with their constituents and Canadians at large and they were to bring back their message Canadians would say that they could not think of another issue on which they would want the notwithstanding clause to be invoked than the protection of children. If it meant protecting children from exploitation, abuse and neglect, Canadians would say it was an appropriate use….. Now is the time to raise our voices, to express our views and to do what we can to protect the children of Canada.

End of Speech

In the fall of 2002, Canada joined in a study of Mental Health and produced a very important report which identifies that mental illness is more prevalent than previously thought.

Mental illnesses have a significant impact on every aspect of Canadian life. Almost 1 in 4 Canadians will be affected by a serious mental illness in their lifetime. Depression has become the single most costly disabling illness in the workplace. Suicide is a major issue in all communities in Canada and none more so than in our aboriginal community. A recent Ipsos-Reid poll found that almost 1 in 5 Canadians are so stressed that they have considered committing suicide. As well a report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice stated that our Correction Institutions have such a large number of inmates living with serious mental illness that to allow access by them to the provincial mental health system would overwhelm those systems.

Mental illnesses affect people of all ages, educational and income levels and cultures. The onset of most mental illnesses occurs during adolescence and young adulthood. They can in many cases be treated effectively. Mental illnesses are costly to the individual, their families, the health care system and the community as a whole. The economic cost of mental illnesses in Canada is estimated to be as much as $10 billion each year.

In 1999, 3.8% of all admissions in general hospitals were due to anxiety disorders, bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, major depression, personality and eating disorders and suicidal behaviour. That represents about 1.5 million hospital days. The stigma attached to mental illness presents a serious barrier not only to diagnosis and treatment but also to acceptance in the community. For more information, visit www.mooddisorders.ca or call my office for a copy of "A Report on Mental Illnesses in Canada".

The latest Canadian census brought predictable coverage of how the traditional family is crumbling. However, those who persist in mocking the family - mother and father with children - haven't looked closely at the real numbers. Here are some of the facts:

• 70.5% of families consist of married couples with or without children under age 25.
• Lone parent families represent 15.7% some being widows and those who were married but became divorced.
• 13.8% live common-law at least three quarters of which will eventually marry.
• Couples with children under 25 represent 44% of families and 7.4% of common-law couples have dependent children.

Although the number of families with children is declining, we can't forget the aging of our society. The 45-64 age group has increased by 36% while the prime childbearing group 25-34 has shrunk by 18%.

The children of the post war boom have had their children and moved into categories such as couples without children which account for 41% of families. That doesn't mean that they never had children. It just means that their children have grown up and left home. The census does not capture that information.

The family is so popular that families can't always get their children to leave home. In fact, 41% of adults aged 20-29 still live at home and one third of unmarried men 30-34 are also still at home. Families are diverse and healthy in Canada. Whether there are children or whether one or both parents work outside the home may change over time. Those decisions are made by the couple to reflect their values and circumstances. As well, since the marriage rate is rising now, the traditional Canadian family will continue to be alive and well.

Visit us on the Internet: www.paulszabo.com

Mississauga Office Hours: Monday to Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Appointments can be scheduled during office hours or other arrangements can be made by calling the office.

Constituents may write to any Member of Parliament or Cabinet Minister postage free. Simply address your envelope to the particular Member, c/o House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6. Your views and suggestions are important.