36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 103
CONTENTS
Monday, May 11, 1998
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1100
| CANADA GRAIN ACT
|
| Bill C-26. Report stage
|
1105
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motions Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11
|
1110
1115
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1120
| Mr. Chris Axworthy |
| Mr. John Harvard |
1125
1130
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1135
1140
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1145
1150
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1155
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1200
1205
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1210
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
1215
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6
|
1220
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1225
1230
| Mr. John Harvard |
1235
1240
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1245
| Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1250
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1255
1300
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1305
1310
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1315
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1320
| Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1325
1330
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1335
| Division on Motion No. 2 deferred
|
| DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
| Bill C-3. Report stage
|
1340
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1345
| Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1350
1355
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| ITALY
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1400
| SKILLS TRAINING
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| HIRE A STUDENT
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| DRUNK DRIVING
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| VAISAKHI
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1405
| LEGAL SYSTEM
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| COURAGE TO COME BACK AWARDS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| HOCKEY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| LEADER OF THE BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1410
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| WESTRAY MINE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| CRTC
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CALGARY DECLARATION
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1420
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1425
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TREASURY BOARD
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| JUSTICE
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1430
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1435
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| VARENNES TOKAMAK PROJECT
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| IMMUNIZATION
|
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1440
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1445
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1450
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL FOREST STRATEGY
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1455
| THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1500
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| PETITIONS
|
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1505
| Herbal Remedies
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
| Bill C-3. Report stage
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1510
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1515
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1520
1525
| CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
| Bill C-19—Notice of Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
| Bill C-3. Report stage
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1530
1535
| Mr. Ted White |
1540
1545
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1550
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1555
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1600
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1605
| (Division deemed demanded and deferred)
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 8
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1610
1615
| Mr. Ted White |
1620
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
1625
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1630
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1635
1640
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1645
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1650
| Division on Motion No. 8 deferred
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Motions Nos. 9 and 14
|
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
| (Division deemed demanded and deferred)
|
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
| Motion No. 10
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Motion No. 11
|
1655
1700
| Mr. John McKay |
1705
1710
1715
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1720
1725
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1730
1735
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
1740
1745
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1750
1755
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1800
1805
| Mr. Ted White |
1810
1815
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1820
| Hon. Sheila Finestone |
1825
| Motion
|
1830
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1835
| (Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Motion No. 12
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1840
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
1845
| (Division deemed requested and deferred)
|
| Divisions on motions further deferred
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Children
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1850
| Health
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 103
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 11, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1100
[English]
CANADA GRAIN ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-26, an act to
amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food
Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain
Futures Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
1105
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There are 11
motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report
stage of Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the
Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act
and to repeal the Grain Futures Act.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 1, 5 and 7 to 11 will be grouped for debate but
voted on as follows:
(a) a vote on Motion No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 5 and 8 to
11;
(b) Motion No. 7 will be voted on separately.
[English]
Motions Nos. 2 to 4 and Motion No. 6 will be grouped for debate
and voted on as follows:
(a) A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6.
[Translation]
I shall now put Motions Nos. 1, 5 and 7 to 11 to the House.
[English]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 42 on
page 5 with the following:
That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 24 on
page 6 with the following:
That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 10 on
page 7 with the following:
“49.02 (1) The Minister shall establish a”
That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 11 to
13 on page 7 with the following:
“Board of Directors, referred to as the Special Crops Board,
within six months after the coming into force of this section,
composed of not more than nine directors appointed by the
Minister, chosen from a list provided by officially registered
special crops commodity groups, for”
That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 16 on
page 7 with the following:
“(2) The Special Crops Board”
That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 24 on
page 7 with the following:
“Special Crops Board shall be”
That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended, in the English version
only, by replacing line 29 on page 7 with the following:
He said: Madam Speaker, I wish I could say at the outset that
it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-26 this
morning.
Despite the pleas of opposition members during second reading
debate on March 27 to the government to actually listen to
producers, to farmers, to the special crops producers themselves
when this bill was being considered at committee, the government
failed to implement the very amendments that the producer groups
wanted almost unanimously. I speak primarily about the issue of
the negative option billing.
The way Bill C-26 is presently constituted, the check-off or the
levy from producers' cheques when they haul in a load of special
crops will be mandatory despite what the government says and
despite the fact that producers wanted it to be voluntary.
It is only voluntary by nature of negative option billing. In
other words, the producer must at the beginning of the crop year
state that he or she does not want their levy to be put into the
pool to provide for the insurance of the buyers and then keep
track of how much is collected off their crops during the year
and submit those receipts at the end of the year.
1110
There was an amendment at committee stage put forward by the
government and the parliamentary secretary implied that the
producer would now only have to apply once during the year in
order to opt out. I do not see that in the way the amendment is
written. It is a small step in the right direction in that it
clarifies that the Canadian Grain Commission, acting as the agent
for this fund, must reimburse the producer if he or she opts out.
The only substantive amendment made at committee stage that was
passed, just to bring the viewers at home and the industry up to
speed, was that the Liberal dominated agricultural standing
committee dropped the possible future inclusion of the six
standard grains: wheat, barley, oats, rye, flax and canola.
There was some concern in the industry in western Canada that at
some time in the future this levy on special crops could be
expanded to the standard grains. Fortunately the government saw
the wisdom of clarifying that and actually excluded them.
Unfortunately the government did not show the same wisdom when we
were debating Bill C-4, the changes to the Canadian Wheat Board
Act. It should have done that to exclude any grains other than
barley and wheat which are presently under the control of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
What does Bill C-26 do? It establishes a system of licensing
and insuring special crops dealers and buyers. It moves from the
present system whereby the buyers and the dealers have to put up
a securities bond to cover the unfortunate eventuality of
bankruptcy or receivership to protect the producers. It moves
away from the present system of putting up bonds to a system of
licensing and insurance.
This bill has been hailed by the government as the greatest
thing since sliced bread in the context of what is good for the
special crops producers, but there is absolutely no evidence that
moving to this new system of licensing and insuring will actually
expand the special crops industry.
As well, Bill C-26 makes some changes to the Agriculture and
Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. The present
enforcement mechanisms in the act are much too limited in scope.
Most of the mechanisms are too harsh and costly to impose. In
many cases, if there are minor infractions, there is a limit to
what the Canadian Grain Commission can do. I think this is a
step in the right direction and certainly one that we would
support.
As well, Bill C-26 would repeal the 59 year old Grain Futures
Act, clearing the way for the Manitoba Securities Commission to
assume responsibility for regulating the Winnipeg commodity
exchange. I think that, as well, is a step in the right
direction and certainly something we would support.
As usual, there are a number of things contained in the bill
which the opposition supports. However, I must say at the outset
of the debate today that while my Reform colleagues and I, acting
as agriculture critics for the official opposition, gave
tentative support pending committee stage at second reading, we
will withdraw that support and oppose this bill unless the
amendments that we have before us in Groups Nos. 1 and 2 today
are passed.
What do our motions in Group No. 1 actually do? We feel there
is a need for a board of directors made up primarily of farmers
versus the advisory board that is presently constituted in Bill
C-26. The bill, as presently laid out, allows the minister to
appoint an advisory board to assist him with the management of
this levy fund and the insurance that will flow from it.
1115
What we have said, what producers have said and what witnesses
who appeared before the standing committees have said is that
they want to see farmers in control of the fund. They do not
want to see it in the control of the administrators, the
bureaucrats with the Canadian Grain Commission. They do not want
to see it being controlled by possible patronage appointees put
forward by the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Because it is farmers' money, producers' money, that is being
taken off their cheques and funnelled into the fund they want to
see that controlled by farmers.
We have put forward a group of amendments. First, Motion No. 7
states that the minister must, not may, bring forward a board of
directors made up of farmers. Second, these producers would be
chosen from names submitted by special grains commodities groups.
In other words, farmers would choose those people, put the list
forward, and the minister would choose them.
We certainly have seen with the appointment of a past Liberal
MP, Ron Fewchuk, the type of political appointment that we do not
want to see on this board. There are many other examples. I
just use the one that echoes the concern of producers.
With the motions contained in Group No. 1 we see that the people
on the advisory board will not have a lot of power. We have seen
that with the Canadian Wheat Board. Even if the minister
appoints this advisory board made up of nine members, the
majority of whom must be producers as it states in the act
currently, we heard from producers that they are concerned about
not having much power. They are only in an advisory capacity.
Certainly we have seen that with the Canadian Wheat Board. That
is one reason, because of a lot of pressure from western Canadian
grain farmers, that the wheat board is moving toward a board of
directors made up primarily of producers, of farmers.
With this group of amendments we want to see the same thing for
this special crops advisory board. We want to see it become a
managerial board of directors that would have some real power to
look after farmers' money drawn from a check-off from their
cheques and used to assure grain buyers and grain dealers. It is
the farmers' money. Why should they not have control of that
rather than bureaucrats or government appointees?
That is basically the thrust of Reform's motions contained in
Group No. 1. I certainly urge all members to seriously consider
these amendments.
They are amendments not just put forward by the official
opposition. We heard from a lot of producer groups concern on
the part of farmers. They did not want to see this check-off
used because it is mandatory up front, as I already laid out at
the start of my remarks. They did not want to see that check-off
used in a way that they might feel is detrimental. They want to
see it managed as effectively and as efficiently as possible. The
only way they can see that happening is if farmers control the
fund.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, the
last time I spoke to Bill C-26 was at second reading. I stated
that there were a number of elements of the bill that needed to
be looked at more closely and that I expected the committee would
look into the bill in further detail when it did clause by clause
analysis.
The committee in fact looked into the issues of concern. The
government even introduced several amendments that made this
piece of legislation better for western Canadian farmers.
Committee members from all parties supported the government
amendments. The government actually provided some good, sound
amendments in this piece of legislation.
However, the government did not see eye to eye with the
opposition parties on one key element, that being the voluntary
aspect of the bill. The amendments that my party has put forward
from the hon. member for Brandon—Souris take into account this
element of the bill. The majority of the stakeholders who
appeared wanted this system to be voluntary.
Group No. 2 Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 speak to the aspect the
government has not addressed. I will speak to this later.
1120
The amendments put forward by the hon. member for Prince
George—Peace River address a number of concerns. Group No. 1
amendments speak to removing oversight power from the special
crops advisory committee to an appointed special crops board of
no more than nine members. The members would be appointed by the
minister from a list of recognized commodity organizations in
western Canada. This change from the special crops advisory
committee to a special crops board was suggested by Saskatchewan
pulse growers and supported in committee by Manitoba pulse
growers.
The brief of the Saskatchewan pulse growers which they submitted
to the standing committee addresses this issue by suggesting that
section 49.02 be amended, stating that there be an increase of
the powers of the advisory committee to that of a board of
directors because the bill relies on regulations for many of the
specifics with respect to the insurance program. It is desirable
for special crops producers to have direct responsibility for the
development of regulations as well as the selection of the
insurer and agent.
These amendments speak to the need for producers to have a say
in how the speciality crops program will be carried. This allows
the stakeholders to shape the regulations of the legislation and
it is positive for producers to have input into the process.
The PC Party will be supporting these amendments because they
add to the democratic process of allowing the producers to engage
in the legislative process by giving them responsibility for the
development of the regulations.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the group of motions put
forward by the member for Prince George—Peace River. They make
a valuable contribution to the bill and I urge all parties to
support the motions.
The New Democratic Party believes that Bill C-26 is basically a
good piece of legislation. It follows years of consultation but
some improvements are needed. The motions moved by the member
for Prince George—Peace River contain some of them as do the
motions moved by the member for Brandon—Souris.
Special crops are of growing importance in western Canada.
According to many, Canada is the world's leading exporter of
lentils and peas. They are important economic products for
western Canada and for Canada as a whole.
We would support any measures that would improve the ability of
farmers to prosper from growing and marketing these special
crops. We also support measures that would put the entire
special crops industry on a firmer financial footing. That is
primarily why we are in favour of Bill C-26.
When we come to the motions moved by the member for Prince
George—Peace River we see the member recommends that the
minister appoint a special crops board rather than a mere
advisory committee. The member is also recommending that the
directors of the board be chosen by the minister but from a list
of officially registered special crops commodity groups.
There are several reasons why both these recommendations make
good sense. Farmers will be paying for this insurance program
without any contribution from government. Therefore it makes
sense that they should call the shots. For example, they should
decide who should act as the agent for the insurance program, for
their insurance program.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food heard from
many organizations representing special crops growers. In
particular the Saskatchewan and Manitoba pulse growers
associations both recommended a full-fledged board of directors
rather than an advisory committee.
We believe this would improve the legislation and would improve
its acceptance by farmers. These producer recommendations are
embedded in the motions put forward by the member for Prince
George—Peace River.
As a result the proposals recommend themselves. I urge
government members and all other members of the House to support
the motions. I congratulate the member for bringing them
forward.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to be able to respond to some of the comments
made by the previous speakers.
I wish to start on a positive basis.
I have taken note of the fact that the spokesman for the official
opposition supports changes to the monetary penalties act. We
appreciate that. We think those changes are taking us in the
right direction. The official opposition supports the change
that the Manitoba Securities Commission takes over responsibility
for the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. We appreciate that support
as well.
1125
There is another aspect to this group of motions to which we
will give our support. There is an amendment from the official
opposition that will make one change and we will support it.
Right now the way the bill is written up, it is written to say
that the minister may appoint a special crops advisory committee.
The amendment would change the language of the bill to say that
the minister shall appoint a special crops advisory committee; in
other words moving it from the permissive to the mandatory.
Certainly we will support that motion.
In so far as the other proposed amendments are concerned, we on
the government side will be opposing them. I will take the next
three or four minutes to explain why.
The speaker for the official opposition talked about the
mandatory check-off, what we call the mandatory non-refundable
approach to financing the insurance scheme. The subject will
come up for further debate in detail when we get to the second
group of motions.
The reason we oppose the voluntary opt in approach is that it
would create administrative difficulties. It would create some
uncertainty. We support the so-called mandatory refundable
approach. We want a plan that is viable. We want a plan that is
administratively efficient, and we think this is the best way to
go. It is already done by the pulse organizations in the
provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. They say it works for
their organizations and we believe strongly that it will work for
this insurance plan.
I would point out that we consulted widely over a long period of
time leading up to the bill and we think this is exactly what
producers want. This is what dealers want. This is what the
special crops industry wants. This is why we are doing it.
There was reference made that somehow a fund would be created by
the bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is an
insurance plan; nothing more and nothing less. If they are
talking about a fund that is factually incorrect.
When it comes to seeking out candidates for appointments to the
special crops advisory committee the minister will consult
widely. There will be plenty of opportunity for commodity groups
to make their recommendations so the minister fully understands
the wishes of producers and dealers.
I would like to get to the heart of these motions which proposes
that we have an elected board of directors as opposed to an
appointed special crops advisory committee. We have consulted
widely and have found the industry does not support this
approach.
Our consultations indicate that they want an appointed board by
the minister.
1130
The spokesperson for the official opposition tried to draw an
analogy with Bill C-4, the wheat board bill. This is not
analogous. When we talk about the special crops industry, if we
were to move to an elected board of directors, the cost of
elections would be prohibitive. A number of spokespersons for
the industry have told us that.
Naturally the costs of an election would have to be borne by the
producers. They already have enough costs weighing them down.
This would be an unnecessary cost. That is why we would oppose
having an elaborate election which would require an elaborate
system and an elaborate mechanism to choose nine directors.
Madam Speaker, you know as well as I and all Canadians do that
if we get into the business of having to elect the directors as
opposed to appointing them, we will get into the question of who
is going to be eligible. Where would the boundary lines be drawn
if the area was going to be divided up one constituency or
district per director? To some extent it would be very
difficult.
Let me also point out that right now there is no registry of
official commodity groups. The previous speaker was suggesting
that we could go to the commodity groups for their suggestions.
There is no registry at the moment. That simply would not work.
When it comes to an appointed special crops advisory committee,
we have to exercise some trust. We have to exercise some faith.
Is it not interesting. I hear a member from the Reform Party
making a negative remark about government. I am quite sure that
is why they came to Ottawa in the first place. They would like
to form a government. Typical of the Reform Party to talk down
to our public institutions and to be negative about parliament.
It is typical of the Reform Party.
The advisory committee will work very well. It will have a
majority of producers. It will speak for producers and it will
speak for the industry.
Another thing I would like to point out, and this was discussed
in consultations many times over, is that if we move from an
advisory group which makes recommendations to an elected board of
directors, then we raise the possibility of financial
responsibility. In other words the board of directors would be
making decisions. Along with that comes financial
responsibilities as opposed to an appointed advisory committee
making recommendations to the minister who would make the
decisions. The people we consulted said that an elected board of
directors may create a problem.
All in all, we have consulted widely. This is what the industry
wants. We think it will work very well with an appointed
advisory committee.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon.
parliamentary secretary from Manitoba.
He has his roots in the soil but they are growing in the wrong
direction; instead of up they are going down and when they are
down they go up.
1135
It is astounding how the listening apparatus of a human ear is
so different. When the witnesses were before us we never heard
anything about an advisory board. The special crops people said
they wanted a board that was appointed by the industry. They said
they only needed a small board and they knew industry people who
could run the board. An advisory board means that they are going
to give advice to somebody. Who is it in this bill that is going
to give advice? It is the minister again.
Last week we saw how this Liberal government loves to create a
two tier system among the hepatitis C victims and among the
farmers. The hon. parliamentary secretary should realize that
the Ontario wheat board has had a fully elected board for years.
It did not need an advisory board.
The advisory board in western Canada gave us information that we
did not need and it did not give us information that we should
have had. None of those advisory board members ever told us that
the wheat board was the biggest player on the Minneapolis grain
exchange. They sat on the wheat board advisory board for years
and we did not know.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: You elected them.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: We elected them but who shut their
mouths? The agriculture minister says they were elected but how
were they elected? They still have to listen to the minister and
the wheat board. It is really astounding. The special crops
industry would not have developed to the stage that it is at had
it not been for the Canadian Wheat Board putting pressure on
farmers to know nothing, to do nothing and to be happy with
nothing.
The Ontario farmers made the decision that they wanted a fully
elected board and now they even have a clause to opt out. What a
difference in farmers from Ontario and from western Canada. If
we could just reverse the universe and put western Canada into
the middle of the country maybe we would get some privileges and
be treated equally. The Liberal government has never known what
equality means when it comes to western farmers.
The special crops industry is a tremendous boon to the western
agricultural industry. If it were not for the special crops
industry, farmers would be starving today. The problem today is
we will probably need a special crops industry for wheat and
barley soon because nobody wants to grow it. It will become a
special crops industry. It has become so non-profitable that
farmers have refused to grow it.
We have heard time and time again that the farmers want to run
it themselves. They want a voluntary insurance and licensing
agency. What do they mean by voluntary? They have said they
want to choose whether or not to participate at the beginning of
the crop year.
I can guarantee to this House that had this been really
voluntary, probably 90% to 95% of the farmers would have
participated in this board or the special crops industry
mechanism. However, they have not been given that opportunity or
will not be given that opportunity. Farmers will again be second
class to eastern farmers. They will not have the opportunity to
run their business as they see fit.
I remember a year or two ago when the special crops people began
phoning me about being licensed as a grain dealer. What did this
government do? It sent the RCMP after these poor farmers because
they were being successful. That is illegal in this country
according to this democratic Liberal government. If they are
successful, the government either taxes them to death or
regulates them to death.
Here is an instance where the special crops industry has built
western Canada to a point where it can practically survive on it
alone without growing wheat board grains. Now the government
wants to over-regulate it again.
The government does not know what voluntary means because it has
not looked it up in the dictionary. Voluntary means they take
your money and hang on to it as long as they possibly can and
then maybe they will give some back after all the costs are taken
off. That is what farmers object to. When farmers say voluntary
they mean voluntary. When farmers say they will run it
themselves they will run it themselves and they will not hound
government to interfere with them.
1140
It astounds me that in a democratic country where farmers have
more or less designed and implemented an industry that has been
very functional and a tremendous boon to western agriculture and
industry, they are all of a sudden hounded by the RCMP. “Hey,
you haven't got a licence. You are not a grain elevator”. Good
gosh, a grain elevator handles just grain, it does not process
the stuff; it buys it, sells it and delivers it.
A special crops industry is one where for example the sunflower
seed is grown, it is dehulled, it is roasted and it is sold. One
makes it go and it is run effectively in the way which gives the
best returns to the producer, not to the industry itself.
I was astounded when I read the Senate hearings a week ago. My
good friend Earl Geddes, whom I know very well said that the
milling industry had to be licensed because one farmer could be
milling wheat for the other farmer, the neighbour, and this would
not protect the domestic industry. What have farmers done all
their lives? They have worked as a unit. They have helped each
other out when they have had problems. Then when they grow a
product they cannot even do with it what they want to.
The special crops industry thought it had freedom, it had the
rights to do it because it involved nothing with the Canadian
Wheat Board. Now we find out we want an advisory board, an
advisory board like we have seen for the last 15 years that was
non-functional and that did nothing for farmers but cost money.
It is of utmost importance that this bill be amended and that
the Reform amendments be passed by the House or we will have more
division in agriculture. If that is what the government wants,
then it should pass the bill the way it is.
If the government wants to finally do something for agriculture
producers in western Canada, it should listen. Give farmers the
right to run the business the way they feel is best so that they
can function positively and be encouraged by the fact that
finally government is listening, not that government is
regulating and over-regulating.
I have two minutes left which will not really get me into
another subject. I will just say that if the government really
wants to put its mark on western Canada it will listen to the
amendments Reform has proposed and it will have a happy special
crops industry performing what is best for this country. It will
put this country on the map when it comes to things like pinto
beans, navy beans, whatever has not been grown that farmers are
now starting to grow because they will take the risks. Farmers
will try these new products. They will grow them, they will
process them, they will market them and nobody else will gain but
the whole country.
I urge government members to finally sit up and listen to
western Canada. Let farmers do what they feel is right for their
industry, not what some politicians in Ottawa think is right
because they have a little too much of the Ottawa dust in their
ears that they cannot hear properly. We need some good heavy
downpours, some good showers and some soap and I am sure hon.
members would listen better and let farmers work the way they do
it best, co-operatively and for the benefit of society as a
whole, not just for people individually.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, perhaps we should have a bit of a history lesson here
and ask a simple question. Why are there so many special crops
now being grown on the prairies? us. If members opposite do not
know, we will give them a quick lesson. They are being grown
because farmers want to get rid of all the regulations and
restrictions that have plagued them for at least three
generations. That is why they want special crops.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture
had a lot to say about elections. We are not talking about
elections. The motions which my hon. friend put forth are not
about elections. What we are talking about and what we oppose is
the federal government handpicking people and putting them on an
advisory board.
1145
Virtually every time I make a trip to my constituency in the
west I learn of some person who has been appointed to some board
in Ottawa. Some of them have the audacity to tell me how much
money they make for being appointed as advisory people to a
board. That is what we are opposing. That is what the west
opposes. That is what the industry opposes. That is what the
canola seed people oppose. That is what the pulse people oppose.
That is what the sunflower people oppose. They do not want to
be regulated by this government. For some reason this government
does not seem to understand that. It just does not get the
message.
The message is clear and simple. The Canadian Canola Growers
Association will submit two lists to the minister of agriculture.
It will do the election for each special crop group. The
sunflower growers will do the same thing. The people who produce
the peas will do the same. The minister will then appoint to
this special board according to a simple recommendation from the
producer, not by election or anything costly as the parliamentary
secretary said. Here is the list of names, take your choice.
But we have a problem here. It is not a problem for the
producers. It is not a problem for the people who grow the flax.
It is not a problem for the people into the beans. It is not a
problem for them at all. The problem lies on the opposite side.
It is what if they are not Liberals. That is the problem. These
special people are saying they have had 50 years of government
hacks telling them how to run their business. They want to give
the government a group of names to pick from. That is what this
and all these motions are all about.
I say the following to the people from the west who have gone
into special crops. You turn around and deny these people the
right to submit their names to the minister and let him choose
from the names they have selected and you will be in violation of
a basic principle. That principle is that party hacks have more
importance than those who come from the industry. That is the
bottom line. It is as clear as that. Even a kid in grade four
could understand it.
I see the parliamentary secretary does not understand. He wants
to talk about elections. We are not talking about expensive
elections. We are asking the minister of agriculture to select
the names that come from the various interest groups in order to
form the special board. Nothing could be more down to earth,
nothing could be more grassroots and nothing could be more
democratic.
I can hear members across saying maybe that is the way we should
go. Let us get out of this habit of appointing a $100,000 a year
political hack, giving him this and giving him that. The canola
growers will select their person for the board. I challenge
anyone opposite to say that our clauses are not in keeping with
the democratic principle or with what is best in agriculture.
People in the Nipawin area of Saskatchewan said they could not
make any money from growing wheat. Now there is no more wheat in
most of the crops there. Even in my constituency people have
been telling me time and again they are going strictly to oats,
that they cannot afford to grow wheat under the board and that
they have a legal market in Montana.
1150
That is exactly what we are talking about. I do not have to
move more than 10 miles from my home to see people experimenting
with all kinds of new crops saying they wish anything they grow
would be out of the control of the government. That is exactly
what they are saying.
Now we are providing an opportunity to pick advisory boards
without going the political route.
Do members have the courage to do this? Do they have the
courage to support this resolution? It would bring a form of
democracy in advisory committees to Saskatchewan, to Manitoba and
to Alberta for the first time in 50 years.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
not sure I can follow that rousing debate. I might be a little
shorter on history than some of the members opposite.
We want to address the amendments to Bill C-26 today. Bill C-26
is an act to establish a licensing system and an insurance plan
for the special crops industry in western Canada.
It provides for the licensing of all buyers of special crops and
for the voluntary participation of producers in the insurance
plan. Voluntary participation protects them against default
payment for special crops by licencees.
There is the problem. Our western producers are sometimes a
little hesitant to trust this government to protect them. That
is why we brought forward these amendments to the act. I
understand from the secretary that some are going to be accepted.
The one thing that is important is that we want people involved
in the industry of raising specialty crops to be involved in the
decision making.
We should have the minister create a nine member board but
create that board from a list of people put up by the specialty
crops groups themselves. That makes perfect sense. That is what
western Canadian farmers would understand. They could trust a
system like that. It would be people they know, people who
understand the industry be in there making decisions in the best
interest of the farmers.
I think that is all western producers are asking. They want to
make a living off the land and they want to be the architects of
their own destiny. They want things like this and they need
them. If we give this to them, they will be pleased and they
will work hard.
My riding of Lethbridge in southern Alberta has a wide range of
agricultural components. It starts in the Rocky Mountains and
goes out on to the plains. It has some of the area of the
highest heat units for any area in Canada. Specialty crops are
an order of the day. Most specialty crops are grown in the area I
come from.
The reason people have gone to these crops is that they manage
the crops themselves. Even the sunflower producers on Bow Island
grow them. They have become quite a great marketing enterprise
with Spitz sunflowers. This started out as a small business and
now it is huge. Sunflower seeds are part of this list.
If we give farmers the opportunity to be creative and to decide
their own destiny, they can and will be successful. We have to
stop government interference. Therefore our amendment asks to
have the board appointed by the minister but selected from a
group of people selected by the producers.
This makes a lot of sense. I am sure the government, when it
reconsiders this, will support it. This is what we are asking
for.
The recommendations from witnesses at the committee, from the
producer groups, are things the government should be very
carefully considering and putting into this bill.
Lentils, peas and mustard are special crops that need special
conditions. They need special treatment. They need people who
know all the special conditions making decisions on how this
insurance plan is going to work.
The weather is critical. Some are more fragile than others. It
is important that people on the board know all the conditions.
1155
The motions in Group 1 that we have put forth
are good motions. Some require words to be changed from “may”
to “shall” for the minister to appoint to this advisory board.
However, the critical thing is to recognize the expertise that
exists in the industry and with these producers and let us have
these producers on the advisory board to ensure this system will
work properly and will truly be in the best interests of farmers.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak at report stage to Bill C-26 and in
particular to the set of motions before the House. I want to
support the motions put forward by my colleagues, specifically my
colleague for Prince George—Peace River who has introduced some
good amendments to this.
I would like to speak a little more specifically about why the
whole area of specialty crops has become such an important part
of farming in western Canada. My family and I operate a 2,000
acre grain farm in Alberta and we are now growing more and more
non-traditional crops, meaning not wheat, barley or canola.
The reason for this is the difficulties we have encountered over
the years with the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not think our
operation is very much different than a lot of farms in western
Canada which have experienced difficulty with market signals
being sent by the monopoly situation with the Canadian Wheat
Board and not knowing what kind of return we are going to
receive.
Farmers now have a tremendous amount of money being expended
every year. At this time of year fertilizer and chemical bills
start to roll in and in many cases they are in excess of
$100,000. This results in farmers needing the ability to price
ahead to be aware of what crops are going to be sold and they are
starting to look to other crops. Farmers are looking to peas, to
fescue and to lentils, to crops outside the jurisdiction of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Because of the rotation system that is required to ensure
disease does not build up, we still need to maintain some
traditional crops. On our farm this year there are 1,000 acres
of wheat which went in the ground within the last two weeks.
Some of this wheat is soft spring wheat that we sell outside of
the board but some like the hard red springs will have to be sold
through the board.
Our party wants to see as a board that advises the federal
government and takes authority on advising the specialty crops
commission. Advisory boards sometimes have the potential for
having people who know absolutely nothing about the industry
itself.
There are all too many opportunities I am afraid to have former
politicians, because they did not win in the election last time
around, to get appointed to these boards and they may not do
justice to the real issues. Farmers should be on these boards as
they know what is best for their industry.
I support Motions Nos. 1 and 8 in Group No. 1 which state this
should be a speciality crops board rather than an advisory group
appointed by the government.
We have to go back to the Canadian What Board to see how the
difference works. I am aware that we have had an advisory board
in the Canadian Wheat Board, appointed by the federal government,
for some time with basically not much authority. It has been a
closed shop. I do not know that it has done a very good job.
1200
Farmers in my part of the country are calling for the Canadian
Wheat Board not to have a group of commissioners appointed by the
federal government with an advisory board attached. They are
calling for the Canadian Wheat Board to be operated by a group of
directors of farmers who control the functions of the Canadian
Wheat Board.
It is not very much different from what we are talking about
today. Farmers pay the real cost of administering the Canadian
Wheat Board. They will pay all the costs involved in this board.
Why should they not have a direct incentive and direct say in how
it works?
I want to point out another reason I think that is important. I
have friends and neighbours that have gone into the speciality
crop industry in terms of organically grown grains. They have
gone to a very big effort because it is a specialty market. They
have to ensure that their farm is free of chemicals and
commercial fertilizers for five years before they can grow
organically grown crops. Yet they still have to go through the
Canadian Wheat Board to get an export permit to market those
crops.
Ministers of agriculture over the years have said that we should
diversify, that we should try to get out of some of the main
crops and into specialty markets. My friend, Dexter Smith of
Peace River, has done just that. He has spent a tremendous
amount of work to rig up his farm for organically grown wheat. He
has to find his own markets. The Canadian Wheat Board does not
do his marketing for him. Farmers have tried to develop a set of
standards for their industry with no help from government, I
might add. The government is standing in their way in many
cases.
Dexter Smith has to go to the Canadian Wheat Board to buy his
product back before he can sell it. The Canadian Wheat Board
does not offer any elevators to take the specialty crop. There
are no elevators in the entire Peace River country to take Dexter
Smith's crop. There are no elevators in Alberta to take it. It
would just get dumped in with the regular wheat and therefore
lose the effect of having been organically grown.
He has to find his own markets. He has to arrange for the
transportation. Yet what do we have? The Canadian Wheat Board
standing in his way, inhibiting his ability.
If we have an advisory board on the specialty crops that we are
talking about today, it will be appointed by the federal
government, probably with some ex-politicians, people not having
expertise in the area. That will get in the way of the people in
the industry. We really want people with knowledge of these
specialty crops and how best to serve their own industry.
What would be better than to have a specialty crops board with
members elected by fellow producers out of their industry,
knowing that they would have the expertise on how to govern their
own industry? It seems to me that is a reasonable request which
has to be considered.
As I was saying, things have changed significantly in the farm
industry over the years. When I started farming 30 years ago
wheat, barley and canola were the main crops in our part of the
world. That is not the case any more. We have lost our
transportation subsidies through the Crow rate. We have lost
subsidies in terms of GRIP and other government programs. In
fact our Canadian grain farming industry has moved faster than
that of any other country to get rid of subsidies worldwide. We
are far ahead of our GATT commitments in terms of phasing down
our subsidies.
Yet, what is our trade department doing for us to try to ensure
we have opportunities to export to countries in Europe that are
still maintaining heavy domestic and export subsidies? I would
maintain not that much. It had better start to do something soon
or our guys are going to get tired and say, “We are complying
with what you have asked of us to get to a market driven
industry, but we have competitors worldwide that are still being
subsidized very heavily. You had better do something about it or
we are going to be back asking for subsidies again”. That is
the exact approach we do not want.
The trade department and the Liberal government had better start
getting aggressive, or else they will lose market opportunities
and some excellent farmers.
In conclusion, I would like to add my weight to those in the
Reform Party who in speaking today said that we need some common
sense in the approaches to this industry. If we are to have
speciality crop marketing boards, let us make them producer
marketing boards that are elected from their own members instead
of having a group of advisory board members that may not have any
expertise in the area. It seems to me the bill would then enjoy
the support of the entire farming community in those sectors.
1205
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to follow some of my more knowledgeable friends in
the Reform Party on this debate. We are addressing Group No. 1
motions on Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act. In
particular we are discussing a couple of issues, but the big
issue is the push to ensure there is some producer representation
on the special crops advisory board.
I am extraordinarily disappointed with the presentation we heard
from the parliamentary secretary a few minutes ago. He suggested
a very transparent tactic in my judgment. He suggested that
elaborate elections will be necessary to bring about the motion
my friend from Prince George—Peace River has proposed.
He is proposing only that the specialty crop producer groups be
the ones who submit to the minister a list of names of people who
would be excellent representatives on this special crops advisory
board. The parliamentary secretary had the audacity to try to
frighten people by suggesting there was to be some big elaborate
election. It is not true, and the parliamentary secretary knows
it. I am very disappointed he would go to those lengths to try
to frighten people. It certainly does not do him or his
government any credit.
Reformers are disappointed that the government once again has
ignored the advice of witnesses who appeared before the
agriculture committee and said they had no particular problem
with the advisory board as long as they had some representation
on it. They said they wanted their people to come forward. They
are, after all, the people who are supporting it. It is their
money that goes into supporting it through a check-off program.
It is not the government's money. It is farmers' money.
Does that matter to the government? No. It knows everything.
It does not need the advice of producers. Heavens no, that would
be terrible. We know how the government feels about advice. We
saw that in the hepatitis C debate not long ago when backbenchers
had lots of advice for cabinet that was ignored. That is exactly
what will happen when patronage appointments come forward to
offer advice to the government on special crops. The government
has complete latitude under the legislation to appoint patronage
appointees to the speciality crops advisory board. That is
wrong. When will the government get that through its head?
An hon. member: The freshwater fish association.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, my friend mentions the
freshwater fish association. We know what happened with the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Board. A former Liberal member who had
absolutely nothing to do with fishing in his past life, except he
had gone fishing once or twice, was appointed head of the
marketing board. He had absolutely no clue what it was about,
but he picked up a $100,000 a year job because he was a former
Liberal MP. Now he runs it, I am sure to the chagrin of
producers in that industry.
The government is to take that same sullied formula and apply it
to the special crops advisory board. It is absolutely ridiculous
and completely contrary to all the advice it received from the
agriculture committee. The government in its defence sets up an
elaborate make believe scheme in which it suggests that Reformers
are proposing to elect people. It is not true.
All we are saying is that these specialty crops groups can at
their annual general meeting get together and maybe have a little
election among themselves. They can say that they think Bill,
for example, has done a good job in the past and put forward his
name, as well as Larry and Myra. They will be the names they
submit. Maybe the minister will choose one of them. Maybe he
can even check their Liberal credentials to find out if they are
good Liberals, and if they are they can end up on the advisory
board.
I do not think that is radical. It makes a lot of sense to have
representation of the people whose money is going into this thing
on the board.
That is exactly what the witnesses are asking. I can say from
personal experience that producers of speciality crops are very
upset with the idea of more regulation.
1210
I come from a Medicine Hat riding where there is a lot of
irrigation. As a result people grow a lot of high value
specialty crops. People in my riding grow beans, sunflowers and
all kinds of crops including spearmint. They have told me they
do not want to deal with the board any more. They are tired of
dealing with the board. When they have an option they get out of
wheat because if they deal with wheat they have to go through the
board. They are going into specialty crops and are trying to
make a living without interference from the government.
Whenever the government sees something going well, it seems it
has to step into it or more than likely step on it and crush the
life out of it. That is exactly what the government has done
many times in the past.
I am speaking on behalf of my constituents when I say that the
last thing we want is the federal government to bring on line
some more patronage appointees to tell producers how things
should be done from their perspective atop the hierarchy, when
producers themselves are the ones gunning it out, supporting the
board with their own money and trying to make a living. They are
the ones who know how. They have a stake in it. Why is the
government so afraid to let producers have a say in the whole
process? It just does not make any sense.
I encourage my friends across the way to learn from the
hepatitis C vote. Those backbenchers know they had absolutely
zero influence on the hepatitis C vote. They were chided by
their Prime Minister for having the effrontery to actually raise
their voices and suggest that in the case of hepatitis C maybe
the government should open its mind a bit and consider
compensation.
They should understand that is exactly what the government will
do with the people they appoint to the advisory board. They will
do exactly what they want. Although the government loves to give
the appearance that it is committed to democracy, at every
instance and every opportunity it turns around and does exactly
what it wants to do.
It is shameful. It is wrong but it is certainly the pattern we
have seen from the government. I urge members across the way to
support the motions that have been put forward by my friend from
Prince George—Peace River, motions that will bring at least a
hint of democracy to the legislation. I encourage members across
the way to support the motions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The recorded
division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. The recorded division
will also apply to Motions Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1215
( Motion No. 7 agreed to)
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I would like to ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to move the second group of amendments
introduced by the member for Brandon—Souris.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the request of the member for South Shore to move the motions
originally proposed by the member for Brandon—Souris.
Is there consent for the hon. member to move the motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) moved:
That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 8
on page 6 the following:
“(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), every producer of special
crops shall be entitled to participate in an insurance plan
established under subsection (2).
(2.2) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe the
circumstances in which a producer of special crops may not be
entitled to participate in an insurance plan established under
subsection (2).”
That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 9 to
12 on page 6 with the following:
“(3) A producer who participates in an insurance plan
established under subsection (2) and who delivers or causes to be
delivered a special crop to a licensee shall pay to the”
That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 15
and 16 on page 6 with the following:
“(4) A licensee shall collect the levy referred to in subsection
(3) from every producer who is required to pay the levy under
that subsection and shall remit it to the agent within”
That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 3 to
5 on page 7 with the following:
“(8) A producer of special crops who participates in an
insurance plan established under subsection (2) may, in the
prescribed manner, withdraw from the plan. The agent”
He said: Speaker, I would like to mention again, as I did during
the second reading debate, a resolution that was passed at the
Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association's annual meeting.
Similar motions were passed at the Western Canadian Wheat Growers
convention, the Western Barley Growers convention and the
Saskatchewan Pulse Development Board. In addition, the concern
mentioned in this motion has been raised by other stakeholders in
the farming industry out west.
The motion reads as follows:
Whereas the majority of Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association
members also are growers of specialty crops, and
Whereas the proposed Special Crops Rural Initiative Program
would appear to favour the Canadian Grain Commission and not
necessarily special crop growers, and
Whereas the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program is promoted
as being voluntary, it is in reality a form of negative billing
which all consumers reject—, and
Whereas the scheme has questionable support at the farm level,
and
Whereas the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association rejects the
compulsory nature of the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program,
and
Whereas the Special Crops Industry has flourished without such a
program,
Therefore be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Canola Growers
Association inform the federal and western provincial ministers
of Agriculture of their concerns and at the very least that the
Special Crops Rural Initiative Program be truly voluntary for
both the growers and the special crops dealers.
This resolution aptly describes what Bill C-26 fails to do. It
fails to give farmers choice, not unlike what the government did
with Bill C-4, which failed to give farmers choice in how they
sell their wheat.
The compulsory nature of the special crops insurance plan is a
form of negative option billing. Today's producers run large
operations and should not have to apply to opt out and then to
receive their money back if they do not wish to participate.
Farming businesses should have the right to decide for
themselves if they want to be bonded or licensed and, if so, pay
the bills themselves. Producers should have the choice to decide
for themselves if there is too much risk selling to an unlicensed
buyer. Special crops producers would be better off having choice
between selling to large licensed grain dealers and small
unlicensed grain dealers. That would make sense. I hope the
government considers giving farmers that choice.
1220
The amendments put forward by the PC Party today speak to these
concerns. I hope the government will also listen to the
stakeholders and vote in favour of these constructive amendments.
Once again I would like to conclude that the PC Party supports
this bill, but we can make this a better piece of legislation if
the government supports these amendments and the amendments put
forward by the member for Prince George—Peace River.
I know the government wants to rush Bill C-26 because it
believes it is simply a matter of housekeeping. However, let us
try to give farmers in western Canada a piece of legislation that
gives them choice.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the amendments in
Group No. 2, put forward by my hon. colleague from the
Progressive Conservative Party.
I note at the outset that these amendments, Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4
and 6, as put forward by my hon. colleague from the fifth party,
clearly outline the need for voluntary participation in this levy
that is going to be imposed on producers of special crops in
western Canada.
When the commodity groups appeared before the standing committee
on agriculture almost unanimously their one greatest concern was
the fact that, despite the premise that the levy or the check-off
would be voluntary, the fact is that it is mandatory upfront.
I just want to explain this to everyone watching the debate
today so they clearly understand what this means. When the
producer hauls a truckload of the designated special crops to the
delivery point, the levy of 38 cents per $100 will be deducted
regardless of whether he or she opts out of the check-off; in
other words, does not want to participate in the insurance plan.
As my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party just said, very
clearly this is a form of negative option billing. In this case
the producer has no option but to have that levy deducted from
his or her paycheque.
At the start of the year he or she can apply to the agent, the
Canadian Grain Commission, which is going to be administering
this fund, stating that they do not want to participate and they
want their levy money returned to them following the completion
of the crop year.
The way the bill is constituted, they then have to keep track of
how much would be deducted off of each and every truckload and
each and every designated commodity because they may grow more
than one of the special crops. They have to keep track of that
and then at the end of the year or at a designated time set up by
the agent apply for a refund.
There was some concern expressed at committee, both for the need
to have this voluntary upfront and if it does have to be this
negative option billing process that the producer should only
have to let his or her views be known once. In other words, if
they wanted to opt out they should not have the administrative
burden of keeping track throughout the year and tallying it all
up at the end of the year, similar to how they now have to keep
track of the GST and apply for a refund.
Without fail, when the producer groups appeared before the
committee they said this was their greatest concern. Did the
government listen? Unfortunately, no.
Amendments that I had put forward on behalf of the official
opposition at committee were voted down by the Liberals on the
standing committee for agriculture.
The amendments that I introduced at committee were virtually
identical to the ones put forward by my hon. colleague now at
report stage.
Appearing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food on April 21 were eight commodity groups: the Alberta
Pulse Growers Commission, the Manitoba Pulse Growers Association,
the Saskatchewan Canola Growers, the Saskatchewan Farmer
Consultations for SCRIP, the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers, the
Western Barley Growers, the Western Canadian Marketers and
Processors Association and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers
Association.
1225
If memory serves me correctly, with the possible exception of
the Western Canadian Marketers and Processors, all of the
witnesses appearing expressed the same concern about the way in
which this levy would be collected. In other words, there would
be an additional administrative burden placed on farmers. They
would not be able to opt out, in a one-time opting out, whereby
they could say “I have looked at this. I have studied it. I
understand that the government is moving to endeavour to have
insurance for all of the special crops buyers and dealers to
ensure that in the event one of them were to go bankrupt the
producer, if he or she had speciality crops in storage with that
particular dealer, would be covered”.
Why is the industry interested in making some changes in this
area? As we have heard, there is a concern out there that there
are a number of unlicensed small dealers, small buyers, and that
farmers in some cases may be unaware they are not protected. In
other words, these dealers, these buyers of the speciality crops,
are possibly unlicensed and therefore have not put up a bond to
protect the producer, to protect the farmer, in the event of
bankruptcy.
The government wants to implement this process. It will mean
more regulation. All dealers and buyers will have to be
licensed, for which of course there will be a licence fee, and
all of them will have to be insured.
We heard from a number of producers about this. The problem is
that once again we see big government making decisions for the
producers. Instead of the old adage “buyer beware”, possibly
we could have “seller beware” and allow the producer to make a
conscious choice. Perhaps he or she could derive a bit more
money, a few more dollars per pound or per bushel or per tonne,
whatever the case may be, for their product if they were to take
the risk of selling that product to an unlicensed, uninsured,
unprotected buyer or dealer.
If there was a substantial amount money involved the producer
might not want to take the risk. For example, they may be
shipping carloads of a commodity. We could be talking about
hundreds of thousands of dollars. If they did not want to take
that risk, they would then ensure that they sold their product or
had it in storage with a dealer or buyer who was insured, who was
bonded, so they would be protected in the unlikely event that the
particular company were to go broke. I say unlikely because the
instances of these corporations, these dealers, going broke is
very, very rare.
Unfortunately there is a real lack of evidence as to whether
this process, this check-off to ensure that all dealers and
buyers are insured and licensed, is going to be a great boon for
the special crops industry. Certainly the government would like
everyone to believe that this is going to promote the industry.
However there is no real evidence that this will happen.
1230
In some quarters there has been some evidence to suggest that it
will provide a disincentive for good business practices by these
dealers. Presently if a sizeable bond has to be put up, there is
an incentive built in to ensure they operate in as efficient and
effective manner as possible and to ensure that they do
everything to keep from going bankrupt. If they go bankrupt, of
course they will lose the sizeable bond they put up. Now they
will be working with an insurance fund where the farmers are
paying for the insurance. They will not be putting up any bond
whatsoever. Therefore, it is no wonder dealers and agents are in
favour of this legislation.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am glad to
respond to some of the remarks made by members opposite. Let me
mention a couple of things before I address the concerns which
apply to the Group No. 2 motions before the House.
The Reform Party critic refers to this as a fund. This is not a
fund. It is an insurance plan, no more and no less.
The member for Medicine Hat expressed concern about having
producer representation on the special crops advisory committee.
Had the member for Medicine Hat bothered to read the bill, he
would have found that not only does the bill provide for producer
representation on the advisory committee but it also requires
that a majority of the members of the advisory committee be
producers. It is explicitly expressed in the bill that a majority
of the members of the advisory committee will be producers. That
is about as straightforward as I can make it. It is factual.
Members of the Reform Party made several remarks about electing
or not electing the special crops advisory committee. Now those
members are saying that they are not in favour of elections. All
they want are commodity groups to come up with a list of possible
appointees and for the minister to choose the members from the
list. At least the Reform Party has made some progress. I guess
those members have realized in the last few days or weeks that
elections would be a very expensive way to go.
If the Reform Party is not talking about expensive elections, it
is good because I do not think anyone would want that. Their
suggestion of having a list drawn up by commodity groups and the
minister would then choose members from that appointed list is
problematic too.
We opposed the motion because there is no mechanism for
officially registering commodity groups when it comes to special
crops. We would have to ask with respect to the the Reform
Party's suggestion, how many commodity groups would have the
privilege or right to come up with the list of names for the
committee?
Under the insurance scheme, I think we have 11 recognized
special crops. Would it be just those 11?
What if the situation was that one specialty crop was represented
by more than one official commodity group? What would be done
then?
1235
The minister has made it very clear that not only will there be
a majority of producers represented on the advisory committee,
but the minister will consult very widely. There is no barrier,
none whatsoever, to any of the commodity groups, to any
individual producer or anyone who is concerned to bring forward
all the names they want. Then the minister will have to do the
best job he or she can to come up with the final list of
appointees to the advisory committee. I think the system will
work quite well.
Let us get to Group No. 2. Previous speakers talked about
abandoning our proposal for a mandatory refundable system. They
would like an opt-in plan. We want this insurance plan to work
and to work well. We want it to be viable. We want it to be
administratively efficient. This is why after many years of
consultation we have decided that the best way to do it is a
mandatory refundable approach. That approach is already used when
it comes to the funding of pulse organizations in Alberta and
Manitoba. It goes even further in Saskatchewan where there is a
mandatory non-refundable approach.
We are going to make it as simple as possible to have fees
returned at the end of the crop year. At first it was envisaged
that producers would have to apply for a refund of fees if they
had opted out but not any more. Now the onus will be on the
dealers, on the agents. They will have to do the book work and
return the fees.
The Reform Party critic talked about whether it would be
necessary for a producer to opt out only once or whether a
producer would have to opt out every crop year. That kind of
provision is not written into the bill. It is a matter for
regulation. That will be decided when the regulations are drawn
up. I know the minister will hear representations. If there is
one overwhelmingly dominant view, I am sure that view will be
accepted. However that is a matter for regulation. We think the
mandatory refundable approach is the best approach.
We have to remember another thing. At this juncture, and I hope
that it changes, a lot of specialty crop producers are not well
aware of this plan. I am absolutely sure that while they do not
know about it, they would like to be part of it. I would not
want a voluntary opt-in situation as proposed by the Conservative
Party and Reform Party in which some could find themselves
without insurance because they did not know that the insurance
plan was available.
1240
This way there will have to be a conscious decision. A farmer
or producer will have to think this through, can he take the risk
of selling his produce, his crop to an agent without insurance.
Farmers are big boys. They can make that decision. But we want
the system as simple as possible and we want it viable.
Remember that if this plan does not work, then they do not have
any security because the bond system is going out. We want to
make absolutely sure that the farmers think about this and think
about it well, and that they will make the right decision. I
think that they will.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the chance to rise and speak to Group No. 2 but also
to rebut what the parliamentary secretary has said.
I will begin with something he said a minute ago. He suggested
that if the insurance plan was voluntary, some farmers might not
actually become a part of it because they did not know about it.
That suggests the parliamentary secretary takes a pretty dim view
of the ability of farmers to run their own affairs.
Obviously farmers run extraordinarily complex operations when
they run a farm. They make hundreds of thousands, even millions
of dollars of decisions every year. Is the parliamentary
secretary suggesting that perhaps they might forget to plant
their crops in the spring? Maybe we should have someone from the
government come out and plant their crops for them. Or maybe
they would forget to take off their crops in the fall. Maybe we
should have somebody come out and take their crops off for them
as well.
What the parliamentary secretary is suggesting is ridiculous,
that farmers would not know about it, that they are just too
dumb. That is what he is suggesting. I disagree with that. It is
ridiculous.
Earlier I heard the parliamentary secretary say that I had
misspoken when I suggested that all of the members of the special
crops advisory committee should be appointed and that the
government was not proposing to appoint some producers. Indeed
that is correct. I have with me Bill C-26 which would amend the
Canada Grain Act. The member is correct. In fact the situation
would be that if there are nine members on the board, a majority
of them would be chosen by the government and the others would
come from elsewhere.
I simply point out that under the plan that is being proposed by
the official opposition all of those nine positions would come
from producer groups. The parliamentary secretary is suggesting
that the government would still retain the power to choose a
bunch of unelected hacks, political patronage appointees, for
some of these positions. We say that is wrong. We say all nine
positions should be filled by the producers. I do not think that
is radical. I think it makes sense. That is what the witnesses
told the committee and the member knows it.
He also knows that Canadians are democrats. They want to have
their representatives on these boards which are supposed to
represent their interests. That is just common sense.
Although the member was quite correct in pointing out where I
had misspoken, I think he was true to the letter of what I was
saying if not the spirit. That is where he was wrong.
I want to touch on the voluntary check-off idea for a moment.
Reformers moved this in committee. It is now being moved by
Conservatives at report stage. We agree with it. We agree with
the idea of a voluntary check-off. The idea of having a mandatory
check-off I know producers disagree with.
1245
I have heard it from producers in my riding. They told me as
much. They want the voluntary option. They do not like the idea
of the government holding on to their money until the end of the
year and then getting it back in some way, shape or form. They
like the voluntary option.
I remind my friends across the way, if they wonder how this will
go over with people, of what happened when the cable industry
proposed to do the same thing with cable television, this idea of
negative option billing. It went over like a lead balloon. There
was a virtual revolt because consumers want to have the choice.
Consumer sovereignty, what a novel idea. It should be the same
thing in Bill C-26 but the government always wants to have its
own way. It always takes the attitude that it knows better. It
does not know better.
Why not give people the option? Why not let it be voluntary?
What is wrong with that? Why not have the voluntary option? We
know that the groups that appeared before the committee almost to
a person said they wanted the voluntary option. What is so wrong
with that? Why not listen to what people are saying? Why hold
hearings if no one listens to what people are saying? I think
that is fair. I think it makes sense.
Unfortunately the government has missed the whole idea behind
the point of having witnesses appear before a committee. It is
to get some guidance on how these things are supposed to work.
Remember that the witnesses are the people who are affected. They
have a stake in it. They have their whole livelihood in this so
why would they not be the ones who are best suited to make those
choices, to make those judgments? Why is the government not
listening to the real experts? That is what it should be doing.
We disagree with the whole idea of the government's having the
sole ability to pick whomever it wants to sit on this board, some
of them of course would be producers but again it could go ahead
and pick only producers with the right political credentials and
some of them would be people who would probably be political
appointments, probably defeated Liberal MPs from the prairies, of
which there are many after the last election.
They have a lot to choose from, a big slate this time, even
though some have already been scooped up into other patronage
positions so perhaps they would have to serve in two patronage
positions at once, I do not know.
Second, we disagree with the idea of the mandatory check-off.
Not only do producers not want it, it is contrary to the whole
idea of consumer sovereignty. I remind the government that if it
is going to have witnesses, and a bunch of them tell it what to
do, listen to them. Hello in there, listen to them. That is
what people want. They want to have their testimony listened to
and abided by, especially when they speak more or less with one
voice.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I too am in support of the motions put forward by
the member for Brandon—Souris. I think this has been one of the
most controversial parts of the bill.
The insurance program for special crops producers in Bill C-26
will be financed by producers from a levy or check-off on all
crops delivered to the buyers and dealers. The government says
this insurance program is voluntary.
As we have heard and as is clear, that is not quite true.
Farmers have to pay a levy up front and at the end of the year
according to the government's plan, they can apply to get their
money back. This is rather like the negative option billing
process put forward by the cable television suppliers. We know
that generated a consumer revolt. People simply do not want
these kinds of procedures in order to ensure they have insurance
coverage should they want it.
What we heard at the agriculture committee when Bill C-26 was
discussed was many producer groups asking that the insurance plan
be made voluntary. They said that farmers would not appreciate
another check-off, that they would not appreciate the paperwork
necessary to get their money back at the end of the year.
A motion was put at committee that the plan be made voluntary
but government members voted it down.
1250
This is a difficult position to be in. The main trust of the
bill is something we support but this managing nature is
something we do not support. As a result, New Democrat members
will support the motions put forward by the member for
Brandon—Souris, the effect of which would provide producers with
a choice in their payment of the insurance levy. As I have said,
this is what producers through their commodity organizations have
requested.
Government members at the hearings of the agriculture committee
had no solid explanation as to why this plan should be made
mandatory and had no explanation as to why that was a better
choice than making it voluntary. We have yet to hear arguments
as to why having the plan voluntary would not work effectively,
especially since it is what producers want.
The motions put forward by the member for Brandon—Souris are
asking that the right thing be done by producers. I hope
government members will vote in support of those motions unless
we hear good, solid explanations as to why the voluntary nature
of the plan which growers want is something that will not work.
To date we have heard nothing and I doubt we ever will. Therefore
I urge members to vote in favour of these amendments.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would first like to compliment the Conservative Party
for picking up on this clause and giving us this second group of
amendments to the bill to make it voluntary. It is very important
and quite complementary to what farmers want.
What does voluntary really mean? To me it means something I
decide how to do and how I want to handle it.
The comment was made that it is only 38 cents per $100 that this
is going to cost farmers. Maybe that is not that huge a sum but
when we look at the input costs of farmers to the 38 cents on
every $100 they spend it is another 3.8% increase in expenses.
They are the best to decide whether they have the funds available
to service that extra debt.
When I look at 38 cents per $100 I know that covers our hail
insurance premiums which is something we need because we are in a
hail area. If we do not have that coverage we are probably out
of luck and looking at bankruptcy around the corner if we cannot
cover our costs.
I cannot condemn this plan as a total package because I think it
is going in the right direction. However, the Liberal government
would find that if it were voluntary to the terms that a farmer
would define as voluntary, it would probably receive 90% to 95%
acceptance if farmers could afford that money. The majority of
farmers want to take risks out of their operations. With the
huge input costs it is becoming harder and harder to make that
bottom line meet what it is suppose to.
As the parliamentary secretary said, it is not a fund. It is an
insurance plan. However, we still have to realize it is set up
for the special crops industry and they will have to make it
financially sound. If it does not pay the expenses or the claims
that will be processed against it they will have to increase that
premium to make it viable or else there will be no insurance
plan.
Those are things we have to consider. If we make it mandatory
and then all of a sudden the premium rates increase to $1 per
$100 that probably would be something that farmers could not
afford.
I like to believe that governments always intend the best but
sometimes because they do not listen to producer groups or
farmers maybe the intention is not fulfilled or it somehow gets
distracted. When the parliamentary secretary says that there
will be at least five producers on that advisory board, that
still leaves the option of four appointed political people or
friends or whomever they would like to appoint.
That means they would only have to persuade one out of five
farmers to side with them and farmer clout would be gone as far
as the board is concerned.
1255
When I hear politicians saying they will make it as simple as
possible, this really bothers me. What does that really mean?
During debate not too long ago the hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville talked about Bill C-68 and the regulations put
forward. The member indicated how they were becoming impossible
to implement and costs would be prohibitive. One of the Liberal
members stated it is no more complex than the Income Tax Act. If
that is the simple method implemented to bring this bill forward
I would be really scared on simplification. I think that spells
disaster.
This is the reason farmers are very hesitant to approve
something they do not have control over. We know that with the
regulations we now have on farms regarding environmental issues,
such as gasoline tanks being diked, it is becoming very hard for
farmers to have the right to farm. That is why I think they are
very hesitant to accept this bill when the voluntary portion is
not included in it. I must compliment the Conservative Party for
bringing this forward. I think this will make the bill fly if the
amendment is passed and it will be quite successful.
The parliamentary secretary indicated that the government would
listen and act in good faith. I want to believe that is going to
happen but we have to look back approximately one year when the
wheat board minister, who was the agriculture minister, set up
the Western Grain Marketing Panel.
For a year and a half we heard in this House that farmers were
going to get marketing choices. The government said it would
listen to farmers and spent a couple of million dollars
travelling across western Canada. I think the committee did
listen. There were some very good people whom the minister
appointed to that panel. They did a very good job. What has
happened to that report? Absolutely nothing. None of the
suggestions by the panel was accepted. Its advice was not heeded.
The then minister of agriculture went back to farmers and had
them write letters. Thousands of letters came in. They said
exactly the opposite of what the Western Grain Marketing Panel
had said. All the suggestions and recommendations were thrown
aside.
We are again debating Bill C-4 and not only has it created a lot
of debate in the House but it also forced the Senate to have
another round of hearings in western Canada and listen to
farmers. We have spent millions of dollars on the process of
listening and wanting to act in good faith.
We have to show our producers, our constituents and taxpayers
that we really want to act in good faith. Let us accept what
people tell government, implement their suggestions, implement
the regulations they would like to see in these bills and then
act on it. Bills can be changed. Nothing says this bill is for
eternity. We may have a different government after the next
election and it may say it does not think the regulations are
right. Let us get something the general public, the producer and
the taxpayer, really thinks is in its interest and is cost
effective.
I am certain that if farmers believe this insurance plan and
this licensing plan is worth the money spent on it they will
support it. I have never seen a program yet in western Canada
during the 35 years that I was a farmer that was not supported by
the majority of farmers if it made sense.
Practically 75% to 85% of the farmers in my area supported the
western grain stabilization act. When they realized how it
really worked when it triggered payouts close to 100% supported
it. Other farmers wanted to join. They had that option. They
were allowed to join.
1300
That is what I think would happen with Bill C-26. If it was
made voluntary, we would be amazed at the percentage of farmers
who would support it and would give the government credit for
making it voluntary and cost effective and for ensuring that
there was protection not just for the producers but also for the
processing industry. When they work together, get good
protection, get the markets, it can only help everybody.
I was astounded when I spoke to two young farmers last week. I
asked if they were hear to listen to the Senate hearings on Bill
C-4. One of the young gentlemen said that they were here to try
to create a seed industry, the export of seeds, for pinto beans
to Mexico. I asked why they were interested in growing pinto
beans as seed for Mexico.
He said that they had developed this industry and they were
always running into problems with foreign markets. The Mexicans
are producing an inferior product. The people who wanted to buy
the product hedged on the price saying that the Mexicans could
sell them the product for less money, but they never looked at
the quality of that product. They were trying to develop a seed
market for the Mexican farmers so that it would improve their
product and they would have a level playing field on the foreign
markets.
That is the way the special crops industry has worked over the
years. It is a tremendous asset to this country. We should
accommodate their wishes and pass these amendments.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak in support of the
amendments by the hon. for Brandon—Souris to this legislation.
I am pleased to know it is the intention of the government to
keep its program as simple as possible. That warms my heart. We
hear quite a bit of this. This is the government of all
governments that loves to regulate, loves complications, loves
paperwork, loves to control people. As somebody said earlier in
this debate, it likes to keep its foot on people's necks to keep
them down. That is the traditional Liberal approach in both
social and economic matters. I guess it is something one has to
get used to.
I am very fortunate as a farmer in that I produce the one
commodity which this government has not yet managed to get its
grubby little hands on. I still have the possibility of raising
a product and selling it. I do not have to get permits. I do
not have to tug at my rural forelock when I approach some
bureaucrat. I take my product, which happens to be beef cattle,
to the market and I run them through the ring. The auctioneer
says sold, I get all my money and that is it, finished. That is
the last I see of them.
An hon. member says to just wait. Actually we have had to fight
this fight on several occasions. There have been constant
threatening moves on the part of various federal governments over
the years to intervene in our market. We have always been able
to stave them off because we have an extremely strong producers
organization which defends us from the machinations of the
politicians.
We have been able to keep ourselves independent. We do have a
small check-off but it is organized by us for us. We deal with
our own business and we do not have any government intervention.
It is lovely.
There is a situation in my riding which I think is relevant.
There is a fellow who grows organic wheat as he calls it, no
pesticides and no herbicides. It is not a special crop in the
sense of Bill C-26, but a special crop nonetheless.
He has problems with his marketing. The elevator system cannot
handle the product because the moment it touches a commercial
elevator it is no longer certifiable. It will be contaminated
with the product already in the system. That cannot be avoided.
He has to find his own markets. He has to arrange the
transportation. He does it all himself.
1305
Right now Mr. Arnold Schmidt of Fox Valley in my riding has a
trailer load of his product sitting at Emerson, Manitoba. This
trailer load of product has been hijacked by the federal
government. He wants to get it across the border. This is not a
carload of grain in a hopper car. It is a bagged product sitting
at Emerson, Manitoba. It costs the man $25 a day to have it
sitting there effectively under seizure. He can bring it home if
he wants to but this would not be a terribly productive
operation. If he does, it will cost him more money.
He is supposed to buy that product back from the Canadian Wheat
Board. In other words it can be sold to the Canadian Wheat Board
and then bought back. In the process about 90 cents a bushel is
dribbled off to the government for a service that was not
provided. He is not in any pooling system. They cannot use his
product but under those regulations he would have to pay into the
pool. He has to pay ransom to get his product out of the
country.
Understandably this man is a little upset. The problem is that
this is his sole means of livelihood. He grows literally
thousands of acres of organically grown grains. He is marketing
it mostly in Canada but some of it goes outside Canada. There is
an outfit in the states called Our Daily Bread which deals in
nothing but organically grown grain.
All of a sudden, without warning and for no apparent reason, the
government has decided it will enforce this and nail the guy
down. This is an example of how the benevolence of government,
doing things that are supposed to help us farmers, can simply
make life difficult for us.
The people who grow beans, peas and lentils to a large extent
are doing it because these products are not under government
control. It is a free market out there for this stuff. People
can do as they like just as I can do with my cattle. They have
their own producers organizations which apparently function very
well. However when the government sees something that is not
regulated “My God, we have to do something. These people are
dangerous. They are making a living and we are not involved”.
This drives me around the bend. How many years have we been
growing specialty crops on the prairies? Not very many. Perhaps
one of my colleagues could tell me. Is it 12 years, 15 years?
An hon. member: Fifteen years tops.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Fifteen years tops. It has taken that
long for the government to wake up to the fact that there is
something out there it has not yet regulated “We have failed in
our duties as a government. Let us get out there and grab them
by the neck”.
I return to the specific amendments being proposed. They
certainly will ease the pain. Why anybody should be subjected to
a form of negative billing by their very own government truly
escapes me.
When the cable companies during the last parliament were
negative billing on their cable services, there were members on
the other side who went berserk. Now the government is proposing
negative billing and apparently it is quite all right. Mother
government has determined that this is the way to go.
Again my compliments to the member for Brandon—Souris. I
wholeheartedly support his amendments.
I wish the amendments went further in the sense that I do not
think that too many of these people growing specialty crops if it
comes right down to it even want the bill, but if we are going to
have it, surely it could be improved.
1310
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to join the debate today on the second group of
amendments to Bill C-26.
There has been quite a debate here about government's role in
the specialty crops area. I think the phrase that is hated most
of all on the prairies is “I am from the federal government and
I am here to help you”. That is when farmers and producers head
for cover in the back 40. They know they may have a
well-intentioned government out there ready to provide a program
but quite often it goes off the rails in the process. Some of my
colleagues have already talked about that today.
The issue here really is a matter of whether this is a voluntary
check-off or one that is a negative option billing and has to be
applied for. It seems that government has not learned a lesson
from the cable television industry issue that raised so much
furore a couple of years ago. It is okay to back off there but
when it comes to farmers, mother government knows best. It
sounds like something we used to hear out of Russia in the height
of the central planning days. It certainly did not work there
and I do not see how it is going to work here.
The issue itself of whether there should be insurance for these
producers of specialty crops is not a bad one but it is one which
should be decided by the producers themselves. As one of my
colleagues said earlier, if we take half a per cent here and one
per cent there, pretty soon it adds up to something big. Farmers
are under a lot of stress already and have difficulty competing.
They want to decide for themselves whether they want to take
insurance.
On my own home farm in Alberta we do not choose to take hail
insurance. It is an option we have. It is a management tool. It
is available. That is the way it should be with regard to the
specialty crops issue. It should be available. If farmers want
it, they will support it. If enough of them support it, it is
going to be a viable option. If they do not, or if only 20%
support it, maybe it is not going to be viable and maybe it is
something that really is not needed. It seems to me that farmers
should have that choice.
Choice is not something the government seems to offer when it
comes to farmers. On the Canadian Wheat Board debate, if there
was a choice offered, producers would vote with their product.
They would support whatever system worked best for them. Maybe
two systems could work side by side, the Canadian Wheat Board
working side by side with the free market option. Maybe it could
work that way and I think it probably would. Surely the choice
should be left up to the producers. It is in every other aspect
of Canadian life. It seems to me that is what should be done
here as well.
It bothers me that the government has chosen to take a negative
approach, that farmers have to pay it unless they want it back.
The government seems to think that farmers will forget about it
and it will sort of chew away and that money will be added to the
pool.
If this was voluntary and farmers decided not to take it, what
is the issue? The farmers would no longer be eligible for that
insurance. Farmers would know that, in the same way they know
that if they do not choose to take crop insurance they are not
eligible to collect. If they do not choose to take hail
insurance, they are not eligible to collect hail insurance. It
would be the same here. It is a choice.
It seems that the government has a condescending view of
farmers, that they are people who cannot run their own lives and
do not know how to operate a business. I have a big surprise for
the Liberal government. Farmers know full well what they are
doing. They are running operations which in many cases are in the
millions of dollars. They make choices every day. They make
choices on what kind of fertilizer to put on, what kind of seed,
what is the best kind. They access information through the
Internet on the best varieties. These people are intelligent.
Surely they can decide whether they want an insurance program for
specialty crops.
1315
In the Peace River country a lot of people are growing peas, a
speciality crop. It is a management tool that surely should be
available to them but let them make the decision. Why should
they have to wait a year to get their money back if they do not
want to participate in the project? They would not be covered
for the insurance if they decided to get their money back at the
end of the year. The pool would have that money for a full year.
It is a bureaucratic set-up. It takes time to get it back and
for the check-off to take place. Surely the better system would
be to have it voluntary so that they would say this is a
management tool they want and need in their business.
Another issue is the issue of having some responsibility for
farmers who do not want to take that insurance. They have a
choice in to whom they sell product. They have a choice in the
same way that if I produced a book I could sell the book. If I
produced a pen I could sell it to somebody. If I thought the
person was a poor credit risk, that he or she would go broke and
not pay me, I would want to do some investigative research to
know it was a stable company when I hauled my product there.
Why do we need government interfering in all that process? Could
it not just be a process for those people who choose a voluntary
process? Could it not just be a process that says “I will sell
my peas off my farm to that company, but before doing that I want
to know that when I get a cheque it will not be NSF, that the
company is good for it. I have a choice of whether or not I take
insurance. If I decide I do not want that 2% cost to me I will
do my own research and find out whether or not it is a viable
company?”
I suggest that 98% of the commerce that goes on in Canada out of
a $750 billion gross domestic product takes place in that manner.
Government does not interfere in all areas of business. When we
buy a car there is no insurance that says the company will to
produce it. It is a simple business transaction. It seems to me
the same should apply here.
Those are my comments. I know a lot of people in my riding of
Peace River would choose not to participate if it were voluntary.
There are those who would choose to participate. I guess it
would be a matter of whether there were enough people involved in
the process to make it into an economic feasible insurance
program. If there are not enough people who want to participate
maybe it should not be in place to begin with.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-26.
I thank the member for Prince George—Peace River and the members
of the agriculture committee from the Conservative Party for
working on the amendments and coming up with a very good list of
improvements to the bill. It is a pleasure to rise to support
the amendments that the Conservative Party has put forward today.
The idea that farmers and producers need government involvement
in regulations to implement an insurance plan is wrong. These
producers are running huge operations and are very capable of
making proper management decisions to maximize the return on
their investment.
Right now across the prairies it is springtime and choices are
being made as to what crop to seed, how to prepare the seed bed,
when to do that, and everything that goes along with those
decisions: fertilizer, spray or whatever. They are made by the
farmer because the farmer makes those decisions in his own best
interest.
The idea that government has come forward with this licensing
program to have a negative option billing system is wrong. We
saw it last year or the year before when cable companies were
trying to use that method. It is just not right, the fact we
have to tell somebody we do not want that and unless we say no we
will get it.
What is that? That is not the way the country should be run. If
farmers want to be involved in an insurance plan they will
indicate that they want to be involved. They will let the
minister know up front and they are involved. This way they have
to let the minister know they do not want to be part of the plan.
The levy is still taken from them and then they have to apply to
get it back.
That just creates another set of books to be kept by farmers.
1320
All we are hearing is that producers want government out of
their lives. They want to be able to make their own decisions,
run their own operations and do what they know is best for them.
They do not need to keep another set of books. They do not need
to pay their accountants another $50 or $100 to figure this one
out. If they could let it be known up front that they do not
want to be involved, it could be a voluntary process. It would
go a long way toward improving what the bill is trying to do.
We are speaking in support of the amendments in Group No. 2 put
forward by the Conservative Party. They were also raised and
discussed in committee. They are good amendments. They are good
quality suggestions on how to improve a bill and make it more
friendly for western producers.
However they were defeated by Liberal committee members. They
have come back in this form and there is a chance to debate them
in the House. They were debated at committee. Witnesses came
before committee to suggest some things and now we have the
ability to discuss them here, to have another airing of them. I
hope government members will see the light and find their way
clear to support some of them.
There is this idea of government being involved in everything we
do in our lives. What is government's role in the lives of
farmers and Canadians in general? How much should it be
involved? We are being overregulated, overgoverned and
overtaxed. We need the government to establish an atmosphere in
which we can thrive. That is all we ask. We ask to be left
alone in whatever endeavours we choose. That is certainly true
for the agricultural community. Some people in the agricultural
community are far better qualified to have more input into how
things can be developed in Canada than any government member.
We debated the Canadian Wheat Board Act about a month ago.
Government members all voted for that bill with its amendments.
Yet only 14 of them had a direct relationship to the western
grain producer. That shows how these things can be taken away
from the people who have most to do with them.
We should create an atmosphere within the agricultural community
for entrepreneurs to come forward, to develop their own skills,
and to have voluntary means for becoming involved in different
programs. They are asking for the option to run their own lives.
They want the government out of their lives. They fill out
enough forms. The government knows enough about their operations
already. It does not need to be involved any more.
I offer my support to these amendments. I hope the entire House
will see the merit of them.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened to some of my colleagues speak to the amendments to the
bill. It brought me back a few years to shortly after we were
first elected in 1993. This issue arose then. It was a fairly
major issue in my part of Saskatchewan.
In my old riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre a good number of
people produced specialty crops. There were also dealers that
bought and sold the various crops. I talked to many of those
fellows at that point in time. A great many were certainly
supportive, if not anxious, to see some sort of insurance program
whereby producers could be assured that their produce would be
insured against any company that might happen to get into
financial trouble.
Many dealers wanted to see this take place. Unfortunately it
did not happen as quickly as it might have or could have, but it
was not for lack of trying on many people's part. At that time
some government members liked the idea of an insurance program.
I see one of them in the House right now.
1325
That is not what I am here to argue or to debate today. I truly
believe that there should be and must be some way to protect
dealers and producers from unfortunate events taking place within
a company.
What strikes me as odd is that if we speak with farmers in the
coffee shops and grain elevators in central Saskatchewan where I
come from, generally speaking the federal government will become
the laughing stock of the conversation. This is not all the time
but a lot of the time. The angle farmers take is that the federal
government is in their faces again and whenever it gets involved
things cannot be good.
This amendment allows producers to have voluntary participation
in the program. That is the key to having some success within
the system.
If we look at other aspects—and we do not have to be farmers to
think some of these ideas—obviously we do not have carry fire
insurance on our houses if we do not want to. It is voluntary.
We do not have to carry insurance on possessions if we choose not
to. Obviously most Canadians carry insurance because we could
not afford to have any type of major loss.
That is also the case in the farm business. Many farmers carry
crop insurance because they cannot afford a single loss. They
all carry insurance on their farm machinery because they cannot
afford to lose a $200,000 combine, which would break many
producers.
The key is that the whole system is voluntary and that is what
makes it effective. As a farmer I have not carried crop
insurance for about 10 or 12 years because I thought it was too
expensive for what I might get back out of it if I lost a crop. I
was prepared to look after myself in the event of crop failure.
We have had a few in Saskatchewan. We are not like Peace River
in northern British Columbia where if they do not get 60 bushels
an acre it is a failure. I happen to live in Saskatchewan where
we are quite happy if we get 60 bushels in two or three acres.
That is the difference.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Try P.E.I.
Mr. Allan Kerpan: We hear the member for Prince Edward
Island. Those people happen to be very wealthy. I do not know
why he is even in the House speaking about this issue because
they do not need an insurance program in P.E.I. The point is
that it has to be voluntary.
I will look at a side issue, GST, and how it is collected from
farmers. A huge bureaucracy has been created in Revenue Canada
to handle the GST revenue. It is ridiculous. I have always said
that.
If farmers are buying a product, a piece of equipment or
something that they need for the farm and it is zero rated, why
do they pay the GST up front, go through the bureaucracy of
applying to get it back, run it through a paper trail that is six
miles long and finally get their cheques back for the GST in
about four or five months?
Mr. Lee Morrison: You just don't understand.
Mr. Allan Kerpan: The member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands says that I do not understand. I guess he is
absolutely right. I just do not understand why we do these
things in our system today.
There is a simple way to do it in Bill C-26. We have the
computer system and the technology. We have other check-offs to
which we have access if we want to take them. However, when I
sell my load of lentils and if I choose to buy the insurance
should be up to me. It must not be up to the bureaucracy or the
federal government.
One of my learned colleagues in the Chamber just a few minutes
ago mentioned the cattle industry. I produce a few cows. I have
the opportunity to sell to whom I want. I do not have to worry
about check-offs. I do not have to worry about the bureaucracy.
If I lose money by selling to the wrong person and a cheque
bounces, that is my responsibility. I have nobody to blame but
myself.
1330
For far too long, in both provincial and federal governments, we
as a country, in all areas of our society, have come to say that
government must be all things to all people.
The time is long past for that kind of thinking. We must take
some responsibility for our own actions. If we buy something
that does not work, if we sell something that does not work, yes
it is unfortunate, but we have to be prepared to look after
ourselves.
Another issue that comes to mind is the Canada pension plan. We
went through a huge debate on that during the last six months as
to how it should work. We are hearing more and more people say
they are not going to rely on the CPP because it probably will
not be there when they retire.
That is the same kind of thinking that we are getting from
farmers in the agriculture industry. They are saying “Get out
of my face. Leave me alone. I will look after myself. If
things go bad I have no one to blame. Nobody else has to take
that responsibility”.
A member of our party mentioned a while ago the pretty good
success that farmers, at least in western Canada, have had with
special crops. My area is no different. We have been able to
grow lentils, peas and other things that we never grew before
simply because the varieties are better and we have had good
weather, resulting in some decent crops.
We made some money over those few years. We have made a few
dollars on those special crops. In fact they have kept a lot of
the farmers in my area in business. During the late 1980s and
early 1990s prices were deflated and many farmers went bankrupt.
They were forced to switch to those special crops. The only
thing I would say is that we probably waited a little too long
because they have been very good for us. What could put a damper
on that sector of the industry is overregulation from any level
of government and I think that is what we are seeing in Bill
C-26.
Bill C-4 which amended the Canadian Wheat Board was passed by
this House not too long ago. It is now in the Senate. Again,
that bill will overregulate. It will put people in place to
create a huge bureaucracy where none is required.
I would tell the government to back off, to listen to what the
regular farmers are saying and only give that type of assistance
or help where people want it and where it is required.
I would say to the member for Brandon—Souris that I appreciate
the fact that he brought this amendment back to the House at this
stage. Certainly I would support that kind of thinking.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to join in this discussion again, simply
because we have something here which I believe we do not want to
make compulsory.
I want to draw to the attention of my hon. friends opposite that
in Saskatchewan and the three western provinces at this time
those farmers who wish to contribute to research do so and it is
deducted at the elevator. Those who do not wish to do so have no
deductions.
I might add that it is not compulsory. There is not very much
complaining; none in fact. But the number of farmers who are
contributing, according to the latest information I have, is very
high.
An hon. member: How high?
Mr. Roy Bailey: I do not know, but the last I have is
that it is high.
But I do know this. We have a new venture. We have a new
series of crops. We have a new industry in the west. All of a
sudden the thinking is that if we cannot get more compulsory
aspects into it then of course that is a bad thing.
What the hon. member for Brandon—Souris is doing in bringing in
these resolutions is simply saying “Let the industry, the
agency and the board prove themselves. If they want to go in and
take insurance, fine. Let them take it. If they do not feel it
is worth it, then let them opt out”. That is how simple it is.
But to demand insurance when there is no proven product is not a
very good thing.
If I carry house insurance with the same company for a number of
years and I find out that when I put in a claim I get zippo out
of it, what am I going to do?
I am going to at least change companies. Under this plan they
will not have a choice; they are either in or out.
1335
These motions deal with the insurance plan. If they can prove
to the producers that it is good, then they will have them all
in. If they see that it is not good, they have the right to drop
out with nothing to declare. Nothing could be fairer.
When we have a new commodity group coming into being I do not
understand why they want to add a compulsory element. Why do we
not let the producer decide? It is his crop and his risk, so let
him decide. We should not force him into a program where he may
wait two or three years after his premiums have been used up to
see whether it is valuable or not. If we go into this we should
at least allow it to be voluntary.
Some things we need to have compulsory insurance on. All across
Canada we need to have compulsory insurance on our cars. The
reason for that is not so much that we may wreck our own
property, but we may hurt someone else. We can all understand
that type of compulsory insurance. It is not compulsory to put
fire insurance on our houses and it should not be compulsory for
the producers of the specialty crops to have to put insurance on
those crops. Many people feel they cannot afford to do this.
Therefore, to make it compulsory is not adding anything
whatsoever to this industry.
Ask the western farmers if they should have this. What did the
witnesses say in committee? Did they say they wanted compulsory
insurance? No, they did not say that. If they did not say that,
if the producers do not want it, I think we are going too far by
making it mandatory.
Yes, they can have insurance. Let them enter the insurance
plan, but if they do not want to stay in it then let them out.
Let the thing work on its own merit. We should not have
something that is compulsory and keeps going because it is run by
a few, whether it is making payments or whether the producer is
left to evaluate it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 2 stands deferred until tomorrow afternoon at the end
of Government Orders. The recorded division will also apply to
Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6.
* * *
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
The House resumed from May 4 consideration of Bill C-3, an act
respecting DNA identification and to make consequential
amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 7.
1340
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-3 at report
stage. I will restrict my comments to Group No. 3.
I support the amendment as proposed by the member for
Sydney—Victoria even though it causes me some concern.
Throughout the review of this legislation by the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights we heard from many
witnesses about their fears and worries over abuse, leaks and
criminal misuse of the DNA databank. To overcome these fears and
to protect against the wrongful use of DNA information we need
some form of consequence.
The hon. member for Crowfoot proposed an amendment before the
justice committee to limit the punishment in clause 11 to
strictly indictable with a maximum term of two years. Motion No.
7 maintains the dual procedure aspect, but increases the maximum
indictable procedure to five years. If we are to protect the
information in the databank we require sufficient consequence to
offenders.
I believe that many of the naysayers to DNA legislation will be
brought on side when parliament impresses upon them how seriously
we intend to attempt to protect potentially sensitive DNA
information.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the amendment in
Group No. 3 to Bill C-3. At the outset I would like to state
that this particular amendment addresses two real concerns that I
hear constantly from Canadians as I travel across Canada and
throughout my riding.
One is the whole issue of the privacy of the individual; the
privacy of individual Canadian citizens. The second issue
concerns sufficient deterrence to dissuade Canadians who might
break the law in some fashion. In this particular case we are
talking about those who might reveal information contained in DNA
sampling. We want to make the threshold of the penalty
sufficiently high enough to ensure that people will be dissuaded
from releasing that type of information.
Very clearly, as my hon. colleague for Surrey North just noted,
during testimony when the justice committee was reviewing Bill
C-3 there were a number of concerns brought forward by witnesses
dealing with these two fundamental issues. One concern is
privacy. How will the DNA samples be protected to ensure they
will not be used in a manner in which they are not intended to be
used? We have seen cases in the past dealing with income tax and
other issues whereby government agencies obtained certain
information about Canadian citizens which was ultimately leaked
into the public arena. A growing concern for Canadian citizens
is their fundamental right to privacy. One of the major
stumbling blocks in this DNA legislation is the need to convince
Canadians that it will be used appropriately and properly and
that the legislation is in place to protect the well-being of
society, because there is an inherent distrust.
I would suggest that with the advent of things like Bill C-68,
the gun registration, there is a growing inherent distrust of
government on the part of the average Canadian citizen. There
are some good reasons for that. Citizens have seen some of their
fundamental rights continuously eroded, continuously chipped away
by big government. Big government knows best. Big government is
going to look after us from the cradle to the grave. We had some
speeches on this very point in the preceding debate on Bill C-26.
We have to ensure that the concerns about the right to privacy
are adequately addressed. How are we going to ensure that?
Simply put, as my hon. colleague from Surrey North just said,
deterrence has to be sufficient. Any individual who would break
the law and reveal that information has to be dissuaded from
doing it.
We want to have the penalties sufficient to deter them from doing
it. I often refer to the system not as a criminal justice system
unfortunately but as a legal system. Too often we see in our
criminal justice system that it is not meeting the needs of the
average Canadian.
1345
The system is failing. A large part of that is because there is
inadequate punishment for crimes. We need some minimal sentences.
We need some sentences that truly deter those who would break
the law.
We have seen in the last couple of years farmers receive more
punishment for trucking a load of grain across the U.S. border
and selling their own product without getting the necessary
Canadian Wheat Board permits than someone who commits rape,
someone who preys on the most vulnerable in our society, the
women and children. It is disgusting that people can get away
with conditional sentencing. Those people are not deterred
whatsoever from committing heinous crimes against the most
vulnerable members of society.
This Liberal government continues to do nothing to address the
issue of conditional sentencing and the need for minimal
sentences to deter these individuals. This is absolutely
appalling.
We have contained in Group No. 3 a proposal that deserves
serious consideration. We want to increase this penalty from two
years to five years to make it sufficient to hopefully deter
anyone from doing such things and, perhaps more important, to
ensure Canadians can have confidence that the government is
serious about preventing this information from getting out.
These Group No. 3 amendments deserve serious consideration and I
urge all members to do exactly that.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-3, the taking and
storing of DNA samples.
When the solicitor general introduced the bill last fall I
attended the press conference for the release of the bill. One of
the biggest concerns members of the media had was how we would
protect ourselves, protect society from the misuse and abuse of
someone holding key information that we all contain in our
bodies, DNA sampling.
I want to make it straight, up front, plain and clear that we in
our party felt the idea of a DNA bank and sampling was a great
idea, a wonderful idea. Make no mistake, we certainly support
that type of thinking.
I spent a week in Washington, D.C. last fall speaking with
experts about DNA sampling and other justice matters. One of the
things I discovered when I was there is how much faith the
Americans are putting into this DNA bank. Certainly there are
some things in the American system that I would not want to see
in Canada, make no mistake about that. The feeling among the
scientific and technological community in the United States is
that this is the biggest breakthrough since the introduction of
fingerprints in being able to identify criminals. That is a
huge step.
This DNA identification act is such an important part of such
groundbreaking technology that it has the absolute ability to
solve crimes committed many years ago. Where most evidence may
have been lost, misplaced or forgotten about, we have the ability
under this bill with this kind of technology to solve a crime
that has remained unsolved for years. Think of the impact that is
going to have on families of victims.
1350
Many who have never been able to find out who committed a
terrible act against a member of their family will now have that
opportunity through this technology to solve those crimes.
On the other side of that, and we have seen it recently with a
couple of major cases in Canada, is the ability to exonerate
people who have been wrongfully accused. There are people on both
sides of this issue, also those who would like to see DNA not
used for many reasons. We have now the ability to exonerate
people who have been wrongly convicted. I think that is just as
important as it is for those who need to see crimes solved.
The key to this is that the samples for this DNA registry must
be taken at the proper time, used properly and stored properly.
That is what Group No. 3 deals with, the absolute assurance that
these DNA samples will not be used for other types of activities
that would be both illegal and morally wrong.
I have been a strong supporter of the idea that we need to take
DNA samples at the point of arrest because obviously that is the
most beneficial time. We need to have those samples go with that
accused person right through their trial and if they are found
guilty, those DNA samples would remain a part of our DNA registry
that would become a large part of our criminologists' files.
The final step is that the samples of those people who are found
not guilty must be removed from the registry in order to
safeguard the privacy of innocent people.
Group No. 3 also talks about the ability to assure our society
that these samples are not used improperly. This is an
opportunity to have a very strong set of regulations in this
area. I spoke a few minutes ago on Bill C-26. I said government
overregulates and we have far too much bureaucracy and I still
believe that. But here is an area where we must come down hard.
We must use the maximum amount of punishment to assure people
that their DNA samples will not be used for devious purposes.
This is an area where government policy and laws need to play a
very important role.
We all know people have access and have the ability to hack into
computers. We know this is happening. There is no question in my
mind that people are getting into our police computers on a
regular basis and it is pretty hard to stop. We must have strong
enough laws in place to make sure that those people are caught,
convicted and punished to the full extent of the law.
That is the only way we are going to see a DNA registry really
have the acceptance and the success that I think it can have. It
can be a major breakthrough in crime detection and even
prevention. We know a criminal will say that if there is an
increased chance they will get caught for this crime, they will
think twice about committing that crime in the first place,
especially in the areas of rather petty crimes.
We have to put all the links of this chain together to make Bill
C-3 successful, in the taking and storing of DNA samples.
1355
Without all those pegs being put into the proper holes, the
registry or the bank itself has the very strong possibility of
not being successful and not being used to its fullest extent.
I really support the kind of idea where we would come down
heavy. I want to also be a little negative toward the government
because in some areas of other amendments that we proposed for
this bill, it has pretty much ignored us.
The government is not prepared to move on some of the amendments
we talked about such as taking samples at the point of arrest. I
think without having all these links in place the bill itself may
fall far short of what it is really capable of.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to the Group No. 3 motions of Bill C-3, an
act that would bring about a DNA database.
There are two key issues we need to address here. One is the
issue of privacy and the other is the issue of deterrence. My
friend from Prince George—Peace River talked a little about
this.
I think it is very important that whatever system is put in
place people know their privacy is ensured. As finance critic
for the official opposition, I could say how many times we have
had people come forward to say how very concerned they are with
respect to the information they have to give to banks and to
government organizations.
People want to know that information will not be misused. That
is a pretty important consideration. I think a lot of people are
concerned in a day and age where technology has become all
encompassing.
Giving information to one person may mean that it is spread out,
that everybody has access to it everywhere. It is a very
legitimate concern. I support the hon. member's motion to put in
place some big penalties to ensure that if people misuse this
information they will face a very severe penalty, up to five
years in prison.
I support this absolutely because knowledge is power. I think
we need to ensure whatever system is set up that we have the
right deterrents in place to guarantee that the information will
not be misused.
I support what the hon. member has brought forward as a motion
in Group No. 3. I think it is a good idea. We need to support
it.
The Speaker: My colleague, you still have eight minutes
left. I know you were just getting into the meat of your
argument. We will return to you right after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ITALY
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour the victims of the
tragic mudslides that ravaged southern Italy last week.
In an instant the mudslides destroyed homes and buried
families, killing hundreds and destroying the lives of thousands.
Almost 2,000 people are homeless and the economy of the region
will feel the effects of the disaster for years to come.
The Ontario Federation of Clubs and Associations of Campania has
established an account with the Toronto-Dominion Bank, branch
1890, account number 642. Donations can be made at any TD bank
in Canada.
I encourage Canadians to once more show their generosity and
solidarity and to contribute to the relief efforts for the victims
of the tragic mudslides.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has now
been 335 days since the justice minister was sworn in. It has
been almost one year since the minister claimed amending the
Young Offenders Act was a priority.
The minister has been promising for months to introduce those
amendments in a timely fashion. What changes has the minister
made to the Young Offenders Act after almost a year of claims and
promises? Absolutely nothing.
We have had nothing concrete from the federal justice minister
despite the justice committee's recommendations tabled over a
year ago. We have had nothing in spite of the urging of the
provincial attorneys general and we have had nothing in spite of
the demands of Canadians from all across the country for a
toughening of the Young Offenders Act.
1400
Spring is here. The tulips are in bloom. It is time the gopher
got its head out of the hole.
* * *
SKILLS TRAINING
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to highlight the remarkable achievements of two
programs in my riding of Etobicoke North that are helping
unemployed workers to get the skills they need to take their
rightful place in the workforce.
The Rexdale micro skills project assists recently unemployed
women and offers targeted solutions to meet their diverse needs.
Going into its 13th year of operation, this program offers
computer skills for accounting, for business and industry, for
Internet training and training at automated work stations.
The program offered at Humber College provides each client with
a unique return to work action plan.
[Translation]
Together, these two programs will help 735 unemployed persons to
gain the skills required to get and keep a job.
These valuable programs owe their existence to $3 million in
funding from Human Resources Canada.
[English]
This is money well spent. I can happily report that 65% to 75%
of the Humber College clients and 80% of the Rexdale micro skills
graduates go on to full time employment. Bravo.
* * *
HIRE A STUDENT
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year
marks the 30th anniversary of the hire a student program offered
through Human Resources Development Canada. The human resources
centre for students on Prince Edward Island is working diligently
to make this anniversary year the most successful hire a student
campaign to date.
This year the centre is also offering services to the farming
community. Farming operations that require student workers will
have their listings posted for interested and qualified
candidates to speak directly with them.
To all island businesses that have supported hire a student in
the past, a very hearty thank you. And to those employers who
have not experienced the positive impact a student can make to
their business, I urge them to become part of this year's 30th
anniversary of the hire a student program.
Congratulations to all involved in this program under the youth
employment strategy.
* * *
DRUNK DRIVING
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to introduce my colleagues and the people of Canada to a
committed and dedicated family from Langley, British Columbia who
are in the gallery today.
Ken and Eileen Roffel have worked tirelessly to get drunk
drivers off our roads by speaking out about zero tolerance. You
see, their son Mark was murdered in Langley, British Columbia by
a drunk driver. Since that terrible ordeal they have raised
immense awareness about drunk driving by getting petitions
signed. Today I have the privilege of submitting one of the
largest petitions ever sent to the House of Commons.
It cannot stop here. This House will prepare a draft bill on
drunk driving no later than November 30, 1998. We must pay
attention to the message Ken and Eileen have brought us through
hundreds of thousands of Canadians signing this petition. Do not
drink and drive.
Finally, I want to say this. The murder of Mark Roffel was
senseless but his family and hundreds of thousands of Canadians
will remember him forever. His story will live on through a
positive change in drunk driving legislation.
* * *
VAISAKHI
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Sikhs in Canada and around the world are celebrating
Vaisakhi, the 299th birthday of the Sikh faith Khalsa, along with
festivals associated with the harvest season.
I am sure all members will join me in congratulating Canadian
Sikhs and recognizing the credible and considerable contribution
they have made to Canada during their 100 year presence in this
country.
Today I would like to invite all parliamentarians to join me and
members of the Sikh community in the Commonwealth Room following
question period for Vaisakhi celebrations.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House to comment on the steady decline in
Canada's unemployment rate. At 8.4% unemployment is at its
lowest level in almost eight years.
I am also pleased that much of this new private sector job
creation is taking place in my own province of Ontario. Thanks
to federal economic policies, interest rates are down and
economic activity is up.
Unfortunately the Ontario government has chosen to sacrifice
this considerable fiscal dividend by ploughing ahead with an
irresponsible 30% across the board tax cut. That means closed
hospitals, overwhelming demand at food banks and sky high tuition
fees. Ask Ontario's post-secondary students what they think of
Mr. Harris' big heart.
1405
Our government eliminated a federal deficit that had climbed to
$42 billion. Now that we have a balanced budget, we are cutting
income taxes for those who bore the brunt of spending reductions:
low and middle income Canadians.
Balanced government policy is what brings unemployment numbers
down at a steady pace, not right wing ideology that ignores the
everyday lives of low and middle income families.
* * *
[Translation]
LEGAL SYSTEM
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this past
weekend, the people of Taschereau in Abitibi—Témiscamingue joined
together in protest against our legal system, particularly the
practice of releasing people without bail. Close to 5,000
signatures were gathered in three days in support of their
action.
This protest was triggered by a tragic event. Christine
Bertrand, 17 years old, and Laurie Lefebvre, who was just 18
months old, lost their lives when they were struck while on the
shoulder of the highway in Taschereau.
The driver responsible for this terrible accident fled the
scene.
I wish to assure the people of Taschereau and the surrounding
area that they can count on me to support their petition and to
bring it to the attention of the House of Commons. They can
also count on me to make the necessary representations to the
Minister of Justice.
In closing, I wish to express my condolences to the families of
the victims and to the community of Taschereau, whom this tragic
event has brought together in great solidarity.
* * *
[English]
COURAGE TO COME BACK AWARDS
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Thursday evening I had the honour of representing the Minister of
Health at the annual Courage to Come Back awards of the Clarke
Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto.
The evening provided an opportunity for us to share in the
remarkable stories of individuals who have shown extraordinary
courage in their recovering from life threatening illness, injury
or addiction and now serve as models of hope and inspiration.
I would like to thank Janice O'Born, the chair of the Clarke
Institute of Psychiatry Foundation; president and CEO of the
Addiction and Mental Health Services Corporation, Dr. Paul
Garfinkel; and Nancy Coldham, chair of the courage committee.
They are fighting the difficult battle against ignorance with
respect to mental illness.
We were all very pleased and impressed by the empathy of the
evening's special hosts Mark Tewksbury and Silken Laumann. Most
important, we were all truly inspired by the evening's award
recipients: David Shannon, Ralph Booker, Gabriella Melendez,
Jeffrey Ostofsky, Andrea OuHingwan, Sandy Naiman and Ian Chovil.
They have all had the courage to come back and go that extra mile
in the invaluable role of public education. They are role models
for all of us.
* * *
HOCKEY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when much of the country is wrapped up in
the NHL playoffs, hockey fans in British Columbia have had to
suffer through another year of the Vancouver Canucks missing the
playoffs.
However, not all is bleak for the BC hockey fan. Yesterday the
junior A league South Surrey Eagles capped off a wonderful season
by winning the national championship in Nanaimo with a four to
one victory over the Weyburn Red Wings.
The Eagles capped off an incredible playoff run which saw them
win 25 games and lose only three. In the Royal Bank cup
tournament they won all six games, outscoring the opposition 32
to 7.
Congratulations to owner Cliff Annable, coach and general
manager Mark Holick, the staff, and especially the players who
showed hockey need not be about money but about the joy of
playing the game.
* * *
[Translation]
LEADER OF THE BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the maritime
provinces have replied “No thanks” to the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois' attempts to sell them on Quebec's separation from the
rest of Canada.
The francophone minority and Acadian groups have replied “No
thanks” to the supposed advantages of Quebec independence.
The illusions of the separatists, who are desperately seeking
support for their cause, have been met with “No thanks”.
The Acadians have given his inflated promises and lame theories
a resounding “No thanks”.
What we prefer by far is a true partnership with the francophone
and Acadian minorities of Canada. That is the reason we are
saying “No thanks” to the separation of Quebec, because we
prefer to live together, rather than to divide up this country.
* * *
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
signing of the manpower agreement with Quebec, the Prime
Minister justified his enthusiasm by saying that through this
agreement he would be avoiding interfering in an area considered
an extension of education, an area of provincial jurisdiction.
The ink was barely dry on this agreement before the government
rushed headlong into this very area of provincial jurisdiction
with the millennium scholarships.
Even Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the spiritual father of the current
Prime Minister, said “If a government has so much revenue that
it starts looking after that part of the common good not under
its jurisdiction, we must assume that government has taken more
than its share of taxes”.
The Prime Minister's only ally in this area is Jean Charest, who
has no respect either for Quebec's jurisdictions or for the
legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec, whom he claims
to represent.
* * *
1410
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, a study at the Université du Québec à Montréal found
that a 10% decrease in health spending would reduce life
expectancy by six months for men and three months for women as
well as increase infant mortality. This government's continued
$3.5 billion cut to health is the real threat to medicare and to
people's lives, not compensation for hepatitis C victims.
As we also know, Justice Krever found that a lack of resources
at the health protection branch was a factor in federal
regulatory failure of blood and the infection of tens of
thousands of Canadians with HIV and hepatitis C. Instead of
learning from that four year multimillion dollar Krever report
and applying its lessons to other important health protection
issues such as pharmaceutical drug approval, the government is
choosing to slide down the path of cutbacks and deregulation,
just as the Mulroney government before it.
When will we see a government that makes health care a priority
and that faces up to its responsibilities?
* * *
[Translation]
LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform
Party's new Canada act fizzled with its proposal to give the
provinces full responsibility over linguistic matters.
The Reform Party members fail to understand the fact that a
united Canada requires a policy on minorities that has been
approved and explained by Parliament and a federal government
concerned about francophone communities outside Quebec.
Assuring groups of Acadians and francophones outside Quebec that
they can always count on the Government of Canada to defend
their culture and their identity is a mark of respect for them.
* * *
[English]
WESTRAY MINE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in the early morning of May 9, 1992 a violent
explosion rocked the tiny community of Plymouth just east of the
town of Stellarton in Pictou county, Nova Scotia. The explosion
occurred in the depths of the Westray coal mine instantly killing
the 26 miners working there at the time.
On Saturday, the sixth anniversary of the disaster, more than
150 people gathered at the Westray Memorial Park to commemorate
this tragic loss of life.
We in this House must extend not only our sympathy and
compassion to the many victims of Westray but also work to ensure
such a tragedy never occurs again. I urge the Minister of
Justice to address the recommendations made by Justice Peter
Richard in his inquiry report. Furthermore I invite all hon.
members of this House to join with me in calling on the province
of Nova Scotia to provide fair severance to all of the former
employees of Westray mine.
In memory of the victims of Westray, let us take responsible
appropriate actions as elected officials of this House.
* * *
FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday when the Reform Party released its
so-called new Canada act, its leader said it contained some of
Reform's best ideas for strengthening the federation.
If Reform wants to know what Canadians think of its best ideas,
the francophone communities outside Quebec, including mine in the
riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, have responded with a big
no thank you.
These groups have told the Reform Party that there must continue
to be a strong role for the federal government in ensuring that
the rights of the official language minorities are safeguarded.
Canada's francophones recognize this would not be possible if the
federal government were to simply abdicate its responsibility to
the provinces as Reform would have us do.
Reform's old ideas about abandoning official language minorities
do not look any better now that they have been reprinted with a
fancy new cover. They are still bad news for francophones outside
Quebec. That is why Canadians continue to reject them.
[Translation]
You have another think coming, my friends.
* * *
[English]
CRTC
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Liberal backbenchers have written the heritage minister “When
CRTC appointments come from an industry, make decisions favouring
the same industry and then land jobs with companies which were
subject to their decision, consumers can easily lose
confidence”. What an understatement.
The Minister of Industry has said that he wants appointments to
the CRTC to be people who share the Liberal vision. No fear Mr.
Minister. The current board of the CRTC are Liberals and are
connected either to former CRTC chair André Bureau, or to the
person who appointed Mr. Bureau, the former Liberal minister of
communications, Francis Fox, or to the heritage minister's former
campaign manager's firm, Thornley Fallis, and they all have cable
connections.
The Minister of Industry also said to the House “when you are
before the CRTC somebody wins and somebody loses”. Right now
Canadians are losing. I say to the minister: dismantle the
current board before summer hearings, complete a thorough mandate
review and if you can, make it politics free.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a simple question for the government.
Can the government confirm that over the weekend it made an
offer to compensate the pre-1986 victims of hepatitis C?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
no such offer has been made. We are awaiting the meeting on
Thursday when ministers will be together in the same room at the
same table.
As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, the very purpose of
that meeting is to find out where the provinces are since there
is some disagreement among them and to determine whether a new
consensus has been forged.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been told by the Hepatitis C Society of Canada
that this offer was made using the member for St. Paul's as a
go-between, but the offer had strings attached. The victims were
told that the Prime Minister will not compensate them unless they
promise not to hold him responsible.
Why is the government still attaching strings to its offers of
compensation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have to tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his
information is wrong. There is no offer. There is no agreement.
There are no strings.
There is only a federal government which had a consensus among
all governments in the country, which has seen some provinces
change their position, and which has now agreed to a meeting of
all ministers so that we can take stock, find out where the
provinces stand and determine whether there can be a new
consensus forged to deal with this in the appropriate way.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is very important that we be clear on the
government's position, that the government be clear for the sake
of the House, that it be clear for the sake of the premiers but,
more important, that it be clear for the sake of the victims.
Is the minister denying that an offer was made over the weekend
to the victims of hepatitis C for compensation prior to 1986?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, that is not good information. As I have said, our
interest is now in meeting with ministers on Thursday. They will
be coming to Ottawa for that purpose. We will be sitting at the
table to hear where the provinces stand on these issues and to
explore whether a new consensus can be reached.
The information conveyed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition is
incorrect.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
information comes directly from the hepatitis C groups
themselves. They say they are being hushed up.
This is what the president of the Hepatitis C Society said: “We
will not be forced into silence on the issue of fault in exchange
for compensation”.
Why is the government trying to silence the victims of hepatitis
C?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question, as usual, is
wrong.
We are not trying to force the victims to be quiet. We want to
have a further discussion with the provincial ministers to see if
there can be a new consensus, but we are certainly not trying to
force anybody to be silent.
I repeat, the hon. member is completely wrong in this.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
information is so fresh that the president of the Hepatitis C
Society has actually resigned now. The new president simply says
that she will not be bought off.
I will ask the question again. Is the government going to say
that there was no representation made with the member for St.
Paul's on this issue to offer compensation in exchange for
silence?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can speak for myself and indeed for the government in saying
that we have made no offer. We have said nothing about anybody
being silent. I have had no communication with the Hepatitis C
Society during the weekend.
The hon. member's information is wrong. We are looking forward
to meeting with the ministers on Thursday. Frankly I hope from
that meeting we will have a better understanding of where the
provinces stand and will also determine whether a new consensus
can be arrived at.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister announced on the weekend that, if the Calgary
declaration was approved by the provinces, he would use it to
amend the House of Commons resolution on distinct society.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Is this not proof that the Calgary declaration is largely
irrelevant, because ultimately it will be used to amend a House
of Commons resolution that is completely worthless because it
was introduced purely to please the Prime Minister and ease
people's consciences?
1420
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Thursday, the premier of Quebec said that the
Calgary declaration was dangerous for Quebeckers.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Please stop me when you have had enough. I
will begin by reading the principles and you can tell me if you
notice anything dangerous.
I imagine it would not be dangerous if it read “All Canadians
are unequal and do not have rights protected by law”.
All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have
equality of status.
Canada is graced by a diversity, tolerance—
The Speaker: I am sorry, but I must give the floor to the hon.
member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
fails to understand that the Calgary declaration is viewed as
dangerous because the members opposite wish to create the
illusion that there will something in it for Quebec. That is
what is dangerous.
If the House of Commons resolution to recognize distinct society
has any value, how does the government explain that it did not
rely on it when it came time to create the millennium
scholarships program, which tries to force Quebec into the same
mold as the other provinces and ignore its specificity?
The Speaker: Before giving the floor to the minister, I believe
we do not have simultaneous interpretation. We are going to try
to sort that out.
The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the budget speech indicated clearly that we were deeply
concerned with respecting the country's diversity and existing
education programs, and we are negotiating very hard to respect
Quebec's existing programs.
This too flows from the Calgary declaration, from our commitment
to a just federation that would take into account the true
nature of the country, including the unique character of Quebec
society.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
When we asked the Prime Minister about the sometimes odd
approaches the provinces took in consulting on the Calgary
declaration, he said it was not his concern and they could
choose how they went about it.
What explanation does the minister have for the Prime Minister's
statement on the weekend that the parliamentary commission
established by the Government of Quebec was nothing more than a
trap for Jean Charest? Are we to understand that the federal
government has suddenly decided that what the Government of
Quebec does is of concern?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is a polite man. He simply repeated
what the Quebec premier said, which was to the effect that the
premier wanted to trip up the leader of the official opposition—not
yet, but anyway—the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party on
the Calgary declaration.
This objective is not about informing Quebeckers on the content
of the declaration. This is why Bloc Quebecois surveys never
ask people whether they agree with the content of the Calgary
declaration.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before they
are consulted, they have to know what it is about, because 90%
of the people have no idea what the Calgary declaration is
about.
It was to be a sort of lifebuoy for the Quebec Liberal Party and
federalist Quebeckers.
How can he now claim that a parliamentary commission to look
into it suddenly amounts to a trap for the current head of the
Liberal Party, Jean Charest?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will keep looking at what the declaration has to
say.
Canada's gift of diversity includes Aboriginal peoples and
cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages and a
multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world.
In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and
equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society,
including its French speaking majority, its culture and its
tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well being of
Canada. Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec
have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec
society within Canada.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow
the Prime Minister heads off to the G-8 bragging, no doubt, about
the rosy economy even though more Canadians are living in poverty
than ever, 1.5 million children. What a tragedy.
1425
Will the Prime Minister be explaining to his G-8 colleagues his
Liberal government's formula for increased prosperity for the few
and growing poverty for far too many?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is certainly a lot more to be done but I am sure
the Prime Minister will explain that the unemployment rate has
gone down almost 3% since he took office. It is now at the
lowest rate in eight years.
He will explain that inflation has disappeared. He will explain
that interest rates are at record lows. He will explain why the
Globe and Mail, which is no friend of the government, had a
headline on the weekend “Jobs aplenty as economy booms”.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government's grasp of the poverty reality is about as real as the
Prime Minister's homeless imaginary friend. Maybe the next team
Canada mission should be right here at home so the Prime Minister
and his colleagues can discover the Canadian reality of growing
poverty.
Child poverty in Canada is the highest in 17 years. Will the
government recommit to Canada's millennium project, unanimously
adopted by the House, namely eliminating child poverty by the
year 2000?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that even though
the economy has been performing very well and we are very pleased
at the general approach we have been having there remains too
much poverty in the country. Many Canadians find it difficult to
cope with that reality. We hope that more and more individuals
will be picked up by the booming economy which remains a top
priority of the government.
We have for the people who still find it tough the national
child benefit which we will increase in the next three years to
$1.7 billion. We have also improved the family income supplement
in the last budget and in many other measures regarding poverty.
* * *
TREASURY BOARD
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Pierre
Corbeil, a Liberal Party fundraiser, has been convicted of
influence peddling for hitting up companies that had applied for
grants under the transitional jobs fund.
Mr. Corbeil knew which companies to go after because someone who
worked for the minister responsible for the Treasury Board gave
him the confidential list of companies. That someone was Jacques
Roy.
Can the minister confirm whether Jacques Roy is still his
employee?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a fact that it is the government that asked the RCMP to
make an investigation into the allegation.
The RCMP made a thorough investigation. It reviewed all
allegations including the fact mentioned and made a charge
against one individual who has pleaded guilty and has been
sentenced.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister does not seem to know who works for him or, if he does,
he does not want to admit it. Jacques Roy is still employed by
the minister.
Can the minister explain why one of his staff, who was party to
activity which resulted in a Liberal fundraiser being criminally
charged and convicted, is still working for him?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the RCMP has investigated these facts thoroughly. It has in the
end come to a conclusion. It has charged one individual.
The government has co-operated fully with the RCMP. One
individual has been charged and sentenced.
* * *
JUSTICE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Reena Virk was a Victoria school girl who was beaten mercilessly
by a pack of 15 young offenders. They swarmed her, beat her and
burned her with cigarettes. She staggered away barely alive but
they came back. They got her and they killed her.
The first two attackers were sentenced last week. One of them
got away with just a year in open custody, no jail; she just got
grounded.
Does the justice minister think that is fair?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everybody is very aware of the
tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Reena Virk.
Let me inform the House today that I will be tabling tomorrow
afternoon before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights the government's response to its proposals for the renewal
of the youth justice system.
1430
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is time for more than a response. It is time for legislation.
I hold this minister accountable for the broken Young Offenders
Act which she has refused to fix for 335 days. This was the
bloodiest beating in the history of Victoria. The Young
Offenders Act means these murderers will just walk free.
Is the Minister of Justice prepared today to look Reena Virk's
mother in the eye and say that everything will be corrected
tomorrow at this little press conference?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have said in this House
on many occasions, the renewal of the youth justice system is a
complex and serious matter. It should not be trivialized or
sensationalized for cheap political points.
Therefore let me reiterate. Tomorrow this government will table
its response on the renewal of Canada's youth justice system.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health.
The federal government is announcing that it will be seeking a
consensus at this week's meeting with the ministers of health on
settling the hepatitis C question.
Does the Minister of Health admit that, in order to reach a
consensus between the provinces, given their far from equal
financial means, he will have to agree to use some of the
government surplus to inject more money in order to compensate
victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
we must find out the positions of the provinces, our partners in
the health care system.
I trust that Minister Rochon of Quebec will be in attendance,
for I am particularly interested in the Quebec position .
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
how can the Minister of Health claim he wants to find a real
solution for the hepatitis C victims, if he does not announce
his intention to inject more money, when he is the one who can
afford to and this is a prerequisite to a solution?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government has already committed $800 million for 1986
through 1990. Now we are waiting for the position of all our
partners to be determined.
As the hon. member is already aware, the provinces have
expressed a variety of positions, so we shall see next Thursday
whether a new consensus will be possible.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the public is tired of having this wait
and see game for the Young Offenders Act. National consultations
were completed five years ago, yet this government only plans now
to respond with a strategy to a committee and then talk some
more.
When is the minister going to introduce legislation? Will it
deliver the people's agenda of real change or will the minister
just rename the act?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the
opposition and other interested Canadians will have the
opportunity to review and comment on the government's response
when it is tabled before the standing committee tomorrow.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the countdown to see young offenders
legislation by this justice minister totals a disgusting 335
days.
Can the minister state today that her young offenders strategy
response will become substantive legislative change? Will she
deal with age, secrecy, consequences and victims for true young
offenders rather than just youthful adult criminals under the
Young Offenders Act?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of
pre-empting the role of parliamentarians by commenting directly
on what is in the government's response.
I look forward to the positive contributions of the official
opposition when the response is tabled tomorrow.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, all of Quebec agrees that the federal
government has no business interfering in education and that it
should let Quebec administer the federal millennium scholarships
program itself, according to its own priorities.
But, once again, the federal government is sticking to its guns
and trying to impose its scholarship program.
How does the Minister of Human Resources Development explain the
government's refusal to make any change whatsoever in the
millennium scholarships program, although that is what everyone
in Quebec is asking it to do?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think that this
legislation offers tremendous possibilities and that the Bloc
Quebecois opposition has not even begun to take a serious
interest in what these possibilities could be at the present
time.
1435
What I can say is that, one month ago, at the request of Premier
Bouchard and the minister, Mrs. Marois, negotiations led by my
deputy minister were begun. We are negotiating in good faith
and in the firm belief that, within the existing framework
agreement and legislative provisions, we can find solutions that
are consistent with the interests of young Quebeckers wishing to
attend university.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister claim to be acting in
good faith when he is stubbornly ramming his bill through and
not giving an inch in negotiations? Is this not more like
hypocrisy than good faith?
The Speaker: I ask you, dear colleagues, to be very careful in
your choice of words, and the word hypocrisy is not allowed.
The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, understandably, when they run
out of arguments, they have to resort to this sort of abusive
language.
We know that the millennium will be here in a year and a half.
We are proud to have a government that has decided to celebrate
the knowledge and skills of young people so that they can
function in the knowledge economy. We wish to do this as an
adjunct to the excellent work being done by the Government of
Quebec with its loans and grants programs. We are going to
implement the program without any duplication and ensure that
our young people have access to the best options possible for
the economy of the future.
* * *
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
information commissioner should be the person who ensures access
to information requests are processed in a timely, comprehensive
manner; no illegal shredding, no whiteouts, no lost documents.
This person should be independent minded and should not be a hand
picked Liberal appointee.
Why not produce a job description, advertise it and open it up
to anyone who wishes to apply and who can meet the standards?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no candidate's name has formally
been offered yet for the position of access to information
commissioner. The hon. member knows it.
Anyone can apply for the position. If the hon. member has a
name to offer we would be quite willing to hear it.
The hon. members across ask what the job description is. I find
it unfortunate that they did not bother to read the act.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what we
need is openness and accountability, something this government
promised and has not delivered.
Can anyone in this country apply and does that person have to be
a Liberal appointee and have connections to the bureaucracy in
order to be appointed?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Of course, Mr. Speaker, anyone can apply.
That is obvious.
The problem is that the people across in the Reform Party have
not read the act and they admit not even knowing what the job is
about.
* * *
[Translation]
VARENNES TOKAMAK PROJECT
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry. The Varennes tokamak research
team has just received the Canadian Nuclear Association's 1998
award of excellence for its exceptional contribution to the
development of nuclear fusion science and technology. Yet,
tokamak is struggling to survive, for lack of federal funding.
Why is the federal government not maintaining its $7.5 million
contribution, so as to ensure the survival and development of
this project of the future?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has contributed some $90
million to this project in Quebec since 1981. In 1996 when the
decision was taken not to proceed with fusion work the government
undertook a lump sum payment of $19 million to discharge its
further obligations with respect to the project. That additional
sum of money was paid in 1997.
* * *
IMMUNIZATION
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Co-operation.
A report this morning from the World Health Organization
identifies immunization as a key factor for increased life
expectancy.
This reinforces the goal set at the world summit for children in
1990 to immunize every child against diseases such as polio and
measles. What is Canada doing to support global immunization
efforts?
1440
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has been a key supporter of global immunization.
This morning I announced a five year, $50 million international
immunization initiative.
We are working with the Canadian Public Health Association,
Rotary International, UNICEF and the World Health Organization.
Canadian vaccines as well as Canadian made syringes will be used
as part of our initiative to help all children become immunized.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we had a lame duck question from a Liberal to a Liberal. I
thought this was question period, not the time to make
announcements.
The Speaker: Colleagues, if we begin to comment on the
quality of members' questions, I would urge you to stay away from
comments like that, as all they do is incite one another.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, an Angus Reid poll
released today shows that the majority of Canadians want the
Senate changed.
Only 11% of Canadians are satisfied with the Senate as it is;
over 84% want change. Alberta is taking a lead by electing a
slate of senators in October. Ontario and B.C. have senate
election bills pending. Clearly Canadians are not happy with an
unelected, unaccountable upper chamber.
What concrete steps is this government prepared to take to give
Canadians a Senate that works?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people who answered the poll were very disappointed
to learn that the Reform Party supports efforts by the provinces
to elect senators who would then be appointed and then be totally
unaccountable. Surely the Canadian people deserve something
better than that.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that has to be a Liberal answer. We have had 131 years of a
system that does not work. Let us try something that will work.
The polls also show that only 14% of Canadians think the Prime
Minister should replace Andrew Thompson's seat by an appointment.
The Prime Minister has promised Senate reform. He has produced
28 straight partisan appointments.
My question is regarding the Ontario seat of Senator Thompson.
Who will fill that vacant seat, the Prime Minister's choice or
the choice of the people?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party had a chance to bring about a real
reform of the Senate when the Charlottetown accord was before
Canadians. Instead it voted against the Charlottetown accord and
caused any real reform of the Senate to be put off indefinitely.
Reformers should look at themselves in the mirror and see where
the blame lies.
* * *
POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. The finance minister talks
about growing economic optimism but a National Council of Welfare
report shows devastating growing poverty. Poverty is up by 17%
and child poverty has reached a high of 21%. These millions of
Canadians are not optimistic, they are desperate.
Will the Prime Minister heed the warning of the national council
and stop this growing inequity and set real targets to eliminate
poverty?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have looked in a preliminary way at the report and it
points to a problem we are already beginning to work on.
1445
In the last budget of the Minister of Finance, 400,000 low
income Canadians were taken off the tax rolls completely.
Millions more low and middle income Canadians are having their
taxes reduced. We are increasing by $850 million the child tax
credit which is aimed at helping lower income Canadians.
These are just a few examples of our efforts to deal with the
issue of poverty, particularly child poverty.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
deputy prime minister spouts empty rhetoric while children go
hungry.
The truth is that federal support for welfare, health and
education has been slashed by $3 billion since 1996 and poor
people are paying the price. They are standing in food lines,
living in shelters and raising kids on welfare rates that keep
them in poverty.
Will the government replenish transfers to the provinces and
ease the suffering of the poorest of Canada's citizens?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the very first gesture of
this government was to restore the Canada health transfer by $1.5
billion. That was a very welcome gesture.
Second, this year and in the coming two years we will be
investing $1.7 billion in the national child benefit to fight
child poverty. We are also increasing deductions for child care
and we have increased tax relief for low income Canadians. I
could go on.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, a political staff member of the minister's office
has been directly involved in the commission of a criminal
offence and nobody in this government is taking any
responsibility for it.
The Liberal code of ethics claims transparency and
accountability, which have surely been trampled in this case.
What is the President of the Treasury Board doing to prevent
Jacques Roy or any other member of his staff from using
confidential information to raise money for the Liberal Party in
the future?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was at the request of the government that the RCMP made a
thorough investigation.
The government has co-operated fully with that investigation.
The RCMP received all the facts. It charged only one individual.
That individual has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be suggesting that unless a
criminal charge is laid everything is okay.
We know this is not the case. Pierre Corbeil did not act alone.
He committed a crime thanks to confidential information provided
by someone in the minister's own office.
Will the President of the Treasury Board stop hiding behind
these meaningless statements and bureaucratic gobbledegook and
clean up his office? Or does he condone the activities of Mr.
Corbeil?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the RCMP has investigated this matter thoroughly. It has had the
full co-operation of the government and it charged only one
individual. That individual has pleaded guilty and has been
sentenced.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is national police week. Canadians say thank you
to the police officers who work in our communities and on the
front lines against crime.
More and more, Canadian society is being victimized by organized
crime where the front lines are not so clear and the criminals
themselves may operate from other countries.
My question is for the solicitor general. What is the
Government of Canada doing to protect Canadians from this growing
international threat?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is right to characterize the organized crime
issue as international. That is why there are 1,000 delegates in
Toronto this week, representing some 20 countries' law
enforcement agencies, all dealing with the question of organized
crime.
As we discussed this morning, the government has primarily two
responsibilities. One is to provide the tools. That is why we
provided the witness protection program, the proceeds of crime
legislation and the anti-gang legislation. That is why we
established the national co-ordinating committee on organized
crime under the leadership of the RCMP. That is why next week I
will be in Washington discussing this very problem with Janet
Reno.
The fight against this scourge on Canadian society continues.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the minister can send us a press release.
On June 11, 1990, Stan Waters was appointed to the Senate after
being elected by the people of Alberta. That did not require
constitutional change.
In 1993 the Prime Minister had this to say about the Senate:
“The Liberal government in two years will make it elected. As
Prime Minister, I can make it happen”.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister whose leader
promised us an elected Senate. How does he plan to make it
happen?
1450
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): First of
all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to check the total transcript that
the hon. member is referring to.
Secondly, to make it happen there has to be a constitutional
amendment and I do not see any resolutions in any of the
provinces to amend the Constitution. Until the Constitution is
amended the Prime Minister has an obligation to follow the
Constitution.
Simply electing people who then have to be appointed for life
does not change the Senate, it just compounds what the hon.
member is complaining about.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister. The government made a very firm
commitment to the fight against poverty. Since then, however,
it has slashed funding to education, social assistance and
health. This morning the National Council on Welfare issued a
statement reminding the government that it is responsible for
the rise in poverty everywhere in the country.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that, if the government is
serious about wanting to really fight poverty, it must first and
foremost hand back over to the provinces the billions of dollars
it has cut from health, education and welfare, under the pretext
of reducing its deficit?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
fight against poverty is currently being waged with tax cuts and
increased tax credits for poor children. We are going to
continue that fight until a true victory has been won. We have
made considerable progress already, moreover.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, patients in Canadian hospitals today are receiving
unlicensed blood products without their knowledge or consent.
Hospitals have been informed of a shortage of the human serum
albumin and told that unlicensed product is available through the
Emergency Drug Release Program. Manufacturers are still not
compliant with licensing regulations that were passed five months
ago.
Is this not the same kind of situation that led to the spread of
HIV and hepatitis C through the tainted blood scandal? Will the
minister investigate this serious situation today and indicate
what steps he is taking to ensure that manufacturers comply with
the blood licensing regulations?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will certainly take account of what the member says. I will
look into it and respond to her.
As a general matter, we have now agreed with the provinces to
the creation of a new blood system which will open its doors
later this year with a form of governance that mirrors the Krever
recommendations and a form of regulation from the federal
government that reflects the Krever recommendations. At least
when we start the new blood agency it will be on a new foot and
hopefully toward a new and safer age.
* * *
NATIONAL FOREST STRATEGY
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance has stated that Canadian woodlot owners are
like any other Canadian business. Yet Canada's national forest
strategy for 1998 to the year 2003 recognizes that woodlot owners
are not like other businesses and that a change to capital gains
taxation is required.
I wonder what the Minister of Natural Resources thinks of the
taxation recommendations in our national forest strategy.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has repeatedly explained the
impact of the current tax rules to the hon. gentleman.
Recently federal and provincial ministers and a variety of
others interested in the forest sector have worked very hard on
developing a new forest strategy for Canada for the next five
year period. Over the course of those five years all of us will
be working very hard to ensure that we maximize sustainable
development in our forests, including in the woodlot sector. All
worthy ideas will be taken into account.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
There have been concerns expressed in my riding regarding the
financial accountability of native reserves.
Can the minister tell Canadians what First Nations are doing to
improve their governance structure in order to address these
concerns?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as was emphasized both in
the Speech from the Throne and In Gathering Strength, our
response to the royal commission, this government agrees with
aboriginal people that building strong, accountable and
transparent governments is a priority.
1455
It is important to share with the House the progress that is
being made in this regard.
I would note that the Assembly of First Nations recently signed
an agreement with the Certified General Accountants of Canada to
train First Nations accountants and to develop a code of ethics
for First Nations accounting.
I would also note that all First Nations are developing conflict
of interest guidelines as part of funding agreements. The
Alberta chiefs are developing an accountability framework and
through the British Columbia First Nations Financial Officers
Association—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
* * *
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the scandals of TAGS stand as a lesson that costly
programs motivated entirely by politics do nothing but harm
Atlantic Canadians.
It has been harshly criticized by fishermen, the auditor general
and the premier of Newfoundland, and has resulted in a major
lawsuit against the government. Now it wants to do it all over
again.
Would the minister name one single feature of the second TAGS
that will prevent the mismanagement and incompetence that
dominated the first TAGS?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that
the hon. member can stand in the House to say that. Canadians
experienced terrible difficulties when we realized there was no
fish in 1992 and 1993 we had to act and act quickly.
What we did was not perfect, but what we did was the best we
could do to help Canadian citizens who were in a difficult
situation. We put forward that money to help the fishermen
through a difficult time.
We are addressing the post TAGS environment. We are learning
from our experiences of the past and we will do better in the
future.
* * *
[Translation]
NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This morning, we learned that India conducted three limited
strength underground nuclear weapons tests on the weekend.
These tests are the first conducted by India since May 1974 and
are part of a strategy of confrontation with Pakistan.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House what concrete
action he intends to take to show Canada's disapproval of this
dangerous initiative?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's high commissioner to India has already indicated the
Government of Canada's concern about this event. The matter has
also been raised in other world capitals.
We are taking this situation very seriously. It is completely
contrary to the desired approach world-wide on the resolution of
nuclear matters.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it has been over 21 years since Leonard Peltier was extradited to
the United States on the basis of alleged false information.
In 1994 the then justice minister authorized a full review of
the case and in February 1997 indicated the findings would be
made public prior to the June 2 election. They were not.
Will the current Minister of Justice tell the House why the
review has not been made public and if and when she intends to do
so?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the hon. member
that we are reviewing that report right now in relation to
privacy concerns.
As soon as I am satisfied and the privacy commissioner is
satisfied that we can release that report I will do so.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
understand that there is a research project in the works
proposing such things as aroma therapy and massage as treatment
for criminal behaviour.
Could the solicitor general confirm that CSC is investigating
alternative therapies? If it is, if it could include me and a
few of my colleagues on these massages that would be wonderful.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my suggestion would be that what we need to investigate
is the research capacity of the Reform Party which has a tendency
to make these things up.
* * *
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Tony
Cunningham of Shelburne County, Nova Scotia is anxious.
He is anxious because Mr. Cunningham will soon stop receiving
TAGS support. He wonders when this government will announce the
licence retirement program that allows him and thousands more
like him the opportunity to leave the groundfishery.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development inform the
thousands of people like Mr. Cunningham when they can expect to
hear of a package that allows them to retire their licences?
1500
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the
situation. The TAGS program will be ending in August. We intend
to address the post-TAGS environment very well. This is why we
have conducted all the consultations we have with individuals,
with the communities and with the provinces.
We are working very hard right now, some of my colleagues and I,
to make sure that we have the best approach in the post-TAGS
environment.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of Mr. Yordan Sokolov, President of
the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(2) I am honoured to table, in both official languages,
achievements of the international business development program
for 1997 and 1998.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
government's response to two petitions.
* * *
PETITIONS
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the privilege of submitting a very large petition, in fact
one of the largest to come to the House.
The petitioners request parliament to prescribe the mandatory
minimum jail term of seven days for persons found guilty of a
first offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm or death by
amending section 255(1)(a) of the Criminal Code to read as
follows.
Everyone who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is
guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on
summary conviction and is liable, whether the offence is
prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to
the following minimum punishment, namely for a first offence, to
imprisonment—”
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I
hesitate to interrupt the hon. House leader but I think he knows
the rules of the House precluding him from reading petitions. I
invite him to comply with the rule and summarize the petition for
hon. members.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I thought you would allow
another 10 seconds on the issue given that it is the largest
petition in the House.
For a second offence, to imprisonment of not less than 14 days
and finally for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not
less than 90 days.
1505
HERBAL REMEDIES
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition with a great number of names to present this
afternoon. It is regarding the way government may regulate herbs
and teas in the future.
The petitioners are basically asking that their freedom of
choice not be ended in terms of how they use those products. The
undersigned petitioners humbly pray and ask for their freedom
back and not to have herbs and teas defined as vitamins or as
drugs.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question No. 33 will be
answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. John Cummins:
With regard to the refusal of sport fishing lodges, in
particular the lodges owned by Oak Bay Marine Group, to provide
catch data during the summer of 1995 as required by section 61 of
the Fisheries Act and meetings or conversations between Ministers
and the lodge operators or the Sport Fishing Institute of British
Columbia: (a) did any Minister of the Crown meet or have
conversations with either the lodge operators or the Sport Fishing
Institute of British Columbia in the summer of 1995, in 1996 and
in 1997, and if so, who attended these meetings or participated
in these conversations; (b) did the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, the Department of Justice or other agency prepare
briefing material or otherwise brief any Minister of the Crown or
their staff for any of these meetings or conversations; (c)
when were Ministers of the Crown or their offices first informed
that lodges, including those of the Oak Bay Marine Group, were
refusing to provide catch data; (d) did any Ministers or their
staff participate in the Department of Fisheries Pacific Salmon
Management Teleconference calls in 1995 which considered the
refusal of the lodges, including the Oak Bay Marine Group lodges
to supply catch data; (e) were Ministers of the Crown briefed
on June 11, 1997 or thereafter on the refusal of sport fishing
lodges to povide catch data to the Department of Fisheries in
1995 and the legal actions on-against them; (f) did any
Minister or their staff meet with officials of Oak Bay Marine
Group in 1995, 1996 and 1997 (other than in the occasions
referenced above) and on any of those occasions did the company
make clear their displeasure at being required to provide catch
data to the Department of Fisheries, and (g) did any Minister
of the Crown go fishing with a representative of Oak Bay Marine
Group in August of 1997, what was the date of the fishing trip
and who was in the party in addition to the Minister?
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed as
follows.
(a) It is routine for the minister of the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, DFO, and staff to meet and speak with various members
of the fishing community, including lodge operators and the Sport
Fishing Institute of British Columbia, to discuss stakeholder
issues. Former minister, the honourable Brian Tobin, met with
sport fish lodge owners on July 12, 1995, to discuss chinook
conservation measures and their impacts on lodge operations.
Departmental staff are unaware of any other meeting, or
conversation which took place during this timeframe relating to
the context of the question.
(b) With regard to the July 12, 1995 meeting reported in (a)
above, any briefing which took place was verbal information
provided by senior departmental officials.
(c) Further to the honourable Brian Tobin's meeting on July 12,
1995, with sport fish lodge owners, the honourable Brian Tobin
was informed about the subsequent refusal of lodges to provide
catch data on August 17, 1995. Former DFO minister, the
honourable Fred Mifflin, received briefing material on June 10,
1996. Departmental records indicated that the honourable David
Anderson, at the time minister of revenue and member of
parliament for Victoria, was briefed in late July, 1995
regarding the refusal of lodges in the Queen Charlotte Islands,
B.C., including Oak Bay Marine Group, to provinde catch data to
DFO.
(d) Departmental officials advise that a staff member of former
DFO minister the honourable Brian Tobin's office attended one DFO
Pacific salmon management teleconference call on May 26, 1995,
which discussed proposed chinook salmon conservation measures.
Discussions included expected opposition to the measures by Queen
Charlotte Island lodge operators including Oak Bay Marine Group.
The department is unaware of any DFO minister or his staff
members participating in further teleconferences.
(e) Departmental staff provided a response to an anticipated
oral question for the House of Commons relating to the referenced
subject matter to the honourable David Anderson on September 24,
1997.
(f) Departmental staff and current ministerial staff are unaware
of any meeting during the stated timeframe between Ministers or their
staff where Oak Bay Marine Group officials made clear their
displeasure at being required to provide catch data to DFO.
(g) Yes, the honourable David Anderson did go fishing for 4
hours on August 12, 1997 on a private vessel owned by Martin
Dowling of Campbell River, B.C. The members of the party in
addition to the minister and Mr. Dowling were Greg McDougall,
Gerry Kristianson and Randy Wright, who is the
vice-president, operations, of the Oak Bay Marine Group.
All other ministers have no information on this subject.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the
remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, once again I rise with respect to a question that
was placed on the order paper on October 3, 1997.
Seven months have passed. We are into the eighth month. It is
a very straightforward question. We have been told time and time
again that they will be getting back to us, that they will
provide us with the answer. It just does not seem to be
happening. I ask the parliamentary secretary again when we can
expect an answer to this question.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of
the commentary. That message will be conveyed to the
parliamentary secretary to the House leader.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-3, an act respecting
DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the
Criminal Code and other acts, as reported (with amendment) from
the committee; and of Motion No. 7.
The Deputy Speaker: When the bill was last under
consideration by the House the hon. member for Medicine Hat had
the floor. He has eight minutes remaining in his speech.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise again to address the motion in Group No. 3.
My friends across the way were hoping I was finished but sadly
for them and for me too, I guess, we are not finished yet.
I will touch on two issues and just remind members why we are
supporting the motion by the NDP member. The reasons are
twofold. We are concerned about the privacy aspect. As I
pointed out before question period, there are concerns among the
public in an age when technology has become so prevalent that if
the government through the DNA databank were to receive a piece
of information, a DNA sample, somehow it will become public and
could be used in other ways the public would be very concerned
about.
That is a very legitimate concern. Many Canadians are concerned
that the government already has too much information about them.
If we are to ensure that this very useful tool is given to police
for use in stopping legitimate criminals, we must ensure the
public's concerns are allayed. The best way to do that in this
case, other than using due diligence when this DNA databank is
set up, is to put in place very stiff penalties so that if people
misuse the information they will face very severe consequences.
That is why we are very pleased to support the Group No. 3
motion that would place a maximum five year penalty on anybody
who misuses the data. We are supportive of it. I believe the
original legislation has a two year penalty.
When I read through the bill from cover to cover, as I often do
before I turn in for the evening, that aspect concerned me. I
was happy to see this amendment come forward. Reformers will
stand in support of the motion.
We believe the DNA databank is a good idea. We want it. We
think it is important for the police to have it, but we need to
ensure legitimate concerns are dealt with.
We think this is one way we could deal with this concern and
therefore will support this motion.
1510
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have been given just a few moments to
comment upon what is happening in the House today. We have a
bill on the topic of using DNA samples as a tool to suppress
crime, a bill in fact that the Liberals never really wanted. They
were brought to the issue by the sweep of international events as
other countries were responding to changing enforcement
technology.
The Canadian people are far ahead of the government on the will
to respond to crime. They want more than the narrow limits of
the bill on DNA. The theme I am talking about here is how
philosophically weak is the Liberal government. It specifically
shows in the comments to the groupings of the amendments before
us.
I heard a comment the other day that seemed to fit my point.
After some political talk around a table over drinks with some
obvious frustration, one interrupted the other and asked “Just
what do the Liberals really stand for anyway?” The answer I
overheard was telling.
She said something to the effect that “When you get right down
to it I suppose I have to admit that Liberals really stand for
what will get us elected. When I think about it, it does not
seem to matter too much about the long term view of what I think
is good for the country. My party keeps changing and I really do
not think we stand for anything exclusively. We have the red
book now but things always change”.
I know that understanding or admission is a touchy sore point
with the Prime Minister. I have heard him on several occasions
in the House try to cover the inherent weak nature of his party
and deliver his personal prescription of what it means to be a
Liberal in the usual puff phrases referring to democracy,
compassion, pragmatism and so on. I have heard this from every
political stripe, from the diehard socialist to the deluded
fascist, every group imaginable.
We say much about democracy and equality in our party also, but
we write them down in a blue book after exhaustive voting,
grassroots debate and discussion. Then we publish it for the
country and we are on the record as accountable for those
positions.
Reformers have been doing that for years before the Liberals
ever conceived of the idea of a red book. It is because
Reformers had a blue book and were killing the Liberals in the
polls in the west that they quickly hothoused the production of
the 1993 Liberal red book. The country knows that one now very
much as the list of broken promises or the red ink book.
In other words, the Prime Minister knows in his heart how weak
and without courage Liberals are. His pronouncements in the
House about it betray him. The private admission of the lady to
whom I referred who said she was a Liberal is not news. Everyone
has heard those comments. The sad part of it for our country is
that the lady, in spite of her admission, did not seem to feel
motivated to do something.
To her it seemed okay that despite how much her party hurt the
country or despite how short term expediency left Canada missing
opportunities for greatness and raising the human spirit, she
seemed content to sit with the insiders Liberal club; no risk, no
hint of courage, no concern about leadership, just complacency.
In spite of what the Prime Minister has done on the hepatitis C
file, Liberals who know better just shed their tears in private.
They unfortunately stay in their Liberal seats instead of joining
the people's agenda on our side.
Liberal manoeuvres on the DNA bill are typical of so much of
their administration of the people's business. They are weak and
this weakness has produced the consequence now that will directly
affect the basic safety of our citizens. Liberal weakness to
defend the streets of Canada against evil and the perpetrators of
crime is a reflection of their inadequate policy. Our country
faces challenges and to be a Liberal today is obviously just not
good enough to meet those challenges.
The basic economic policies of the government have been timid.
Liberals have put the country through needless pain by drawing
out the ordering of our national finances in halting steps, while
sending shaky mixed messages to the investor community about
where we are going. The Liberals are weak and are not up to the
job of running the finances of the country.
On Saturday, May 9, a Vancouver Sun headline read “Only
weak dollar helps us keep pace with Americans”.
1515
The article shows how Canada has fallen behind the U.S. in
productivity, foreign investment and the generation of jobs and
income. The finance minister does get some good advice on how to
stem the trend, but he is weak. He is afraid of the politics of
envy of the NDP. The socialist tendencies in his party hold
Canada back. That results in keeping unemployment unnecessarily
high.
I will make another point. The minister of trade is so weak that
he cannot explain or sell an MAI type of agreement that would
protect Canada's economic interests as we try expanding our
economy abroad. He is so inadequate that he lets Maude Barlow
and others lie baldface to the nation and deceive communities
right across this country with their socialist, small minded
inferiority complex.
The Liberal trade minister was not up to building a national
political mandate within our country or lead internationally to
overcome the problems of the MAI, even when Canada has a former
cabinet minister in charge of the OECD. No wonder. The record
is there. He is just a weak Liberal who is out of his league
when he takes Canada to the international table.
I make those observations leading up to the greatest admission
of weakness by Liberals that I have seen for some time. It was
the press release of May 1 by the solicitor general and the
justice minister. I quote in part:
May 1, 1998, Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of Justice
and Attorney General Canada released today the conclusions of
three eminent jurists asked to review the constitutionality of
taking DNA samples without prior judicial authorization at the
time a person is charged with a designated offence, such as
sexual assault.
Since 1995, DNA samples can be taken for investigative purposes
under the authority of a judicial warrant and the federal
government now has legislation before parliament, Bill C-3, that
would create a DNA databank based on DNA samples collected after
conviction.
Responding to a number of individuals and organizations that
have continued to press for such amendment, the Department of
Justice sought legal opinions from former Justice Martin Taylor
of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and from former Chief
Justices Charles Dubin of the Ontario Court of Appeal and Claude
Bisson of the Quebec Court of Appeal. Each concluded
independently that this proposal would not survive charter
scrutiny.
If charter scrutiny is the problem, then maybe the charter is
wrong or out of date. If we have judges who will not approve a
more expansive bill, then maybe we have the wrong kind of judges.
After all, the public has had no input into their selection.
It comes down to courage and confidence of the government,
courage and skill to act for the people. Make the supreme court
reflective of Canadian society. Change the charter if we have
to, the people are behind it. Pass legislation in this House
that meets the challenges of the job. If the judges are not up
to speed and strike it down, then use the notwithstanding clause.
Under this Liberal administration parliament no longer seems
supreme.
We are attempting to amend this bill through these various
report stage motions. It is good as far as it goes, but I call
on the government to show some resolve and strength of
leadership. The DNA bill should be parallel to taking
fingerprints. Liberals hiding and running because of legal
technicalities is not a government of the 21st century. Opinions
will continue to vary. We do not need this weak government. We
need a government to positively decide and lead with courage.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, you will note that because I am going to the Senators
game tonight we will have a victory over there. That is why the
juggling of the order, to allow me the time to get ready so that
I can help them out.
DNA evidence has been used in the courts since 1988. The
question is why has it taken a full decade for the government to
come up with comprehensive legislation for the collecting of DNA
samples to allow peace officers and the justice system to do
their jobs. The tools are widely available for the collection of
DNA samples. The track record for proving convictions and for
proving innocence such as the recent high profile exonerations
demonstrates the validity and viability of DNA testing.
Why is the government so far behind in this technology? Why is
the government going through such great lengths to limit these
tools and methods of DNA collection? Should the government
instead be concentrating on regulating and safeguarding the
methods available?
The government is concerned with the protection of the rights of
the criminals. That is why the bill allows only for the
collection of DNA samples after a conviction for a crime that has
been committed. Too bad the government does not use the same
rationale in protecting the rights of law-abiding Canadians. The
government has no problem setting up a central gun registry
forcing people who have not committed a crime to give private
information to the government and to keep a central databank.
1520
Why is the government willing to punish law-abiding Canadians by
establishing a flawed gun registry while at the same time
hindering justice by not collecting DNA when a person is charged
with a crime?
The Canadian Police Association represents the frontline of our
justice system. Police officers are concerned that if they have
to wait until a conviction in order to collect DNA samples, they
will not be able to introduce DNA evidence during trial
proceedings. This would be like not using fingerprints as
evidence until after the person has been convicted.
Will the government tell us what it is afraid of? Will it
accept the Canadian Police Association's recommendation that DNA
samples be collected when a person who has previously committed a
crime is being charged with the present crime? The police are
concerned that if they have to wait for the conviction before
collecting a DNA sample the accused would rather skip bail or not
fulfil parole conditions rather than voluntarily submitting to DNA
samples being taken from him or her.
Why volunteer to give evidence which may very well convict him
or her of an unsolved crime? How can the government continue to
argue against the rationale that is being given by the police who
know and have to work with the criminal element? Why is the
government willing to listen to people protecting the rights of
criminals rather than the Canadian Police Association which
promotes the interest of our police men and women?
The public is already concerned with the lack of teeth in
Canada's justice system. The Young Offenders Act is under public
scrutiny because it sees young offenders repeating crimes. The
public is concerned about criminals released on early parole
because once released many are again committing crimes. If these
repeat offenders knew that their DNA samples were in a central
registry, would they not be less likely to commit a crime? Does
it not make sense to put into place preventive measures such as
an extensive DNA sample bank for future victims?
The Canadian Police Association's main philosophical objection
with Bill C-3 is this. It is a fundamental disagreement over the
sovereign legislative authority of parliament in originating
criminal law as opposed to a judicially supreme system favoured
by the department and some justices. Having responsible
government taken away from a free people is a terrible thing but
giving it away is surely worse.
The government was concerned about what the courts would think
of this bill when it was drafting it. Rather, should the courts
not be concerned about what parliament is thinking? It is
parliament that makes the laws, not the courts. The job of the
courts is to enforce the laws that parliament makes. If this
business of second guessing each other continues, it is the
legislative function of parliament that will be hindered. It is
known now that parliament is being hindered by the courts.
We all have a desire to protect our families and society. This
bill would provide for matching DNA samples taken from a crime
scene with those samples in the DNA bank. Does it not make sense
that the larger the data source of the DNA bank, the likelier a
match will be found? Why not seek measures to increase the data
in the DNA bank rather than limiting the tools needed by law
enforcement officers?
I have two more points. One of my colleagues said that this
bill is a half step. It is obvious that this bill is going to
have to be amended a number of times over the next few years. In
the meantime because of samples that are not taken as a result of
this proposed legislation, crimes will go unsolved. There is no
question about that.
1525
Why not get the bill right the first time? Why not accept the
valuable suggestions from the Canadian Police Association and the
opposition so that we have a bill that works from the start
rather than having to amend it in the future?
All of us are concerned about due process. All of us are
concerned about privacy. None of us want to see a system of DNA
registration that would hinder our individual rights. The
safeguard that has been proposed is that anyone who has already
been convicted of a crime when charged with another would have to
provide DNA samples. This way the general law-abiding public
would not be subject to undue process in the courts.
Does the government think that people who have committed crimes
against society have the same privileges as those who have kept
the law? It is obvious attention is not given to the
independence of this House. It is not given to the innocence of
the victims but rather we are determined to continue to give
rights to those who have already committed a crime.
As Churchill said, give our police the tools so they can finish
the job. Do not hinder them in their pursuit of doing their job
of bringing criminals to trial.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
BILL C-19—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached
under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with
respect to the report and third reading stages of Bill C-19, an
act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the
Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a Minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a
motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the
consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.
Some hon. members: Shame.
* * *
[English]
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-3, an act respecting
DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the
Criminal Code and other acts, as reported (with amendment) from
the committee; and of Motion No. 7.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak regarding Group No. 3 in this DNA bill,
particularly to speak in support of Motion No. 7 which amends
clause 11 of the bill. It proposes that the penalty be increased
from two to five years for anyone who violates, misuses or
communicates any part of a person's DNA sample.
This motion would clearly be a deterrent to those who would be
inclined to use this information for criminal purposes.
I can understand why this motion is necessary since there is
considerable nervousness surrounding the privacy of individuals.
The privacy commissioner has stated on a number of occasions that
he has serious reservations with the storing of DNA samples
themselves rather than just the analysis.
He felt this legislation seeks to use DNA to link specific
offenders with specific crimes. Keeping the DNA sample itself
would inevitably invite further uses of the DNA that have little
to do with identifying offenders such as allowing researchers to
use the material to study genetic links to criminal behaviour.
That is the idea being proposed now in Correctional Service
Canada.
I have been told by the commissioner's office that we are
looking for alternative therapies to criminal behaviour. The
problem with the privacy commissioner's theory that the analysis
of the DNA is sufficient without the need to preserve the actual
sample is that he did not take into account that in order for the
databank to keep pace with technological advances the samples are
needed. If not we would have recollect samples should the
original analysis be obsolete.
The expenses associated with the repetition of these tasks would
be astronomical.
I hope that that would be taken into account.
1530
The motion of my hon. colleague from the NDP should put the
privacy commissioner's fears to rest knowing that a strong
penalty was in place for the misuse of samples. There is only
one word in this whole business that I have mentioned that
frightens me a bit in the sense that it is a word which would
cause most Liberals if not all of them to reject this kind of
amendment to a bill.
The word is deterrent. Anytime we talk about creating penalties
for breaking the law, penalties for doing wrong and that we need
to impose penalties that would be a deterrent to individuals
doing these things, the Liberal government seems to reject it.
Deterrent is not part of the Liberal government's language.
Liberals have these flowery ideas, soft cushy mushy ideas that
criminals have to be coddled in all fashions imaginable in order
to change in their lives and make things better. I hope the
Liberals will look at this part and say that yes we do need to
deter people from misusing DNA samples that are collected.
Anybody who would misuse or abuse that position should suffer the
consequences. It would cause others to think twice before they
did the same thing.
I only wish we could put people into power. Maybe someday we
will, when we get rid of these pussycats in the government's
front row who do not know the meaning of good law and order and
strong discipline. The government is forever coddling criminals.
It is to the point that in the penitentiaries the disposable
income for a convict is $150 per month whereas the disposable
income for a soldier in our army is about $40 a month. We do not
look after law-abiding people nearly as well as we do the people
behind bars.
Anytime any kind of bill is introduced that would be strong
enough to deter people from other activities along those lines
would be wonderful. It would bring about some changes this
government would not want to see, not the way the government
coddles up to the convicts making sure their rights are looked
after while the victims rights in our land continually go
downhill, depleted day in and day out. The victims are just poor
victims but the criminals, man oh man, the things that are done
for them.
We really have to be careful when we take these DNA samples
according to the government. Criminals immediately get
psychological attention. They can get massages, legal aid, all
these things come to their rescue. I have talked to family after
family after family of victims. If they need a psychologist to
deal with someone who has lost a loved one, they have to pay for
the service themselves, if they can afford it and most cannot,
but we make sure the criminal gets that. If a criminal needs
psychiatric help and has to be placed under observation for 30
days, we make sure the taxpayers pay for it while the victims, if
they want any service at all, will have to pay for it themselves,
if they can afford it and of course most of them cannot.
It is high time we focused on the victims in our country. The
victims are the people that are being terribly offended in this
nation by a government that does not seem to care at all about
them. The government shows about as much care for victims of
criminal activities as it has shown for the people who were
affected by hepatitis C before 1986. This caring loving
government.
The government is completely off track. These amendments would
help bring it back on track. The police association and all
those who work on the front line, the ones who want to make the
arrests who want to clean up the problems we are having with
criminals in our land are saying to the government “Let us take
the sample at the time of arrest, let us take it at the time of
charge”. But no.
We are not going to allow that to happen until after.
1535
Those are the police all over the country and anyone who works
with crime and law and order. Walk into a police department in
Calgary, Toronto or anywhere. Ask the police when it should be
done and they will say that it certainly should not be done after
conviction because it does not make sense.
However, we have to be careful when we do anything in this
country because we will offend the charter of rights of the
criminals. This is the charter that the mighty government under
the Trudeau leadership brought in, to our great nation's dismay.
It has been a roadblock to good justice in this land for far too
long. I for one am really getting tired of watching progress
being moved in a direction only to have the Supreme Court of
Canada rule that under the charter of rights and freedoms we
cannot go any further in that direction because it would offend
or hurt the poor criminal.
I hope Canadians wake up to what is really going on in this land
and that this government gets what it deserves in the next
election, booted out of here so we can put something in that will
do something with law and order.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, my
colleague from Wild Rose mentioned the criminals and the easy
life they have. The criminals in my area of the country get to
play golf. The average taxpayer in my riding has to pay more
than $50 a round but the criminals get to play golf on their own
golf course. Is that not great?
If I were to think about this, I think the average Canadian
would say that if we kept criminals busy 60 hours a week, 40
hours a week eight hours a day doing meaningful work and 20 hours
of study a week learning to be better people, they would come out
of those places a lot better than the people who come out after
all the mollycoddling with colour television sets and playing on
the golf course when other people have to pay. It is entirely
wrong and is not the way it should be done.
As one of my colleagues said, if the government would just
accept the sensible amendments to these bills, we would not have
to keep revisiting these things. It is amazing how many bills
come back for amendments one or two years later. The Nunavut
bill is back in the House. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is
running around handing out $300,000 for polls, which could have
been done for $8,000 by professional companies, to try to justify
and support bills that were passed when they had no idea what the
definitions would be. It is a total mess.
If the government would just accept meaningful changes to its
bills, little amendments like the one we are looking at here
under Group No. 3, the bills would be much better. They would
work better and they would not have to keep coming back here.
Under Group No. 3, the motion was put forward by a member of the
NDP. We on the Reform side support the motion. It proposes a
change in the penalty for releasing the DNA results for any other
reason than for the purposes of the act. The government has a
two year penalty in there. If somebody gets these DNA results
and sends them out on a mailing list or allows them to be
publicized in some way, there is only a two year penalty provided
for under the act.
As my colleague from Wild Rose said, this is a typical example
of the mollycoddling approach the Liberal government has toward
criminals. This is a serious crime and it should have a much
greater penalty. The proposal that has come from our NDP
colleague is a five year penalty. We agree with it because if it
was two years we could bet the person would be out in three
months. That is just the way it works with this Liberal
government.
Speaking today about the DNA act takes me back to when the
member for Wild Rose actually got the first DNA bill through this
House. Anybody who was here in the 35th Parliament, and all of
those Liberals sitting on that side were here, will remember the
day in question period when the member for Wild Rose stood up and
challenged the then justice minister to do something about
authorizing the use of DNA. On that day, whether it was by
mistake or good fortune, the minister agreed to meet with the
opposition.
He said if the opposition would meet with him that day it could
be done. The member for Wild Rose got right back up and said
“We will do it this afternoon” and it was done. Within a very
short time we had a bill through the House.
1540
I was thrilled as the member for North Vancouver because the
very first crime that was solved using that bill was a crime in
North Vancouver. The police had been waiting for the power to
use the DNA results. Why it had been delayed for so long heaven
only knows. All it took was the willingness of the government to
sit down and do something sensible that the people of Canada
wanted. When we look at the DNA bill and the amendments proposed
by the opposition members, anyone reading the bill can see that
they are sensible amendments and really should be made.
As my colleague for Wild Rose alluded to, we have had 30 years
of the Liberal wishy-washy bleeding heart approach to crime.
Where has that got us? Absolutely nowhere. The situation today
is that the police are frustrated. They can arrest people for
crimes and they cannot get convictions.
I know I cannot use props but the tiepin I am wearing today was
lent to me by a policeman friend. The policemen I know are
friends and they should be friends of law-abiding people. These
days the police are forced to act as facilitators because if they
actually arrest anybody, they have a terrible job getting anyone
convicted. The tiepin is a pair of gold handcuffs that the police
wear to represent the difficult time they have in actually
getting criminals convicted. I wish we could do something in the
House to assist the police to do their work.
One of the frustrations alluded to by two of my colleagues is
what we call the tyranny of the judges. The supreme court
overrules the intent of parliament, turning us into an even worse
type of wishy-washy Liberal approach to crime. I wonder, but
perhaps I do not have to wonder too much what that has to do with
the fact that the government actually appoints the judges and we
end up with the same philosophy in making judgments on what comes
down in the way of the law.
A few weeks ago the Supreme Court of Canada made a judgment on
the Delgamuukw case, the Indian land claims case that came out of
B.C. The case goes back probably about a decade. Many years
were spent hearing the testimony in the case in B.C. It took
more than a year for the judge to come out with his judgment. The
judgment that there was no Indian claim to title was upheld by
the B.C. supreme court after lengthy hearings. Then it went to
the Supreme Court of Canada. In a lightning fast hearing a
central Canadian court overturned everything that had been
determined in the British Columbia courts and created nothing but
chaos for the land claims process in the province.
This is another example of the type of tyranny that goes on that
should be dealt with with the notwithstanding clause as mentioned
by the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby. These
sorts of decisions undermine the parliamentary process. They
make it very difficult for parliament to do its work.
Over the Easter break I was in Australia. I was looking at a
similar problem Australia ran into. About five or six years ago
a court made a similar ruling to the one that has just been made
by the Supreme Court of Canada. The court ruled that the
aboriginals of Australia basically owned everything. They had
title to everything. That created such chaos in Australia over
the next three to four years that every time the government tried
to do something, to develop a new park, to build a school,
whatever it was trying to do, aboriginals would lodge claims in
the court that they owned the land and nothing could be done with
it.
We already see that happening in B.C. Three or four weeks ago
the B.C. government announced it was building a new school in the
heart of the city. What happened? Immediately some natives
claimed that they own the land and the school cannot be built
until they have settled their land claim. We can see this whole
process running away into uncontrolled judicial decisions.
1545
In Australia, after putting up with that for four years, they
finally passed the native land titles act to put an end to the
tyranny that was shown by the judges and to extinguish that
aboriginal title.
All of these things stem from the refusal of government to treat
crime in a meaningful manner and to treat criminals for what they
are, criminals.
We know what causes crime. Criminals cause crime. We need to
take a much harder line with criminals than we have been taking.
While the opposition is pleased to see this type of DNA
legislation coming through, we would certainly like to see
amendments made to reinforce the provisions of the bill.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-3,
the DNA act. The motion in Group No. 3 that we are debating
would increase the penalty for anybody who abuses this
information. If the information is used for anything other than
what was intended, a very severe penalty should be applied. This
is needed because the information is very useful in fighting
crime. It is also very personal and should be used only for what
it was intended.
DNA profiles contain uniquely private and personal information.
This information should be used only for the purposes of
identification.
The essence of this bill is to create a databank to identify
every person who has committed a crime in this country. If the
profile is on file, then anytime it comes up again we know
exactly who the person is.
This would give a strong tool to our police, to our crime
fighters. It is a strong tool for the protection of society. It
is a strong tool for deterring criminals from acting because they
will know there is a positive means of identification on file and
that there will be no mistakes.
This motion goes on to state other reasons it is important to
protect these profiles. The improper use or disclosure of DNA
profiles can lead to significant harm to the individual,
including discrimination in areas such as employment, education,
health care, reproduction and insurance.
There seems to be a great deal of concern about the rights of
people. If we have rights for the average citizen in Canada,
then we need to secure those rights and make them stronger.
If we have this DNA information on file, it should be used for
crime prevention and that is all it should be used for.
We support this amendment from the member for Sydney—Victoria.
If this very personal information gets out for any reason other
than that for which it was intended, then the crime should be
very, very strong. This should, in itself, go a long way in
putting to rest some of the fears of the people who are worried
about the rights of criminals. However, I think we should worry
more about the rights of the individual.
Forensic DNA analysis provides information not only about an
individual, but also about the individual's parents and children,
thus implicating family privacy. Again, this is the type of
information we do not want to be made public. The information is
meant to be used as a tool to fight crime. It is not meant to be
used as a tool to invade anybody's privacy.
Again, there is a need for a strong deterrent for anybody who
would abuse this databank. Once this databank is in place, we
need a very strong deterrent for anybody thinking of taking up
criminal activity.
DNA profiles are also tied to reproductive decisions which are
among the most private and intimate decisions an individual can
make.
The reasons that have been put forward to protect DNA
information indicate why we need this amendment. We need a
strong penalty for anybody abusing this information because it
delves into absolutely every aspect of a person's life. There
are no secrets when a DNA profile is created.
Also, the bill states that the commissioner shall ensure that
the national DNA databank authority maintains a record of every
person who accesses the national DNA databank established under
subsection (1).
There has to be a record of any person who uses this databank to
absolutely make certain that the use of this information is for
what it was intended and that it cannot be manipulated for use in
any other manner.
1550
It was mentioned earlier the research that could be done with
the DNA databank information on criminals. Persons could take
all of that information and use it for various reasons. But it
has to be kept for the use that was intended. That is why this
motion was put forward.
It also states that every three years after this legislation
comes into force a complete investigation must be carried out
with respect to the national DNA databank and all aspects
surrounding it. This is another aspect that was put in place to
ensure the privacy of the individuals in the databank.
Anybody who thinks this bill is going to invade a person's
rights must realize that all manner of legislation is being put
into place to protect against that. The legislation is being put
in place to make this bill acceptable to the people who feel that
the information could be used in a improper manner.
With all of these aspects to the bill and the fact that this
amendment has been brought forward to increase the penalty for
the improper use of the databank, I think we have come to the
point where it will be usable, the information will be protected
and we will not have to be concerned with that.
Let us allow this DNA databank to exist. Let us use it as a
strong tool to fight crime. Let us use it as a strong tool to
protect people's rights in this country. Let us use it as a tool
for deterrence and police action.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to support Motion No. 7 under Group No. 3
which is before us. This motion recognizes the reality that not
everyone in the public service is always pure and without fault.
It recognizes the reality that confidential information can be
misused. In fact, we can cite many instances where confidential
information has been misused. Take for example the Income Tax
Act. Everything is supposed to be confidential, yet every year
we get specific examples of information having been improperly
released by bureaucrats.
Although I am not big on very severe criminal penalties for
ordinary citizens who get fouled up in the law, I am very
supportive of strong penalties for people in positions of trust
who abuse their responsibilities and commit offences. I would
say that this proposal to raise the maximum penalty from two to
five years for the improper release of information is very well
placed.
We also could list examples of the improper use of lists. This
government is great for lists. In fact all Canadian governments
have been great for lists. We will recall that Bill C-68 was
passed in the last parliament. Because there were lists of all
the lawful owners of handguns in this country the government was
able, suddenly and out of the blue, to declare that about 400,000
people owned firearms which were no longer legal. They were, in
effect, confiscated because their value was reduced to zero by
the stroke of a government pen.
If the government did not have a list, the government could not
indulge in this sort of hanky-panky. It is no wonder the
Canadian people are reluctant to have their names on anything,
particularly in the computer age.
There are other amendments, of course, which we will be
supporting to this particular legislation as we go on through the
day and perhaps tomorrow.
1555
There is the absurdity, for example, that DNA samples can be
taken only after conviction. I suppose we should take
fingerprints only after conviction and take mug shots only after
conviction. Why there should be different rules for DNA than for
fingerprinting is something I do not understand. However, that
is another amendment which we will be discussing at a later time.
Getting back to Motion No. 7, I think it is very well thought
out. I compliment the hon. member for bringing this forward. I
notice some people on the other side nodding in agreement. I
hope this amendment will ultimately pass because it really does
improve the legislation.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, there
are a couple of issues here that I think we should stop to take a
look at.
The hon. member who just spoke made the point that we will not
be able to take DNA samples until after a conviction. I think
that is something we had better take a long, hard look at.
What this specific amendment is dealing with, however, is the
fact that we are going to increase the penalty for misuse of a
DNA sample from two years to five years.
It is a pretty simple proposition. This is not complicated.
Even members of the government should be able to fathom this one,
turn it around in their heads and support it. I expect they
will. However, it begs a few more questions. Who are we
protecting? Are we protecting the person who commits the violent
offence? Are we protecting the public? Are we protecting some
unknown entity? I am a little confused in the circle of life
here.
It is time that we simplified the laws of this land instead of
making them more complicated. If we are talking about misuse of
a DNA sample, then let us increase the penalty. Let us
understand what it is for, but let us also use that tool.
The police associations have asked for it. The barrister
associations are a bit mixed on it. We do not have one complete
answer there. However, it is a useful tool.
I am not catching the explanation that tells me that it is some
type of an invasive plan or that it is invasive to the person who
actually has a DNA sample taken. By plucking a hair from a head
or by taking a swab of saliva out of a mouth we have a DNA
sample. Is that somehow more invasive than putting ink on a
person's hands and fingerprinting them at the point where that
person is charged? We do not have to wait. What is going on
here?
As responsible people, as the people who help to set the laws of
this country, we should come to grips with this. This is not a
complicated issue. This is childishly simple. Let us deal with
it.
This is past due. We spent far too much time arguing about this
and discussing this in the House of Commons. The justice
committee has come in with specific recommendations. It is time
to approve those recommendations and move forward.
We should understand that this is a new tool in the arsenal
against crime. It needs some protective measures so we do not
abuse it. We always run the risk of abuse in government or abuse
by officials or abuse by a third party with some type of an
ulterior motive.
Let us not think that we are quite in the days of Orwellian
thought yet. This is not Nineteen Eighty-Four. We have
the opportunity here to move forward. This is not an invasion of
somebody's home. It is not an invasion of their bedroom. This
is about a DNA sample which is going to be held in a databank
with protective measures so that it will not be available to the
general public.
1600
We have spent too long, and I probably have as well, discussing
this subject. I think it is time we move forward on it.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to the motion before us today.
It is important when Canadians look at their justice system that
they feel the system actually has the ability to achieve what it
sets out to achieve. It is vitally important that the justice
system have teeth in it for those who would break the law.
One of the biggest criticisms—and it is coffee shop talk
everywhere we go in the country—is that there is not sufficient
teeth in the system right now. Many Canadians feel that serious
and violent offenders are getting off with a mere slap on the
wrist in many cases.
It is also important to have built-in safeguards to protect the
safety and the privacy of citizens and to respect their
individual rights. I have spoken many times in the House on my
very deep commitment to individual rights in Canada, something
that I do not think we stress nearly enough.
Therefore I am very supportive of the motion which would provide
a much stronger guarantee to individuals that information
obtained from a DNA profile would not be used improperly. In
fact anybody who would do so would be faced with very severe
penalties.
It is important that those penalties be articulated in the act
and that they are tough. I do not want to see this databank
abused.
As I said, Canadians are very much tired of a justice system
that does not deliver. They are very much tired of a justice
system that has no teeth in it. They are very much tired of a
justice system where they see plea bargains that end up with
serious and violent offenders getting a mere slap on the wrist
for committing heinous acts and crimes.
It is no different when we are talking about the protection of
individual rights. I believe that we have to consider the rights
of individuals to their privacy. We have to accept the fact that
the government has a very strong obligation to ensure that
information obtained under a DNA profile is not abused.
I am very much in favour of the notion of DNA databanks. As a
person who has absolutely no intention of ever committing a
crime, I have no problem signing up for the program and making my
DNA available to a databank right now.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Mike Scott: I hear members across the way objecting
to that, and I do not understand why.
Many people voluntarily provide their fingerprints for a variety
of reasons to a fingerprint databank. I have absolutely no
problem with making the job of law enforcement easier. I have
absolutely no problem with the notion that people charged with a
serious crime be compelled to provide a DNA profile or a DNA
sample.
What I have a problem with is a justice system which
mollycoddles those who commit serious crimes and those accused of
committing serious crimes and which does not extract proper
compensation or proper retribution for the transgressions.
1605
As a parliamentarian, as a person who is going to be required to
vote on the motion, I have absolutely no problem. I believe very
strongly that the motion as it is written is a vast improvement
to the bill.
We as parliamentarians have an obligation to Canadians to
provide a justice system that works and that provides the
safeguards Canadians expect, especially when it comes to their
individual rights. Therefore I believe the motion as written
addresses both those concerns, particularly if the justice system
and the courts in the future will interpret the motion and will
apply the motion as it is written. It will be a big step forward
in terms of how our justice system in Canada is applied and does
work.
I reiterate my support for the motion. It is time that we have
a justice system in the country that works. It is time that we
have means of identifying criminals and those who are accused of
serious crimes. It is time that Canadians feel their justice
system is working for them and not for the criminal element in
society. It is time that we as a nation recognize our
obligations primarily to our fellow citizens to provide for their
safety and for their well-being.
For all of those reason I will be supporting the motion and will
be encouraging all my colleagues in the House to do so as well.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to the agreement
made Monday, May 4, 1998, Motion No. 7 in Group No. 3 is deemed to
have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and
deferred.
The House will now proceed to the motion in Group No. 4.
[English]
Pursuant to agreement made on Monday, May 4, 1998, the motion in
Group No. 4 is deemed moved and seconded. This group contains
Motion No. 8.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 12, be amended
“(2) The Solicitor General of Canada shall have each
proposed regulation laid before each House of Parliament.
(3) Each proposed regulation that is laid before a House of
Parliament shall, on the day it is laid, be referred by that
House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by
the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct enquiries
or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and
report its findings to that House.
(4) A proposed regulation that has been laid pursuant to
subsection (1) may be made
(a) on the expiration of thirty sitting days after it was laid;
or
(b) where, with respect to each House of Parliament,
(i) the committee reports to the House, or
(ii) the committee decides not to conduct enquiries or public hearings.
(5) For the purposes of this section, “sitting day” means, in
respect of either House of Parliament, a day on which that House
sits.”
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
first like to point out that the group of amendments containing
Motion No. 8 was initiated by my colleague, the member for
Charlesbourg. As he is busy with other duties related to his
role as an MP today, he is unable to move the motion and I will
therefore do so on his behalf. I am pleased to do so because
this is not the first time this kind of amendment has been
introduced by the Bloc Quebecois. I will go into further detail
later. The motion has primarily to do with the intended
procedure for passing regulations related to legislation.
I would like to point out briefly that we are still talking
about Bill C-3. For those unfamiliar with the bill, it allows
genetic fingerprinting in certain cases in order to establish a
DNA databank for identifying individuals who have committed
crimes.
It is a way of taking more modern scientific and medical
technologies, which have made enormous strides, one step
further. There is already a similar structure in place for
fingerprints. According to the scientific information we have
been given, DNA testing is very accurate and has a very high
success rate.
1610
To a certain extent, this bill represents that approach. It is
important to understand that this is a first, that it represents
something new and different, which demands a degree of caution.
It is to be expected that the public will ask questions and that
there will even be some reluctance. Some kind of legislative
and regulatory framework is required.
This is what worries us a bit in this particular case, giving
latitude to others than this House, this Parliament, when the
time comes to define the type of regulations which will
accompany an act like this one.
The use of DNA samples for identification, or for ultimate use
in evidence being a relatively recent development, a great deal
of caution is needed in our approach. At this point, it is the
House which has the opportunity to debate the matter.
We are at the report stage. The bill has been debated at second
reading and in committee. Situations may crop up when the
powers will need to be expanded, or restricted. a little, and
this requires much care and much follow-up. Parliamentarians
should have some control over the regulations.
People expect us to be the ones in society with the power to
make decisions on legislative measures, and they do not want to
see others—even a well-intentioned minister—making use of
departmental employees or ministerial staff to define practices,
particularly if these are new practices. This would give them
the sole power to make the rules and to have them passed by
cabinet. All these powers, the way the bill is set up at
present, are concentrated in the hands of a single individual,
and do not lie with this Parliament as a whole.
This is not the only case where this is happening. It is a
frequent occurrence. Without referring to any specific case, I
would just say that this is a general government trend, this
desire to get their hands on as much power as possible One way
of doing so is through regulations.
So, yet again the role of members is being reduced because their
impact in the formulation of regulations is being restricted.
It is all very well to talk about the stages in committee and so
on, there should still be a formal process providing for the
consultation of the House in the passing of regulations. In our
parliamentary system, that includes the other House to some
degree and that is why the motion refers to it. You are no
doubt aware of our opinion about the usefulness of that House,
and when I say “that House” I mean “the other” House. It is an
obstacle we can do without. We could even save some money.
However, since they are still there, the motion refers to the
usual course of legislative process and thus approval by the
other House of amendments to the regulations.
All members of Parliament should be in agreement with this. I
do not know how any member, regardless of political stripe, in
the government or in opposition, can object to being consulted,
to having a say and to taking a larger part in the legislative
process.
We must never lose sight of the fact that a member of Parliament
has a role to play in the legislative process, first and
foremost. This is why we were elected, why people sent us here.
People have expectations. Who gets the ultimate blame if
things go wrong? We do. So it is only right that we be
included as much as possible.
The tendency is to always put regulatory powers in the hands of
the executive, cabinet, in other words, and the tendency must be
stopped somewhere. Perhaps right here.
I have trouble seeing how members, particularly Liberal members,
could oppose this motion, Motion No. 8, in Group No. 4, in a
series of amendments.
It is in this spirit that my colleague, the member for
Charlesbourg, introduced his amendment. He is an expert and
could have gone into much greater detail about Bill C-3 than I
have, and he will perhaps have another opportunity to do so
depending on how debate goes.
1615
What I have tried to do right now is to explain the purpose of
Motion No. 8 in Group No. 4 and to say that the member for
Charlesbourg will obviously be able to count on the support of
all his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois. I hope he will also
be able to count on the support of colleagues in other parties,
including the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, who I am sure will
give us his support, and other members of the Liberal Party who
are listening very closely today.
I therefore conclude my remarks and hope that members will be
persuaded by the argument that we should play a greater role as
lawmakers, and that all parliamentarians will pass this
amendment, which is Motion No. 8.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
a pleasure to see you back in the chair. I was giving speeches
on Thursday and there you were. You had to listen to two. You
will probably have to listen to two today. I can see you are
thrilled with that prospect.
We are debating Group No. 4, Motion No. 8 on Bill C-3, the DNA
bill. This motion amends clause 12 of the bill. As the bill now
reads, under clause 12 the governor in council can make
regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the
bill but there is no statutory requirement for the regulations to
be laid before parliament or the appropriate committee for
review. We see this as a major problem. Parliamentarians and
eventually the joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of
Regulations should be able to properly review, comment on and
correct problems in the regulations.
The Bloc member wished all parliamentarians would support this
motion because it would give us more say in the running of
things. He will be hoping for that result but I suspect the
Chrétien lookalikes will end up all standing in their places and
doing what they have to do. While I will argue in favour of this
motion I do not think for a moment that we are going to see
support for it. None of the members opposite have stood in
support. There is a very large attendance of them today. They
are drastically interested in the bill. I see some laughter from
the gallery and I think we all know why they are laughing when I
talk about the large number of Liberals here today to listen to
the content of the speeches.
We have had problems with regulations. When they do not go
before a committee there is a danger there will be some sort of
flaw in them. I am a member of the joint Standing Committee on
Scrutiny of Regulations and I have been on that committee since I
was first elected in 1993. I suspect most members would wonder
what it is all really about and what that committee does. It is
probably one of the most useful committees on the Hill. It is
totally non-partisan in nature. We look at purely the legality
and the appropriateness of the regulations that come before us.
Unfortunately it usually takes a few years before the
regulations work their way through the system and come to our
attention. On the odd occasion when a member of the House or
some outside person notices some sort of problem in a regulation,
they can bring that to our attention and we can take a look at it
to see whether that regulation is ultra vires or whether it is
appropriate. I admit that most of the problems we deal with are
minor in nature. They tend to be related to translation where
there could be a different word in French than in English. They
may be minor misprints of one type or another. Sometimes they are
technical in nature or legal in nature and the concerned
departments will readily agree to alter them.
From time to time we strike things that are major in nature. The
committee presently has the power to make a report to the House
requesting disallowance of a regulation. We are very close to
that situation now in connection with regulations for the
participation of the police in political activities. For some
years the committee has been very concerned about the police
regulations which in effect make it illegal for a policeman to
even stand at a shopping centre and gather names on a petition to
not have a roadway go through his area.
1620
That is how serious those regulations are. They so restrict
political participation by police officers even on their own time
that probably many of the activities of policemen during
elections municipally, provincially or federally are illegal and
they do not even realize it. For example, to wear the button of
a political party when off duty or to have a sign on their lawn
is illegal.
There is a major court case going on now in Quebec where these
regulations are being challenged. Even with this, the committee
has already recognized that this is inappropriate. We have been
pressuring the solicitor general to get the law changed.
The process is happening right now. We are having a meeting
tomorrow. We believe there will be new regulations drafted that
meet the requirements for appropriateness. This is a very
powerful function that the committee performs.
We have looked at the regulations in a totally non-partisan way.
We have dealt with them. We have spoken with the solicitor
general, with the drafters and we are getting those regulations
replaced.
In the absence of any committee scrutiny or process whereby that
can occur, all we end up with are ongoing legal battles.
Eventually they reach some conclusion but it is a lot better for
the political process to fix these problems promptly.
This is one of the reasons Reform is very supportive of this
motion. The motion is not ideal in that the committees that
these regulations will go before will probably be pretty much yes
men and women for the government.
An hon. member: Yes persons.
Mr. Ted White: Yes persons, as one of the Liberals said.
Isn't that just the ultimate in political correctness.
These yes persons, or the Chrétien lookalikes as I mentioned
earlier, will each bleat their approval of any of the regulations
without really considering seriously whether they are appropriate
or legal.
At least by putting them through the process, eventually they
will reach the joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of
Regulations and could even be brought to our attention earlier.
If the regulations go before the justice committee, then at
least members of the opposition or a member of the public, a
witness who sees those regulations coming forward and has
concerns about them, can bring them to the attention of the joint
Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. We can give our
input.
One of the things absolutely essential with regulations is to
get a regulatory impact statement. Then there is an obligation
on the department producing the regulations to also produce a
regulatory impact statement explaining what impact is expected
for the regulation to have on the public or on those affected by
the regulation and it also gives the cost and whether
alternatives have been pursued.
There could be other ways of achieving the same result. Those
regulatory impact statements are an important part of the
process.
I endorse the motion put forward by the Bloc. I doubt very much
that the government will find in its heart to support this very
good suggestion at the time of the vote but we certainly will.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in order to facilitate debate, I
would like to read the motion, with its five points, two of
which are of greater concern to us.
The motion reads in part as follows:
12.(2) The Solicitor General of Canada shall have each proposed
regulation laid before each House of Parliament.
(3) Each proposed regulation that is laid before a House of
Parliament shall, on the day it is laid, be referred by that
House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined
by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct
enquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed
regulation and report its findings to that House.
I will stop there. For a political party such as the Bloc
Quebecois which, for four or five years now, has constantly
complained about duplication and overlap, I find this amendment
somewhat strange.
The member for North Vancouver himself mentioned that the House
already has well established procedures requiring all
departments to publish proposed regulations ahead of time.
1625
Any interested party may comment on a proposed regulation before
it takes effect.
[English]
It is well established. As the member for North Vancouver
alluded to in a non-partisan way and to quote his words, there is
a process already in place which provides for the prepublication
and consultation of any regulations implemented.
As a result, the government considers this amendment
unnecessary. I ask all hon. members to vote against the amendment
since it is not needed.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. This might come
as some dismay to the hon. member opposite, but I do not share
that opinion. This is an important part of the process to have
embodied in this piece of legislation.
It attempts in a substantive way to keep elected officials in
the legislative loop, to keep them as a part of the process and
to ensure that arbitrary changes do not occur. The hon. member
for Charlesbourg does go about this in an interesting way. One
could almost draw from this an inference that the Bloc or the
hon. member are supportive now of the Senate's being actively
involved in the review of this type of legislation.
The bill in its present form would not allow those members of
parliament who are most affected on behalf of their constituents
in the changing of the legislation to be directly involved. In
the current reading of the bill the solicitor general could bring
about a change arbitrarily. He could bring about a change
without going through the normal process of review of looking at
the legislation and bringing in what might somehow be interpreted
as damaging to the entire bill.
I do support what the hon. member for Charlesbourg is trying to
effect in this amendment. It is something that I think we all
want to encourage. We want to encourage consultation and
participation in the process. It recognizes as well the
importance of both houses.
Draft regulations are fine. Putting a process in place is fine.
But what we want to do here at all times is ensure there is
proper review and consultation. Parliamentarians are certainly a
necessity and must be consulted when we are reviewing something
like this. Let us not forget that this is arguably one of the
most important opportunities we in this House have to bring
forward a piece of legislation to combat serious violent crime.
The sad reality is that the bill in its current form does not go
far enough. It does not allow police officers to use this
legislation to the full extent. It does not allow them to arm
themselves with an investigative tool to permit them to combat
violent crime. It does not allow them to investigate fully and
make full use of the technology. We are not keeping up with the
rate at which technology is changing.
It also is consistent with the need for transparency and the
need for responsibility for those who are entrusted with this
important task of changing legislation to have their say, to have
the ability to go before committee, to talk to the amendments, to
flesh out ideas and to call witnesses if necessary. Therefore
they can follow the procedure that has been put in place.
I encourage all members to take a serious look at this
legislation, including the member opposite. I encourage them to
support this type of change. It would be consistent with the
stance that his government has taken to encourage openness and
transparency. This amendment does that.
We have to encourage these types of amendments at this point
when we are debating them in the House, before they are law,
before they are put in place hard and fast. We know when that
does occur we will have to go back almost to the start.
1630
It is then a very complicated process to invoke the change. Time
is certainly of the essence with this particular bill. The clock
is running. Sadly we know that each day in Canada violent crimes
are happening. As we speak, violent crimes are being perpetrated
across this country. As we speak, police officers are still
unable to use DNA to the full extent that they could and which
this bill offers them an opportunity to do.
I encourage all hon. members to partake in this process. Support
this type of change which will allow members of the justice
committee, members of the House on behalf of their constituents
and all Canadians to have in place entrenched in this bill a
process where they can surely have a voice in any changes that
may come in the future with respect to DNA legislation.
We know that this is in many ways the beginning of what may be a
very expansive use of DNA. This is something we have to keep in
mind. The opportunity is before us. The opportunity is there
for all members to partake in this, to seize the moment to put
forward a piece of legislation that is going to empower police
officers to make the most of this technology.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wholeheartedly support the amendment as proposed by the member
for Charlesbourg.
Clause 12 as written in the bill permits the governor in council
to make regulations as he sees fit, but we have seen how this
government operates in this House on the recent hepatitis C
issue. The Prime Minister decides. The backbenchers follow
orders. A mistake, an injustice occurs and it takes an uprising
to force the government to re-evaluate.
Motion No. 8 merely permits some form of parliamentary scrutiny
over the power to make regulations or laws in this country. After
all, have all members of parliament not been sent to this place
to control and make the laws that are to affect their
constituents back home?
If we leave clause 12 as it is presented in the bill, we are
abrogating our responsibility to oversee, debate and influence.
We will be leaving it all to be decided by the governor in
council.
I fully appreciate how the members opposite leave everything to
the Prime Minister and the powers within the party, but hopefully
this will not always be the case. Hopefully, at some time and
some time soon, all members of parliament will have the power and
will be able to exercise that power to scrutinize and control the
legislation and operations of this place.
The legislation must be set up so that when that day occurs, the
members of this place will have the authority to review
regulations or laws with respect to DNA identification. That is
what democracy is all about.
Why would we ever want to leave the control of this place in the
hands of a select few? Do we all not receive the same mandate to
represent our constituencies, to ensure our laws are fair and
just to all of us?
As has been previously stated, Bill C-68 which introduced the
firearms act has an identical scheme of review as proposed by
Motion No. 8. Surely we should be consistent by providing a
similar scheme here as well. I urge all members to support this
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Before resuming debate, it is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, Children; the
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Health; the hon. member
for Mercier, Employment insurance fund.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak to the amendment to Bill C-3 proposed by the hon.
member for Charlesbourg. I stand in the House today on behalf of
the New Democratic Party indicating our support for the amendment
put forward.
For those who will read Hansard or who may be listening to
the debate today and who sometimes think of this House as one
where there is no serious debate and no cohesion and no
understanding of the principles of legislation, it is interesting
to note that on both this amendment and the prior amendment,
members of the New Democratic Party are supporting a motion put
forward by the Bloc, supported by members of the Reform Party and
by members of the Progressive Conservative Party.
In a most serious bill such as this Bill C-3, it is important
that we be open to changes to the legislation that will make it
better.
The motion put forward by my justice committee colleague, the
Bloc Quebecois member, indicates that any regulations that make
significant changes to this bill be brought before the House for
debate and for review and be referred, and I think this is
particularly important, to the appropriate standing committee for
review.
1635
The public should know that at the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights and other standing committees of this House we
examine pieces of legislation. We call witnesses before the
committee to understand the impact and the implications of
changes.
The scope of this legislation is so far reaching. The
methodology of obtaining DNA samples and the whole area of DNA
are so new that there are provisions within the legislation
itself to bring it back before the House for review. That is
something which is telling because this is complex legislation. I
think all members of this House are dealing with it in an intense
way and in the best way they can, however there are provisions to
bring this legislation back to the House for review to make sure
that we can correct any defects.
The motion proposes to bring back before this House important
regulations so we can continue to monitor the effectiveness of
the legislation as we move forward.
I stand in support of it and indicate to the House that the NDP
will be supporting it.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, prior to resuming
debate, I would like to call for quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1640
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate people coming in to listen to these important
speeches.
My colleague from the Conservative Party and my colleague from
the NDP made some excellent points as to why we should support
Motion No. 8. My fellow colleagues from the Reform Party did
likewise. It is important that members hear the arguments as to
why we should and should not do something in the House. It would
be different if they paid close attention and started listening
to what these individuals finish saying and why we should support
these things. We would be a lot better off in this place.
I am here likewise to support Group No. 4, Motion No. 8. The
motion amends clause 12 of Bill C-3 regarding regulations. Clause
12 now reads that the “governor in council may make regulations
for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act”.
There is no statutory requirement for the regulations to be laid
before parliament or the appropriate committee for review. This
amendment will ensure that members of parliament are provided the
opportunity to review the regulations made by the governor in
council.
Bill C-68, the firearms legislation, has an identical section as
the one proposed in this particular amendment. Although we
support this amendment, given the need for the regulations to be
scrutinized by the appropriate committee, we know from experience
with Bill C-68 last November and in February 1997 that the
committee just goes through the motions. All Reform amendments to
these regulations were defeated by the Liberal members of the
committee.
It amazes me that they feel that these regulations do not have
to be scrutinized by parliament. I want to repeat that. I am
amazed that there are people here who represent Canadians and who
feel that regulations of this nature do not have to be
scrutinized by parliament. What are members of parliament sent
here for if it is not for something like that and particularly
that, to scrutinize the regulations in the bills that are
presented before the House.
The government has become such a dictatorship that it feels it
can usurp parliament and its function. How can a law be enacted
that will not be monitored? It is an absolute shame that time
and time again all we do is go through the motions.
1645
A majority of members in the House of Commons, mainly on the
government side, go through the motions. They just do not pay
attention and do not care. Whatever the lead sheep tells them to
do they will jump up, bow down and do as they are told. That is
not the way it ought to be but unfortunately it is. Maybe it is
party politics or dedication to a leader: whatever I say you
shall do. When will they rise to their feet when they have the
opportunity to represent the voice of Canadians?
The DNA bill is one of the greatest things that could be
available to our police departments to provide the kind of
protection society needs, deserves and wants. However they will
not support an amendment that states we should scrutinize these
regulations and monitor them as elected people. According to
that side of the House we do not have to do that. We simply take
the orders in council and whatever they say we shall do. That
should come to an end.
Members on that side of the House who cannot support a motion
that states the people of the country would be far better
represented by doing those kinds of things needs to take a good
long look at themselves and ask why they are here. Is it for
themselves? Is it for the party they represent or is it for the
Canadian people? If it is not the Canadian people they should
resign and go home.
I ask them to support Motion No. 8.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise to speak to the amendment before us. It may be
the most important one.
The legislation needs to come to the House to be scrutinized by
the people who were elected to represent the people of Canada. We
have already seen this done in Bill C-68, the gun registration
bill, and it needs to be done here. We were elected to come here
to represent the people of Canada. We are not here to take what
the House wants back to them. That has been the problem with
governments since time began.
We want to review the legislation. As representatives of the
people of Canada we want to have a look at it. That is what this
opportunity is for.
We support the Bloc amendment for its openness and transparency.
That is what we need more of in the country and the amendment
will start the process of going down that road.
The DNA act, Bill C-3, is very important to the people of
Canada, the population in general. We are here to represent
those people. We should be the ones who review the legislation,
not a governor in council order.
I wonder why we have to stand to debate this type of
legislation. Why is it that members elected by the people of
Canada to represent them do not get a chance to look at it and
that it comes through the governor in council?
When the DNA bill is in place it will be a tool that will change
the way crime fighting is done in the country. It will help to
put some sense back into our system. It will not allow criminals
to hide behind any legality. Once the profile is in place it can
be used whenever a crime is committed.
Allowing us to debate the bill in the House and in committee and
to bring it to our constituents to get their feelings on it is
the only way we should proceed.
1650
I congratulate the Bloc for bringing the amendment forward. It
is a strange day when all opposition parties support the same
amendment, but this is one of those days.
The importance of public scrutiny or scrutiny by the House
cannot be overemphasized. We cannot have bills or rules coming
forth to govern bills that have not had the blessing of the
people of Canada. That is what we are here to do and that is why
we are supporting the motion.
It is not precedent setting. It has already been done with Bill
C-68, which helps to move us along that way. I wanted to add my
voice to the support of Group No. 4. Hopefully members opposite
can find it in their hearts to do so as well.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to agreement made on Monday,
May 4, 1998, the question on the motion in Group No. 4 is deemed
put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deemed deferred.
The House will now proceed to debate on the motions in Group No.
5. Pursuant to agreement made on Monday, May 4, the motions in
Group No. 5 are deemed moved and seconded. This group contains
Motions Nos. 9 and 14.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 15, be amended, in the French version
only,
(a) by replacing line 2 on page 13 with the following:
«gereuse causant des lésions cor-»
(b) by replacing line 5 on page 13 with the following:
«façon dangereuse causant la»
(c) by replacing line 10 on page 13 with the following:
«capacité affaiblie causant des»
(d) by replacing line 13 on page 13 with the following:
«avec capacité affaiblie causant la»
That Bill C-3, in Clause 22, be amended, in the French version
only, by replacing line 5 on page 25 with the following:
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Motion Nos. 9 and 14
are essentially very technical amendments of minor nature.
Motion No. 9 will correct the French version description of our
offences in the secondary designated offence list to ensure
consistency with the French criminal code references for the same
offences.
Motion No. 14 will amend the incorrect French translation for
permanently removed in section 47.09, subsection (3), so that it
reads:
[Translation]
“rendus inaccessibles une fois pour toutes”.
[English]
Therefore both motions will correct oversights in the French
wording to ensure consistency in terminology throughout the bill
with the Criminal Code.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we support
this group of amendments, Motion Nos. 9 and 14. It is an
oversight and the government has corrected it. I wish it would
correct some of the major oversights that are coming up.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General will
take a serious look at the motions in Group No. 6 and perhaps
have a change of heart. We consider them to be the crux of the
debate on the bill. It is a very important grouping. The debate
will determine whether or not some members of the House,
including the Reform caucus, will be able to support the bill at
final reading.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made Monday, May 4,
1998, the motions in Group No. 5 are deemed to have been put and
a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred.
The House will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 6.
Pursuant to the order made Monday, May 4, 1998, the motions in
Group No. 6 are deemed to have been put and seconded. This
group contains Motions Nos. 10 and 11.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 17, be amended by adding after line 39
on page 15 the following:
“(4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, if a
person is charged with a designated offence and at the time of
being charged has a previous conviction for a designated offence,
a qualified peace officer is authorized to take samples of one or
more bodily substances by means of the investigative procedures
described in section 487.06.
(5) Samples taken pursuant to subsection (4) shall be retained
in accordance with the regulations made under subsection (6) and
not sent for analysis until either,
(a) the person is convicted of the offence charged, or
(b) the person fails to appear as requested by law in relation
to the charge whereupon analysis shall be completed and, subject
to section 9 of the DNA Identification Act, the results entered
into the offender index.
(6) The Governor in Council shall make regulations respecting
the retention of samples taken pursuant to subsection (4).”
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 5 to
7 on page 17 with the following:
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have 10 minutes to cover
two very important areas of Group No. 6 which have a direct
bearing upon the workability of the new DNA databank and the
authority of the police to take DNA samples from individuals
suspected or charged with a primary designated offence.
1655
The bill does not provide authority for the police to take a DNA
sample from anyone who is under arrest or from anyone who has
been charged. We understand the procedure for taking a sample
granted under Bill C-104 which has been operative for some time
now. However that requires evidence of a DNA sample at the scene,
reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an individual is
responsible for leaving that DNA at the scene, and then a judge's
warrant authorizing the taking of a sample from the individual.
This is very cumbersome. The witnesses who appeared before our
standing committee, particularly the crown prosecutors and
witnesses representing the Canadian Police Association and the
chiefs of police, stated very clearly that if the bill were
amended to allow them to take DNA samples at the time a person is
charged it could save lives. It could identify individuals who
have left their DNA at the scenes of rapes, murders, assaults and
other primary offence scenes.
We also heard that there are literally hundreds, if not
thousands, of unsolved crimes of murders, rapes, serious
assaults, manslaughter cases or so on where DNA samples have been
left at the scene. Individuals who have committed those offences
have been undetected. The police want a mechanism whereby when a
person commits one of the primary designated offences the police
can take a sample of DNA from the individual. This was rejected
at clause by clause consideration of the bill.
We have introduced in Motion No. 10 a somewhat watered down
version but still a very important part of the bill that would
allow police to take a DNA sample from anyone charged with a
primary designated offence who has been convicted of a previous
primary designated offence. They could take the sample, hold it
and not have it analysed until after conviction or after the
individual has failed to appear in court.
If the individual runs and does not appear in court, an analysis
can be conducted to determine whether or not the person is
responsible or at least left any of his or her DNA at the scene
of unsolved crimes. This is extremely important because on a
yearly basis I understand from the testimony we heard before the
committee some 60,000 individuals do not respond to
reconnaissance or to bail. They simply skip and do not appear.
The concern is that if we have to wait until after conviction
before the sample is taken it means for the individual on bail,
knowing full well if he is convicted of the offence for which he
is charged, that the DNA sample taken from him may link him to a
more serious offence or at least another offence where he has
left his DNA at the scene. The individual simply may disappear
and never honour the reconnaissance or honour the bail he has
been granted. Therefore it will be a frustration for police. We
have been told by police witnesses that this bill of all bills
could begin to save lives immediately. That is why it is so
important.
We have heard from the government side that this would not be
constitutional. It would not survive a constitutional challenge
based upon privacy and based upon the intrusivity of taking a DNA
sample at the time of a charge without the authority of a
warrant.
The Canadian Police Association provided us with a legal opinion
that refuted that.
1700
A testimony submitted by Mr. Scott Newark, director of the
Canadian Police Association, stated very clearly that they were
willing to pay the cost of a reference to the Supreme Court of
Canada before this bill goes forward any further to determine
whether the government's hesitancy and timidity in this area is
grounded, to determine whether the legal opinion submitted before
the court would be acceptable and that these tests could be taken
at the time of arrest or at the time of charge.
The government has refused this. After the fact it obtained
three legal opinions. I suspect the government went shopping for
legal opinions. It has now submitted legal opinions to members
of the committee and members of the House in support of its
viewpoint.
Now members can look at four legal opinions, three saying it
would not be constitutional and one saying it would be
constitutional. We never had an opportunity to question the
retired justices on their deliberations, considerations,
recommendations and conclusions. We never had an opportunity to
have constitutional experts testify before the committee as to
the veracity of the conclusions that are now part of the record.
This is very unfortunate.
These legal opinions should have been placed before the
committee at the time the bill entered committee. We would have
been able to examine them carefully. We would have had the time
to look at the opinions and perhaps obtain other legal opinions
from those with a different viewpoint on the constitutionality of
taking samples from the accused at the time of arrest or charge.
The police have the authority to take breath samples. They have
the authority to take blood samples in cases of suspected
impaired driving. What is the difference? If they can take one
bodily sample already and the authority exists under the Criminal
Code to do so, what in the world is wrong with doing it under the
auspices of this bill? Why not allow the police to take a DNA
sample from an individual who has been charged with a designated
offence and who has one previous conviction to show that person
is a repeat offender in this area? What is wrong with taking a
sample and holding that sample until the individual has been
convicted or fails to appear in court before it is analysed and
placed in the bank? Once it is in the bank it can be compared
with the samples and the profiles of other DNA left at the scenes
of rapes, murders, serious assaults and manslaughters.
I urge all hon. members to carefully examine this motion. We
think it is a balanced motion that draws a healthy balance
between the concerns expressed by the justice officials and the
requests and demands of police officers across this country and
others in law enforcement. I urge all hon. members to give this
motion their support when the vote comes.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a privilege to rise in the House to speak on this legislation.
I have been privileged to sit on the justice committee
throughout the deliberations and to examine the legislation as it
has made its way through the committee stage.
1705
I do support the bill. It is an excellent piece of legislation.
I also support my friend's motion which I consider to be a point
of philosophical divergence.
There are three points at which a DNA sample could be taken,
point of arrest, point of charge, point of conviction. The
purpose of this legislation is to give the police access to DNA
profiles for the purposes of identifying individuals so they can
be linked or not linked as the case may be to crime scenes. It
is not conclusive proof but taken with other evidence adds to the
weight of evidence against an accused. It also works the other
way to eliminate suspects.
We were told at committee stage that a properly gathered sample
creates a 1 in 94 billion probability sample. Notwithstanding
this high level probability, it is not in and of itself
conclusive as to the issue of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The crown would still have to adduce evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence charged. Defence
counsel will still attack reliability, credibility, means of
gathering the sample, the integrity of the sample, the errors in
collection, et cetera. Nevertheless, it is of significant use to
police investigation. Canadians have only to witness the Morin
inquiry to understand the powerful input of DNA evidence.
If this is such a great tool, then why can the Parliament of
Canada not make it readily available to the police? What could
be the possible justification for withholding a tool that is
readily accessible, surrounded by safeguards for abuse and would
be of great assistance in solving outstanding crimes? The issues
revolve around the point at which the sample is taken and the
means by which the sample is taken. There are three points at
which a sample of blood, hair or saliva could be taken, at
arrest, charge or conviction.
It was not seriously argued before us that samples should be
taken a point of arrest. This would simply create a fishing
expedition on the part of the police and imperil the liberty of
the citizen. The argument came down to a choice between point of
charge and point of conviction. If truth were known many if not
all members of the committee would have been content with a
charge regime. To lay the charge the police must have reasonable
and probable grounds that a crime has been committed. At that
time, as a matter of routine, fingerprints and mugshots are
taken; similarly, so could DNA samples. The police want to be
able to take DNA samples at that point and enter the results in a
DNA bank for cross-reference purposes and for identification.
The technology has become so advanced that the taking of a
sample is minimally intrusive. Logically if the taking of DNA
samples is less intrusive than fingerprinting why should the
justice system be deprived of that tool? If it is
constitutionally okay to take a fingerprint and a mugshot, why is
it not constitutionally okay to take DNA?
Here is where legal theory becomes so arcane and obscure as to
lose even the most diligent of students. The core of the
argument is that the state is absolutely prohibited from
intruding on the sanctity of the person without consent. The
person has an absolute right to the integrity of his or her
personhood. Therefore the taking of a cell by any means, however
intrusive or non-intrusive, is a breach of that person's privacy.
The state is absolutely forbidden from doing it.
In addition, the depth and range of material revealed by DNA
samples provides to the state a marker of that individual which
is not only a complete profile but could be used for other
purposes. In other words, the legal wall between the person and
the state has been breached and the state knows far more about
that individual than it has any right to know.
The argument is of dubious merit for two reasons. The first is
the fear of using the profile for purposes other than
identification. I believe the committee was not concerned about
that issue as the procedures and safeguards were such a series of
Chinese walls that it would be virtually impossible to breach
those walls.
The second is the issue of invading the privacy of a person. The
charter gives protection to the undue invasion of privacy.
However, it can be statutorily sanctioned as it is with
fingerprinting. If one can invade privacy by statute on
fingerprinting, one can also surely do it by DNA sample
simultaneously. We are after all legislators and our business is
that of creating law. If statute sanctions fingerprinting as not
unduly invasive, why cannot DNA sampling by statute, such as this
this bill, also be considered to be not unduly invasive? Nice
question with no neat answer.
The advice of justice lawyers was that if we move the sample from
point of conviction down to point of charge the bill would not
withstand a charter challenge.
1710
I have been in and around law for about 28 years and consider
the views of justice lawyers to be excellent. When you retain
lawyers you do not stand up and contradict them easily.
When the matter came to a clause by clause stage the minister
and his lawyers from the justice department were quite adamant
that the charge regime would not survive a charter challenge. To
their credit, their arguments were strong. If we go to a charge
regime the bill would not survive a charter challenge.
One week after the bill was taken back to the House justice
lawyers were quoted, however, in the front pages of The Globe
and Mail as saying every time they go to the supreme court
they do not have a clue what will happen. Flip a coin. The
supreme court is adrift in a sea of confusion.
The additions of Justices Binnie and Bastarach do not help in
predicting the outcome. When this was brought to the attention
of the justice minister she stated in committee that she was
obtaining three more outside opinions from retired justices. To
no one's great surprise, the opinions support the government's
position.
This resembles the theatre of the absurd. The Parliament of
Canada stands on the sidelines while justice lawyers and their
surrogates argue out a position based on established precedent;
hardly the point. The motion says in effect we have read your
opinions, we have heard your arguments and we are not persuaded.
We believe there are adequate safeguards to protect privacy and
sanctity of the person and that search and seizure is warranted
in this instance. The tabling of the opinions could amount to
the subtle use of a notwithstanding clause.
The bill has a huge hole in it. If Paul Bernardo were sitting
in a police station this morning charged with a sexual offence he
would not be DNA banked until he was convicted and if not
convicted he would never be banked. The police could say to
themselves with legitimacy they do not have the resources to do
this. He is a blond, blue eyed boy with a job and a home in
beautiful downtown Guildwood, which happens to be my riding.
They could also state they have a lot more pressing problems than
to get a justice warrant. The police in Fredericton who are
conducting other investigations would never know about it. Nor
would the police in Edmonton. So this is quite a large gap in the
legislation.
Members may have detected a bit of skepticism on my part with
respect to the efficacy of the bill but I am ultimately persuaded
that the good qualities in the bill might be lost to charter
challenge. However, I do support this motion and I do wish that
the government had exercised a more subtle approach in excising
out a charge regime be it on one conviction or on two convictions
so that the bill could have a charter challenge at the point
where we could try to advance the law in this area.
This brings me to my final point, the doctrine of supremacy of
parliament. I was greatly intrigued by the comments of Mr.
Justice Cory in the Brin decision. He said that courts use the
charter to dialogue with the legislature. Dialogue as
experienced by this legislator is more like a monologue. We
speak, you listen.
Courts develop legal theory, charter theory about trees and
branches and living documents to arrive at conclusions which look
suspiciously like ex post facto reasoning, you legislators sit
down.
I have been in and around the justice system in Ontario for
quite a number of years and consider it to be one of the finest
in the world. Ultimately, however, it is a very crude means of
resolving disputes. Lawsuits have winners and losers, unevenly
resourced litigants and narrow views of relevance materiality.
Legislation such as this is a product of years of analysis,
drafting, study and witnesses. The committee spent months
looking at this legislation and it went through an extensive
consultation process prior to being introduced.
The members of the committee represent in excess of one million
people who come from a variety of backgrounds, both philosophical
and political. I would argue with little fear of contradiction
that if we as a committee had our choice absent charter arguments
that we would be presenting a regime based on charge.
In my view judicial attitudes are not consistent with Canadian
values on this issue and judges need to know that after extensive
debate and analysis parliamentarians are only presenting this
bill due to limited and narrow thinking by judicial activists.
1715
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my hat goes off to the previous speaker. I think he
gave a very compelling address to this parliament. I have the
greatest respect for him, his legal background and his input on
the justice committee. He obviously has substantial experience
which is of benefit to us at that committee.
We have before us, in the form of amendments, Motions Nos. 10
and 11. This is perhaps our last chance to right a potential
wrong because we are not going to have the opportunity to do it
again for some time.
The motion put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot is aimed
specifically at allowing for the collection of DNA evidence at
the time of charge. It has an additional safeguard, which was
put in I suggest as a compromise to entice members of the
government to take a second look at this amendment. This
amendment would allow a person who has previously been convicted
of a schedule of offences that have been deemed heinous enough or
serious enough to suggest that therefore the prevention element
should take precedence over that particular convicted person's
right to be free from this intrusive taking of a DNA sample.
I will speak to that issue of intrusiveness later in my remarks,
but the important point to be made here is that what we are
talking about is the taking of a DNA sample which would allow for
the prevention of the further commission of an offence,
potentially, because the police with the DNA in their possession
at that point in time could then take that sample and match it
with crime scene samples that are connected to outstanding
crimes.
Figures were discussed at the justice committee. In the province
of British Columbia alone there are 600 unsolved murders. If we
calculate that in terms of the population across the country, in
terms of sexual assaults, serious assaults and unsolved crimes,
what greater benefit could there be than for the use of such an
innovative police investigative tool to address and solve these
crimes? We should keep in mind that the perpetrators of these
crimes are still out there. They have not been caught. They are
not accountable. They have not been brought to justice. They are
ready, I would suggest, to do it again.
This amendment would allow the police to make that match, to
make that connection, to go out there armed with that evidence
and hopefully complete an investigation that might prevent the
perpetration of another crime.
I have the greatest respect for the hon. member who spoke
previously. He has a great deal of confidence in the justice
lawyers. I do not share the same degree of confidence. We have
seen in the past that the Department of Justice has gone outside
of its own lawyers' cadre to get a practising lawyer to represent
the government in court. We have seen that in the current
firearms challenge in Alberta. Similarly what we saw here was an
opinion at the eleventh hour from three very respected jurists.
There is no question they are very respected, but I would suggest
that the question that was put to them was put to them in very
narrow terms, coupled with the fact that we already knew the
position of the government. Mr. Speaker, you will have to excuse
my scepticism on the response that we received.
That is of course not the only opinion that the justice
committee had the benefit of. We had the benefit of a similarly
respected and decorated criminal lawyer, Mr. Danson, who gave the
opinion in a very straightforward way that in fact the sampling
at the time of charge, and that is without this added designation
of having a previous conviction, would withstand a charter
challenge.
I embrace some of the comments with respect to the supremacy of
this parliament and the responsibility that we have here to make
laws in the area of criminal law.
1720
The remarks of the hon. member I think reflect, in many ways,
the opinions of a lot of the non-partisanship that must go into
the criminal field. The members of the committee voiced very
similar opinions regarding the fact that we are being supreme
court driven. That is a dangerous area in which to find
ourselves.
Criminal law, first and foremost, has to be accountable and
responsible to the people. The people have elected members of
parliament. They have entrusted them and placed in them their
hope and desire that we will make laws which reflect the
protection of the public and the accountability we must find in
our criminal justice system.
When there is a supreme court paranoia or a supreme court
constipation about criminal law it is a very dangerous position
to be in.
The hon. member gave the very apt example of Paul Bernardo. He
said that under the current legislation we would not be able to
use his DNA in future investigations. The very premise of this
motion is that we should be taking a very proactive as opposed to
reactive role in the use of DNA in the criminal justice system.
The important example made and emphasized by the Canadian Police
Association was that an individual taken into custody for a
designated offence, who was previously charged and convicted of a
designated offence, has the benefit of due process.
If the police cannot take a DNA sample and use it in the course
of a trial, use it as a sample against other outstanding,
unsolved offences, it is a lost opportunity. It will slip
through our fingers.
The Canadian Police Association emphasized the fact—and there
are statistics to support this position—that individuals who are
released on bail are simply not going to return. If criminals
have in the back of their minds that if they return and are
convicted of an offence they must face the possibility that they
will have their DNA matched with a crime they knew they committed
in another part of the country, they will not return for trial.
They are certainly not going to return if they are charged with
a break and enter offence and they know they were involved in an
offence of a much more serious personal nature, such as murder or
sexual assault. If that opportunity is lost because of the way
the current legislation is drafted it would be an absolute
tragedy.
This motion, in a very straightforward way, would address that.
It would allow police to use DNA to a much greater degree. That
is the intention here. There is no hidden agenda. I would
suggest that this motion is put forward in a very constructive,
straightforward and practical way. I am surprised there is not
more support for it.
Luckily we will have the opportunity to vote. I am still
holding out hope and optimism that common sense will prevail and
we will find that this amendment will be accepted.
The safeguards we have in place in the rest of the bill, that is
to say, the provisions that would make it criminal if a person
was to misuse the DNA technology, I suggest would protect
individual rights. They would protect individuals from the fear
of misuse; the Orwellian thought that somehow, some way, a person
might misuse this DNA and therefore create a miscarriage of
justice.
We cannot succumb to that fear, given the public interest and
the importance of optimizing the use of DNA technology. It will
happen. Mark my words. If Canada does not seize the opportunity
to be on the cutting edge, to be a country prepared to move
forward, making the most of this DNA legislation, we will be left
behind.
Other countries will be looking at our country, shaking their
heads and saying “Why didn't they do it when they had the
opportunity?”
1725
In conclusion, I want to suggest that both of the amendments
found in Group No. 10 could gain the support and the confidence
of all members of this House. When the vote is before us, I am
encouraging and hoping that all members on both sides of this
House will put partisanship aside and put common sense and good,
right-minded thinking first.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this particular amendment. It
is one of a number of amendments that have been proposed to this
bill governing the establishment of a DNA databank.
It is important to note that the amendment that is proposed at
this point is directed at a mechanism which would take a DNA
sample, analyze it for a DNA profile and put it into a DNA
databank where it would, for practical purposes, be stored and
kept indefinitely.
There are other ways in which the state can obtain a DNA sample
and do an analysis. It can do it by warrant.
With respect to this particular motion, it is the desire of the
mover and those supporting it to see a DNA sample taken when an
individual is charged with a serious offence, the individual
having been previously convicted of a serious offence, perhaps
even a related offence.
It is important to keep that in mind. Just because one would
not be able to take a sample at the point of charge does not mean
the state could not move by warrant to obtain a sample from the
individual at the time of charge for the purposes of
investigating the offence at hand.
In this case the sample being taken, as proposed under this
amendment, is not for the purpose of investigating the offence at
hand, it is for the purpose of obtaining a DNA profile of the
individual and putting it into the DNA databank for future
reference and for the protection of society that would come from
that.
Mr. Peter MacKay: No, it could be used for both.
Mr. Derek Lee: The member points out that it could be
used for both. I accept that the amendment is proposing that it
be used for both. However, I am not so sure the amendment is
drafted in a way that I would accept is suited to both.
In any event, I wanted to take note of the reasons that some
members of the House, including myself, view this amendment as
having some potential difficulty.
I agree with the member for Scarborough East and other members
that if I were king I would implement a measure which would allow
a sample to be taken at the time of charge, such as is proposed
by this amendment. However, there are several areas of
difficulty. I want to put them on the record because I never
want it to be said that the reason the House did not adopt this,
and the reason the committee that studied the bill did not adopt
a similar type of amendment, was because we knew it would not be
legally acceptable. I would not want that to be taken from the
procedure here today, or previously, or from what may evolve in
the House.
I believe that in the next while there will be a procedure which
will allow DNA data to be taken at the time of charge in
appropriate circumstances and not just when one is investigating
the particular case at hand.
The reasons the government is sensitive to this are based on a
series of charter decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada.
1730
In each case we have a snapshot, a photograph, a freeze frame
decision by the supreme court about a particular aspect of our
civil rights, about a particular perspective on our charter
rights. When we add up all the snapshots the court, as it is
supposed to do, cautioned the state about certain aspects of the
freedoms of Canadians. By the time they are all added up, which
is what the justice department did, we have a significant body of
caution directed at actions of the state which would remove a
sample from an individual's body. In order to do that in our
society the state has to have justification. That is a search
and seizure. There must be a reasonable ground to do it. There
has to be a reasonable basis even to do it under a warrant. One
may be able to construct a reasonable justification for doing it
at charge.
One threshold, one snapshot provided us by the supreme court of
which we take note is the view that taking something from the
human body is actually quite an intrusive act. In the case of
DNA data sampling now it can be a rough of some of the skin, a
swab from the inside of the mouth or a hair taken from the head.
In each case it involves the taking from the body of something
that is a part of the body. The court has defined and construed
that as quite intrusive, and I accept that at this point in time.
It is true that under warrant or under reasonable circumstances
in other parts of the Criminal Code peace officers or other
authorized persons can take breath samples, blood samples with a
warrant, and DNA samples with a warrant. We must remember that
this amendment deals with taking a DNA sample for profile at the
time a person is innocent of the charge because he or she has not
yet been convicted. At that point in time is when this amendment
would cause the sample to be taken.
It is pretty clear to most of us who sat on the justice
committee that within a few months or a few years the obtaining
of a sample of DNA will be obtainable technologically by much
less than taking something from the body. Technology involving a
scan, a brush by, something very much less intrusive than the
taking of a piece of the body however minute it might be such as
a hair follicle or hair root, does not exist right now.
That snapshot of the intrusiveness of DNA sampling was a caution
light which has caused, at least in part, justice officials, the
government and some of us in the House to accept that it is an
area of caution. In my view it is an area of caution that we
will be able to dispense with in the future because the
intrusiveness of the sample taking will be much less than it is
now.
Members have mentioned the Bernardo case. That is either an
easy case or a difficult case depending on how we look at it. If
we had had good effective DNA sampling at that time history might
well have turned out differently. I wish we could have done it.
Maybe in the future with the new technology we will be able to
make these kinds of changes and come out with better outcomes in
the criminal justice system.
The flip side of the Bernardo scenario, because if the Bernardo
case is easy there is another case that is harder, is simply the
case where a Canadian who is innocent of the offence charged has
a criminal record and is under this amendment asked or required
to give up a small piece of his or her body so that the state may
analyse and put it in a databank for public safety purposes.
At this point because of the relative intrusiveness of it I
believe there was a developing consensus in the Department of
Justice that we would be reasonably well served by proceeding to
construct a databank, a process, get the thing up and running,
have it begin to work for Canadians, get the bugs out of it,
ensure it is charter safe and make it work for Canadians.
1735
I would be disappointed as a parliamentarian if within the next
two to four years we were unable to increase the frequency or
amount of data sampling available under the Criminal Code perhaps
in a manner that is suggested by this amendment today. Were we
able to do that I think it would enhance the safety of all
Canadians in the future.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be supporting both of the motions known as Group No. 6.
In Motion No. 10 the member for Crowfoot appears to be taking
the biblical role of Solomon. We have heard much comment on the
need of our police to take DNA samples at the time of arrest. We
have heard much comment concerning the invasion of privacy and
the constitutional rights of the accused. This amendment
proposes to take DNA samples at the time of charge but they will
not be analysed until the time of conviction.
This would satisfy our police who have been concerned about
offenders skipping out through the loopholes presented by Bill
C-3 without such an amendment.
During the committee review the government cited finances as a
primary reason for not taking and analysing samples at the time
of charge. I will not comment on the government's concern over
finances as compared to the safety of its citizens because I do
not need to do so under these circumstances.
This motion gets around the financial question in that the
expense only occurs once a conviction is registered.
There has also been much discussion over the constitutionality
of taking DNA samples from those charged. This amendment limits
the application to only those charged with a designated offence
and those who have previously been convicted of a designated
offence.
Parliament will be indicating to our courts that we see a public
policy requirement to treat these types of individuals in a much
stricter fashion.
Motion No. 11 permits the taking of DNA samples from
incarcerated offenders who have been convicted of a designated
offence and are serving sentences of two years or more for
another designated offence. This amendment broadens the scope of
Bill C-3 in that it is not just limited to the offence of murder.
The amendment will do much for victims. It will solve and put
closure to many unsolved cases.
Why should only incarcerated murderers and sexual offenders be
subject to DNA sampling? For example, if someone has been
convicted of manslaughter and is serving a sentence of two or
more years for another conviction of manslaughter, should we not
be taking DNA to determine what other serious crimes they may
have committed?
Should the victims of these other crimes not be informed that
the offender has been discovered through the comparison of DNA
from the sample taken with the DNA profile in the crime scene
index? In that way the victim can put some sort of closure on
the matter and have some peace of mind that the offender is
securely incarcerated and not apt to attack again in the near
future.
That concludes my comments. I urge my colleagues in this place
to support this important amendment.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking
the member for Scarborough—Rouge River and the member for
Scarborough East who have worked with me over the past several
months to try, after I believe three attempts, to come up with a
modification to the amendment ourselves but were unable to do so.
Motions Nos. 10 and 11 are essentially the crux of the
legislation and the most contentious. Motions Nos. 10 and 11
would do two things. First, they would allow a police officer to
take DNA samples for the DNA databank from a person charged with
a designated offence who has a previous conviction for a
designated offence. Second, they would expand the retroactive
scheme of the bill to capture offenders serving a penitentiary
sentence for one of those offences previously designated offence
convictions. Both proposals, in my opinion and in the
government's opinion, pose a very serious charter risk as has
been debated in the House.
With regard to the timing of taking samples, I would also like
to point out to hon. members that the Criminal Code already has a
provision which allows police to take samples at any time from a
person they suspect of having committed a serious offence, with
one proviso, as long as they first obtain a warrant. That
provision is in there.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights considered
many of the proposals and amendments that are being debated
today. To allow the police to take samples of the DNA at time of
charge was rejected at that committee.
Another recommendation was to expand the retroactive scheme. To
that end some changes were implemented by the committee.
1740
We have heard from expert witnesses. The members for Crowfoot
and Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough referred to various opinions.
I point out for the benefit of the House, as committee members
will remember, that officials from the Department of Justice gave
us opinions on the charter challenge possibilities. We also
heard officials from the ministries of justice and the attorney
general of Ontario and the solicitor general of Ontario as well
as officials from New Brunswick.
Members have claimed that they did not have ample time to
question these officials. On the contrary, all these people
testified before the committee on justice. Members had plenty of
time to ask all their questions. They may not always have liked
the answers or the opinions but they did have time to consult
them. It was only after the justice committee presented its
report to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of
Canada that the opinions of three highly respected judges were
sought.
At that time the Reform Party and the chiefs of police decided
they would exploit this stance on the part of the government and
do everything in their power to make sure the government
listened. For the second time in my political career I will be
subjected to another billboard campaign. Again, for the second
time in my career, I will explain to the citizens of my
constituency who I am confident will understand that the federal
government has acted with a very balanced approach.
I will respond to the member for Crowfoot because he quoted
extensively from the comments of Mr. Newark who suggested that we
had asked the wrong question of the three former justices. In
actual fact the three former justices were asked to provide an
appreciation of the risk of a successful charter challenge
pertaining to the taking of DNA samples at the time of charge
without prior judicial authorization. They were asked whether
the legislation would likely be found to offend one or other
charter provisions. They were also asked if it could be saved
under section 1 of the charter. It seems to me those questions
were very clear.
The Canadian Police Association is now advocating the creation
of a new police power to take bodily samples from an accused
person who has previously been convicted of a designated offence
simply on the basis of a police officer's belief that the person
has committed another designated offence, without first going
before a judge to seek the authority to do so.
The claim that the judiciary of Canada impinges on the powers of
parliament is not justified in fact or in law. The courts
perform their constitutional responsibility in reviewing the
legislation to ensure the constitutional requirements are
respected and to supervise the actions of the police in the
enforcement of the criminal law and in the collection of
evidence.
Bill C-3 reflects clear statements from our highest court that
the invasive nature of bodily searches which are an interference
with bodily integrity and undermine human dignity demands high
standards of justification. Taking a sample on the off chance
that a sample might link a suspect to another offence and the
mere speculation that the accused may abscond do not meet these
standards.
The notion of recidivism must be respected especially with
retroactive sampling. The notion of recidivism can be used for
the purpose of justifying to some extent the retroactive scheme.
However, where used, the taking of samples for crimes committed
before the coming into force of the bill is always on the basis
of prior judicial authorization. Possible recidivism is not a
justification for excluding judicial supervision prior to the
taking of the sample. On the basis of the authorities it is of
fundamental importance that the seizure of bodily substances be
judicially approved before it takes place.
1745
Where there is an elevated risk of recidivism such as with
dangerous offenders, repeat sex offenders and serial killers, the
need for special measures to protect the public is justified. To
go further and take DNA samples from individuals who pose a low
risk of recidivism or may not even be suspected of having
committed another offence would place the constitutionality of
the scheme in serious jeopardy.
I would also like to state that in Motion No. 10 there seemed to
be very little justification for taking the sample at the time of
the charge because according to the motion it would only be
analysed once the conviction were to take place. The rationale
for taking the sample would seem to be one for mere
administrative convenience as opposed to what some members have
been speaking on, to solve outstanding crimes. It is my
understanding that the sample would be taken and only when the
person is convicted would it be analysed. Therefore I do not see
how outstanding crimes would be solved unless the person was
convicted. It is likely that a rationale of administrative
convenience would not meet the court test of the highest
standards of justification.
Let us look at the consequences if this motion were adopted.
Let us say we did support the motion. It is virtually guaranteed
that notwithstanding the opinions we have had here, if we did
approve the motion the challenge to the constitutionality of this
provision would ultimately be heard by the Supreme Court of
Canada. Most members have spoken to that end. The difference
between our approach and their approach is they are willing to
let it go to the supreme court. Such a final hearing on the
contrary would take several years. During that time the police
would take samples and subsequently have them analysed and if
consequential amendments were made would have the results placed
in the convicted offenders index.
If the supreme court were ultimately to determine that the
provision was contrary to the charter and could not be saved
under section 1, it would logically follow that all samples taken
pursuant to the provisions would be found to be illegal seizures.
The major consequence of such a finding would be that the
evidence resulting from such seizures would be found inadmissible
in court also. This would mean that many individuals would have
been wrongfully convicted. As well numerous prosecutions would
have to be halted.
In addition the profiles in the convicted offenders index of the
people whose samples were taken pursuant to this provision would
have to be removed from the data bank.
Finally if the government were to adopt this motion
notwithstanding that it has received overwhelming advice from the
Department of Justice and eminent private sector counsel that it
would be found to be contrary to the charter, such a fact could
make the provision even less defensible in the eyes of the
Supreme Court of Canada.
In conclusion I have given various reasons why we cannot support
the motion. Members have mentioned that we should try to take
into account the examples of Bernardo and Clifford Olson. I
believe that laws should be made for the benefit of all Canadians
and not to circumvent or to try to trap one particular
individual. We had that experience in the section 745 hearings
when the Bloc Quebecois members voted against that provision and
allowed Clifford Olson to have a hearing.
If we try to enact all legislation in that respect we will never
get anywhere. I believe that the government has come up with a
very balanced approach which I ask all hon. members to approve.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak to Motion No. 10 and Motion No. 11 in Group No. 6.
I begin with Motion No. 11 because it is the less complex of the
two. I indicate that I would speak in favour of Motion No. 11.
It broadens and expands the provisions for the taking of DNA. The
current legislation provides that a “provincial court judge may
on an ex parte application take from a person who has been
convicted of murder”. The motion broadens that and I would
support it.
I now turn to Motion No. 10 which as the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General has indicated is a more complex and
difficult piece to analyse. I commend the hon. member for
Crowfoot for bringing the amendment forward. From sitting on the
justice committee with him, I know it is one which he struggled
with. He has attempted to meet the criteria as set out in the
objections that were raised to it.
That being said, let us ask exactly what this motion does. I
think the hon. member has two concerns.
1750
The motion provides for the police to take a DNA sample at the
time of charging an individual who has a prior conviction. To
take that DNA sample, two things have to happen. There has to be
a charge laid against the person and the person has to have a
prior conviction for one of the designated offences.
In order to charge an individual, the police have to have
reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the individual
has committed the offence for which he or she is charged. That is
a safeguard in our system to stop the police who have tremendous
power in this country from charging anyone willy-nilly. The law
is clear. The common law as it has evolved says that in order to
arrest and charge an individual, there has to be reasonable and
probable grounds.
The bill that allows the police to take a DNA sample with a
warrant says that there has to be reasonable and probable grounds
to take the warrant. They have to go to a judge and ask the judge
if they can take a sample of any individual's DNA and to take
that sample there has to be reasonable and probable grounds.
If we look at the purpose of this amendment, if the person has
already been charged, then presumably the police already have
done the necessary groundwork to take a DNA sample. With great
respect to my colleague from Crowfoot, I think the purpose is to
say what happens when the offender is charged with an offence and
he may escape bail. That was mentioned by one of my colleagues in
the House.
Clearly the Criminal Code bail provisions under section 515(10)
provide for a bail hearing. Most people should know this. When
someone is charged with an offence, they are to be released
pending their trial unless the court has reasonable grounds to
believe that the offender will escape so that they will not be
dealt with according to law. There is a built-in protection to
stop someone from leaving the jurisdiction under section 515 of
the code to ensure that they do not escape.
In the scenario contemplated by my friend from Crowfoot in good
faith, if the crown prosecutor has reasonable grounds to believe
that the individual will escape custody so that his DNA sample
will not be taken, then the prosecutor can raise that at the bail
hearing to ensure that the judge remands that individual pending
the trial. There is a mechanism to ensure that the individual
does not escape.
There are some other aspects of this piece of legislation and
some other comments on this amendment which need to be addressed.
The member for Crowfoot asked what the difference is in terms of
taking a blood sample, in that we allow that intrusion to happen
so why can we not do it with DNA. There is an answer to that.
The taking of a blood sample at the time someone is charged is a
crucial piece of evidence because the blood sample will change as
time goes on. A person who is impaired at six o'clock in the
evening and is charged with impaired driving may not be impaired
at 12 o'clock the next day. The taking of the sample for a blood
alcohol reading is crucial at that point in time.
The DNA sample does not change. If we wait six hours to take
someone's DNA sample, the reading of that sample is not going to
change. The reading of a blood alcohol level will change. When
people ask what the difference is between taking blood at a
particular time and taking the DNA sample, it is because the
nature of the evidence is different.
We have been provided with four decisions which have been
referred to by members in this House. One was solicited by the
Canadian Police Association and three were solicited by the
Minister of Justice.
1755
Some of my colleagues have said that they know the three
obtained by the solicitor general or the Minister of Justice
reflect the government's concern and they question whether or not
they come totally unbiased. To be fair, we have to say that the
opinion solicited by the Canadian Police Association was also
directed and purchased by a particular organization to reflect
its point of view and its argument.
It is similar to two parties going into court. One lawyer will
put forward the argument for the client he represents and the
other lawyer will put forward the argument for the client she
represents. We can always ask whether the arguments are tilted
one way or the other. Our job is to sift through those arguments
and come to the truth.
This is not an easy motion to sift through. Every member in
this House has struggled with this, in part because of the
lobbying of the police association. I spoke with Mr. Newark just
before addressing this motion today.
We have to look at those opinions for what they are. Three of
them say that this motion, the taking of DNA at the time of
arrest or charge will not withstand the charter. What does that
mean? It means that the taking of the DNA sample at that point
in time violates the freedoms of the individuals of this country.
It means that the state is operating in a most intrusive manner.
The courts have said, and it is our job as parliamentarians to
say, that the individual cannot be impeded upon by the state all
the time without reasonable limits.
Some colleagues in this House have taken umbrage at the fact
that the supreme court is dictating to parliament. The supreme
court has an important role and that is to interpret legislation
that is passed in this House.
Let us be absolutely realistic about the way things happen in
this parliament. I accept some of the arguments that say the
supreme court is perhaps intrusive and perhaps invades some of
the responsibilities of this House, but the supreme court is one
of the very necessary checks in a checks and balance system for
the Parliament of Canada.
Without substantial reforms to this House of Commons, and I say
this without fear of contradiction in this House, the supreme
court is the only check in this country on the power not of the
government, but of the cabinet. If we look at the way law is
made in this country, the cabinet introduces legislation to a
majority party in this House of Commons and it passes it. We
have seen that happen in the hepatitis C issue.
The Senate is supposed to be a check. We know what the Senate
is. The governor general is an archaic check. The only check to
the supreme power of the cabinet is the supreme court of this
country. Until we reform this House, that check has to stay to
protect the privacy of individuals.
Some members have referred to Paul Bernardo. If Mr. Bernardo
were arrested and charged, the police would have the power needed
to collect his DNA.
I have great respect for the mover of this motion. I understand
why he wishes it to pass. We have to look at the best interests
of Canadians and stop the state from interfering in their
individual rights.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that if there is one comment from the last speaker that
disturbs me a great deal it is that concerning our duty to
Canadians.
Our real duty to Canadians regarding legislation in a judicial
system is to provide legislation that will give them the utmost
of safety and the utmost of protection for them to live a life in
Canada without having to look over their shoulders, for them to
be able to look forward to the future. I believe that this bill
will be a major step in that direction, provided that Motions No.
10 and 11 pass.
1800
Motion 10 will allow for the taking of samples at the time of
charge from offenders with one previous conviction and retained
for analysis on conviction. Our original amendment introduced
during clause by clause review was to allow for the taking of
samples from all persons charged. Since this amendment was
defeated we have put forward an amended version which addresses
the concerns raised by the government members of the committee.
Government members cited finance and privacy concerns as the
primary reasons why they would not expand the DNA bank and allow
for samples to be taken and analysed at the time of charge rather
than conviction. Reform's amendment specifically addresses the
issue of cost, proposing that samples be taken on charge but not
analysed until conviction, therefore reducing the cost associated
with the testing of samples.
As well it addresses privacy concerns and concerns regarding
individuals incriminating themselves. It also satisfies the
Canadian Police Association's concerns regarding offenders
released on bail pending trial, i.e. skipping out. A previous
speaker said that through a councillor going to a judge and
pointing this out to him, bail could be denied but that is no
assurance. I have seen in the last five years some very unusual
cases of individuals being bailed when there was really no reason
that the courts should take the chance doing so.
The police believe that if an offender is guilty of a previous
offence for which they have not been charged they may not appear
for their trial if they realize that on conviction their DNA
sample may be compared to DNA evidence left at the scene of an
unsolved crime. This amendment was recommended and thus fully
supported by the Canadian Police Association.
The amendment specifies that the offender must have been
convicted of one previous offence. Again this is to satisfy
concerns regarding privacy and self-incriminating evidence.
Government members of the committee said they would be more apt
to support the taking of DNA from possible repeat offenders.
This motion goes a long way in correcting the massive flaw in
Bill C-3 which is that it does not allow DNA to be taken on
arrest except with a warrant. I still cannot understand why
these samples cannot be taken just as fingerprints are now or as
blood and urine samples are taken in suspected cases of impaired
driving. I think public safety concerns are a lot more important
than pure civil libertarian concerns.
I had the pleasure of playing an instrumental role back in 1995
when the first phase of the government DNA testing plan was
passed. Bill C-104 allowed police to take samples without
consent from individuals suspected of criminal offences,
generally those involving serious violence.
The sample taken from the suspect would be matched with samples
from the crime scene to determine whether the suspect had
committed the specific offence being investigated. The
legislation did not deal with the storage of the information or
samples derived from testing. It provided a reasonable scheme to
ensure that DNA samples were not taken from suspects
unnecessarily.
I know the results that first phase of legislation had for Tara
Manning's family. I will never forget June 20, 1995 when the
justice minister said that he was prepared to introduce
legislation by the end of the week for the purpose of adding DNA
testing to the Criminal Code. This was a great day for victims
because it provided a mechanism to answer many questions and for
the police in solving crime.
Yet here we are working on phase two of the legislation and we
hear arguments that a DNA sample is unduly intrusive compared to
fingerprinting. I have to agree with the words of Tim Danson
from the Globe and Mail:
The high court has ruled that taking DNA samples as already
allowed by law is not unduly intrusive. The method of sampling
consists of cutting a piece of a person's hair, rubbing a Q-tip
swab inside the mouth, or taking blood by a simple pin device
similar to that used by diabetics.
Further, the court has made it clear that privacy is far more
affected when an individual is arrested, taken to court and
forced to face the public and personal shame and humiliation that
inevitably follow. Privacy interests protected by the charter of
rights and freedoms relate to a reasonable expectation of privacy
and not privacy at large. People who engage in criminal activity
should expect some loss of privacy. Their victims certainly
have. Perhaps the armchair constitutional academics should join
us in the real world.
1805
I certainly agree with that individual's statement.
With regard to Motion No. 11, which I support, it amends clause
117 regarding who samples may be taken from. It allows for the
taking of DNA samples from incarcerated offenders who are serving
sentences of two or more years.
During clause by clause review we proposed that samples be
taken from all incarcerated offenders who had been convicted of
one or more primary designated offences, serious or violent
offenders. Our amendment was defeated.
Currently the bill allows the taking of DNA samples only from
multiple murderers, sex offenders and designated dangerous
offenders.
Given that a very small percentage of offenders commit the
majority of crimes and there remains a number of unsolved crimes
in this country, there is a great probability that a number of
persons currently incarcerated for one offence may be responsible
for many more offences. Without this amendment, the police will
have many cases which remain unsolved.
I fully support this motion. However, it makes no sense to me
why we have a databank that does not include samples from all
convicted violent offenders. The bill as drafted now allows for
samples only from multiple murderers, sex offenders and dangerous
offenders. Two people who are exempt from this classification
would be Clifford Olsen and Allan Legere.
I think all killers should be obliged to provide the DNA
databank with samples even though they were convicted years
before the bank was ever imagined. This is why this motion is so
necessary and I hope government members will agree.
It is not as if we are suggesting they adopt a proposal like
that from New Brunswick which has been the first to publicly
press for the use of DNA samples in cases of property damage over
$5,000. That day may come, but as of now I think the least we can
do is test those who are serving sentences for two or more years.
Another reason for the necessity to test everyone serving two
years or more is that a disproportionately small number of
offenders are responsible for a disproportionately large number
of crimes.
Stats Canada reports that of the approximately 23,000 offenders,
20% had served a previous federal sentence, 11% had served two
previous federal sentences, 18% had served more than two federal
sentences and 80% had previously been incarcerated.
The truth in these statistics is that the recidivism rate of a
small number of offenders means that by taking steps to deal with
this group alone would be effective in protection of the public.
A recent CSC report confirms that those offenders detained for
their entire sentence are less likely to recommit crimes than
those released early.
By taking samples of those serving two or more years, it would
not only solve many unanswered crimes, it would also send a
signal that if you commit more crimes, you will get caught and
you will be punished.
That is a deterrent we need to get out to the probable or
possible offenders of the future. Do not do it. We will open up
wide the use of DNA sampling and you will get caught and you will
pay the price.
How can we refuse to accept that kind of legislation which would
mean so much better safety for all Canadians throughout the land?
Please support this amendment. Without it, the bill is not very
good.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I did
warn you that you would probably hear from me twice today.
The government has argued it is far too costly to take DNA
samples at the time of the arrest of somebody who has been
previously convicted.
It amazes me. It has indicated it will not support this
amendment which would enable the police to take these samples at
the time of arresting someone with a previous conviction.
1810
It says it is too costly and yet it is prepared to spend perhaps
hundreds of millions of dollars on registering the guns of
law-abiding people like farmers who will never do anything wrong.
It will not spend money on building a DNA bank which would solve
crimes and therefore save enormous amounts of money in terms of
property damage and personal harm done by criminals.
Where is the sense in wasting all that money on law-abiding
citizens when there is absolutely no reason to do it and not
spending the money where it is required in crime control?
This government is happy to give the Minister of Canadian
Heritage millions of dollars to blow away on a flag program and
millions of dollars to throw away on a heritage calendar which
mentions every ethnic religious holiday one can think of except
for Christmas and New Year, but it will not spend the money to
help build a DNA databank which would help us solve crimes.
The government will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council which gives
grants to professors which appear to be awfully like vacations
but it will not give money to build a DNA bank that would help
solve crimes for ordinary Canadians.
I was looking at some of the grants of the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council. There was one for a woman to go to
a little island just west of Fiji, a tax haven island. She was
going for three years to study housing on this island. It is an
absolutely ridiculous waste of money for a person to be given
money to do that under the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council grants.
These organizations give away money to study the make-up of
blueberry jam. The member for Langley—Abbotsford has mentioned
that one before. What a lot of rubbish. This is money just
poured down the drain on useless, idiotic projects when we have
here an opportunity to build a DNA bank that would actually make
a difference. It would actually provide a deterrent, would
enable the police to actually solve crimes and would relieve the
suffering of many law-abiding Canadians.
The Liberals absolutely love spending money on all sorts of
social engineering but they hate spending money on crime control
or solving crimes. They are completely out of step with the
public.
On another aspect of this bill, the government constantly talks
about the court test of the legislation. It is so terrified of
the court and what the court might do that it has become hog
tied. It is unable to produce reasonable legislation because it
is so afraid of the supreme court.
There was a clause put into the charter of rights called the
notwithstanding clause and it was put there for a reason. It was
put there so that notwithstanding the rulings of the courts, if
the government felt that a ruling had been made out of step with
the will of parliament and the will of the people the
notwithstanding clause could be used to correct that problem.
Instead of being so afraid of these judges who defy the will of
parliament and the will of the people and spending enormous
amounts of money on preparing bills to be charter safe, why not
use the notwithstanding clause a few times and show the judges
what we expect of them?
We can have the public confirm the decision of the government by
putting it to a binding referendum on the public will so that the
government then cannot act in a tyrannical manner. If it does
use the notwithstanding clause it will be endorsed by the public.
If we continue down this road of constantly talking about making
bills charter safe, we surely know from our own experience in
life that for every lawyer who says they drew up a document free
of challenge and there is no way anyone can challenge this, there
is another lawyer across the street who says it is full of
loopholes and can be challenged from every direction.
We can have all the experts in committee who can make these
suggestions on how we can make bills charter safe, but there is
always going to be a lawyer out there who will study that bill
and find some loophole or some clause where he can take it to
challenge and with perseverance will mock it down. It happens
all the time.
1815
It is time we made it clear that we will no longer tolerate that
as a society, that we need some crime control, and that if the
judges will not help us with that project we will use the
notwithstanding clause to ensure they carry out the public will
and begin to reflect a little of what society wants instead of
what lawyers want.
Notwithstanding the comments of the member for
Scarborough—Rouge River when he spoke earlier that there is
nothing to stop the taking of DNA samples under warrant, when we
look at the amendment being proposed by Reform we could have this
amendment and still have the taking of samples by warrant if
necessary. This motion gives an opportunity to begin building a
DNA bank for repeat offenders so that we can solve some of the
crimes they commit. I cannot understand why anyone would oppose
that.
The member mentioned again that they are worried about charter
challenges. Everything in this place is done worrying about what
the courts might do to it. It is just completely crippling us,
preventing us from doing our job.
Let us pass this motion. Let us add it into the bill and let us
worry about what the court does with it a little later.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Group No. 6. I compliment
my colleague from Crowfoot on the hard work he has done on Bill
C-3.
Essentially it deals with the timing of DNA samples, the taking
of samples at the time of charging the offender and retaining
them for analysis upon conviction. It needs to be toughened up a
lot. Members from the other side have mentioned a number of
times that it is expensive to do these tests. What is the cost
of not doing these tests?
I could not find any evidence in Canada, but let us look at the
evidence in the United States. The United States has been much
more aggressive than we have been in utilizing DNA sampling and
DNA as a scientific tool in the fight against crime.
Recent FBI statistics state that less than half of all rapes
were solved by police and less than 10% took samples at the scene
of the crime for use by the laboratories. In only 6% of 250,000
rape cases was DNA was actually recovered and tested. That points
to a significant flaw.
If we look at all the rapes convictions and take it as 100%, of
those convictions only 48% or less than half was DNA collected
and only in 27% was the DNA typed. Less than a quarter of all
the DNA that was collected, which is about 12%, was from those
convicted. That is a very small amount.
What are our costs, society's costs, the police costs and the
judicial costs in not utilizing DNA as an effective tool against
crime? We could think of all the time that would be saved if we
could take samples from all those charged, charter challenges
notwithstanding.
If one is innocent one has nothing to fear. If one is innocent
the DNA can be used to exonerate. An enormous body of work,
again from the United States and from the United Kingdom which
has been even more aggressive than the States in utilizing the
DNA databank, shows very clearly that DNA can be used as an
effective tool to exonerate the innocent. It is a double edged
sword. DNA can be used as an effective tool to convict the
guilty and to make sure the innocent are not convicted. We have
had both cases.
We had the case of Paul Bernardo where lives could have been
saved if the samples that were taken from Mr. Bernardo were
analysed in a timely fashion. Instead they were laid to languish
in a laboratory and as a result at least two young innocent women
were murdered and countless others were raped.
We have also seen cases where the innocent would not have spent
time in jail were DNA used as a tool to exonerate them.
1820
If we are interested in justice we will pass Group No. 6. We
will pass Motion No. 10 of my colleague from Crowfoot and will
use it to make Bill C-3 a stronger bill.
There are other opportunities and other flaws that we can point
to in using DNA. The United Kingdom has been particularly active
in the DNA database and in employing DNA science. It is using
something called STRs, short tandem strands of DNA that are more
specific than the tools we are using today. If we use STRs, the
short tandem strands of DNA, it is a much more effective tool in
making a stronger more specific analysis of the DNA at the site
of a crime.
We need to look at other flaws with respect to using DNA.
Usually, as I mentioned before, not enough DNA is collected. It
is not collected in a timely fashion. It is not collected at the
scene of the crime and it is not processed in a timely fashion.
All those can be taken and used. If they are used can we
imagine the savings in money and in time in police
investigations? In the building and construction of a DNA
databank we could have a mass of information that could be used
to expeditiously convict a person guilty in the commission of a
crime.
We need to learn not only from our experience in Canada which is
in its infancy. We also need to look at the United States and in
particular at the United Kingdom which have led the way in using
DNA as a scientific tool against the war on crime.
It is important for us to look at the motions in Group No. 6, to
utilize them and to adopt them to build upon Bill C-3. It is
also useful for us to look at Bill C-3 to make sure that DNA can
be taken from all those who are charged for the reasons I
mentioned before.
Again, collect at the crime scene, use better specimen
collection and preservation, and apply it not only to violent
offenders. Why do we not apply it to non-violent offences too?
What is the problem? If we are interested in the pursuit of
justice, if we are interested in the pursuit of truth and if we
are interested in making sure that the guilty are convicted and
that the innocent are released, why do we not use the DNA
databank for those individuals too?
The cost of crime within our society is estimated at roughly $48
billion a year. What is the cost for us of not convicting the
guilty? What is the cost of having the guilty released and
running amok? All those things are important for us to take into
consideration when we are trying to build Bill C-3 into a better
bill for all individuals concerned.
I would also like to deal with the charter issue. It is
important for us to look at the charter to make sure, when it
comes time to revisit it, that the charter can be utilized and
changed to ensure that good bills like a modified Bill C-3 are
allowed to go through and that charter challenges do not get in
the way of the pursuit of justice.
Too many times we have seen situations where individuals who
were charged with crimes, who were patently guilty, got off
scot-free because of a charter challenge, a loophole that
prevents the guilty from being convicted and put in a situation
where they will not prey upon innocent civilians.
In closing, I hope the government takes it upon itself to pass
the motions in Group No. 6 to build a better Bill C-3. We look
forward to its responses in the near future.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been a very interesting debate on DNA. A lot of issues
around DNA have caused us some concern with respect to privacy
rights and issues that relate to catching very serious offenders
and not allowing a repeat of the offence.
1825
Many members who participated in this debate have serious
concerns. I share those concerns, but I believe the departments
of justice and the solicitor general have done a very good job in
listening to members, in particular members of the Reform Party,
some of whom gave very well formulated and sound opinions and
some of whom were off the wall.
That being said, I know there is a serious intent to ensure
greater safety and security for citizens of the country by
enabling us to target people who have the potential for repeated
offences of the worst kinds.
The member for Wild Rose often brings into the House examples of
serious offences which need to be addressed. It is very
important to ensure in some way that multiple offenders never get
out there again to continue those kinds of offences.
There are people who have demonstrated patterns of recidivism
which are of serious concern to all of us. The legislation and
the changes that have been made to it answer the concerns placed
before us in a most efficient and effective way.
We had a conversation around the amendments found in Motion No.
11. I am sure members of the Reform Party recall the discussion
around designated offences. The issue of a designated offence is
a very broad term. Any designated offence is an even broader
term.
I recall for those people who feel we are avoiding the issues in
any way, shape or form by buying into the amendment that has been
suggested that if we were to suggest an acceptance of Motion No.
11 we would be bringing into the prison system and into the
taking of personal DNA, which is the most precious definition of
who we are as a people, something that once out there in the
public can never be recovered. It is vital information. If one
has committed a B and E, has stolen a car or has broken into a
shop, should we in those circumstances consider taking DNA? I am
not in agreement. We were not in agreement in committee.
I see the member who did a very good job in defending his
position in committee. He is talking with the Parliamentary
Secretary to Solicitor General. I am sure they would both agree
that this is not such a great idea. All three of us would agree
that the best move is the move that will support the bill before
us. It is a good bill. It contains the kinds of protection for
society we need. Therefore I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of consideration of Bill C-3.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Will all those opposed to the motion please rise?
And fewer than 15 members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Sheila Finestone: May I continue?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member may have lost her
right to speak by moving the motion.
1830
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to
Motions Nos. 10 and 11. I thought I would not get the
opportunity. I thank the hon. member for her motion.
Having listened to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice I wonder who is running this country. The
parliamentary secretary gave very lucid arguments as to why we
should not tackle the Supreme Court of Canada or put ourselves at
risk of a showdown with the Supreme Court of Canada. If in the
end the court prevailed and decided we had taken the wrong
approach, those convicted during a period of three or four years
prior to having the legislation declared void would have to be
turned loose because they would have been wrongfully convicted. I
appreciate the argument and I would not like to see the guilty
going free or conversely the innocent being convicted because of
any error on our part.
However, this is a country of laws. It is time we made it clear
not only to the public but to ourselves that the House of Commons
of Canada is the supreme legislative body of this country and
that we do not have to cower in fear of what the supreme court
may do. We are trying to make predictions that the supreme court
will disallow this legislation or that we think it will disallow
this legislation.
If you put three lawyers in a room and ask them for opinions on
this or any other subject, you will get at least five opinions.
Therefore we should not be cowering here. If the House in its
wisdom feels these are good amendments, which I believe they are,
then this is the direction we should take.
Compared with what was previously brought forward in committee,
Motion No. 10 is relatively innocuous. It states that samples
can be taken on charge from previous offenders, not from just
anyone who has been arrested. This makes it unnecessary in the
event that the charged person is exonerated of having to take
special measures in order to rid the databank of the samples as
can be done with fingerprints now. If we go only for people with
previous convictions then surely we do not have the problem of
having samples in the databank from people who have never been
convicted of anything because they are convicted before a sample
is taken. I think this makes eminent sense. In my opinion there
is no civil liberties problem involved in this.
The other question gets a little closer to the bone with the
question of civil liberties, taking DNA samples from convicted
people who are already in jail. Again the social benefit of
doing this in this case may outweigh the danger to civil
liberties. These are convicted criminals. These are not people
who have been pulled in off the street and hair plucked from
their heads to see what their DNA is. These are people who have
committed serious crimes, designated offences.
These people could very well have in the past committed violent
offences, in particular rapes, for which they have not been
caught or charged
1835
When they are in jail and have already been convicted of a
violent offence, does it not make practical sense to check to see
if maybe the fellow being looked for during the previous five
years might already be in custody? I see no harm in this. There
is no one in this House who is a stronger defender of civil
liberties than I am. People who have known me here for the last
few years I think will stand behind me on this.
This is a case where it simply makes sense to go ahead, take the
sample and find out if somebody being held has committed some
gross crime and if that is the case another charge can be laid
and the fellow is kept in for a very long period of time.
I do not buy the philosophy that we have to quiver and shake and
say no, the supreme court may override us. If worst comes to
worst as I understand the law we could still use the
notwithstanding clause to avoid having to turn a bunch of
convicted felons loose. I may be wrong on that. Perhaps some of
our legal talent could advise me.
That is the way I see it, that the notwithstanding clause
could be used and therefore, contrary to what the hon.
parliamentary secretary said, no one would have to be turned
loose as having been wrongly convicted even if the supreme court
did go against us.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to agreement made on Monday,
May 4, 1998, the questions on the motions in Group No. 6 are
deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deemed
deferred.
[Translation]
Pursuant to agreement made Monday, May 4, 1998, the motion in
Group No. 7 is deemed moved and seconded. This group contains
Motion No. 12.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 20, be amended
(a) by replacing line 38 on page 22 with the following:
“order under section 487.051 or 487.052;”
(b) by replacing line 40 on page 22 with the following:
“tion under section 487.055 or 487.091; or
(e) provided voluntarily by any person who is charged with an
indictable offence or is serving a sentence for an indictable
offence.”
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 12 would allow an individual who is
charged with a criminal offence or who subsequent to that charge
has been convicted of an indictable offence to voluntarily
provide a substance of DNA for analysis and entry into the DNA
databank.
What this essentially enables an individual to do is give
exculpatory evidence. Once again it demonstrates that this type
of technology is not only to be used by the state but can be used
by an individual and it would entrench this in the bill by
allowing them to voluntarily give their DNA for use in the trial.
I suppose it could be argued that this would exist in any event
if an individual wanted to do so and have the sample taken.
Perhaps the funding is going to be a question that will
inevitably be asked but this would include in the bill an
individual's right to have their DNA considered by the state in
the prosecution of a criminal offence. We are talking about
designated offences.
The drafters of this bill in their wisdom have designated
certain serious offences where DNA substances are very prone and
very apt to be left.
I suggest this is a useful amendment. It is one that in the
past would have been useful. The names Milgaard, Morin and
Marshall come to mind with respect to how DNA did and could be
used as exculpatory evidence.
It again shows the scope of the use of this type of technology
in our criminal justice system and it is a positive suggestion
and one which the government and hopefully all members of this
House will support.
1840
DNA is going to be used more and more in our justice system. It
is inevitable. It is technology. It is going to serve a very
useful purpose for those in law enforcement and for those
involved in the justice system generally.
I hope all members would embrace this useful motion and would be
supportive in their remarks and in the vote which will inevitably
take place in the near future.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the
government had the courage of its convictions it would grant the
police the power to take a sample at the time of charge if the
individual has shown by his or her actions that he or she has
been in this type of difficulty before and if necessary protect
that right by way of the notwithstanding clause.
As one of my colleagues indicated, it is time to tell the
Supreme Court of Canada that we want the will of the people
expressed through legislation created by elected representatives
of this country and not be afraid every time we attempt to do it
that nine unelected individuals are going to strike down the will
of the majority of the people in this country.
We support this motion. We think this is a good motion. It
does not hurt anyone. It causes no undue problems. It is of a
voluntary nature. The provision for this type of activity was
originally left out the bill. This motion would place it in the
bill and recognize the right of individuals to volunteer samples
for whatever purpose, but certainly for the purpose of
exonerating them from offences they have not committed. How many
times have people volunteered for breathalyser tests? How many
have given samples of their blood, their scalp hair, their pubic
hair in order to have that compared with samples found at the
scene and to exonerate them? Other evidence has caused their
arrest and charge.
We have looked at the cases that have come forward, the Milgaard
case, the Donald Marshall Jr. case, the Wilson Nepoose case and
so on. Those are only the ones we know about. Yet we probably
have 50 section 690 applications a year going to the justice
minister asking for a new trial or asking for mercy based on the
conviction these people are innocent. This provides the means in
this area whereby identification by way of DNA is allowed. It
provides a statutory provision for that.
We support it and we congratulate the member for bringing it
forward.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government does
not support this motion. We find it problematic because of the
charter perspective. It calls for placing in the convicted
offenders index the DNA profile of persons charged with an
indictable offence who have provided DNA samples voluntarily. A
person so charged is entitled to the presumption of innocence and
may ultimately be acquitted. Therefore an innocent person's
profile should not be part of the convicted offenders index.
There is another problem in that this motion has no provision
for obtaining a person's informed consent to place the samples
provided voluntarily in the convicted offenders index.
This motion applies to any indictable offence regardless of
whether it is a designated offence and is therefore likely to
provide DNA evidence that would be of assistance in a criminal
investigation.
In light of these serious difficulties I urge hon. members to
reject this motion.
1845
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: According to the agreement of Monday, May 4,
1998, the question on the motion in Group No. 7 is deemed to
have been put and a division thereon requested and deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: To the relief of all hon. members,
the chief government whip has requested that the vote on the
motions be deferred until tomorrow at the conclusion of the time
provided for consideration of Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
CHILDREN
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is absolutely crucial for the federal government to focus on
children in the months and years ahead.
It is well known that well-developed children become successful
productive adults who are better able to contribute to society's
economy and to instigate a cycle of positive effects as they
become parents and grandparents of the generations that follow.
As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing
everything we can to help people carry out the most important job
they will ever have and that is of a parent. As a society we
need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can in
the first three or four years of a child's life, noting that they
are essential to the child's long term development.
We know now just how valuable it is to get these first years
right, but how damaging it can be for children when they do not
get the help they need at an early age.
As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing
everything we can to prevent child abuse which is a crime with
potential lifetime effects for the young victims. One abused
child is too many.
As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing
everything we can to prevent child poverty. Poverty affects not
only a child's body but also their emotional and mental state.
Poor children are more than twice as likely to suffer long term
disabilities and other physical and mental health problems.
We at the federal level and indeed all levels of government need
to work very hard to advance the cause of Canada's children. We
must do so knowing that there is growing recognition worldwide of
the importance of early childhood development. This is something
we all have a stake in because it is all about the future of
Canada. Early child development is a powerful investment in the
future both socially and economically.
I ask the secretary of state responsible for children and youth
what the government is doing to support our children. What is
the government doing to advance the national children's agenda?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member will recall, the
Speech from the Throne acknowledged the importance of early
childhood development. By investing now in the well-being of
today's children this government is investing in the long term
health of our society.
Federal, provincial and territorial governments have been
working closely for some time on collaborative initiatives aimed
at helping children get a better start in life. The community
action program for children, the Canada prenatal nutrition
program and aboriginal head start are just examples of highly
successful programs already in place to help children in target
communities.
To ensure that all Canadian children have the best opportunity
to develop their full potential, we need a broader and much more
comprehensive investment. Early childhood development alone is
not the solution. A growing body of research tells us that we
must look at the wide range of environmental factors that affect
children's lives.
That is why the Speech from the Throne announced the development
of a national children's agenda. Three levels of government are
working together to develop a national strategy to improve the
well-being of Canada's seven million children. This agenda will
give us the opportunity to integrate the sometimes fragmented
efforts of the different levels of government avoiding overlap
and duplication to ensure we get the most out of each dollar we
spend on children.
The national children's agenda is a long term action plan that
requires a substantial investment of time and effort from all
players. In the meantime we will live up to the commitment we
made to Canadians.
As announced in the 1997 budget, the Canada child tax benefit
will come into force July 1 to help low income families.
As announced in this year's budget, we will increase the Canada
child tax benefit by an additional $850 million by the year 2000.
1850
Let me conclude by saying to the hon. member that these efforts
by the Government of Canada demonstrate quite clearly that we are
committed to do as much as we possibly can to move toward the
elimination of child poverty, to promote early childhood
development and to lay a strong foundation for the future of
Canadian children and Canadian society.
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to expand on my question to
the Minister of Health about the painful shortfall in federal
transfer payments for health care.
I proposed an amendment to a bill that would have required the
minister to report every year to parliament on whether transfer
payments are adequate enough to meet the needs for health
services.
Let me explain why. I received a letter from George Bell whom I
wrote to the minister about but have still not received a reply.
Mr. Bell waited six months before receiving diagnosis and
treatment for a worsening nerve disorder. Last fall the first
doctor told him the pain and tingling in his arm would probably
go away. It did not. The second doctor booked him for a
diagnostic scan for which Mr. Bell had to wait a month. After
that Mr. Bell waited another month for more diagnostic services.
His treatment only began recently and the surgery has not yet
been scheduled.
Mr. Bell is a manual labourer who could not work because of the
increasing pain in his arms. The Workers' Compensation Board
turned down his claim because it stated he was suffering from a
degenerative disc disease that was not as a result of his work
duties. Mr. Bell has nothing to live on, is unable to work and
is just now receiving treatment for his condition six months
after he first approached a doctor.
Unfortunately there are many people out there experiencing
similar frustrations and lack of timely care.
Today researchers at the Université du Québec à Montréal
released a study that showed that health cutbacks reduced life
expectancy for men and women as well as infants. The Liberal
government cut $3.5 billion from health care over the past three
years alone. That represents a huge number of beds, a lot of
medical equipment and hundreds and perhaps thousands of staff.
That represents months of waiting for surgery and life
threatening hours of waiting in emergency rooms. It is quite
simply unacceptable. This is not what Canadians want.
The Reform Party's answer is to introduce two tiered medicine
where the rich can pay to jump the queue and the poor die on
waiting lists. This is also unacceptable. This is not the
Canadian way.
Right now a private hospital is operating in Alberta contrary to
the public administration principle in the Canada Health Act. The
Liberal government is doing nothing about it. The dollars of
desperate and sick Canadians are going into the pockets of the
owners of this private health operation instead of all those
dollars being used for health services.
This is the way of the future, unless we stop it, unless we can
give Canadians a voice in our own health care system. The
amendment I proposed was a way to do that but the answer I
received then from the minister was disappointing.
I would like the minister's representative to respond to Mr.
Bell and to all Canadians who have to wait unreasonable periods
of time, often at great personal expense for medical treatment.
Why does he not wish Canadians to have a voice in our health care
system? Why is he afraid of scrutiny of the current inadequate
levels of funding for health care? Why are people like Mr. Bell
forced to wait six months for treatment and be unable to work and
have nothing to live on in the meantime? What answer does he
have for Mr. Bell?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the quality of health care
available to Canadians is of utmost importance to the government.
We know that high quality health care is a key contributor to a
healthy population.
Simply focusing on how much money is being spent on health care
will not provide a real picture of how good the quality of care
is and how well the health system is doing in achieving important
health outcomes.
Quality health care is also about the effectiveness and
appropriateness of the care, treatment and services available to
Canadians as well as providing those services in the most
efficient way possible.
This government recognizes the importance that evidence based
decision making has for improving the quality of health care. For
example, we have implemented the three year $150 million health
transition fund to gather in collaboration with the provinces and
territories evidence and test pilot approaches in the areas of
pharmacare, home care, primary health care and integrated health
services delivery.
Also the government is spending $50 million over three years to
examine the development of a health information system to ensure
that those in the health system have the best information they
need to provide quality care to Canadians.
Finally, the 1996 budget allocated $65 million over five years
for the Canadian health services research fund.
The Canada health and social transfer provides the stability and
predictability by ensuring $12.5 billion annually in cash
transfers and total transfer entitlements that will gradually
increase from $25.3 billion in 1997-98 to $28.5 billion in the
year 2002-03.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed
to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.54 p.m.)