36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 98
CONTENTS
Monday, May 4, 1998
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1110
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1125
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1200
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-3. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question of Privilege
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1215
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1220
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1225
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1230
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 3 and 5
|
1235
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1240
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1245
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1250
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1255
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COINAGE
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1400
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLISH CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEEN'S GUARD
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
1405
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 55TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OTTAWA SENATORS
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEADER OF LIBERAL PARTY IN NEW BRUNSWICK
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETIES
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL POLICY
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
1410
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MANITOBA
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUBA
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELIZABETH FRY WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1420
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1425
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1430
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1435
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1440
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR WASTE
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1445
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RURAL CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN CONTROL
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1450
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPRESS OF IRELAND
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1455
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN CONTROL
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1500
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-3—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Tabling of Document
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1505
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ipperwash Provincial Park
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Newfoundland Ferry Service
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1510
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-3. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1515
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | >(Divisions on Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 deemed demanded and
deemed deferred)
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13
|
1610
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1635
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1640
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1745
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | >(Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)
|
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 7
|
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1830
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 98
![](/web/20061116190717im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 4, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion
of this House, the Government should authorize a proclamation to
be issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada
amending Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
to: (a) recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue
family life free from undue interference by the state and (b)
recognize the fundamental right, responsibility and liberty of
parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and urge the
legislative assemblies of the other provinces to do likewise.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am both pleased and disappointed this
morning to be leading the debate on a topic that is so important
to families all across Canada.
I wonder if it would make any difference to the members of this
House and to the people of Canada if they knew that the state had
more power than parents to determine what is in the best
interests of children. I wonder if it would make any difference
to all of us here and to parents if they realized the unlimited
power of the state to take children away from parents without any
real evidence whatsoever. Today I will present evidence that
parents have only time consuming, expensive legal recourse if
their rights are abused because of the legislation and the
bureaucracy working against parents and that the government is
clearly abusing their powers.
Here are some concrete examples, or should I say horror stories.
Until February 1995 Charles and Sandra Butler home schooled
their children, ages 11, 8 and 5, which is permissible in
Newfoundland as long as the curriculum is accredited by the
district school board. The Butlers followed a home school
curriculum developed by the Seventh Day Adventist Church that the
local school board had refused to accredit. The family had no
history of neglect or abuse.
The department of social services decided that the Butler
children were in need of protection under the province's child
welfare act on the grounds that the Butlers had neglected to
provide adequately for the education of their children. The
Butlers' three children were apprehended even though the five
year old was not required by law to go to school. Social workers
expanded their list of grounds for taking the children away from
their parents to include concerns about the children's health and
education, possible physical and/or emotional abuse and the
religious zealotry of their parents.
A judge granted social services temporary custody of the
children for a four month period. The Butlers were forced to
hire a lawyer and appeal the judge's orders on the grounds that,
first, the judge applied an improper standard of proof; second,
he relied on inadmissible evidence and hearsay; third, the
hearing violated the principles of fundamental justice; fourth,
the parents were not properly informed of the nature of the
hearing; and fifth, the parents were not given an opportunity to
call evidence.
In December 1995, more than 10 months after their kids were
taken from them, the court granted the Butlers' appeal and
ordered the children be returned immediately to their parents.
In her conclusions the judge found that the Butlers' parental
rights under section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms had
been violated.
1110
She also concluded that the children's academic abilities seemed
normal for their age. They appeared well adjusted. They were
physically healthy. They were rarely sick. There was absolutely
no evidence that the parents physically or mentally abused their
children.
She also agreed that the bureaucrats had not handled the case in
a manner in keeping with the principles of fundamental justice.
The Butler children had to spend more than six months in foster
care. This government-enforced separation of children from their
parents was devastating for the kids, the family and the family's
relationship with the community in which it lived. All of it was
totally unnecessary. A proper investigation by government
bureaucrats at the outset would have arrived at exactly the same
conclusions that the judge did in court.
The abuse here was by government bureaucrats, not the parents,
even though the judge concluded that the Butlers had parental
rights under the charter. Had parental rights been in the
charter it may have actually resulted in the bureaucrats
conducting a proper investigation before scooping the Butlers'
kids and keeping them separated for six months.
There are many horror stories. Here is another one. In June
1995 a Nanaimo couple's three children were taken from them by
social services. Terry and Lisa Neave's two-year old daughter
was taken to hospital for testing and treatment of a choking
disorder. One day before the transfer a paediatrician taught
Mrs. Neave a jaw-thrust manoeuvre that would clear her daughter's
air wave when she was choking. The manoeuvre involved raising
the child's jaw with a hand at her neck.
At the children's hospital in Vancouver, Lisa Neave and her
daughter were assigned a double room with another mother and sick
child. Mrs. Neave performed the manoeuvre on her daughter during
a choking episode. The other mother reported what she thought
was abuse to the hospital authorities. Mrs. Neave was required
to explain her paediatrician's instructions to a social worker
and to the head of the hospital's child protection unit. The
head of the child protection unit concluded that Mrs. Neave had
an unusual form of child abuse in which a parent fabricates an
illness for their child. Without checking with the Neave's
paediatrician or family doctor, the next day social services
apprehended all three of the Neave's children.
Even though no one had ever seen Mrs. Neave abuse her children,
a judge ruled that Mrs. Neave was a high risk to her children.
The Neave's family doctor and paediatrician tried to contact the
social worker. They reported that their calls were not even
returned. The children were not allowed to come home until
December and Mr. Neave still had to act as supervisor over his
wife.
In January the results of the court ordered psychiatric
assessment of Mrs. Neave concluded that Mrs. Neave's only
psychiatric problem was caused by her children being taken away
from her and by the RCMP investigation. In February the court
orders imposed by the department of social services were set
aside. The Neave's children had lived away from home for five
months. Their legal bills exceeded $10,000. All this could have
been avoided if the social worker had simply called the
paediatrician and confirmed the instructions Mrs. Neave had
received.
Having parental rights included in the charter of rights and
freedoms may have prevented this travesty of justice and this
emotional nightmare.
There are many other examples like this that I could relate to
members. These ought to be of grave concern to all Canadians.
Unfortunately, the charter of rights and freedoms only protects
an individual's rights and freedoms, it does not provide the
legal framework for this balancing of parental rights, children's
rights and the rights of the state.
I maintain this is why parental rights and responsibilities need
to be included in our charter. Child abuse by the state is just
as abhorrent as child abuse by parents. There needs to be a
proper balance between the rights of parents to raise their
children and the right of the state to interfere. That is why
M-33 is here today.
My main point is this. Parents have a responsibility to provide
their children with the necessities of life. As long as parents
meet this fundamental responsibility to their children
governments should respect the fundamental right of parents to
raise their children free from undue interference by the state.
Cindy Silver, a Vancouver lawyer, points out that the dignity
and worth of both individuals and families in a free society were
prominent in the Canadian Bill of Rights, but any reference to
the family was omitted from the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. She says that omitting the reference to family in the
charter of rights and freedoms contributed significantly to the
demise of family autonomy and the devaluing of the family in law
and legislature.
1115
My Motion No. 33 would correct this oversight and return a
proper balance between parental rights and responsibilities and
help reaffirm the state's proper role in family life in Canada.
Section 15 of the charter states every individual is equal
before and under the law and has the right to equal benefit of
the law without discrimination. Ms. Silver correctly points out
that because the charter includes age as a prohibited ground for
discrimination this effectively changed the constitutional status
of children, making them equal to adults under the law.
Making children equal under the law and omitting family and
parents from our Constitution has put child rights groups in
charge of the political agenda and left parents with little or no
defence.
Here is what is happening as result. In 1991 Canada ratified
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a
document which tried to address all the concerns raised by child
rights groups around the world. Ms. Silver states: “As a
result, the UN convention confers both protective rights and
choice rights, thereby establishing a presumption that children
should be able to act autonomously whenever possible”.
Ms. Silver then outlines the choice rights that governments now
endorse for all children in Canada regardless of what parents
think is good or bad for their children. Article 13 states the
right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek,
receive and impart information and the ideas of all kinds,
whether orally or in writing, in the form of art or through any
media of the child's choice.
Article 14 states the right of freedom to thought, conscience
and religion. Article 15 states the right to freedom of
association. Article 16 states the right to privacy. Article 19
states the right to be free from all forms of physical and mental
violence. Article 19 has been interpreted by the UN convention
review committee to include freedom from simple spankings by a
loving parent to help correct a child's behaviour from time to
time.
In June 1995 the review committee criticized Canada for failing
to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, the section that
provides a defence for parents who use corporal punishment,
reasonable under the circumstances, to correct their children's
behaviour.
While the UN convention and the review committee's
recommendation have no legal force in Canadian law, this does not
prevent the no spanking lobbyists from pushing the government to
change the law. Nor has the federal government been an innocent
bystander. The government has been providing funds for these
anti-spanking, anti-parental rights lobby groups to do research
and to launch court challenges to advance their cause. That is
wrong.
Parents and families are left to defend themselves from this
intrusion by the state while government provides moral and
financial support to lobby groups that would diminish parental
rights and family autonomy.
Ms. Silver's paper states: “Since 1992 the federal government
has allocated $459 million toward conforming Canada's law and
policy to the provisions of the UN convention. Part of this
amount was used in 1992 to create the children's bureau of Health
Canada whose mandate is to ensure consistency with the UN
convention and co-ordination for all federal program and policies
for children”.
All this is expenditure of human and financial resources by the
government to implement a UN convention that has not even been
debated or approved by members of parliament.
Dallas Miller, legal counsel for the Home School Legal Defence
Association of Canada, describes the negative aspect of the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in an action
paper he prepared for home schoolers.
It states: “Although several of the provisions offered
generally positive, non-offensive platitudes, a substantial
portion of the convention undermines parental rights. These
threats to the family generally fall into three categories:
first, transfer of God given parental rights and responsibilities
to the state; second, the institutionalization of rebellion by
vesting children with various fundamental rights which advance
notions of the children's autonomy and freedom from parental
guidance; third, the establishment of bureaucracies and
institutions of a national and international nature designed to
promote the ideas proclaimed in the charter of the United Nations
and to investigate and prosecute parents who violate these
children's rights”.
1120
Mr. Miller has analysed each article in the UN convention and he
highlights how the charter could be used to undermine parental
rights and responsibilities. Here are just a few examples he
cites. Article 3: In an article concerning children the courts,
social service workers and bureaucrats are empowered to regulate
families based on the bureaucrats' subjective determination of
what is in the best interests of the child. That is happening in
Canada.
Article 4: Signatory nations are bound to undertake all
appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for
the implementation of rights articulated in the convention.
Article 13: Little children are vested with the virtual
absolute freedom of expression and under this provision parents
could lose the right to prevent their children from interaction
with pornography, rock music with profane lyrics or violent
television shows.
This is terrible that this is allowed. Children are guaranteed
freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Children have the
legal right to object to all religious training from their
parents.
Article 15: This article declares the right of the child to
freedom of association. Children could claim a fundamental right
to join street gangs, cults or racist organizations over parental
objections.
I have many other things I would like to present and that is why
I have introduced Motion No. 33. I feel strongly about the
issue, as more than 6,000 petitions support my efforts to
strengthen protection for parental rights from undue interference
by the nanny state.
Parents must have the freedom to do what I think is in the best
interests of their children. If the government thinks they are
wrong, section 1 of the charter guarantees the government can
only interfere in accordance with reasonable limits prescribed by
law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic
society.
In conclusion, my motion proposes to institute a proper balance
between children's right, parental rights and the rights of the
state. I would like to respectfully request at this time, with
the consent of the House, to make Motion No. 33 a votable item.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that this
motion be deemed votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
stand today to speak to the motion to amend section 7 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Once again I would like to say the hon. member from the Reform
side uses exceptional cases to make his point and not what is the
general rule in Canada.
Section 7 of the charter says: “Everyone has the right to life,
liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of the
fundamental justice”. It sets out a balance between the rights
of the individual and the rights of the state.
In looking for protection under section 7, one first asks if
there has been an infringement of one of the three protected
interests, deprivation of life, liberty or security of the
person, and then asks if such deprivation was in accordance with
the principles of fundamental justice. These principles are
found in the basic tenets of our legal system and are vital to
our societal notion of justice.
[Translation]
The purpose of the member's motion is to add to section 7 the
fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from
undue interference by the state, as well as the fundamental
right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of
their children.
On first examination, there is nothing reprehensible about this
motion. One might indeed be tempted to support it, for who
among us does not think that Canadians are entitled to a rich
and rewarding family life free from undue interference by the
state, and who would not encourage the right and, of course, the
responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their
children?
[English]
Canada takes seriously its responsibilities toward its children.
For example, in December 1991 Canada ratified the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child, a broad ranging treaty
which delineates the civil, political, economic, social and
cultural rights of children.
As a leader in drafting the convention, Canada has been noted
for its action on behalf of children. As a mother of two
daughters, I am reassured that the government has done everything
to acknowledge that children also have rights in our society and
takes action to protect those rights here in Canada and
throughout the world.
1125
The family has been recognized and entrenched in the Canadian
legal system in a myriad of ways. It has been supported and
treated as a fundamental building block of our nation. One can
look to laws concerning the validity of marriage, dissolution of
marriage with its attendant need to provide for the financial
interest of the parties and the continued well-being of children,
and recent developments such as the government's child support
guidelines initiative.
We provide support to families through a vast array of programs
and policies. The Criminal Code of Canada protects children from
abuse and neglect, as do child welfare agencies throughout the
provinces and territories. Our tax system treats family
relationships in a way that differs from individuals.
[Translation]
Canada in no way fails to respect families. It supports parents
who look after their children's upbringing. No one is worried
that Canada will introduce measures of oppression, interference
or repression with respect to the family.
I therefore do not understand what the risks are to which
families and children are exposed and which the motion before us
seeks to eliminate.
Can the state interfere in family life in Canada today? There
is no doubt that it can and, in some cases, it even has an
obligation to do so.
Ideally, every parent should be a loving parent, every child
happy, healthy and safe from danger, and every family a refuge
from the hustle and bustle of daily life, a place of warmth,
security and affection.
We have only to read the newspapers, listen to the news and turn
on the television, however, to realize that this is not the
case, and the member has given examples to prove it.
[English]
Families in Canada today do not need more protection from state
interference. Every day in this country there is enacted a
delicate balancing act wherein the state uses its powers
carefully, some may say too carefully, to protect vulnerable
family members, women, children and the elderly, from harm. The
rights of individuals are weighed and where the balance tips the
state steps in to take care of its citizens.
I do not think Canadians wish to see those capabilities eroded.
Our society is outraged when we read of children returned to or
left in abusive families. Every day we read of that in the local
newspapers. Do we really wish to further hamper the efforts of
our child welfare authorities? Do we really want long charter
based challenges clogging up our court systems while the
vulnerable continue to be harmed?
[Translation]
The courts have examined section 7 of the charter and its impact
on family rights. It is not my intention today to give a list
of all the relevant case law. There simply would not be the
time.
Our courts have concluded that the right to raise a child
is part of a parent's right to liberty.
They have ruled that the state should interfere only when
necessary, thus confirming that the rights of parents are vital
in our society. It is not a question of recognizing parents'
right of ownership over children, but of recognizing parents'
rights to make decisions in the interest of the child.
Our common law rules have long recognized, however, the right
and the power of the state to step in to protect children at
risk.
That is a fundamental principle of our law.
[English]
In my opinion and in the opinion of the government we do not
need this amendment to section 7 of the charter. Canadian
families are protected from undue interference by the state and
parents have the right to raise their children within the limits
of the law. The law is there to protect those who are the most
vulnerable in our society and those who are our most precious
resource, our children.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps members find this a difficult issue to talk about. I
will state something personal for the record. I have received a
lot of mail on an issue which the hon. member who introduced this
motion referred to.
I am not personally in favour of repealing section 43 of the
Criminal Code.
I certainly made that clear to a lot of constituents who have
written to me about this. I know I have colleagues who take an
opposite view. However for the record, being private members'
business and all, I do not take that view. I do not think the
government does either. At least that is what it says.
1130
People are being whipped up into a frenzy in some quarters about
the prospect of this article of the Criminal Code being repealed
when I do not see any evidence that the government has this
intention. Certainly it would not have my support if the
government did have that intention, if it were to come before the
House that the government was trying to repeal it.
What the member has done is point out in a different way
something I commented on years ago in this House during the final
debate on the charter, which is that is the charter of rights and
freedoms institutionalizes in this country a small l
liberal individualist view of society and it has its limitations.
For instance it does not adequately recognize the rights of
communities or of collectivities. It tends to regard all human
life as the interaction of individuals. It goes beyond that to
some degree when it recognizes the existence of aboriginal rights
but I think it certainly is still limited in so far as it only
succeeded in enshrining the small l liberal individualistic
view of life.
This is not to say that there is anything particularly wrong
with that point of view. It is just that it does not encompass
the complexities of the relationships we have with each other
both as individuals and as groups.
That was something I pointed out then and I think it continues
to be true. The member argues that it does not adequately take
into account the reality of the family. I am listening to that
argument. In fact I read the articles he sent around. There are
some concerns expressed in those articles which I agree with. At
this point anyway I remain unconvinced that anything could be
accomplished by actually putting into the charter something
having to do with parents and families. I personally am not
opposed in principle to that idea, I am just not sure how it
would work.
One of the things I find curious in the debate that unfolded
this morning, and it takes on this shape in other forums and on
other issues, is this tension between the state and the family.
To some degree I do not know whether to call it exaggerated or
misplaced or a bit of a phoney war in this sense.
I think both the state and the family are losing out to the
marketplace. There are two more fundamentally weaker and weaker
institutions in our society, the state and the family. The
reaction of those who are concerned about family values is to
attack the state. It may be appropriate in some cases to do so
but it is totally inappropriate in any case not to recognize that
what is eating away at family values every bit as much as some of
the things that are attributed to the state are the values of the
marketplace.
After all it is not the state that creates and maintains the
culture of violence we see on our TV screens. It happens because
of the very successful marketing on the part of the TV companies.
The advertisers participate in this. They will pay higher rates
for programs they know have the attraction that comes with
violence. We see this more and more in sports as well.
It is not the state that is the purveyor of pornography.
We see this wrong attitude toward human relationships and toward
women and men not just in what we strictly call pornography; we
see it in advertising all the time.
1135
Every time we turn on the TV people with young children have to
worry about what boundary will be pushed by private advertisers,
by people many of us in this place hold as examples: “Boy, that
guy is a good marketer. Boy, that company is a good marketing
company. Boy, they really know how to sell their product, look
how their stocks have risen in the marketplace”.
It may be obvious but what I find difficult to take is this
concentration alone on ways in which the state may be undermining
the moral fabric of the country. I find this difficult to take
when it is not accompanied by an equally vigorous attack on the
values used in selling a product, that the end justifies the
means, that sex or whatever the case may be can be used to sell
the product and that is just the way the market works and we have
to accept that.
I do not think we have to accept that. If we want to create a
moral society, we have to be prepared to be comprehensive in our
view of this and not just single out the things that fit our
ideological predisposition. We have to be willing to take on the
marketplace. This is not something we are willing to do,
particularly in this day and age.
People who talk about the marketplace in this way, like myself,
are regarded as some kind of archaic old socialist who has not
embraced the freedom that comes from the marketplace where people
do what they want. People sell what they want. People do
whatever is permissible in order to sell their product.
I ask members who are concerned about these things to think
about this as well because to the extent that we cultivate a
particular ethic when it comes to the marketplace, we reinforce
values that perhaps we do not really want to reinforce.
We often say when we speak of youth crime that young people do
not seem to have any values. Well maybe they do. Maybe young
people have picked up the values of the marketplace instead of
the values of the family or the values of the state.
Perhaps young people have picked up on the value that what
matters is the bottom line, that what is important is the
quarterly profit margin. It does not matter how many people have
to be laid off or how many hospital beds have to close whatever
the case may be whether it is the state or a private company
depending on what kind of activity is involved.
Perhaps young people have picked up that for 15 years we have
been glorifying the ethic of every man for himself, every person
for him or herself and that we regard as romantic, unrealistic
and idealistic in a pejorative and patronizing way anyone who
says that maybe this is wrong and maybe we should not exalt these
types of values at the expense of everything else.
I would certainly invite people who are concerned about the
points the member was concerned about to rethink this as well.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Progressive
Conservative Party to speak to the Reform motion respecting
Canadian families and the role and responsibility of parents.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party believe that ultimately
the raising of children is the responsibility of parents. We
believe in supporting families to raise children in the best
possible manner so they can become productive citizens in our
society. We encourage families to enable the potential of each
and every child.
The motion before us today speaks of amending the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to allow individuals to
pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and
to recognize the fundamental right and responsibility of parents
to direct the upbringing of their children.
If we are proposing to amend the charter to allow this, what
exactly is it that we would amend?
1140
Section 7 of the charter of rights states “Everyone has the
right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not
to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles
of fundamental justice”.
We believe that this section of the charter does not need to be
amended to provide families with the ability to raise their
children in the manner they see fit. Section 7 provides parents
with the right to liberty, freedom to raise their children as
they see fit within the common fundamental values of society. We
would argue that existing laws already provide parents with the
ability to raise their children without undue interference of the
state within the framework of the common public good.
What is undue interference? The member proposing this motion
speaks of the concern that parents have that if they spank their
children in public their children would be taken away from them
by the authorities. This he says is undue interference in family
life. Spanking a child as a disciplinary measure is an issue
which is hotly debated but to my knowledge most child welfare
agencies in the provinces regard spanking a child's bottom as a
grey area between discipline and abuse. Ways of disciplining
children is an issue that should continue to be debated by our
society.
What of the necessity to protect children unfortunately
sometimes from their own parents? Would the Reform Party
amendment to the charter of rights and freedoms prevent the
government from exercising its ability to protect children who
are suffering from abuse, sexual and otherwise?
Children should be raised within their families. Families are
the basis of Canadian society. Parents should be responsible for
their children. But the state must have the ability to protect
children in situations where the parents are unable or unwilling
to assume that responsibility.
Removing a child from the family under current provincial laws
is not as simple as members of the Reform Party would make us
believe. Child protection workers must use the least intrusive
measures possible and social workers are charged with showing
that removing the child is in the child's best interest.
Child welfare legislation is quite specific stating that
children can only be removed if evidence of emotional, physical
or sexual abuse, or neglect can be proven before the courts.
Instead, much work is placed in trying to assist families to
better deal with the stresses of everyday life so that children
are not neglected, not abused and families can work and live
together without abuse or neglect.
Is this an undue interference in people's lives? To me this is
trying to strengthen the family unit rather than break it up.
It is ironic that the Reform Party proposes an amendment to the
charter of rights and freedoms to allow parents to raise their
children without interference by the state. The Reform Party's
principles and policies state: “The Reform Party recognizes that
child abuse and family violence attack the very foundation of
organized society. The party supports enacting, communicating
and enforcing laws that protect family members against such
acts”. Would the Reform Party's own principle not conflict with
the motion before us today? The Reform Party's policies and
principles appear to contradict the hon. member's motion.
Reform calls for a lowering of the age at which offenders should
be tried as adults. Even though these children would still be
considered minors, Reform's policy would call for an intervention
by the state into the ability of parents to raise and discipline
their children.
In conclusion, we do not need to amend the charter of rights and
freedoms to allow parents to raise their families in the manner
they best see fit. What we need is a better informed discussion
on the issues that prompted the member to bring forth this
motion. We also need to ensure that family poverty is not the
cause of abuse or neglect of children.
As a society we need to focus on the needs of today's children
because they will be the ones representing Canada in this House
in the future.
I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing forward an
issue which should be debated and should be questioned in this
House. The issue is not to change the charter of rights and
freedoms to be able to accomplish what the hon. member has
suggested. One cannot legislate that and good family values.
Those family values must and will come from families and the
parents of the children themselves.
1145
I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, very proud of the job that my
wife, my family and I have done to make sure that my children are
constructive members of society. That was done without
legislation. That was done with pride and with obvious
dedication from both parents, and certainly dedication from my
children.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly to the motion. I
want to make sure that I leave the appropriate amount of time for
the hon. member who moved the motion. I would appreciate if you
would give me a signal to ensure I do that.
The motion is very important. I think many members of the House
have not fully recognized how important it is. It is important
because Canadians have had a long history of respecting the role
of the family in Canadian society. They are concerned
historically about the separation of state and family.
I refer to the Canadian bill of rights which in its preamble
clearly states:
The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is
founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God,
the dignity and worth of human person and the position of the
family in a society of free men and free institutions;
Entrenched in our bill of rights was a recognition by the
founders of our nation that the family had a unique and special
place in our country. In the same way Reformers who are
Canadians and have shaped our policy are also concerned. That is
why in our party documents we have a statement that says:
The Reform Party affirms the duty of parents to raise their
children responsibly according to their own conscience and
beliefs, and further affirms that no person, government, or
agency has a right to interfere in the exercise of that duty, as
long as the actions of the parents do not constitute abuse or
neglect.
Our concern is that there seems to have been an erosion of the
respect for the role of family in the Canadian mosaic and in our
laws. I refer to the preamble that is now in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which superseded the bill of
rights as we all know. That preamble states:
There is no reference to the family. It has been taken out, an
omission which although may seem insignificant to some is having
impacts in Canada.
The parent-child bond is so critical to the long term health of
our nation and starts first in the physical sense. Actually it
is even before children are born. They are saying now in some
studies that the child in the womb can recognize the mother's
voice and certain movements. I know in my own case I have twin
daughters, one is very active and one is a little more sedate. We
knew the one that was very active even in the womb. She was so
active and she is still the same today.
A nursing mother has a closeness with her children and passes on
certain antibiotics. My point here is that the physical needs
of the children are met by the parents. There are new studies
showing the importance of physical contact with parents. Children
develop trust as their needs are met and they are put in a stable
environment.
Also there are studies showing—I saw one over 10 years ago—the
negative impacts of changing caregivers, what that does to
children and the long term effects of psychosis which can come
from it. It is so common, as we see in many day care centres
today. It is from our parents and our families that we actually
get our identity; he looks like Uncle Joe or she looks like Aunt
Mary.
There are sacrifices for sure in raising children, but in
anything worthwhile there are big rewards. Seeing one's child go
from the womb to adulthood is a special investment that reaps
great rewards for parents.
1150
No one is in a better position to do this than parents. No well
intentioned state or social agency will ever be able to usurp the
role of the parent. That is why our forefathers were sure to
entrench that in our bill of rights and in our legislation.
It is also important to see that parents have a hand in shaping
the mental capabilities of children. There is a new study out
that I read recently which indicates that the cognitive and
mental development of a child from age zero to three is critical.
If they are not properly stimulated in the right environment with
their parents and are left alone, for example, as was referred to
in some tragic cases, certain parts of the brain do not develop.
Even as they get older, after the age of three, they cannot
recoup that loss.
This is such a critical time and only a parent who loves the
children can provide what is needed for the long term best
interest of children.
Within families we teach children how to get along. We teach
within families how to share, how to be considerate of others,
how to give up our own personal desires and learn how to control
our emotions and gain self-control. Sometimes we do not always
get our own way. For the good of the family we may have to back
away from something. In this day and age when everyone is
clamouring for rights, the family is one institution where we
need to learn that we do not always get our own way for the best
of the family. Respect for authority is birthed in the family.
I quote how important the parent-child bond is by referring to a
comprehensive study done in 1996 by the Foundation of Family
Research and Education. It stated that in the area of children's
emotional bonding with parents regular non-parental care
increased the risk of children developing insecure bonds by 66%.
It also stated that the results from this work and others
conducted since demonstrated that insecure bonding to parents in
childhood was a direct cause of clinical levels of emotional and
behavioural problems in adolescents, including youth crime. It
indicated that it was clear the family was the primary arena of
influence in the development of children and adolescents.
When we look at some of the challenges we have with our youth
today, it just underlines the need to ensure that the autonomy of
the family is protected. We go beyond just protecting it to
supporting, strengthening and encouraging the family for the long
term health of the country. I applaud the member for bringing
forward a motion like this one that is designed with that intent
in mind.
I want to move to one additional area briefly, the loving
concern that parents have for their children. They want things
to go all right for them. They want them to have a happy and
good life. We all know this. Parents are in the first and best
position to pass on the core foundational values that will carry
children through their lives. These values the parents have
themselves. They have tried them in the crucible of life, things
that they were taught and have tested as they have gone through
life. When parents look back, as I do, there are some things
they wish they had not done. I have learned some lessons. My
concern is that I impart to my children the very best lessons I
have learned for their best interests.
No state or social institution can do that with the same love
and concern that a parent has for a child. I applaud
grandparents in this respect as well. Much can be gained from
grandparents.
Parents establish a foundation in their children. The children
test the foundation and may change it and develop their own when
they are adults. However, the best person to impart that
foundation is the parent. No system, no government or no agency
should interfere in this work.
There are families that have troubles and problems, and some of
them are tragic. The pressures families face today are enormous
in this technological age. In our enthusiasm sometimes we look
for a quick fix and we think we know better. However, we should
always be cautious of a bureaucracy eager to expand, where
government will fix everything.
That is a medicine that is worse than what is being treated.
1155
If we really want to help Canadian children we must respect the
special relationship between parents and their children just as
our forefathers did in shaping of the bill of rights. Governments
and bureaucratic social agencies do not serve families by coming
between the parent and their children. If anything, their focus
should also be to support, encourage and strengthen healthy
family relationships rather than interfere with them. Let us
help parents, not replace them.
The Speaker: We will go to the member for
Wentworth—Burlington who will take us to 11.59 a.m. Then the
hon. member whose bill it is will have five minutes to wrap up.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the
motion. While I believe the intentions behind the motion are
excellent, the motion is seriously flawed.
If I may say to the member, what I find most wrong with the
motion is that it sets the individual against the group. What he
would propose to do with the motion is amend the charter to the
effect that parents would have certain rights over their
children.
The very essence of rights legislation is to define the
limitations of the state or the group on actions of the
individual. If we give rights to parents or the state it does
not matter; we erode the rights of the individual. We would get
into terrible difficulties if we accorded special rights to
parents. We would get parents who might abuse their children in
a very profound way and we would limit the ability of the state
to intervene.
On the other hand the member detects, as we all detect from our
constituents, an erosion of the ability of custodial parents to
manage their children in a sincere and effective way because of a
certain fear that the state may intervene improperly when it
attempts to apply discipline or other actions on children.
This is not a problem that is limited to parents. It is also a
problem that extends to other custodial figures in society like
teachers and police officers in the course of their duties in a
community with teenagers and other young people. In the old days
before the charter of rights, the teacher, parent or the local
policeman could caution a child, could say to that child “you
must not do this”. They could even enforce limited discipline.
The real flaw in the charter of rights, which is causing the
problem and discomfort with respect to the ability of parents,
teachers or local police officers to discipline children, is that
the charter accorded full civil rights to children before the age
of majority, before the age of having the responsibility to
exercise those rights.
We have a situation now where if a teacher attempts to impose
discipline on a child in school, or even if a parent attempts to
impose discipline on a child, the child can resort to the courts
and actually report to the police. We have a situation in our
schools now where there is a great problem with respect to
teacher-student discipline simply because children are often a
little too alert to their rights, which has caused a major
problem in the exercise of discipline.
I feel the problem in the charter of rights is fundamental to
our difficulties with the Young Offenders Act. Whatever
amendments come down in the Young Offenders Act, ultimately we
will have to amend the charter of rights so that we can give not
full civil rights to young people but return some of the
custodial opportunities to parents, teachers and the courts.
While I support in principle the idea behind the motion, I
regret I cannot support the motion itself.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government, the NDP and the Conservatives objected
to this motion being supported. The government said it did not
want to discuss it any further because the examples I gave were
exceptional.
1200
It is our job in this parliament to make laws to prohibit and
discourage undesirable behaviour in Canada. Armed robbery is an
exceptional act. The vast majority of people do not need a law
against it, but we pass laws against it nonetheless.
There is abuse by bureaucrats and the state of their power. The
argument that the government makes holds no validity because we
need to be protected from them. There needs to be this balance
and that is what I have been arguing.
The government also complained that this would result in a
logjam in the courts, but look what is happening now. Parents
have to go to great lengths to get back their children after
having done absolutely nothing wrong.
This motion is designed to protect children. People are missing
the point. Children need our protection and this motion would
give them precisely that. Those who are objecting to this just
need to look at what is happening in Canada today.
I could give many other examples. I wish that the government
members, New Democrats and Conservatives who have tried to twist
what I have been saying would look at these more closely.
In summary, I quote from Mrs. Silver's paper:
These cases illustrate the margin for error in Canada's child
protection laws place families in a vulnerable position. This is
not to say that the state has no role in protecting children.
Society has a vested interest in ensuring that a child's best
interests are served. There are times when the state's power to
intervene in cases of genuine physical or sexual abuse or neglect
is crucial. A parent's rights do not trump the rights of the
child. Neither are the two necessarily opposed. The rights of
the child must be paramount; however, where the parent and the
state disagree is on the child's best interests. The law must
begin with the presumption that the parent and not the state is
right.
Beginning at this point places the onus on the state to
rebut the presumption according to the principles of fundamental
justice.
Kari Simpson, executive director of the Citizen's Research
Institute in Surrey, B.C., sent me documentation on dozens of
horror stories of kids being scooped by government officials
under the authority of the child family and community services
act. People would have to contact my offices. Obviously, I do
not have time to go through them.
If this parental rights and responsibility motion were approved
by parliament today the resolution would then be sent to the
legislatures of the 10 provinces to debate and vote on. The people
of this country should be allowed to debate this issue. We are
sweeping it under the rug in this House at this moment and that
is wrong. Having parental rights, responsibilities and liberty
in the charter would ensure an appropriate balance between the
fundamental freedom of parents to raise their kids and
government's role to protect children when parents fail to
properly discharge their responsibilities.
My motion would institute that proper balance between children's
rights, parental rights and the rights of the state, and that is
why I requested very respectfully that we unanimously approve
that this motion be made votable.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has
asked for permission to put a motion to the House seeking
unanimous consent, as I understand it, to make this a votable
item. Is that correct?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I have already asked for that.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
The House proceeded to the 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
amendments) from the committee.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have received notice this
morning of a question of privilege from the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I bring this matter
forward, but I feel I am under a duty to do so. It arises out of
Bill C-3 which will be before the House today for amendment.
1205
It also bears on government action which I feel impedes members
of this House in their consideration of this bill which is
scheduled for report stage today.
An essential part of the debate on Bill C-3 has to do with a
disagreement over an important constitutional question. Eminent
counsel outside the government were requested to give an opinion
with respect to the options the government was considering. The
chief law officer for the crown, the Minister of Justice, decided
to go outside her department to secure the opinion of these three
distinguished lawyers who had in the past been members of the
judiciary. This information was made known to members of the
justice committee on April 20 when the minister appeared before
the committee for main estimates.
The Minister of Justice felt it was necessary to get this
judicial opinion outside her department as it bore directly on
the issue of the timing of the taking of DNA which is central to
the debate before the House today.
Over the weekend I learned that on Friday evening the opinions
of these three eminent jurists were made available to the
executive director of the Canadian Police Association. At the
same time, those opinions were not made available to members of
the justice committee, or at least not to the members of the
opposition I spoke with. The information was made available to
the director of the police association, but not to the justice
committee.
The House of Commons will be asked to vote on questions relating
to this very important opinion which the Minister of Justice felt
it necessary to seek. I suggest that, as members of the House,
we have been placed in a disadvantaged position. I and my staff
worked on this issue over the weekend, as did other opposition
members in preparation for today's debate. We did so without the
knowledge of the opinions sought by the Minister of Justice. I
only received these opinions this morning.
I believe the opinions were made available, but it would appear
they were not delivered to the office in the same manner that
they were delivered to the director of the Canadian Police
Association. I understand he received them via courier to his
house in Brockville, while we as members of this House did not
receive them until this morning. I took the liberty of providing
those opinions to my colleagues in other parties because they had
yet to receive them at all.
I would suggest that the government's actions demonstrate that
it cares more for the opinions of an interest group than it does
for those of members of the justice committee who are being
requested to speak on this issue in the House today. The
government has failed in its obligation to treat this House with
the same respect as it does those who are not members of this
Chamber. It is the “cheque is in the mail” response. The
government went to the trouble of having this decision rendered
and then did not go to the trouble of having that information
provided to us as members of the committee.
This is not to show any disrespect for interest groups, in
particular the Canadian Police Association. It is certainly
entitled to this information as well, but the same courtesy
should have been extended and the same effort should have been
made to ensure members of this House had that crucial
information. Instead the government chose the slowest and least
cost effective means to transmit the material. We in this House
have been asked to approve departmental estimates and to provide
the department with our feedback on this important piece of
legislation, and yet the government has communicated this
information to us by the slowest of all possible means.
I submit there was a breach of parliamentary privilege. The
government's purpose in securing a legal opinion was to influence
the deliberations of the vote that will take place on Bill C-3,
yet it has failed to give sufficient time for us to fully
consider these important legal opinions.
I point the Chair to citation 31(10) of the sixth edition of
Beauchesne's where a Speaker on the issue of ministerial
communications to the House stated:
The question has been asked whether Hon. Members are entitled,
as part of their parliamentary privilege, to receive such
information ahead of the general public.
I can find no precedent to justify this suggestion.
I am not arguing that we have a priority to receive it before
members of the public, but at the very least we should receive it
at the same time. This information relates directly to the point
that will be debated in the House today. It relates directly to
the point with respect to the timing of the taking of DNA. I
assure the House that will be the position taken by members of
the opposition.
There is an obligation to make that information available in
advance. This action by the government, I would suggest, was not
only contentious, but ill-thought out and ill-advised, given the
fact that this information is before the House. Haste makes for
bad law and that is the danger that arises when situations like
this occur.
1210
Therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon the Chair, at the very
least, to consider this issue prior to the commencement of the
debate. We need time to review these decisions. We need time to
digest the opinions of these jurists who have been called upon by
the government to render a decision and to consider them in the
debate here prior to speaking to these amendments.
I would suggest it is urgent that we deal with this in a timely
fashion, to use the minister's words, and that we do so prior to
the commencement of the debate today.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I support
the points which my hon. colleague has made.
This is a very important bill. The three legal opinions that
have been rendered were rendered after our committee exhausted
its time to call witnesses to explore all avenues on both sides
of this issue.
We are now left in the position where the three legal opinions
are resting upon all members of parliament with considerable
weight and without adequate examination of the positions
reflected in those decisions. It certainly puts us at a
disadvantage in terms of being able to adequately deal with the
opinions at this particular time when we are no longer able to
call witnesses before the committee to deal with the issues that
have been raised in them.
It is very important in this particular case that we have time
to do that. If we do not, then we are simply going to take the
weight of those three decisions without examining the rationale
that is given within those decisions.
I have only had time to rush through the three decisions this
morning. We are going into debate today on this and it is not
fair for members of parliament to have to deal with these very
weighty decisions without time to adequately consider them or
even to call witnesses to get their opinions on the reverse side
of the issue.
I support my hon. colleague's point of privilege.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too want
to support my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.
This morning, I received from my colleague, the Progressive
Conservative House leader, three legal opinions totalling 75
pages in English only. Unfortunately, I was preparing the eight
motions I will present before this House and I did not have time
to read the 75 pages.
I must add, however, that a legal opinion does not read like a
Stephen King or John Chisholm novel, and I think all members
taking part in the debate, and all the members in this House,
should have the opportunity to read, digest and understand these
three legal opinions, which I believe will have a significant
role to play in the debate this afternoon or later, we hope.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
too would like to comment on this point of privilege.
The hon. member for Crowfoot is in fact a step ahead of me. I
have not yet seen the decisions that were rendered which form an
integral part of the amendments to the legislation that certain
parties wish to introduce.
I can anticipate what the justices might have said. They might
have agreed with my reasoning, but I do not know that and I would
like to see their opinions. I think they are fairly important.
I did not know they were available until I received a phone call
from my colleague, the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I thank him for making that
call to me today. I did place a call to the chair of the
committee to see if we might get copies.
Those decisions are important. As indicated, one does not take
lightly and read quickly the decisions of justices on a
particular point of law. We must make an effective and proper
decision on this piece of legislation. Indeed my colleagues in
the House have questioned me about these particular issues. I am
sure members of the Bloc Quebecois, members of the Reform Party,
members of the Conservative Party and perhaps even members of the
government want to know this important piece of information.
I too would support the question of privilege raised by my
colleague.
1215
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has defeated his own argument
in claiming a question of privilege when he quotes Beauchesne.
In that citation, he indicates very clearly that there is no
obligation on the part of the minister to have to advise members
of parliament prior to the public.
I would like to assure the Speaker and hon. members that the
Minister of Justice did render the opinions on May 1. It was a
Friday. The House adjourns relatively early, at 2 o'clock on
Fridays. Some members may not have been present in their
offices.
The opinions were given to the public and to members of
parliament. Every single member of the justice committee
received these opinions. The member has claimed also that the
government may have used the slowest possible means of
communicating these opinions to members of parliament whereas we
used courier services to get them to some of the public.
We used the traditional means, the internal courier service. In
talking to some of my colleagues, they have not yet seen the
opinions either because some of them have just come back today.
I do not think there is an obligation on the part of government
to make sure members are in their offices to receive their
correspondence. That is up to members and their staff. I beg to
differ, that there is no question of privilege here.
We are still at report stage and we still have ample time to put
forth any modifications members of the opposition would want to
put forth. As I said, the copies were sent through the normal
distribution channels we have always used traditionally in this
House.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things. I received these
opinions on Friday afternoon.
There are some problems. The chair of my committee was
circulating documents. There is a procedural motion in our
committee that we not distribute unless documents are in both
official languages.
The second problem is that these opinions were not ordered as a
result of activity on our committee. In other words, our
committee did not ask for these opinions. It was the minister
acting on behalf of the government who asked for these opinions.
The three opinions came from lawyers, retired judges, who were
in fact retained by the government, by the administration, by the
cabinet, by the Minister of Justice, to render those opinions.
I suggest the argument of the House leader for the Conservative
Party does not hold because there is no obligation on the
government to share legal opinions that it pays for and obtains
in the normal course of its business with members of this House.
However, the Minister of Justice elected to do that and she did
so commencing on Friday when she undertook to distribute those
opinions.
Let us keep in mind that our committee reported on this bill a
week or two ago. There was a very strong vote in the committee
with respect to this bill. I do not think there was any
wavering. There was no backtracking after by the committee, no
other concern.
We can still take this up under Standing Order 108(2) which
allows us to look at anything within the jurisdiction of those
departments for which we have responsibility in our portfolio.
The argument of the justice critic for the Reform Party falls
because if the committee decides to undertake that further study,
it can do so under Standing Order 108(2).
We are at report stage now but the Senate, whether some of us
may like it or not, will also study this. Presumably we will
have access to these opinions which have been made public.
The parliamentary process will continue and it will unfold as it
should. I submit the government is under absolutely no
obligation to provide these opinions to other members of
parliament or even to government members of parliament. However,
it has done so.
1220
I suggest therefore that this is not a point of privilege and
even if it raises a prima facie point of privilege, I suggest it
has been answered.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I think it bears
mentioning that it was received at our office by regular standard
mail. It was not sent by courier to our office, just to
differentiate from what the parliamentary secretary said.
I think the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair also raises an
important point that this information has distributed in one
language, and that point was raised by the hon. member from the
Bloc.
I suggest that if a prima facie case does not exist, at the very
least we should be given an opportunity to review this material
in its entirety. If it was important enough to seek this
decision and important enough to get to an important group like
the Canadian Police Association, surely that in and of itself
bears out the argument that we as members of parliament debating
this issue on the floor of the House should be given an
opportunity to digest this information.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have heard argument on both
sides of the House. It would seem to me that at least at this
point the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, after
arguing his point, quotes that other Speakers have ruled that it
is not incumbent on the government to share whatever information
it has.
On the other hand, we have the parliamentary secretary saying
that this information was indeed sent out in the usual fashion in
order for members of parliament to get it at the same time as
anyone else, the public, would be getting it.
We have the bill before us now to be debated. I want to look
into this. There are a couple of small matters that I want to
satisfy myself on. I will try to get back to the House before the
end of the day today. We will begin the debate on this and if
there is reason to abrogate a little later I will reserve that
right for myself to do it.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am ready to state the groupings with
regard to Bill C-3, an act representing DNA identification and to
make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other
acts.
[Translation]
There are 14 motions in amendment in the notice paper concerning
the report stage of Bill C-3.
[English]
The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.
[Translation]
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1 to 3 and 5.
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13.
[English]
Group No. 3, Motion No. 7.
[Translation]
Group No. 4: Motion No. 8.
Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 9 and 14.
[English]
Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 10 and 11. Group No. 7, Motion No.
12.
[Translation]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The the Chair will remind the House of
each pattern at the time of voting.
1225
[English]
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to the House.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I
apologize for rising but on this point I do want to bring to the
House's attention that this grouping I suggest is inappropriate
in the sense that Motions Nos. 1 and 2 have absolutely nothing to
do and have no bearing on Motions Nos. 3 and 5. I am not
suggesting they be voted on differently. My understanding is
that all these motions will be voted on individually, but Motions
Nos. 1 and 2 should not be in the same grouping as Nos. 3 and 5.
The Speaker: In reviewing this particular case in
discussions with my clerks beforehand, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5
have been grouped for debate because they deal with privacy and
with personal information. That is why we wanted to put them
together. But we will separate them for the votes.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, discussions have taken place among the parties and I
believe you will find consent for the following order:
That during the present debate, all report stage motions on C-3
be deemed moved and seconded and that recorded divisions be
deemed requested.
(Motion agreed to)
1230
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to debate on the
motions in Group No. 1.
[Translation]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended
by replacing lines 12 to 23 on page 2 with
the following:
“use of DNA profiles;
(b) DNA profiles are uniquely private and personal information that may be
used only for purposes of
identification;
(c) the improper use and disclosure of DNA profiles can lead to
significant harm to the individual, including
stigmatization and discrimination in areas such as employment, education,
health care, reproduction and insurance;
(d) forensic DNA analysis provides information not only about an
individual, but also about that individual's
parents and children, thus implicating family privacy;
(e) DNA profiles are tied to reproductive decisions which are among the
most private and intimate decisions that
an individual can make; and
(f) safeguards for access to, collection, storage, and use of bodily
substances, DNA profiles and other information
contained in the national DNA data bank are needed to protect the privacy
of individuals with respect to personal
information about themselves.”
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended
(a) by replacing line 12 on page 2 with the following:
“use of DNA profiles,”
(b) by replacing line 23 on page 2 with the following:
“Act; and
(c) because of the personal information that can be gathered through the
use of DNA profiles, it is the role of
the government through public agencies, to perform the tasks set out in
this Act.”
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 5, be amended
by replacing lines 30 to 33 on page 2
with the following:
“(2) The Commissioner shall ensure that the National DNA Data Bank
Authority maintains a record of every
person who accesses the national DNA data bank established under
subsection (1) and any DNA profile contained
in that bank.”
That Bill C-3, in Clause 9, be amended
by adding after line 34 on page 6 the
following:
“9.1 (1) The Privacy Commissioner shall every three years after the
coming into force of section 5, carry out
a complete investigation in respect of the National DNA Data Bank
established under that section to ensure
compliance with any provision of this Act in respect of that bank.
(2) Section 37 of the Privacy Act applies, where appropriate and with such
modification as the circumstances
require in respect of an investigation carried out under subsection (1).”
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today in this
House to this important bill, which has required a lot of
attention and a lot of work. It concerns fundamental issues in
a free and democratic society.
Motion No. 1 is very simple. It aims to include criteria, a set
of principles in the preamble to the bill. We must not lose
sight of the function of DNA. It can be used to identify not
only an individual, but his family as well. We can identify
parents, find out about them, children and brothers and sisters.
It is something very private.
There is nothing more personal than a person's DNA.
The purpose of Motion No. 1 is very simple. It provides
principles or yardsticks according to which the bill must be
applied. Among other things, it states that DNA profiles may be
used only for purposes of identification, and not for any other
purpose. There are a number of things that can be done with DNA
already, and more will be possible as the technology progresses.
We wish to avoid the improper use and disclosure of DNA
profiles, for the same reason, to avoid the wrongful use of a
very powerful technology.
Before passing this bill, let us set up principles for now and
for the future, because it will have repercussions not just for
now but also later on. As the technology evolves, the
principles will be more and more defined, but the more that can
be defined today the better. This is very important. So that
was Motion No. 1.
Motion No. 3 is equally important. The bill was discussed in
committee for hours. The motion is intended to strike a balance
between protecting society, fighting crime, and protecting
privacy. Let us keep in mind that these are two fundamental
principles in our society, and that a balance must be struck.
Motion No. 3 concerns clause 5. It states as follows:
“(2) The Commissioner shall ensure that the National DNA Data
Bank Authority maintains a record of every person who accesses
the national DNA data bank established under subsection (1) and
any DNA profile contained in that bank”.
This is to prevent people from consulting the bank for a just
any reason, and consultations will be recorded. Abuse can be
avoided by having knowledge of who consults the bank, for which
individual, and how. People will hesitate to consult the bank
needlessly, knowing that records are being kept.
1235
I will now read Motion No. 5, because it is just as important:
“9.1(1) The Privacy Commissioner shall every three years after
the coming into force of section 5, carry out a complete
investigation in respect of the National DNA Data Bank
established under that section—”
In Canada, there is a government agency called the office of the
privacy commissioner, whose role is to ensure that people's
privacy is respected.
Therefore, why not give that government agency the power to see
if the national DNA data bank is fulfilling its mandate,
respecting people's privacy, and not being misused?
Keeping track of any consultation would allow the Privacy
Commissioner to look at the file, to see if there were too many
consultations or if these consultations were unjustified, for
what reasons, and so on. In such cases, the Privacy Commissioner
would have the authority to impose sanctions on those who do not
respect privacy which, as we know, is an essential value in any
democratic and free society.
This is what I had to say on Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in Group
No.1.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we feel that, generally
speaking, the motions in Group No. 1 that were moved by the hon.
member for Charlesbourg are unnecessary, because they do not add
to the detailed context of the bill before us.
[English]
In general the motions presented by my hon. colleagues are
actually considered unnecessary because the bill itself addresses
a lot of the concerns raised.
For example the bill's purpose and principles already emphasize
that the national databank is intended to help law enforcement
agencies identify persons and that safeguards must be placed on
the use and communication of and access to information in the
databank. This is already in the bill. It is there to protect
the privacy of information.
I would also like to point out to the hon. member that the
commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will have the
jurisdiction for the administration and establishment of the
databank. This will ensure that the DNA information does not
fall into the wrong hands.
Also, once the bank itself is implemented it will be subject to
audit by the privacy commissioner, as we discussed, who may audit
it at any time rather than the three year time interval that is
proposed by the hon. member.
[Translation]
I would now like to comment on Motion No. 1. I believe it has
already been pointed out that the purpose of the national DNA
databank is to help agencies, in enforcing the law, to identify,
as the member indicated, only persons, and that protective
measures must be taken with regard to the use and distribution
of DNA data, and access to the databank, in order to protect
privacy.
Current provisions in the act already deal with the problems
raised by this motion. I therefore invite my colleagues to
reject this motion.
I am also opposed to Motion No. 3. Although the government is
in agreement with the principle that a record of every person
who accesses the bank must be maintained, as the member is
suggesting, I think that the point of the legislation is the
identification the bank contains. The only access allowed is to
an individual's identification.
Given that there are already certain safeguards in place, I can
ensure the member that, in our view, the request contained in
Motion No. 3 deals primarily with an administrative matter, and
that the government will duly address this in the related
regulations. We feel it is unnecessary to amend the bill, and
this is why we are also rejecting this motion.
The final motion in this group is Motion No. 5.
This motion suggests establishing a fixed time frame for
examination by the privacy commissioner, but does not broaden
the commissioner's authority to conduct investigations. Section
37 of the Privacy Act already authorizes the privacy
commissioner to carry out investigations in respect of personal
information under the control of government institutions in
order to ensure compliance with the provisions of the
legislation in question.
1240
Once the national DNA data bank is in place, it will be subject
to investigation by the privacy commissioner, who may, as I have
pointed out, conduct an investigation at any time, rather than
every three years, as called for by the member.
For these reasons, in my opinion, Group No. 1, that is Motions
Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, does not really add anything to the bill.
The problems raised in these motions are already addressed in
the bill as written. I therefore urge members to vote against
these motions.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. For clarification, Motion No. 2 in Group No. 1 is my
amendment. It was not clear to me whether in fact that had been
removed from this grouping or whether it was part of this
grouping. If it remains a portion of this group, it would seem
to me that, like my colleague from Charlesbourg, I ought to have
an opportunity to speak to this prior to the debate resuming.
I am looking for some clarification.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must advise the
hon. member that Motion No. 2 is in this group. Members at this
stage are free to address all motions as a whole or any one of
them as they wish. Is that clear?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, my question to you is
that if this is a portion of that grouping, it seems to me, and I
am looking for some direction here, that I ought to speak to that
motion before the other members of this House can respond.
Am I being invited to address the House on this motion?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Under the
circumstances since the hon. member technically has a point, I
would ask the hon. member for Crowfoot if he would be kind enough
to let him speak first.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
this grouping of amendments are intended to strengthen the
safeguards against misuse and abuse of DNA profiles stored in the
databank.
My amendment is Motion No. 2, the (a) portion of which appears
to already be accepted as it is provided in the act. I will move
on to the other section. I would propose that we amend the
principles of the act by placing in the following, which would be
an addition to section 4:
(c) because of the personal information that can be gathered
through the use of DNA profiles, it is the role of the government
through public agencies, to perform the tasks set out in this
act.
I proposed the amendment because we have seen in the last eight
or nine years tremendous privatization by both this government
and the government prior to it. Crown corporations or government
agencies which were normally perceived to be within the realm of
government because they performed important public functions were
given to the private sector in a fiscally conservative move.
1245
My concern is that we are setting up an agency under the RCMP
that can take these DNA samples and record them. None of us has
a crystal ball. None of us can be sure whether in the future
either this government or another government might think the cost
of maintaining a DNA databank—not the taking of the sample but
the keeping of the information—is too expensive. We do not know
when another fiscal conservative wave will sweep over the House—
Mr. Peter MacKay: Soon.
Mr. Peter Mancini: We will do all we can to build
appropriate walls to keep a Conservative government from taking
power.
I put forward the amendment because it would be a clear
indication that only the Government of Canada through a public
agency ought to store the very personal information referred to
by my colleague from Charlesbourg. The reason I proposed the
motion was to ensure that only the government and not private
agencies, which at some point in the future may profit from the
sale of such information, keep that information, keep it secure
and keep it confidential for the people of Canada.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will
comment on the four amendments in Group No. 1. We realize the
very important nature of the bill. It has enormous tools that
could potentially provide the police with the ability to solve
unsolved crimes and to provide greater protection for society.
In terms of Motion No. 1, with the greatest respect, I
understand the concern for the respect of privacy as a result of
the taking of DNA samples. When the bill was before committee we
found from witnesses that the databank contains only the profile
of the DNA samples. It will only carry the profile. The profile
can only compare one sample with another profile, so the privacy
matter has been largely looked after.
In addition, the penalty for the misuse of DNA information is
very significant. It carries two years maximum. In some of the
amendments we will be discussing today it is recommended that we
increase the period of two years to five years. I am convinced
the privacy concerns are adequately addressed by the nature of
the databank and by the penalty prescribed in the bill. Depending
upon the vote of the members the penalty may be increased from
two to five years. My colleagues and I have very little concern
about that. As well, the privacy commissioner has the authority
to review at any time the databank and its use. There are very
strict and secure safeguards as far as privacy is concerned.
We can support Motion No. 2 proposed by the NDP. The amendment
precludes private agencies and labs from taking samples. It
creates public standards and better accuracy of testing quality.
It would appease to a certain degree the concerns about privacy.
1250
This is one area where we feel that a government agency, where
standards are set by the elected representatives of the people,
is in order so that the testing of a sample meets standards which
have been approved by the two houses of parliament. We think
this is a logical and common sense amendment and can support it.
I will move to the third motion in this grouping. We have some
concern about the motion because it would eliminate subsection 2
of clause 5 of the bill. We could support it if it is not to
eliminate the particular subsection which reads:
The Commissioner's duties under this Act may be performed on
behalf of the Commissioner by any person authorized by the
Commissioner to perform those duties.
We feel this subsection must not be struck from the bill. It
should remain. Therefore we will have difficulty supporting this
motion.
As to Motion No. 5, we see no reason that there should be
included within the statute the demand for a three year review. I
appreciate the member's concern with regard to privacy, but I
believe my earlier comments and rationale cover the area of
privacy.
All that goes into the databank is the profile. Anyone
obtaining a profile improperly from the databank gets nothing
unless it can be compared with something. I understand that not
even a name will be attached to a profile. I am satisfied the
privacy requirements and concerns will be adequately addressed in
that area.
I also feel the privacy commissioner has the right to audit the
databank at any time. He does not have to wait a three year
period. Someone with a substantial basis requesting the privacy
commissioner to act can mobilize the commissioner to do so. With
respect to Motion No. 5 we think the privacy safeguards are in
place and within the bill.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, as previous members have expressed, I am very
pleased to take part in the debate.
The members previous have also indicated this is a very crucial
and important piece of legislation that will certainly aid police
officers and Canadians generally in their never ending fight
against crime.
I want to address the motions in the order in which they appear.
With respect to the first motion, which is moved by the member
for Charlesbourg, although I certainly agree with the purpose for
which he has brought the motion forward, I would suggest it is a
motion or an amendment that is already addressed in the current
form of the bill. Clause 4 of the bill is clear. Any further
tinkering with this clause would only lead to potential
misunderstanding, which of course could then lead to unnecessary
litigation.
I find myself in the untenable position of having to agree with
the government that the legitimate concerns are in fact met.
Although there is always concern for misuse of this important
technology, I believe the principles set out in the preamble will
address that point. I certainly would not call it a pointless or
irrelevant motion but simply duplicitous.
1255
It is a very complicated bill. There can be no debate on that
issue. We as members of the House, and particularly those
participating in this debate, have an obligation to try to
simplify where possible the legislation, not to complicate it.
Motion No. 2 was proposed by the member for Sydney—Victoria.
For the reasons I previously stated I feel it may be a motion
that is addressed in a more direct form in the current drafting
of the bill.
It is not the principle that we disagree with but rather that
the bill might become unduly complicated by making this
amendment. Certainly there is evidence that this type of DNA
data can and perhaps will in the future be used for other
purposes.
With respect to how it will be used as it stems from this piece
of legislation, safeguards are in place and sections of the bill
will be addressed in other amendments which we will be debating
on the floor today. It is perhaps duplicitous. Safeguards
currently exist in the act. Any improper or illegal use of the
DNA evidence would be addressed by existing sections of the act.
The third motion is proposed by the member for Charlesbourg with
respect to the use of DNA, or how the commissioner would ensure
that DNA was not being abused, is a motion that I embrace, a
motion that I think is a good one.
It is aimed particularly at protecting the privacy interests of
individuals. It ensures accountability and is aimed at
correcting or addressing any misuse of information. It is a good
motion. It is one that I hope all members of the House will
consider and take seriously.
It would allow for a more complete and perhaps a more thorough
investigation of the DNA databank. It is an important safeguard.
As I have indicated earlier, it is a motion we should support. It
would also ensure that improper use does not occur.
The fifth motion in this grouping proposed by my hon. friend in
the Bloc is a motion that I believe in principle we should
support. However, as has been indicated by the parliamentary
secretary and the member from the Reform Party, there are
provisions in existing legislation that would allow for an audit
outside a defined three year period.
In essence this concern has been met. I am pleased to hear that
the parliamentary secretary is supportive of that position.
Therefore the legitimate concern raised by the hon. member is
addressed. It is certainly there for a very crucial intent, that
is to balance the protection of the public and the crucial need
of law enforcement officers to use this trace evidence and DNA
sample evidence for their legitimate fight against organized
crime and crime generally, coupled with the need for the privacy
concern interest.
We have an obligation to ensure that is what happens by the
enactment of the legislation. There is a great deal of
responsibility weighing upon us in that regard.
I conclude by saying that of the motions before the House in
this juncture of debate, we support the last two but have some
difficulty with respect to the prior two motions which appear in
this grouping.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-3 at
report stage as we discuss the amendments. Bill C-3 is an act
respecting DNA identification.
As some of my colleagues have already mentioned, the Reform
Party is fully supportive of the creation of a DNA databank and
the use of that information in detecting and prosecuting those
who committed crimes. However the bill has a scope that is so
limited we would be unable to support it as it is.
Therefore the amendments here are of some importance.
1300
As almost anyone who is aware of this issue and the debate
taking place on it will know, the official opposition is firmly
committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and
providing Canadians with a true sense of security. This is
something Canadians lack. Canadians do not feel secure. They do
not feel secure from those who would attack them, rob them and
harm them. Nor do they feel secure in the apprehension of those
who do this. They do not feel secure with regard to the
prosecution and punishment of criminals.
My constituents in Cariboo—Chilcotin are greatly alarmed when
they see instances of heinous and bloody crimes being committed
and the evidence being thrown out on a technicality, a
technicality that rests mostly on the latest thought a judge may
have.
As we talk about DNA, my constituents see this as a very
important tool in the detection of crime and in its prosecution.
Bill C-3, as it now stands, will provide Canadians with some
sense of security but in my opinion a false sense of security.
Neither my colleagues nor I can support this legislation as it
now stands.
Our constituents need to be assured that those who protect us
are given real tools, not imaginary tools, tools that are
available to them to fight against violent offenders in society.
Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces, the officials who
maintain the law, the full use of DNA technology which has now
become fairly readily available even though it is an expensive
tool.
One wonders, when we consider the expense of using faulty or
less effective means of apprehending and prosecuting criminals,
whether this is a false sense of economy when we talk about the
costs of using this DNA technology.
There is another point that also needs to be considered and that
is the use of this technology not only for prosecution but for
the defence and the freeing of those who are innocent. We have
recent examples of this in Canada. There are very sad stories of
people who have been in the wrong place or the right place at the
wrong time and have been apprehended, charged, tried and
convicted. Yet when all the evidence is on the table, these
people turn out to be totally innocent. They and their families
end up going through not weeks and months but years and years of
a sense of betrayal by a justice system that is more interested
in convicting someone in these instances than in convicting the
correct person.
We are not only interested in correctly solving violent crimes
but also in seeing that justice is appropriately applied to the
right person.
There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides
where DNA evidence has been left at the scene by the perpetrator
of the crime. DNA identification now offers an unparalleled
opportunity to solve many of these cases and bring these
perpetrators to justice.
However, because of the government's irrational fear of
violating the privacy rights of those responsible for these
heinous crimes, it is intending to restrict the use of a very
important technology by law enforcement officials.
Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of a DNA sample at the
time of charge. It does not permit samples to be taken from
incarcerated criminals other than those designated dangerous
offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers.
Bill C-3 does, however, provide a dangerous and unnecessary
exemption authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking
of a sample if they believe that in doing so the impact on the
individual's privacy and security—
1305
Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I
do not want to interrupt the hon. member but we did group these
amendments by groupings. I understand the hon. member does have
concerns over some of the amendments. I would ask him to address
the grouping we are now studying, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. I
believe right now he is speaking on Motion No. 10. Perhaps if he
could group his thoughts around our groupings we might be able to
get the debate under way a lot faster.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I believe the
parliamentary secretary does have a point. We are discussing
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 at this point.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Madam Speaker, I thank you for that
point. However, I intend to use the latitude I need to discuss
these issues.
Bill C-3 does provide a dangerous and unnecessary exemption
authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a
sample if they believe that in doing so the impact on the
individual's privacy and security would be grossly
disproportionate to the public interest in the protection of
society.
As it stands, Bill C-3 now is a hindrance to more effective law
enforcement and a safer society. Those responsible for shaping
our justice system continue to express a willingness to place the
lives and the safety of innocent people in jeopardy.
Whether by paroling violent offenders who go on to rape and
murder again or by freeing convicted violent offenders through
conditional sentencing or by tying our police officers hands
through Bill C-3, the safety of society it would seem is a
secondary issue for the Liberal government.
I know the government is a little apprehensive about the
invasion of privacy and to a certain degree I am as well. Privacy
is an issue I have studied. It is an issue that concerns me
greatly. However, it seems there is a point when we must also
take into consideration first of all the protection of society.
I feel this tool if it is to be used effectively can do this. We
want to do more good than harm in getting violent offenders off
the street. There has to be a balance between respecting the
rights of innocent individuals and the protection of society from
violent and repeat offenders.
We have to be certain that the rights of innocent individuals
are not trampled on. Innocents have a right too. This must be
clearly taken into consideration.
And so we see there is a fine line between infringing on the
rights of the individual and one who has committed a crime,
especially serious violent crimes. When someone commits a crime
they have violated the societal laws and therefore should not be
subject to the same rights and privileges as others in society.
By their actions they have in a sense lost the right to those
privileges.
I feel the government has forgotten this and that those
criminals should not still enjoy the same rights and privileges
as those of us who have not committed crimes, in some cases
jeopardizing the safety of the rest of society as a result.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, what is privacy all about? This brings me back to a
case we heard so much about in the last number of years of David
Milgaard who was imprisoned for 20 some years.
David's family lived in the Snowflake area where I farmed for a
number of years. People in the community always felt very
strongly that David Milgaard was innocent. They knew the family
and they knew what type of upbringing he had. There was always
the suspicion that he had been at the wrong place at the wrong
time and was blamed for an act he was not responsible for.
1310
Had we a DNA databank and some of the information available to
the police forces to double check on the evidence they had,
probably David Milgaard would have been exonerated from that
crime and would have been free those 22 or 23 years he was in
prison.
I think society has the right to have protection and that is
what government is there for, to give the type of protection from
unjust prosecution.
When somebody is caught up in a crime and has violated civil or
criminal law there should be a sample of DNA so that in future
cases the person can either be charged or exonerated. Having the
databank is not just a matter of proving people are criminal or
that they were involved in the act. The databank is there to
prevent people from being charged wrongly.
In comments in the previous debate the government feels this
would cost too much money. It would create a bank that was too
costly to manage. The gun legislation, Bill C-68, was passed in
order to register guns of law-abiding citizens just to keep track
of them in case some of the criminal element might pick up some
of these guns and they can be traced. We have seen a number of
speculative suggestions or estimates that it would cost about
half a billion dollars to register all the guns of law-abiding
citizens.
When we look at the databank which would serve a much bigger
bank of information on catching people who have committed crime
or preventing people from being prosecuted who were not involved,
money seems to be an issue. It was not an issue when it came to
gun registration. That does not make sense.
When looking at the hepatitis C issue it is money that seems to
be what the government is hesitating to talk about. It does not
want to admit that maybe it was wrong. It does not want to
admit that there could have been something done to prevent the
problem of poison blood. That is the same with the databank. The
government is very hesitant to make the bank resourceful and to
give the bank the authority to take the samples of DNA from
people who are suspect of committing crimes.
If I were accused falsely of a crime I would demand that a DNA
sample be taken so I could not be charged for something I was not
involved in. I cannot understand why that is a matter of private
information that I would not want to have in a databank
controlled by the government.
Some of the amendments made by other parties concern putting
safeguards into the bill in order that the DNA data information
collected is not misused. An ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure. Had we a databank giving the RCMP and the
investigators the information they needed in the David Milgaard
or Guy Paul Morin case it would have meant a lot less stress and
hardship for those families.
Will it create any stress for people who are forced to give a
sample of DNA where it is protected by government and cannot
become public information? There is no problem. It is the same
as the tax man. When he wants to come and open up my books they
are there for him to look at.
If I do not give him that information he can force me to give it
to him. Is it not easier to provide the information rather than
forcing somebody to give that information?
1315
It seems only logical that we should support the amendments. The
bill is going in the right direction. We should support some of
these amendments to guarantee safety. We should also put in
amendments which will guarantee that the legislation contains all
the bullets the RCMP and investigators need to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that a person is or is not guilty of a crime. It
makes sense that we should give this type of protection to our
ordinary citizens, whether they are law abiding or living on the
edge of the law.
An hon. member: Did Jack not object to that?
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Jack has his own ideas and he will
talk to those ideas. I am talking about the amendments.
An hon. member: But he objects to the amendments.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Not all of them. He does not
object to all of them. He only objects to the ones that do not
make sense.
That is the problem with these Liberal governments. They do not
know what common sense is. And when they see it, they distort
it. They distort it enough until they think they have got
something that is publicly acceptable. People are brainwashed
and led to believe that it is good for them. It does not work
that way in real life. Real life common sense tells us we have
to do what protects the ordinary law-abiding citizen who wants to
give his best to the country.
There are people in my constituency who would gladly volunteer
DNA because they have somebody in their family background who
someday might get mixed up with something that would not be so
nice to deal with. There are a number of cases. They would be
glad to give a DNA sample to the bank so that they would be
protected from things that happened with members of their
families.
An hon. member: The bill allows that.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: It does not allow that. One has to
be convicted before it is allowed. That is what I read in the
bill. You have to be a one time criminal before you can be asked
to submit a sample.
We are debating whether or not it is common sense. To me it only
makes common sense if we can prevent an offence. I cannot see
any harm. When the RCMP suspects somebody or when law
enforcement believes it should have the right, they should be
able to take that DNA sample and put it in the bank. The way I
read it, this bill does not allow that.
We will see during the debate today that the Liberals will try
to brainwash us. They will try to put us into a nice comfortable
mood and say that this is a bill everybody should support. We
support some of it. When the justice critic objects to certain
clauses, I support him because he is dead right.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to express our
opposition to Bill C-3, an act representing DNA identification
which would make amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts.
This bill was previously introduced as Bill C-94 in April 1997.
There still appears to be minor differences between this bill and
Bill C-94.
My colleagues in the official opposition believe that people are
concerned about victims of crime. My constituents and a host of
others inside and outside the law enforcement community are very
disappointed with what the Liberals have done with this bill.
The Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring confidence in
our justice system and providing Canadians with a true sense of
security.
This includes strengthening our law enforcement agencies by
providing them with the latest effective technological tools to
quickly detect and apprehend the perpetrators of the most violent
crimes in society.
1320
DNA identification is that kind of tool. If used to its full
potential the DNA databank could be the single most important
development in fighting crime since the introduction of
fingerprints. The technology available through DNA
identification would make our society safer. It would protect
our homes, our families and our lives from criminal activity and
in particular violent crime.
It is my understanding that DNA capabilities will greatly
enhance the work of our law enforcement community. This
technology over the next few years and decades will virtually
change our world in terms of crime solving, crime detection and
the positive identification of criminals.
Bill C-3 if passed unamended will provide Canadians with a false
sense of security. Therefore the Reform Party cannot support this
inadequate and incomplete piece of legislation. The Reform Party
fully supports the creation of the DNA databank. We do not
however support the limited scope of Bill C-3.
Why do I oppose this bill? I oppose it because Bill C-3 does
not grant our police forces full use of DNA technology and
because Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of DNA samples at
the time of the charge, whereas fingerprints are taken at the
time of arrest. Another reason I oppose Bill C-3 is that it does
not allow samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals other
than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and
multiple murderers.
As it stands now, Bill C-3 is a hindrance to more effective law
enforcement and a safer society. This is a needlessly
restrictive measure in Bill C-3. The official opposition does
not want to join the Liberals in their attempt to fool Canadians
about what this bill does, and most importantly what it does not
do.
It does not go far enough and we must not fool ourselves. That
is wrong and that is why on behalf of the people of Surrey
Central I will be voting against this bill. It is an inadequate
piece of legislation.
The Liberals are choosing to slow down the process of the advent
of DNA identification into our crime fighting efforts. The
Liberals are crippling the ability of our law enforcement
agencies to use this technology.
The government has so far refused to allow the amendments to
this bill that have been put forward by the official opposition.
These amendments would put teeth into Bill C-3 but it is as if
the Liberals do not want that. They are afraid to unleash this
powerful crime fighting tool because the Liberals are more
concerned about the criminals and the rights of the accused than
they are concerned about the victims of crime and the rights of
the victims.
Our law enforcement agencies should have been given the go ahead
to use DNA identification tools when the technology was first
invented. For example, it is like forcing people to use candles
or kerosene lanterns instead of electric lightbulbs, or for that
matter a minister's office asking her staff to use 286 computers
rather than pentiums. This is how technology evolves. We should
use the advanced technology for the purpose intended.
Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to
express a willingness to place the lives and safety of innocent
people in jeopardy. Whether by parolling violent offenders who
go on to rape and murder again, or by freeing convicted violent
offenders through conditional sentencing, or by tying our police
officers' hands through Bill C-3, the safety of our society is a
secondary issue for this Liberal government.
1325
We are watching the Liberals withhold granting tools to our law
enforcement agencies. The Liberals are not getting tough on
crime, violent crime in particular. The Liberals are not willing
to do the work necessary to give our police agencies better tools
to solve crimes and to prevent crime.
Why do the Liberals deny Canadians amendments to the Young
Offenders Act? The justice minister continually answers the
question by saying she will do it in a timely fashion. What is
meant by a timely fashion when it is not timely?
The Liberals say they are concerned about the constitutional and
privacy rights of the criminals and that is why they are trying
to pass such a watered down DNA identification bill. Yet the
Liberals refuse to wait for the report of a constitutional review
that would dispense with the issue of DNA identification.
Bill C-3 in its present form denies our police the full use of
DNA identification. This maintains an unnecessary level of risk
to the lives and safety of our citizens.
Bill C-3 provides a dangerous and unnecessary exemption
authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a
sample if they believe that in doing so the impact on the
individual's privacy and security would be grossly
disproportionate to the public interest in the protection of
society. It seems to me that if DNA identification were positive
unequivocal proof, then the rights of an individual would best be
served by that person providing a DNA sample.
DNA samples are conclusive if processed carefully and correctly.
A DNA sample can disprove as well as prove the accused's
involvement in a crime. The Liberals' argument in support of
allowing the judges not to issue a warrant for the taking of a
DNA sample fails.
Because of the government's irrational fear of violating the
privacy rights of persons accused of heinous crimes, the Liberals
are restricting the use of this very important technology by our
law enforcement agencies. The Liberals should be ashamed.
Once again we are watching the Liberals use cold-hearted legal
talk to deny giving us what we need. The Liberal government used
cold legal arguments and numbers to deny help to all the victims
of tainted blood. Now the Liberals are allowing certain crimes to
go unsolved because they are afraid to violate the rights of the
accused.
Clifford Olson would have been charged earlier had the DNA
technology been available to the police. More of the murders he
committed would have been solved earlier and perhaps some lives
could have been saved.
Canadians are devastated when innocent victims fall prey to
violence, whether the motivation is drugs, theft, greed or hate.
The government is failing our youth, our seniors, our
communities and our society because it lacks the moral strength
to deal with all types of violent crime and repeat offenders.
I could go on and on but my constituents and I are warning this
government to get tough on crime, to do the work necessary to
protect our society. That is why we are not supporting Bill C-3
as it is presented unless the amendments are accepted. The bill
does not do the work necessary to give our police what they want
in terms of using the DNA identification tool.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in listening to the debate and examining this bill on
the DNA legislation, three questions come to mind. I would like
to discuss those three questions this morning in relation to this
bill.
The first question is: Why does the government persist in
registering law-abiding citizens but not criminals?
1330
The second question that I will deal with is: Why is the
government refusing to allow the police to use a tool that could
help them solve a lot of crimes, reduce court costs and the cost of
law enforcement?
My third question is: Why are Liberals keeping innocent people
in jail who could be freed if we put in place Bill C-3, this DNA
databank legislation that is totally inadequate?
Let me deal with the first question. Why does the government
persist in registering law-abiding citizens and not criminals?
How is the government registering law-abiding citizens? Several
years ago this government put in place a bill that received
nationwide attention, Bill C-68; a bill that will force
law-abiding gun owners to register with the government when they
have never committed a crime.
The government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars going
after law-abiding citizens in a huge bureaucratic scheme that its
own department now says will accomplish the very opposite of what
the legislation intended. Not only that, it will make criminals
out of law-abiding citizens because it put the property
regulation scheme into the Criminal Code of Canada and people who
do not comply with it could end up in jail for one, two, five,
possibly ten years for failing to comply with the government's
desire to have them register.
On the other hand, we have a government that will not register
criminals. People who have been charged with a crime will not,
under this legislation, be required to give a little saliva, a
hair or a slight skin sample to the police. They will be able to
declare their rights not to let the police DNA fingerprint them.
At the present time the police can take a fingerprint from
someone who has been charged with certain crimes. The Reform
Party is not advocating that everybody comply with this DNA
legislation, we are saying that in serious criminal offences this
should be allowed.
Why does the government require law-abiding citizens who have
not committed a crime or are not a threat to society—in fact the
opposite could be argued—to be kept track of but not the
criminal element? I do not know. I cannot understand why the
government is not doing as the police request.
The police have come before the government. They have pleaded
with the government that this is a very effective tool. It could
reduce the costs of law enforcement greatly. It could increase
the effectiveness of our criminal justice system. It could help
to declare people who have not committed a crime innocent at a
much earlier stage. No, the government is not interested in that
kind of thing.
Is that not deplorable, Mr. Speaker? I can see that you are
listening. You are as concerned as I am with the things the
government requires law-abiding citizens to do but does not
require criminals to do. Why does the government give the
criminal more rights than the law-abiding citizen? I cannot
understand that. It just blows me away.
In the gun registration scheme the legislation that is before
the House will have the effect of increasing smuggling and of
increasing black market trade in firearms. It is not just me who
is saying that; justice department bureaucrats who have been put
in place to put in that huge regulatory scheme are saying that.
Why are we doing it? It is absolutely ridiculous.
1335
On the other hand, the police are saying that if we were able to
get a DNA fingerprint, which is very easily done because we have
the technology, we could solve crimes a lot sooner. We could
find people guilty or innocent a lot sooner which would help the
police greatly in their efforts to control crime. I do not
understand why this government is on the side of the criminal
element.
The second question that I want to deal with is: Why is the
government refusing to allow the police to use a tool that could
help them solve a lot of crimes, reduce court costs and the cost
of law enforcement? The argument the government has used is that
there could be a lot of misuse of this information. If in fact a
criminal gave a DNA fingerprint to the police, in some way or
another, down the road, that information might be used in a way
that would infringe on the criminal's rights.
The solution to that concern is very simple: punish the misuse
of that information if it is used in a way that the government or
the police do not find appropriate in solving a crime. Restrict
the unethical and unlawful use of that information. That could
be easily done and this government has refused to do that.
The answer to the concern that the information may be misused is
very simple. We have that protection in many other areas
already, so why not extend it to this? It does not make sense.
The government also argues that the courts may not approve of
this legislation if we extend it to everyone who has been charged
with certain crimes and if we require all of them to take a DNA
fingerprint and give that fingerprint to the police. The
government said it may infringe on the constitutionally
guaranteed rights of criminals.
Again the answer to that is so simple that I do not know why
this government does not do it. Why not refer the matter to the
courts? Ask the Supreme Court of Canada what measures would be
necessary and what could be done in order to protect them. We
could put that into this legislation to make sure that it
complies with our charter of rights and freedoms. These answers
are so simple, why do we not do it?
The third question I want to deal with is that many people have
been wrongly convicted in the past 20 or 30 years. Some people
have spent five, ten, fifteen, up to twenty years in prison
because they were wrongfully convicted. This government allows
that to continue by not adequately putting in place a DNA
databank that would prevent this kind of thing from happening.
The present legislation, as it is structured, would still allow
some of these people to be in prison for many years when they
could be freed if we put this in place. Why does the government
not put in place something that would help these innocent people
be free?
In conclusion, I would appeal to the government to listen to the
concerns of members of the opposition and of Canadians who want
this to be put in place and, above all, to listen to the police
who require this as a tool. I appeal to the government to listen
and to not simply use the undemocratic means that it continues to
use to ram legislation through. I ask that it consider some of
the amendments that Reformers have put in place because they
would strengthen the legislation and law enforcement in this
country.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my
community to add my comments concerning Bill C-3, an act
respecting DNA identification and to make consequential
amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts.
To be clear, what are we talking about? In specificity, it
concerns an enactment to provide for the establishment of a
national DNA databank to be maintained by the Commissioner of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to be used to assist law
enforcement agencies in solving crimes.
1340
The databank will consist of a crime scene index containing DNA
profiles derived from bodily substances found in places
associated with the commission of certain types of serious
offences and a convicted offenders index containing DNA profiles
obtained from persons convicted of or discharged from those types
of offences.
The enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide for orders
authorizing the collection of bodily substances from which DNA
profiles can be derived for inclusion in the DNA databank. It
also amends the Criminal Code to authorize the collection of
bodily substances from offenders who meet clearly defined
criteria and who are currently serving sentences.
The enactment contains specific provisions regulating the use of
the bodily substances collected and the DNA profiles derived from
them, and the use and communication of and access to information
contained in the databank.
Specifically, we are at the report stage debate of this bill and
the Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring the confidence
in our justice system and providing Canadians with a true sense
of security. Today's debate is broken down into various sections
concerning amendments about which I will speak later.
Canadians really do not have a lot of confidence in our justice
system, and no wonder, for essentially it is a liberal justice
system. Reformers want to strengthen our law enforcement
agencies by providing them with the latest technological tools so
they can quickly detect and apprehend the perpetrators of the most
violent crimes in society.
DNA identification is that kind of tool. But it can also
vindicate possible suspects, protect the innocent and save money
for more appropriately focused resources for investigation
efforts.
If used to its potential the DNA databank could be the single
most important development in fighting crime since the
introduction of fingerprints. To deny the prosecution the full
use of this technology in the fight against crime, as Bill C-3
does in its present form, is unacceptable because it maintains an
unnecessary level of risk to the lives and safety of our
citizens. Again, from my point of view, it is the usual Liberal
half-step in the right direction and further evidence of a weak
government.
Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification, if passed
unamended will provide Canadians with a false sense of security.
It is just not good enough to meet our higher standards.
Members of the Reform Party fully support the creation of DNA
databanks. However, we do not support the timid and weak style of
Bill C-3. It does not grant our police forces full use of the DNA
technology which is readily at their disposal, a tool that would
help close hundreds of unsolved violent crimes and a tool that
would have the enormous potential of saving lives by removing
predators from our streets.
Let me refer directly to the motions in this section of the
report stage debate.
I notice at page V of the Order Paper and Notice Paper for
Monday, May 4, 1998 that there are 14 report stage amendments. I
will speak briefly to the ones in the section concerning our
present debate.
Motion No. 1 is brought forward by the Bloc. I believe that the
bill already contains adequate provisions covering these areas
and that the amendment is not necessary to support them.
Motion No. 2 is brought forward by the NDP. I think it has
merit. This amendment precludes private agencies and labs from
taking samples and it creates public standards and better
accuracy for testing quality. I support the motion.
Motion No. 3 is brought forward by the Bloc. It also has merit.
It safeguards against the wrong persons accessing the DNA
databank. I support this improvement.
Motion No. 5 is brought forward by the Bloc. I really do not
think it is particularly helpful. It is really a make-work
amendment and there is no reason for us to have a three year
review. It really does not help the general goals of the bill.
Further, Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of a DNA sample
at the time of formal charge. It does not permit samples to be
taken from incarcerated individuals, other than designated
dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple
murderers.
1345
There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides
where DNA evidence has been left at the scene by the perpetrator.
DNA identification now offers an unparalleled opportunity to
solve many of these cases and bring the perpetrators to justice.
However, because of the government's fear of violating the
privacy rights of those responsible for heinous crimes, it is
restricting the use of this very important technology by law
enforcement. It is a typical approach of a weak government.
Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to
express a willingness to place the lives and the safety of
Canadians in jeopardy. Whether by paroling violent offenders who
go on to murder again, or by freeing convicted violent offenders
through conditional sentencing, or by tying our police officers'
hands through Bill C-3, it appears the safety of society is a
secondary issue for the Liberal government.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring
confidence in our justice system and to providing Canadians with
a true sense of security. This includes strengthening our law
enforcement agencies by providing them with the latest
technological tools to quickly detect and apprehend the
perpetrators of the most violent crimes in society today.
DNA identification is that kind of tool. If it is used to its
full potential, the DNA databank could be the single most
important development in fighting crime since the introduction of
fingerprints. To deny our police the full use of this technology
in their fight against crime, as Bill C-3 in its present form
does, is reprehensible and unacceptable because it maintains an
unnecessary level of risk to the lives and safety of our
citizens.
Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification, if passed
unamended would provide Canadians with a false sense of security.
Therefore the Reform Party cannot support this inadequate piece
of legislation. The Reform Party fully supports the creation of
the DNA databank. We do not however support the limited scope of
Bill C-3.
Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces full use of the DNA
technology so readily at their disposal, a tool that would help
close hundreds of unsolved murders and rapes with the enormous
potential to save lives by removing the predators from our
streets.
Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of a DNA sample at the
time of charge. It does not permit samples to be taken from
incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders,
multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers. Bill C-3 does
however provide a dangerous and unnecessary exemption authorizing
judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a sample if they
believe in doing so the impact on the individual's privacy and
security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest
and the protection of society.
There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides
where DNA evidence has been left at the scene by the perpetrator.
DNA identification now offers an unparalleled opportunity to
solve many of these cases and bring the perpetrators to justice.
However, because of the government's irrational fear of violating
the privacy rights of those responsible for heinous crimes, it is
restricting the use of this very important technology by our law
enforcement.
As it stands now Bill C-3 is a hindrance to more effective law
enforcement and a safer society. Those responsible for shaping
our justice system continue to express a willingness to place the
lives and safety of innocent people in jeopardy. Whether by
paroling violent offenders who go on to rape and murder again, or
by freeing convicted violent offenders through conditional
sentencing, or by tying our police officers' hands through Bill
C-3, the safety of society is a secondary issue to the Liberal
government.
In the newspaper this morning the solicitor general was quoted
as saying that we have a terrible problem in Canada with
terrorists and people who are here causing real problems. He is
to get a lot of police work going to try to solve this problem.
He should talk to his colleague in immigration who is letting
them come through the border because of poor laws that have been
set up. We listened to a supreme court which allows in people
who come to our border saying they are refugees. Then we find
out later they are terrorists. The bill is the same type of
thing as that.
We have a bill that will not do the job. Our party will oppose
Motion No. 1. We think it is an unnecessary amendment.
1350
We support Motion No. 2, which is an NDP motion. The amendment
precludes private agencies and labs from taking samples. It
creates public standards and better accuracy in testing quality.
The government should look at this amendment.
We oppose Motion No. 3 which is supposed to safeguard against
wrong people assessing the DNA databank. We oppose Motion No. 4
which indicates that the entire convicted offenders index will be
destroyed. There may have been a problem with the English
translation of this amendment. We oppose Motion No. 5 because we
believe there is no need for a three year review.
The Conservative House leader raised the issue of legal opinions
sought by the government on the bill. I wonder if we could find
out where the government picked the justices from to get
opinions. I know there are other opinions within the legal
profession that certainly disagree with the three opinions
obtained by the government with regard to the issue of blood
alcohol sampling comparison.
I will read from page 6, section (b) of the report by the hon.
Martin R. Taylor, QC, who says:
The scheme established by s. 254 of the Code governing the taking
of samples from drivers for alcohol and drug analysis is directed
to the acquisition and preservation of evidence of a particularly
perishable kind from those who are actually engaged in the
dangerous business of controlling vehicles.
There is no authority under this part of the Criminal Code for
the compulsory taking of samples except in the case of persons
physically or mentally unable to consent, for which judicial
warrant is required under s. 256. But it must be recognized that
a police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that the
ability of a person to control a vehicle has been impaired by
consumption of alcohol or a drug can coerce the person's consent
to provide a breath or blood sample, because failure to comply
with a proper request for such a sample in itself constitutes a
criminal offence.
The s. 254 scheme contemplates the taking of
samples of bodily substances without warrant under such coercion
of law as may, for practical purposes, be equated with
compulsion, and has, in my opinion, more in common with the
proposed extension of authority under Bill C-3 to warrantless
compulsory taking of bodily substances for DNA testing from
accused persons than does the fingerprinting scheme authorized by
the Identification of Criminals Act.
There is, however, an important distinction to be drawn from the
context of the Charter. The constitutionality of the Criminal
Code s. 254 scheme for drug and alcohol testing of breath and
blood samples rests on the unique nature of problems associated
with drinking and driving. There is obvious need to obtain blood
samples promptly both for the purpose of preventing continuing
breach of the law and to secure evidence which would otherwise be
lost with effluxion of time. The courts, would not, in my
opinion, equate compulsory taking of DNA samples without warrant,
in the context of the Charter, with the taking of breath or blood
samples under coercion of law from drivers suspected of
impairment. I say this because personal DNA characteristics do
not change with time, and the taking of DNA samples cannot be
expected to result in the termination of offences in progress.
I do not believe that either of the comparisons mentioned would
be regarded by the courts as persuasive in answering the present
question.
Those were the comments of a former judge whose legal opinion
was sought. He said that DNA could not be taken from a person
who was charged. Yet we could take blood samples if the person
were suspected of drinking.
Are we being told that if we take a blood sample from a person
caught driving while drunk and can match the DNA with six rapes
or six murders that have taken place we will not be able to
charge the person because we obtained the evidence illegally?
I am not a lawyer, but it seems that is where we are with this.
We have to make sure to protect ourselves. We have to make sure
that people caught for crimes will serve for those crimes and
that we do not have all the loopholes. The public is frustrated
with today's laws, with the number of cases overthrown in the
courts because of so-called abuse of people's rights.
It seems the criminals are getting all the rights and the victims
have no rights at all. Bill C-3, although it is a good start,
does not include enough.
1355
A gentleman spoke to our caucus a few weeks ago. He was the
chief of police in a major city in Ontario. He pointed out very
strongly that there had to be more in the DNA bill. We had to
make sure that people who were in prison and were already
convicted of crimes had their DNA put on the record. He assured
us that if that were the case they would solve literally hundreds
of murders, rapes and major crimes in the country.
Once crimes have been committed and the criminals are serving
time in jail, they should have no right that says their DNA
cannot be taken and put on the record, because their right not to
have it there has been violated by them. Many people think we
all should have DNA taken at birth so there are good records of
everybody.
Surely the government can make sure the criminals in the land
have their DNA on record so if they commit other crimes they will
be caught. Certainly it has some feeling for solving all those
crimes across the nation that have been committed by making the
right amendments to the bill.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to the report stage amendments to Bill
C-3, an act respecting DNA identification.
It is unfortunate the bill is such a half effort that the Reform
Party and the official opposition will not be able to support it
in its entirety. The gist of the bill is proper, but it will
take a lot of convincing on that side to get me to vote for it.
The gist of the bill, the idea of taking DNA samples, is good.
The idea of trying to identify and to solve crimes by using DNA,
a modern scientific tool, is sound. I just wish the bill had
been more thorough and better thought through in terms of how to
go about it.
The first grouping of motions under discussion today includes
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
The Speaker: I do not want the member to get too wound up
because I know he will continue debate for another nine minutes.
It being almost 2 p.m. I will intervene. However, the member
will have the floor when we return to the debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
EDUCATION
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have a strong and proud history. Knowledge of that
history is disappearing, however. The teaching of our past, a
past that reflects our traditions, values and ideas that help to
reflect who we are, is disappearing.
Professor J. L. Granatstein in his new book Who Killed
Canadian History points out that only 54% of high school and
university graduates could name Sir John A. Macdonald as our
first prime minister. Only 36% knew the year of Confederation.
This is unfortunate and a reflection of the state of Canadian
history being taught in our schools.
As a former teacher of Canadian history, I applaud Professor
Granatstein for exposing the lack of consistent curriculum.
Canadians want more Canadian history taught in their schools.
The Canadian government can act to change this disgraceful trend
by providing our young people with an understanding and
appreciation of our roots.
Granatstein suggests that Ottawa take an activist role by
providing a subscription to every high school to a magazine such
as The Beaver and National History. He also suggests that
we establish a centre for Canadian history—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island.
* * *
COINAGE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it seems to
me that good decisions come from correct information. That is
why we tried to get the issue of the Mint's new coin plating
plant to the parliamentary committee.
The various players in this issue have contradictory views and
interpretations on costs, savings, security of supply, jobs,
international demand and various other subjects. Why not let the
committee sort this out?
No, the government does not want the facts to come out. Is this
because it is afraid of being embarrassed? Is it afraid of being
shown that it is wrong? It seems to me that if the government is
so sure of itself it would be eager to appear before the
committee and lay its cards on the table. Then it would be
vindicated and could get on with its project.
The government's refusal to allow the committee to study this
issue is suspect indeed.
* * *
1400
POLISH CONSTITUTION
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Polish Canadians and in
particular to the Polish community in my riding of
Parkdale—High Park who yesterday celebrated the 207th
anniversary of the Polish constitution.
May 3 is a national holiday for Poles, a day to reflect on and
celebrate the heritage and ideals of humanitarianism, tolerance
and democracy.
The constitution of May 3, 1791 was the first liberal
constitution in Europe and second in the world, after the
constitution of the United States. It was an attempt to secure
rights for broad sections of the population and to mobilize the
nation against rising threats to independence. The constitution
of 1791 was the instrument that gave rise to parliamentary
supremacy. It also gave Polish citizens new found access to
parliament.
Constitution day is a proud heritage for Canadians of Polish
descent and a confirmation of the basic values and freedoms of
our society.
* * *
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Cancer Society is the number one funding agency for
cancer research and care in Canada. It designates almost half of
funds raised to research projects. The remaining funds stay in
local communities.
April was cancer month in Peterborough, as elsewhere. The two
best known activities in our campaign are the daffodil festival
and the door to door canvass. I am pleased to announce that this
year's daffodils helped raise $40,000. Our thanks to the Beta
Sigma Phi sorority.
Another activity is the cops for cancer campaign where police
officers shave their heads to raise funds. Their next hair cut
is May 9. Golf tournaments and road races are also scheduled.
In the 1997 campaign revenues surpassed $600,000, one of the
highest per capita rates in Canada.
As a former chair of the cancer campaign, on behalf of all the
branches of the Canadian Cancer Society in Peterborough and
across Canada, my thanks to all communities and volunteers for
their continued support. Cancer can be beaten.
* * *
QUEEN'S GUARD
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for the first time in 45 years Canadians have taken on the duties
of the Queen's guard.
Ninety-six Canadian soldiers from the Princess Patricia's Light
Infantry will be standing on parade with British soldiers during
the changing of the guard ceremonies at Buckingham Palace during
the next few weeks.
The month of May marks the beginning of what unofficially is
Canada month in Britain. The celebrations planned are military,
literary, cultural and even culinary and centre around the May 13
reopening of Canada House, the landmark Canadian high commission
building in London, by Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien.
Congratulations to Private Jonathan Murphy who grew up in my
riding—
The Speaker: I remind colleagues not to use our names
when making statements or questions.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.
* * *
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the law concerning dissolving families
when separation and divorce occurs is under much needed review.
In the last parliament legal changes were made to ensure more
reliable child maintenance payments. The overly narrow focus of
those changes resulted in a rekindling of the gender wars.
Women's groups make their case of being victims without
appropriately acknowledging their abuse. Men's groups make their
case of being victims of both the system and women without
providing sufficient leadership for culpability and remediation.
Fortunately the government relented to permit a joint
Senate-House of Commons committee review the Divorce Act. Last
week we heard witnesses in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina and
Winnipeg. Last Monday in my city of New Westminster I sponsored
a well attended open forum giving the public a voice.
It is essential that we fashion a framework that emphasizes
parental responsibilities over rights and meets our children's
needs over parental wants. To say it simply, we must put our
children first.
* * *
BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Parliament Hill was the scene of a very important
event. Every year on the first Sunday of May, Canadians gather
to remember the bitter battle of the Atlantic.
During the second world war the supply lines from home to the
front lines were crucial to a successful campaign. They carried
valuable arms, material and personnel across the ocean. It was
not just a simple voyage across the Atlantic. If it was not the
dreaded German U-boats travelling in what was commonly known as
wolf packs, it was the weather that caused havoc during the run.
For the merchant seamen to cross with the supplies, the air force
and navy provided escorts to protect against the enemy. The navy
took the bulk of that responsibility.
The battle was costly to Canada; 50 merchant ships and 24
warships lost. Fatalities were almost 4,000 in the two navies
and over 200 in the air force.
To our veterans of the battle and to the families of those no
longer with us, we thank them for their important contribution to
their country.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
55TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Parliament Hill,
Halifax and Esquimalt, British Columbia were the sites yesterday
of ceremonies commemorating the 55th anniversary of the Battle
of the Atlantic. This is an event we must not forget, because
Canadians played a major role during the course of this battle.
The war was over once the Germans could no longer threaten the
Atlantic link between Europe and America, which permitted the
transport of troops and equipment in preparation for the
landing.
The battle is commemorated to honour those who gave their life
and those who survived the war. We have learned powerful
lessons, which will help us, we hope, to maintain peace around
the world.
* * *
[English]
OTTAWA SENATORS
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
hard work, discipline and perfect attendance, these are the
characteristics of Ottawa's pride and joy, the Senators. Of
course I am talking about the NHL Senators, not the red chamber
senators.
On Saturday the Senators defeated the New Jersey Devils four
games to two, eliminating the Devils from the Stanley Cup finals.
The Senators will now go on to play the Washington Capitals and
we wish them all the best.
We can only hope that these hockey heroes will set a new
standard for their parliamentary namesakes. We also hope that
the Ottawa Senators inspire the Prime Minister and that he will
seize the opportunity to restore public confidence in the upper
chamber by allowing Canadians to elect their senators.
Let us restore the principles of hard work, accountability and
good attendance in the Senate. This October the Prime Minister
should recognize Alberta's democratically elected senators.
It is time to allow Canadians to cheer for and elect their
favourite senators.
* * *
[Translation]
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the new
leader of the Quebec Liberal Party paints the province's
economic in ever darker tones, a major French scientific
magazine has described Quebec's system of science and technology
as a model.
La Recherche rightly notes that, on a per capita basis, Montreal
leads North American cities in providing technical jobs. It
also notes that Quebec puts out more scientific publications
than does France and that, in the area of venture capital,
Quebec is in second place in North America, behind Massachusetts
and ahead of California.
This is a broad view of Quebec's potential, when the province
has only part of its tools for economic development.
Imagine what Quebec will be like when it attains sovereignty.
As the federal Minister of Finance would say “You just better
watch us”. This is only the beginning.
* * *
LEADER OF LIBERAL PARTY IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow me
to congratulate the new leader of the Liberal Party in New
Brunswick, chosen at a leadership convention on the weekend.
Camille Thériault set himself the goal of defending Canada's
unity as a francophone in a minority community.
[English]
Mr. Theriault has been involved in the constitutional debate and
has demonstrated that he is firmly committed to helping to build
a strong and united Canada while still promoting the interests of
his province.
[Translation]
Mr. Thériault is an old stock Acadian. Born in
Baie-Sainte-Anne, he is totally bilingual and has a degree in
social sciences, with specialization in political science.
[English]
I congratulate Mr. Theriault and I wish him the best of luck as
the new premier of New Brunswick.
* * *
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETIES
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to rise and acknowledge the extremely important work
of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies as it
celebrates Elizabeth Fry week from May 4 to 10.
The theme of this year's E. Fry week is alternatives to
incarceration. The society hopes to raise awareness and
education regarding women involved in the criminal justice
system.
The E. Fry society has a history of hard work and dedicated
service in communities across this country. It provides much
needed services in support for women who have come into contact
with the justice system.
By focusing on alternatives to incarceration the society hopes
to encourage the public to examine productive community responses
to the criminal justice system. It is its hope and mine that
this type of proactive focus will encourage the development of
and support for community based alternatives to incarceration,
particularly for non-violent offenders.
Please join me in supporting the very important work of
Elizabeth Fry societies across Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL POLICY
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to
news reports, three more Cuban political prisoners will be
arriving in Canada very shortly.
This is in addition to the 14 who were freed last month and sent
to Canada. This represents an important event for this country.
1410
The Reform Party had tried to discredit the Prime Minister's
recent visit to Cuba here in this House. These events prove
that the Liberal government does not need any lectures from
Reform about international policy.
This is proof that our Prime Minister is attaining his
objectives, and Reform members should be ashamed of their petty
attitude.
Our government has opted for persuasion rather than wholesale
denunciation, which seems to be the Reform approach.
* * *
[English]
MANITOBA
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is with a great deal of pride that I rise today to congratulate
Premier Gary Filmon on the upcoming 10th anniversary of his
election as premier of the dynamic province of Manitoba.
Both the province and the premier have much to be congratulated
for. Despite the devastating flood last year the Manitoba
economy is on track to post one of the strongest growth rates in
this country this year and next. As well, the province posted
the lowest unemployment rate in 15 years at 5.7%. Much of the
credit is due to the Filmon government's tradition of delivering
on its promises of sound fiscal management. Today the province
has the toughest anti-deficit legislation in Canada and has
balanced its books in the last four years.
While Canadians across this country remain impressed with the
Filmon administration's numerous fiscal achievements, they also
recognize the premier's commitment to Canada's social programs,
one of the most important being health care. In spite of federal
transfer cuts in the last budget Manitoba's last budget detailed
an additional $100 million in spending on health care.
The premier does embody the true principles of Canadian
tradition, socially progressive and fiscally conservative.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a recent
COMQUEST-Léger & Léger poll gives us some important information
on Canada's ultimate response to the results of the 1995
referendum.
Ninety-four per cent of Canadians and Quebeckers are of the
opinion that the Calgary declaration will not settle the
constitutional question and, as usual, a heavy majority of
Canadians, 60%, do not wish to see the Constitution amended to
include legal clauses concerning the distinct society.
Once again, Canada's last offer has already been rejected both
by Canadians, because it gives Quebec too much, and by
Quebeckers, because it represents nothing more than the
constitutional status quo.
We state again in this House that only Quebec sovereignty,
coupled with a partnership agreement with Canada, can free us
from this constitutional impasse.
* * *
[English]
CUBA
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members of this Chamber and all Canadians greeted news accounts
from Havana this morning with excitement. Family members of
Cuban political prisoners Guillermo Sambra Ferrandiz, Esperanza
Micaela Atencio de la Rosa and Jose Miranda Acosta received word
this weekend from the Cuban commission for human rights and
national reconciliation that these individuals may be headed to
Canada soon.
Coming fast on the heels of the Prime Minister's groundbreaking
visit to Cuba last week, a visit which the Reform Party so
adamantly protested, it is obvious that the Prime Minister's
policy on constructive engagement works. In his meetings with
President Fidel Castro the Prime Minister tackled the human
rights issues and pushed for the release of political prisoners.
All members will agree this very significant announcement is an
important step in human rights negotiations between our two
countries. Congratulations to the Prime Minister.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we know this government has a tough time treating all
Canadians equally.
We heard debates last week about hep C victims who have to
consult their calendars to see if the federal blood supply made
them sick on a date convenient for federal lawyers. It is clear
this government needs some big lessons on how to treat citizens
fairly and equally. When it comes to the Canadian family we are
not all alike but we should expect our government to treat us all
equally.
Instead we have a government that offers a child care deduction
to parents who are both working to support their tax burden but
cannot see the value in a parent staying home to take care of
their own children.
When 70% of Canadians say they wish they could afford to stay
home with their children and 90% say it is very important to do
so, when will this government listen to the public and bring
fairness to the tax code?
* * *
ELIZABETH FRY WEEK
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the week of May 4 is National Elizabeth Fry week
during which time Elizabeth Fry societies across the country will
hold activities to enhance public awareness and education
regarding the circumstances of women involved in the criminal
justice system.
National Elizabeth Fry Society week is always the week preceding
Mother's Day as the majority of women who come in conflict with
the law are mothers. In fact, the majority of these women were
the sole supporters of their families at the time they were
incarcerated.
When mothers are sentenced to prison their children are
sentenced to separation through no fault of their own. On the
occasion of national Elizabeth Fry week let us support the
important role of the Elizabeth Fry Society in identifying
community based alternatives to costly incarceration for
non-violent offenders.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, first Quebec opened the door and today Ontario has
pledged to pay compensation to the pre-1986 victims of hepatitis
C on the same basis as the existing package. The federal
government can therefore no longer pretend that there is
unanimous provincial consent for its position.
This issue is not going to be resolved by more conference calls,
press releases or insults. When is the Prime Minister going to
take personal responsibility for resolving this crisis by
agreeing to renegotiate the compensation package?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just before Question Period we learned through the news
of the Government of Ontario's announcement. We of course
received the Government of Ontario's press release but have not
had direct contact from it. Therefore I think our first step
should be to contact the Ontario government and get precise
information on exactly what it has in mind.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Premier Harris has shown some real leadership in this
matter by agreeing to open up the compensation package and
agreeing to pay his fair share.
For a response, instead of the federal government saying “This
is encouraging and interesting, we are prepared to sit down and
talk about it”, all we hear is another dull non-answer which is
the only type of answer we ever get from the Deputy Prime
Minister.
When is the Prime Minister and the federal government going to
stop being part of the problem and start being part of the
solution?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, we learned just moments
ago of the apparent change in Ontario's position, I think the
third position in the last five days.
I think we should get the particulars on Ontario's position.
This is obviously a new and important development. It is a
departure from the position that had been shared by all
governments very recently. We will get the particulars on
Ontario's position and respond to the hon. Leader of the
Opposition when it is fully understood.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the health minister is obviously out of the loop.
Canadians do not want to hear from this health minister again. He
is a discredited health minister. The only reason he should be
on his feet is to announce a renegotiation of the compensation
package or to announce his resignation. Which will it be?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the history of this better shows that had it not been for the
federal government, there would have been no compensation package
at all.
When we did come together, we developed a position that all
governments agreed to in relation to those infected before 1986.
Today's development is a new one. The ground has moved and an
important partner has changed its position.
I am telling the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we will take
that position into account. When we understand fully what
Ontario is saying, we will respond.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are begging for some leadership from this government
and they have not seen leadership on this file now for over four
weeks. The Ontario government has changed its position. The
government, instead of coming alongside and saying it will work
with it, is just muddying the waters and saying it will look into
it.
Back when Mr. Trudeau was Prime Minister, a Red Cross researcher
named Dr. Moore called for testing of the blood supply. Other
countries were doing it and for nine years the Liberal government
of the day chose to ignore them.
Is it not true that the real reason the Prime Minister will not
compensate victims in the pre-1986 period is that he does not
want the Liberal government of the day implicated in this
tragedy? Is that not the truth?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when the ministers of health came together a couple of times on
this issue, we developed a position that we all shared.
Today Ontario has taken a different position. That is an
important development. I spoke to Clay Serby, who is the chair
of the provincial ministers this year, just before two o'clock.
He agrees that ministers of health should look again at this
issue.
Once we understand what the position of Ontario is, we will be
in a position to respond to the question put by the Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
position of the Ontario government is apparently that it wants to
compensate the pre-1986 victims. We want them to. Victims
rights groups say it should happen. The only holdout now is the
federal government.
France and Japan had poison blood problems too. A lot of their
senior bureaucrats were charged and convicted.
Some of them ended up in jail.
1420
In Canada we have a criminal investigation about the destruction
of evidence. Now Dr. Brill-Edwards who, was a senior scientist
in the health protection branch, has revealed the truth about why
the Liberal government will not compensate for the pre-1986
period. The truth is that they knew about the evidence and failed
to act—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that as late as Friday afternoon, Clay
Serby, the NDP health minister, said that he was speaking on
behalf of all the provinces. He said that the provinces are not
calling on Ottawa to extend the compensation package.
We heard through the news about Ontario. I think it is only
reasonable that we be in touch with Mr. Serby and hear what the
position is with respect to all the provinces.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not
only are nearly half the members of the House in favour of
compensating all victims of hepatitis C infected through blood
products, they are joined by at least three provinces, which
represent nearly 66% of the people of Canada.
With such massive support for all victims, how can the Prime
Minister let his Minister of Health continue to say at every
opportunity that the file on the victims not compensated is now
closed?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
question of the hon. member indicates why we need more
information. Mr. Harris has today accepted responsibility for
victims of hepatitis C prior to 1986 and would like to share
compensation with the federal government.
The Government of Quebec is not prepared to pay any
compensation, according to what Premier Bouchard said last week.
He mistakenly said that the burden is a federal burden only.
That is why we need more information.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the unanimous motion of
the National Assembly was made by the Liberal Party of Quebec
and supported by its new leader, Jean Charest, a reasonable man,
according to the Prime Minister.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister finally acknowledge that the
provinces are doing more than their share given the cuts in
transfer payments this government has imposed on them?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
something important happened this morning: Ontario changed its
position. We must now find out from Ontario the details of its
new position and also find out whether Quebec will take the same
position and provide a financial contribution for those infected
before 1986.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the Minister
of Health wants to talk about money, that is what we will do.
The Prime Minister has said on many occasions that his
government would pay the greater part of the compensation for
hepatitis C victims. Compensation of $1.1 billion has been
offered, but there remains the $1.6 billion in care needed by
victims that will be paid by the provinces.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Health admit
that, by limiting its contribution to $800 million out of a
total of $2.7 billion to cover the cost of hepatitis C, and thus
footing only 30% of the bill, Ottawa has done not too badly?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
costs of the health care system are paid by the federal
government and by the provinces. Each year, we transfer money
to the provinces for the health care system.
Regarding compensation of victims, I again wonder whether Quebec
will be contributing financially for those victims infected
before 1986, as Ontario has apparently done.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
Minister of Health says that the federal government pays the
cost of health care, he forgets to point out that transfer
payments have been frozen at $12.5 billion. Hepatitis C victims
or not, transfers have been cut and then frozen.
Does the minister not understand that those with hepatitis C are
victims twice over, first because of the government's
incompetence and now because of its stubbornness?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe my hon. colleague is forgetting about equalization
payments and tax points, which are forms of transfer made by the
federal government to the provinces for medical care.
1425
It is therefore completely erroneous of him to suggest that all
payments for medical care come solely from provincial taxpayers'
pockets. Each year, the federal government pays Quebec and the
other provinces millions and millions of dollars for medical
care.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health.
I think it is clear what all Canadians want. They want all
victims of hepatitis C from tainted blood to be compensated.
Frankly they want the finger pointing in this place and elsewhere
to stop.
The Minister of Health himself has said that this is a new
development. It is certainly grounds on which he could call the
federal and provincial health ministers together. Will he do
that? Will he let Ontario put its new position to the entire set
of health ministers and himself and see if they can all get their
heads together and solve the problem?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the refreshingly constructive approach reflected in the
member's question. Forgive my sense of shock, Mr. Speaker, but I
think he is quite right.
There is a new development here. It is a significant
development. One of the major partners in confederation has
changed its position on an agreement that all governments had
reached. Let us look at this new development. Let us find out
from more than the wire story what Ontario is saying.
I have already spoken with the chair of the provincial
ministers. He has indicated that perhaps a meeting of ministers
at this point would be appropriate because in the last analysis,
our responsibility is together—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would hate to think that all of this is happening just
because Ontario changed its mind. It is not a major player, it
is a province and if any other province changes its mind, I hope
it might have the same effect.
When will the meeting take place? Are the ministers of health
going to meet this week? Let us get this thing over with. Let
us do the right thing. There is a new development. Get the
ministers of health together. Let us get a solution which meets
the values of all Canadians, which is that these people should be
looked after.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I have indicated to the member and to the House, we are going
to find out from Ontario, from more than a wire story, what it is
that Ontario is saying. I will be speaking with Clay Serby who is
the minister from Saskatchewan, this year's chair for the
provincial ministers. If appropriate, then the ministers will
meet.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health has been saying that just as soon as he gets a
copy of the resolution then he will take a look at it and the
government will. I would like to table that resolution right
now. I will do so at the end of my question so that he can deal
with it.
The primary responsibility for the control of blood safety rests
with the federal government. It is clear that there are provinces
that believe it is wrong to cut off 40,000 people who are
suffering from hepatitis C.
When will this government and the Minister of Health show the
same leadership as Ontario and compensate all hepatitis C
victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me repeat for the member because she should know that if it
was not for the leadership of the Prime Minister's government,
then victims of hepatitis C would not be compensated at all.
When we did meet, ministers in good faith did their best to come
to an agreement on a difficult decision. We all agreed on a
position. Ontario has now apparently changed its position. That
is an important development. As I have said to the House and I
say to the member, we will now take a look at what it is
Ontario—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Conservative Party.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, we have
one province that has put its money where its mouth is, as asked
by the Prime Minister of Canada. That province is willing to
help those who are sick through no fault of their own.
Now we also have a former senior official from the Department of
Health, Dr. Brill-Edwards, who has stated “If the federal
government had been doing its job safeguarding the blood supply,
then the huge numbers of people suffering and dying simply would
not be there”.
Why will the government not take the stand today, do its job and
compensate all hep C victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think the member should remember that the Krever report, which
went into all of this history in great deal and examined what
problems resulted in the tragedy, made it clear that while the
federal government regularly played a part, the provinces as
proprietors and the Red Cross as operator of the system were also
at fault.
I reassure the member we will look at what Ontario is proposing.
If it is a significant development then we shall respond
appropriately.
1430
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has known for several hours about this
change in Ontario's position. It must have something more
constructive to say than what it has said.
Mr. Harris has said “Ontario will do the right thing and we
call upon the federal government to join us”. The answer we
want is to this question. Will someone on behalf of the
government stand and say “We will do the right thing and join
the provinces in renegotiating this agreement?”
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was informed of this development shortly before
question period. I am not aware of people on this side of the
House being aware of it for several hours.
However, I want to assure my hon. friend and all Canadians it
has always been and it will continue to be our intention to do
the right thing.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): So
far we have not seen any doing the right thing on this file, Mr.
Speaker.
When this renegotiation occurs the current health minister's
credibility will be shot. He will be incapable of renegotiating
a new agreement. The current health minister has misrepresented
the position of the provinces from the very beginning in the
House. He has bad mouthed them and he tries to take credit for
giving leadership when the leadership is coming in this case from
the provinces.
When will we have a new health minister who would be capable of
renegotiating in good faith with the provinces?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Leader of the Opposition should know that we discovered at
one o'clock this afternoon what Ontario was proposing. Ontario
is the province that has changed its position three times in the
last seven days. We apparently have a new position from Ontario,
but I for one would rather find out directly from Ontario and
when we do find out we will react appropriately.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Seven months
after the Calgary declaration, a Léger & Léger-COMQUEST survey
reveals that no one, or virtually no one, knows what is in the
declaration, and that those who do have an idea of its content
say it will not lead anywhere.
The minister was concerned about the lack of consultations in
Quebec compared to elsewhere, so what is his answer today, now
that we know that 90% of the people of Canada are unable to say
what the Calgary declaration contains?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot comment on a survey when we have only seen
part of it. Only a few excerpts were published in the press and
we can see from the wording of the questions that people were
not really asked what the exact content of the Calgary
declaration was.
On the other hand, according to a poll whose results were
recently released in B.C. this past January, 54% of the people
surveyed in British Columbia were familiar with the Calgary
agreement, 62% supported the unique character of Quebec society,
69% supported the role of the National Assembly, 80% supported
the Calgary agreement, and 66% would have no objection to
inclusion of this agreement in the Constitution.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
is confusing wishful thinking with reality. At the time of
Meech and of Charlottetown, the minister was an attentive
observer of the Canadian political scene. He noted that each of
these initiatives led to total failure.
Now that he has become a front line player in the creation and
follow-up of Calgary, is he not just reshooting the same old
film, with the same old actors, and the same old predictable
ending, in other words the Calgary declaration, which is not
enough for Quebec and far too much for Canada?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, the Calgary agreement is not a
constitutional text. Moreover, there is something interesting
here in connection with what went on at Charlottetown. At
Charlottetown, a post-referendum survey indicated that the
majority of Canadians were unable to name a single clause from
the Charlottetown agreement. On the other hand, when they were
shown it clause by clause, Canadians, Quebeckers included, were
somewhat against it.
The difference with the Calgary agreement is that when people
are surveyed about whether they are in agreement with each of
its clauses, there is very strong support in Canada, Quebec
included.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
we are talking about changing positions I want to remind the
health minister about something he said not very long ago. He
said the file was closed.
I distinctly remember him saying that. In fact when his
backbenchers came to him and asked him about this he told them
that the file was closed.
1435
Who has changed positions here? Is the truth not that the real
reason the government is changing its position is that it is
losing the PR battle?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ministers of health of 12 governments came together in good
faith. On a tough issue they agreed on a common position. That
has now changed.
As I have said to the hon. member's colleagues, we are to
examine the new position of Ontario. We want to know the
response of the other provinces, for example. We will respond
appropriately when that information is known.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
file was closed and now the file is open. We understand the
government is finally starting to feel a little heat from the
public.
When will the health minister acknowledge the real reason they
are pushing the file back on to the table and opening the file up
again is that they are losing the PR battle? They know their
backbenchers want this deal. They know the public wants it. When
will they admit they made a mistake and that is why they are
opening this file?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have told the member and his colleagues that in view of the new
development we are to find out what the position of Ontario is
and to respond appropriately.
* * *
[Translation]
CALGARY DECLARATION
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says that the unique
character referred to in the Calgary declaration is the same
thing as the distinct society of the Meech Lake accord. Yet the
premiers are playing down this so-called unique character, saying
that it does not confer any special status on Quebec.
Would the minister who calls himself the master of clarification
explain this major contradiction to us?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in fact, it is not a special status, but an undertaking
by all Canadians to have a federation that respects the
principles of equality, it being understood that equality is not
synonymous with uniformity, but must go hand in hand with deep
respect for the country's diversity, including the unique
character of Quebec society.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister said he went into politics to sell English Canada
on the idea of distinct society. When he sees how strongly
opposed Canadians are to entrenching special status for Quebec
in the Constitution, does he realize that, even though he has
tried to sell Quebec short, his plan is destined to fail
abysmally?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not go into politics to sell the idea of distinct
society; I went into politics to help my fellow Canadians keep
their country together.
Canada in its present form, without constitutional changes, and
with the forces of change seen in this country, is infinitely
preferable to the Bloc Quebecois' separatist approach. The
Constitution can, however, be improved. This will be done in
stages, after serious debate.
I would ask my colleague, however, if he finds fault with any
one of the principles in the Calgary declaration?
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
an Environics poll taken in Alberta this year indicated that 91%
of Albertans would prefer to elect their next senator as opposed
to having a senator appointed through the patronage system.
Ninety-one per cent of Albertans means that people of all
political stripes want an elected senator.
Premier Klein has called a Senate election for this fall. Will
the Prime Minister and the government appoint these elected
senators, or do they hold Alberta voters in too much contempt?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have the greatest regard for the views of Albertans.
I might make an exception for the guy who asked the question.
Were Albertans asked whether they wanted to elect senators for
life without any recourse if they were not happy with what they
were doing? That is the weakness of the position asserted by my
hon. friend. With the election of people who were then
appointed, they would be there until age 75 no matter what they
did or did not do. That is not democracy.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on lectures on democracy from a government that just ran
roughshod over its own backbenches, if the government is
unwilling to respect the wishes of its own members, how will it
respect the wishes of millions of Alberta voters?
They will go to those ballots on October 19. Hundreds of
thousands of Alberta voters will choose their next senator. Will
the government appoint those elected senators or will it not?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has not answered my question. Why does
he want to elect people for life? That is not democracy. I
notice there is no resolution in the Alberta legislature calling
for an amendment to the Constitution.
1440
The only way to reform the Senate in a meaningful way is to
amend the Constitution. Until that happens the Prime Minister is
obliged to live by the Constitution. That is what he will do and
that is the right thing to do.
* * *
[Translation]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
We have learned that the federal government is preparing to buy
back fishing licenses from some of the fishers currently
benefiting from the Atlantic groundfish strategy.
Since there are many people who will not qualify for this new
buyback program, what does the minister intend to do exactly to
support the others benefiting from this program—fishers or
fishery workers—who will soon be faced with nothing?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Atlantic
groundfish strategy will come to an end this August.
A number of my colleagues and I are working very hard at the
moment consulting communities and individuals and collaborating
with the provinces to be sure that we will deal with the post
TAGS situation in the most appropriate way possible in order to
help communities and individuals, since the fish will not be
returning to the waters of the Atlantic as we had hoped.
* * *
[English]
NUCLEAR WASTE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
A Canadian environmental assessment agency panel recently
decided against allowing enormous vaults inside the granite of
the Canadian Shield as the best and safest method of disposing of
nuclear waste.
In light of this decision, what does the government plan to do
to dispose of nuclear waste in Canada?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the storage of nuclear
wastes is currently done in a very efficient and very responsible
manner. The Government of Canada is always interested in making
sure that we have a long term solution, one that is appropriately
put.
The Seaborn panel investigated deep geological disposal of
nuclear waste. The panel came back with the conclusion that
while technically feasible and while environmentally feasible
there were concerns from a sociological perspective. People felt
that this was not the right method.
We will continue to work with stakeholders to provide suitable
solutions.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Alberta is not the only province where the vast majority of
voters want the right to elect their senators.
In a major opinion poll conducted recently Marketrend Research
found that 84% of British Columbians demanded the right to elect
their senators.
We know the Prime Minister thinks he is smarter than his average
backbench MPs. That is why he did not let them vote freely on
the hepatitis C issue. Does he really think he is smarter than
the B.C. voter when it comes to selecting their own senators?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to know if in answering that poll question
the respondents in B.C. knew that if they followed the Reform
proposal the senators would be elected for life and they would
never have a chance to unelect them?
It seems to me that the best way to deal with this matter is
through constitutional amendment. So far I have not noticed any
province putting forth an amendment by way of resolution in its
legislature to call for a fully elected Senate. Until that
happens, the Prime Minister has no alternative but to follow the
Constitution, which he is doing.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Western Opinion Research just conducted a huge poll in
Manitoba. Eighty-six per cent of Manitobans want their senators
elected. Only seven per cent said “let the Prime Minister
appoint them”.
We know how the Prime Minister treats his backbench MPs like
sheep who cannot think for themselves. He whipped them so hard
on the hepatitis C vote that some of them cried while they were
voting.
Is this how the Prime Minister plans to treat 86% of Manitobans
on Senate elections?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, did the 86% of Manitobans who answered the poll realize
that the Reform proposal was that people be elected for life to
age 75 and that they be allowed to stay there no matter how they
did their jobs?
I am sure that Manitobans, like the others who answered the
poll, thought that the election, if there was one, would be for a
limited fixed term so that they would have a chance to unelect
the people who were originally brought to the other place by
election.
1445
Until that happens, that is to say until the Constitution is
amended, then the Prime Minister has no alternative but to follow
the Constitution.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we appreciate the first sign of openness that the
government has shown today on the matter of compensation for
hepatitis C victims, but we also know we have to act quickly to
end the confusion.
Although I know I cannot refer to documents, the fact is that
the premier of Ontario did issue a press release indicating
precisely that this government was prepared to enter into
discussions regarding compensation for all hepatitis C victims.
Given this situation, will the minister give assurances to the
House today that he will call a meeting of health ministers and
announce—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again I acknowledge the constructive approach of the hon.
member and I thank her for it.
I will be speaking again with Minister Serby from Saskatchewan,
who is the chair this year of the provincial ministers. The
ministers will no doubt have their own responses to this
development in Ontario.
If it would be helpful, I am certain that the ministers will be
prepared to meet and discuss this matter.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we in the House all want to do the right thing on this
issue. We know we have to end the confusion in the country. We
have to end the confusion in the House. We have to end the
confusion for blood injured Canadians.
Given that the minister has said he will look into this matter
and given the fact that we have the facts before us, will he
announce today that a meeting of the health ministers will take
place in the very near future?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think out of respect for the ministers I should communicate
with them directly and I intend to do that.
I will have a response for the member at the earliest possible
date in connection with the prospect of a meeting of all
ministers on this subject.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, last week the President of the Treasury Board stated
that he did not see any problem with what his employee, Jacques
Roy, was doing since the information he gave up for legal
fundraising was actually public information.
Will the minister stand in his place today and tell the House
that applications for funds for federal departments are public
information prior to their governmental approval?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that information has been given totally, every fact, to the RCMP.
It has made an investigation. It has concluded the
investigation. There is no new fact here. There is nothing more
to add.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I think there is more to add.
Canadians need to know that private information given to the
government is not being used for a Liberal Party graft.
Last week it was confirmed in a Montreal courtroom that Jacques
Roy, special assistant to the President of the Treasury Board,
turned over government information to a convicted extortionist,
Pierre Corbeil.
My question to the minister is, what disciplinary action has
been taken for his employee, or does he condone this activity by
his employee?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a minister of this government that has asked the RCMP to
make an investigation. All the facts were in front of it. It
made its investigation. It has concluded the investigation. It
has gone in front of a judge. There are no new facts. This
investigation has been done.
Once again, the RCMP knew all the facts involved. There are no
new facts. There is nothing more to add.
* * *
RURAL CANADA
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my riding
of Essex I have many rural constituents whose economic interests
and needs are different from those in large urban centres.
How is the minister responsible for rural affairs determining
what rural Canadians want and need from their government?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, building on the Canadian rural
partnership that this government has initiated with rural
Canadians we will be conducting a number of rural dialogues coast
to coast in rural communities across this country, giving rural
Canadians yet another opportunity to have discussions about
partnerships with the federal government on how we can serve them
and what they need from the federal government.
I am looking forward to the results of those rural dialogues to
build an even stronger rural Canada.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians were told by the justice minister and her
government that gun registration would help control the black
market in firearms and reduce gun smuggling in Canada. Now the
minister's own bureaucrats are saying that her gun registration
scheme will have the opposite effect and increase black market
trade in firearms.
1450
What is the minister going to do now that she knows the
legislation will have the opposite effect of its intention?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, gun registration will work.
That is something this government is convinced of.
Let me just remind the hon. member and the official opposition
that the latest Angus Reid poll of March 1998 indicated that 80%
of Canadians support gun registration.
As opposed to continuing to criticize gun control and gun
registration, maybe it is time the member and his party got in
tune with the rest of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according
to news reports, the RCMP 125th anniversary celebrations will
cost $1.5 million for Quebec alone.
Can the Solicitor General tell us what the total bill for the
RCMP celebrations will be? How much will be spent in Quebec
and, in particular, where will that money come from?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the commissioner of the RCMP already advised the
member before the committee last week, the fact remains that the
RCMP has an ongoing budget that involves the Musical Ride and
other activities like that which are a part of Canadian heritage.
I am very proud of that activity. The reason there is no
specific number attached to 125 is because the RCMP celebrates
its good job in this country all the time.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In 1993 the government promised to renegotiate the NAFTA to
ensure that the deal worked for the benefit of Canadians. The
latest development is that Canada's freshwater is up for sale and
Ontario says it is legal to permit private sale and export of
Canadian water to overseas markets.
Under the NAFTA there is very little the government can do to
protect our natural water resources.
With the expressed concern on this issue, what will the minister
do to protect Canada from bulk exports of our water?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it may be of some interest to the hon. member that
the proposed exports are to Asia, not to the United States, and
therefore are not covered by the NAFTA at all.
What we are looking at, however, is the real question of the
large scale export of freshwater which we certainly have always
taken a strong stand against.
We are now examining various pieces of legislation, including
the Boundary Waters Treaty and other matters to determine whether
there is some form of prevention that can be applied.
It is a matter of real concern and we are looking at the options
we have.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, as much as the minister would say the file is closed
and the matter will go away, I want to point out that it is a
fact that it was an employee of his who provided confidential
information to Mr. Corbeil. It is a fact that Mr. Corbeil then,
in turn, used this information to participate in an illegal
kickback scheme to the Liberal Party.
It is a fact that the person involved in the office of the
President of the Treasury Board could not have participated in
this if the information had not been provided. It is a fact that
the President of the Treasury Board, who denied the involvement
of his office, is wrong.
In light of these facts, will the President of the Treasury
Board clean up his office or resign?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the RCMP was asked by a member of this government to make an
inquiry. It knew all the facts involved in the investigation and
it made one charge. It was judged. The person who was charged
has pleaded guilty.
May I suggest that the hon. member is whipping a dead horse?
* * *
EMPRESS OF IRELAND
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Parks.
In 1914 the Empress of Ireland sank near Rimouski and with
it 1,014 people died. May their souls rest in peace.
Reports now suggest that salvage operators are contemplating
using explosives to recover valuable nickel ingots from the site.
What is the government intending to do to prevent the
desecration of this site?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government and I believe all Canadians want to see
this site protected. That is why last week the federal
government asked the attorney general of the province of Quebec
to ensure that Criminal Code provisions with respect to
desecration of grave sites will be enforced.
I was also pleased to see the minister in Quebec invoke the
cultural properties act of that province to ensure that the site
will be protected for a year.
1455
Finally, I have written to my counterpart in Quebec to offer
collaborative approaches to ensure the long term protection of
this very important site.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
firearms bill has been receiving a very rocky ride. Four
provinces and two territories are contesting it constitutionally
in the courts.
Now we understand at least part of the reason. It is because
the justice minister's own consulting group, the Firearms User
Group, is telling the minister that this bill will greatly
increase the black market trade in firearms of all types.
Can the minister explain how her firearms bill is going to
increase crimes in terms of firearms smuggling and black
marketing instead of decreasing it? How can she explain this?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the
question, but let me reassure everybody in this House that our
new gun control legislation will not increase black market
transactions or smuggling in firearms.
Let me go back to my earlier point. Support for gun control and
gun registration is growing in this country. The only people who
seem to be opposed to it and stand in the face of 80% of
Canadians are members of the official opposition.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of International Trade, or the parliamentary
secretary, if he will deign to answer one of our questions for
once.
The Council of Europe has just recommended a total ban on
asbestos throughout its territory. This impacts seriously on
this important sector of the Quebec economy.
Will the minister or the parliamentary secretary tell us whether
this matter of an asbestos ban was raised when the minister met
with France's minister of foreign trade last week in Paris?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the secretary of
state for health for France is meeting this afternoon with the
Prime Minister. I am not privy to the agenda that the Prime
Minister has, but I do know that discussions have been ongoing
and will continue.
The province of Quebec has played a prominent role in
co-operation with the Government of Canada and we will continue
to work until this is satisfactorily resolved.
* * *
THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Human Resources Development talks about post-TAGS
and I am glad because the current TAGS program is an exercise in
confused objectives, poor management and unrealized goals.
Four years after its implementation, what assurance can this
minister give east coast fishermen, plant workers and their
families that the successor program will not be starved of cash
by the Minister of Finance? Can he also indicate when it might
be announced?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfair to
talk about the program as being starved of cash. The program,
consisting of $1.9 billion, was established to assist fishermen
in very difficult circumstances during the crisis of 1993. I do
not think that $1.9 billion was starving the people of cash.
Right now we are being very responsible. We are looking very
carefully into the needs of the communities and the fishermen.
We are consulting with the provinces involved to ensure that we
meet the challenges of the post-TAGS environment as well as we
can.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am back on the issue of dead horses, but I would
like to know from the President of the Treasury Board what safety
provisions he has put in place to ensure this type of information
is not going to be used for an illegal purpose like we have seen
in the past.
I would like to know when he knew, what he has done and what he
intends to do about this leak of information from his office.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all of these questions have been answered.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when?
October 19. Where? Alberta. Who? No appointee can be more
accountable a representative than a senator chosen by the people
of Alberta. The only question remaining is why?
Will the government respect the will of Albertans or will it
stand the Deputy Prime Minister to absorb the shock waves for not
appointing the duly chosen person on October 19?
1500
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is undermining his own credibility by
asking a question like that. How can people be accountable to
the population of Alberta if they are elected for life? It does
not make any sense.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
BILL C-3—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am ready to render a decision. Earlier
today a question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough concerning the availability of
documents relating to the justice committee study of Bill C-3, an
act respecting DNA identification.
The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough contended
that the justice department had agreed to provide certain
documents to members of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights. He added that while some outside groups had
apparently been supplied with the documents last Friday, he
himself had not received the documents until this morning. This,
he argued, constituted a breach of his privileges as a member of
parliament.
[Translation]
I would like to thank all of the members who took part in the
debates earlier today.
[English]
Exchanges on this matter have revealed that there was indeed a
problem with the distribution of these documents. The House has
been informed that the documents were offered by the minister to
the committee as a matter of courtesy and not as a result of a
formal request made by the committee. There seems to have been a
bona fide effort made by the department to forward the
information to committee members in a timely fashion but
obviously some difficulty arose.
Although I sympathize with the hon. member's complaint, I cannot
find that any privilege has been breached. While this may amount
to a grievance concerning the timing of the distribution of
documents, it does not in my opinion constitute a prima facie
question of privilege.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
understand that I must have unanimous consent of the House in
order to table the resolution from the Ontario Harris government
with regard to the hepatitis C situation. I would like to have
unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to table this resolution in the House
today.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have consent of the
House to put the motion?
An hon. member: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in both official languages a number of order in
council appointments which were made by the government. Pursuant
to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed
referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which
is attached.
* * *
1505
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present in both official languages the second
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
Pursuant to order of reference of Tuesday, March 17, 1998 your
committee has considered 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,
and has agreed to report it with an amendment.
* * *
PETITIONS
CRTC
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many of my constituents and other constituents
in the national capital region asking parliament to review the
mandate of the CRTC and to direct the CRTC to administer a new
policy which includes the licensing of religious broadcasters.
IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition
calling for a public inquiry of Ipperwash. This petition is
signed by many residents of the province of Ontario. It indicates
that because of the serious and many unanswered questions around
the fatal shooting of Anthony Dudley George on September 6, 1995
at Ipperwash Provincial Park, the petitioners are calling for a
full public inquiry to be held to eliminate all misconceptions
held by and about the government, the OPP and the Stoney Point
people.
NEWFOUNDLAND FERRY SERVICE
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to the appropriate standing order I would like
to table in this House a petition regarding Newfoundland's gulf
ferry service. This is a petition that I would like to talk
about further.
The petitioners are calling upon parliament to respect the terms
of the constitutional obligation that Canada shares with
Newfoundland in providing an essential public ferry service
between the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the
mainland of Canada. The petition calls upon the Parliament of
Canada to enact an appropriate level of funding for this service
and to ensure that indeed it is deemed an essential service so
that there is a continuous link.
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians including petitioners from my own riding of Mississauga
South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children
is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners would also like to point out that they agree
with the National Forum on Health which stated in its draft
report that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families who
choose to provide direct parental care in the home to preschool
children because it does not recognize the true cost of raising
children.
The petitioners call upon parliament to pursue initiatives to
eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to
provide direct parental care in the home to preschool children.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: Question No. 92.
.[Text]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom:
With regard to recent changes in the tax treaty between the
United States and Canada, which restore a tax exemption from U.S.
federal income taxes to all Canadians who received U.S. social
security or railroad retirement in 1996 and 1997, what measures
has the Minister of National Revenue taken to ensure a speedy
refund to eligible recipients of the excess taxes that were
deducted for tax years 1996 and 1997?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue):
Revenue Canada has completed processing the majority of 1996
reassessments for those recipients of U.S. social security
benefits who benefit from the treaty change. The department is
already working with the Internal Revenue Service to obtain
details of the taxes withheld on 1997 social security benefits
and will begin processing the 1997 refunds for eligible
recipients as soon as this information is available.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I suggest the
remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This is again an opportunity I am putting to the parliamentary
secretary to advise the House when we might expect an answer on
Question No. 21. On numerous occasions I have stood and asked
when, not if, but when we might expect an answer. It is a real
brow wrinkler when one considers the line of questioning that is
put forward in the House that pertains to this exact question
that was tabled.
I again ask the parliamentary secretary when we might expect an
answer on this question.
1510
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I understand
the member's concern. I believe we are well over 60% in
responses. I will look into the situation on Question No. 21, as
I did last week.
The 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 the motions in Group No. 1.
The Speaker: Before question period the member for Fraser
Valley had the floor.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to talk briefly about Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA
identification. I started my comments just before question
period.
For those who are watching this debate it would be useful for
them to consider this bill as the new fingerprinting act of the
1990s. It is what used to be done with fingerprints back when
that was the leading edge technology for identifying people who
had been at the scene of a crime. Once someone was convicted of a
crime, their fingerprints were entered into the record never to
be taken away. People who were repeat offenders and so on could
therefore be found. Bill C-3 in essence should mirror the efforts
that were made during what I imagine were similar debates on what
to do with fingerprint evidence.
It can generally be understood why we support the bill. It
allows the police to take a DNA sample. That DNA sample could be
very useful in the prosecution of a crime and the conviction of a
criminal. The sample would be in the criminal's permanent
records in case that person ever committed another crime. For all
those reasons it is easy to support the bill.
It is unfortunate as I said before question period that the bill
does not treat evidence the same way as it treats the taking of
fingerprints. I will explain that.
When the police charge someone with a serious crime, under the
current rules they are taken to the police station and upon
charges being laid their fingerprints are taken. Those
fingerprints may or may not be kept on the permanent file,
depending on whether or not the person is convicted. In other
words, the fingerprints are taken. If the person is convicted,
the fingerprints become part of the person's permanent record.
The fingerprints go along with the person's photo and other
information about that individual into the person's permanent
record.
Bill C-3 is a half-step toward that. Instead of allowing the
police to collect the evidence at the time of the charge being
laid, it does not permit samples to be taken other than from
designated dangerous offenders, upon the charge being laid.
Unfortunately that means that evidence which should form part of
the evidence on that person's file is not necessarily available
to the police at all stages.
Within this first grouping it is important to note that there
are some amendments to support and some not to support.
On Motion No. 1 with respect to privacy we understand the need
to keep that DNA evidence, just like fingerprints, if we can
think of it that way, and it is important that that evidence not
get out into the general public. It would not be proper to take
a DNA sample and, because of either sloppy record keeping or a
poor effort on behalf of the police or the court, to allow those
records to get out into the general population. DNA evidence is
evidence used by the police in their work and it should stay that
way.
The first motion is unnecessary because the bill already fully
recognizes the potential of that DNA evidence to get out into the
general public. If it is improperly used, it is a violation of
the person's rights or their privacy.
1515
Already in the bill there is a provision that carries a term of
up to two years for someone charged who wilfully or knowingly
gives DNA evidence improperly.
In other words, if somebody sells DNA, gives it away, does
something with it that is improper, this is a criminal offence
just like it is to give away evidence that is on police files
right now. Those files are secure for obvious reasons, and so
they should be.
Motion No. 1 about respect of privacy is unnecessary in our
opinion. There are already provisions in the bill that are
sound. The provisions are adequate and they respect the privacy
necessary with the taking of DNA samples.
Motion No. 2 is easy to support. This amendment says that we do
not want all private agencies and labs taking samples and so on.
We want to have some quality control on DNA. A single strand of
hair, anything, could contaminate or change the DNA sampling
process.
It is important that the most rigid standards be upheld so there
is no contamination, no possibility of a file being mishandled or
misinterpreted. In other words, it should be done with the
highest of standards because they may literally be taking
someone's life in their hands. That person may be committed to a
lifetime of imprisonment if the matter is not handled properly.
We would like to see a government agency handle that. It is not
that government agencies have a perfect record, as we have seen
from the hepatitis C issue we have been debating in the House of
Commons lately. What can be done with a government agency is put
restrictions, guidelines and quality control on it that will
ensure, to the best extent possible, that someone will not have
their DNA sample somehow mishandled.
One agency does it. There is one set of rules. It is a not for
profit agency and that is the best way to ensure that standards
are upheld. It is easy to support Motion No. 2 and we will be
doing that when the vote comes later.
Motion No. 3 talks about safeguards against wrong persons
accessing. Again it is the same argument I used on Motion No. 1.
There are safeguards against persons accessing that DNA
databank. We want to ensure that only properly qualified people
who have the authority to work with those samples have access to
them.
Again we believe there are adequate safeguards in place and do
not believe this third motion to create a new level of safeguards
is necessary.
The final amendment within this grouping, Motion No. 5, talks
about a three year review of this process. At first blush it
might seem like a good idea. It may even be necessary.
The government I believe will be revisiting this bill if it
passes it as is. If it does not pass the amendments we have put
forward, I believe it will be back for review. It will not be
because there is a mandatory three year review. It will be back
for review because it just will not work properly.
The Canadian Police Association has already said that it is not
happy with the way this bill is drafted. It wants to see some
changes in it. It wants to give the police the tools necessary
to do their job.
Hopefully, if some of these amendments pass, I do not believe
this amendment will be necessary. The three year review will not
be necessary. It will be a make work project for a very busy
justice committee but I do not believe it is necessary if the
amendments go through.
We will be interested to see what the government says during the
course of this debate to see if any of these amendments are going
to see the light of day. If they are not, we may need a review.
I think it will happen whether we ask for it or demand it in
legislation or whether it just happens naturally.
The review unfortunately will happen, mark my words, if the
government does not pass the amendments the Reform Party and
others have put forward today.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to clarify for the people at home that I am generally
in favour of setting up a DNA databank. I think it makes a lot
of sense.
When fingerprints were first brought in, they helped solve a lot
of crimes that previously were unsolvable. Having our DNA
databank will give us the technological tools to solve crimes
that right now we do not have the capability for.
As a result it is generally a good idea. But the problem with
Bill C-3 as it stands is that it does not give the government as
many opportunities as it would otherwise have with some of the
Reform amendments and others across the way to go ahead and break
these crimes, get these criminals convicted and incarcerate them.
1520
In the first grouping of amendments, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5,
the first amendment by an hon. member from the Bloc is with
regard to the respect of privacy. Unfortunately I am not going
to be able to support my Bloc colleague on this because it
basically precludes us from having access to information that we
would otherwise possibly need.
So even though it is something done with respect to privacy I
would have a tough time in some of these circumstances to look a
victim of rape in the eye and because of a lack of due process or
some problem that would be laid out in this amendment be able to
say that because of a technicality the offender walked free.
Therefore I am not going to be able to support the Bloc member on
Motion No. 1.
Motion No. 2, proposed by an NDP colleague, precludes private
agencies and labs from taking samples and creates public
standards and better accuracy of testing quality. I believe
these types of DNA materials or DNA information should be kept by
the government. I would have some problems with it being doled
out to somebody or any group willy-nilly. As a result I support
this NDP motion.
The only concern I have with this motion is that I hope, if
indeed private laboratories become more advanced than the public
ones we have for DNA identification and information gathering,
that this will not preclude the use of some of the advanced
techniques that private labs may have access to above and beyond
the public ones, if that happens. I think it would be a real
travesty if we were to prevent justice from having access to
advanced techniques that may be available in the private sector
that would not possibly be available at that time in the public
sector. On that level that is the only caution I give to NDP
Motion No. 2.
Motion No. 3 is to safeguard against wrong persons accessing the
DNA databank. This again speaks to the first motion. Once again
it is from my hon. colleague from the Bloc. We have to make sure
there is privacy and this information is not doled out to
anybody. It is something used almost exclusively for this
criminal work and nobody else has access to it unless they are
actually doing work with regard to the investigation of a crime.
Motion No. 5 is basically viewed as a make work amendment in
that it asks for a three year review. If we are able to get some
of these amendments on the national databank passed then we are
not going to have to worry about as many reviews of the
legislation in the process if we set it up right in the first
place.
Speaking to the generalities of these four motions in the first
group motions and how they impact the bill as a whole, we are
looking to set up a registration system so that we can track
those offenders, those violent criminals, and prosecute and
convict them where possible. The government has no problem going
ahead and registering people, law-abiding citizens, with Bill
C-68. On firearms certainly there should not be a problem with
being able to give the necessary tools even above and beyond what
we have here in Bill C-3, to enhance the ability of police
officers to go ahead and convict.
Some of these suggestions were provided to us by the Canadian
Police Association. It is not just the Reform Party standing
here in the House today asking for increased powers and expanding
jurisdiction of some of these things so that the national DNA
databank can be more effective.
1525
The police and their representative, the Canadian Police
Association, are asking for some of these things.
These are reasons why some of these amendments need to be
included and why the DNA databank needs to be as effective as
possible. We would see a reduced cost of enforcement of the law
and a greater ability to convict. There would be an increased
effectiveness of the enforcement of the law. We believe in
public safety. We believe people deserve a sense of security.
We should not be instilling a false sense of security. We should
make this as effective as we can.
We do not believe in depriving the police, the RCMP or the
respective municipal police forces, the tools necessary to to
conduct their work in criminal investigations and violations of
the Criminal Code.
This will be bar none the most effective thing that has been
changed with regard to the justice system in the collection of
evidence since the introduction of finger prints. Finger prints
with their oils would probably leave some skin samples to enact
some DNA information gathering. It has expanded beyond the oils
that are left on one's fingers and skin samples to hair and in
the case of sexual crimes semen samples and blood samples. All
these things are now available to us to test and determine. No
one else in the world will have the same DNA of a criminal left
at the scene of the crime.
The gist of this is good but half measures are not good enough.
That is why we have to make changes to this bill to make sure
that it is better than what it is. Because of DNA people who are
innocent and who have been charged with a crime will not be
convicted wrongly. It is the innocent who will triumph in this.
They will be vindicated by DNA information gathering. If they
were not at the scene of the crime, it will be that much more
easily ascertained.
I leave this caution with the government. We ask some of the
fundamental questions of cost, who wants it and other questions
I have asked before in this Chamber. The cost of our not
making these amendments to make this as effective as possible and
to expand the range of the collection of DNA evidence will
mean some people will walk free when they are criminals and
should not be walking free.
Who wants it? Obviously not only the police officers who
enforce the law and the people who want to see justice but also
the victims who would see some of their perpetrators walk free.
For the victims, for the Canadian Police Association, the police
officers, for the law-abiding citizens who want to see justice
served and a more effective justice system, we need to enact some
of these changes. We need to make sure that Bill C-3 does not go
through without serious questioning and without making it the
best that it could be.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am happy to talk about Bill C-3 and the Group No. 1
amendments related to DNA identification.
I like to think Canadians are concerned about health and safety
matters above all else. There are some intensely personal
questions that come to mind when we start thinking about health
and safety issues. It is useful to get off the topic of our
criminal justice system for a minute and talk about our medical
system to show a commonality in how people approach these
intensely personal decisions.
We have, for example, technology breakthroughs in the medical
area occurring all the time. People buy into those technologies
very readily. It is very simple to equate the medical
breakthrough, the medical technology with personal health
consequences.
1530
We have had lots of examples today. This morning I was reading
an article concerning mice and cancer and the two antidotes that
they can put together to basically cut off the blood supply and
shrink tumours to nothing. This research could possibly lead to
a real breakthrough for humans. We will have no difficulty
convincing the public at large, the funding groups, the health
care deliverers or anyone else that this is all well and good,
the way it should be and that it would have major consequences in
a positive way for society at large.
We embrace new technology and people support it. We understand
the benefits and want the benefits of technology.
We have a lot of advances in technology on the crime prevention
front as well so why would we think a lot differently in this
regard? I have some major concerns with this legislation because
we and the government know the public wants DNA identification
and a DNA databank. It wants all those things. We now know we
have the technology as well.
The government has created Bill C-3, which we are debating now,
and is selling it as if this will give the public what it wants.
I am sorry, but when one reads the bill it is not giving the
public what it wants. It is actually completely tying the hands
of our law enforcement people to utilize this new tool in a way
that is going to benefit society.
The only rationale I can come up with as to why the
government would do that is that it shows a consistent pattern.
We have seen that consistent pattern displayed in other aspects
of criminal justice legislation brought before this
House. It was demonstrated in question period today. The
justice bureaucracy knows that the fallout from implementing the
firearms registry, the way it is currently legislated, will
actually lead to increased smuggling and to an increased premium
for black market firearms. We have known this on an ad hoc basis
for years.
We knew that because we had reports in the media at the time
that bill was introduced thanking the justice minister from
people involved in those various illicit activities because they
were going to improve profit margins. This is not rocket
science, but unfortunately it is a case where the government is
legislating on a politically correct basis rather than on what
will achieve positive results for society.
We have seen the same thing from this government in terms of
conditional sentencing. That legislation went through in the
last parliament. This is the legislation that allows judges to
not impose prison sentences for various reasons. That can be an
enlightened thing to do but it is not an enlightened thing to do
when we are talking about violent or sexual offenders.
Reform amendments in the last parliament tried to ensure the
legislation would apply only to violent and sexual offenders. We
were told by the government that it need not be in the
legislation because that is the way it would be applied. We are
sorry, but that is not the way it has been applied.
We have walking, talking, living examples of violent sexual
offenders who have been given essentially no sentences,
conditional sentences. These people are hazardous and risks to
society. Many of them have reoffended because they have not been
in prison.
1535
Now we have DNA legislation that only scratches the surface of
what is possible. We know national standards are needed with
this legislation. Quality control guidelines and restrictions
are needed.
Other technologies will be coming to the crime prevention front.
If we are to tie the hands of our enforcement people on this
technology, what are we doing? Are we denying ourselves the
benefits of other new technologies? Another new technology has
already proven itself once. It has many of the same benefits of
DNA technology but it is all based on odour. Up to a month after
it can be determined whether an individual has been in a room in
that timeframe.
I have another example of the enlightened use of technology,
which I believe happened in England. A perpetrator said in court
that he had never been somewhere. It turned out that there was
some plant material in his clothing. They compared a sample from
his clothing with trees from all over that nation. They
determined that the DNA from the plant material could only come
from the place where the crime was committed. That is a nice
non-intrusive use of DNA.
Why would we not enact the very best legislation we can when we
have an obvious public taste for it instead of having the
appearance of legislation? I do not know how to respond to that.
We used to be able to go to someone with a basic toolbox when we
needed to have our cars fixed. Now we have to go to someone with
computer technology, with diagnostic equipment and so on. As
society moves, our legislation has to move. As this bill is
constituted, it does not cut it.
Mr. John Reynolds: Madam Speaker, I do not think we have
quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have quorum.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I note that some of my colleagues opposite regard sitting in the
House of Commons to debate as a waste of time. I hope the record
reflects that. It is an interesting remark on how they regard
democracy and its functioning, a fine example of which we saw the
other night during the vote on hepatitis C.
1540
I am rising today to speak to Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA
identification. We are dealing with the Group No. 1 amendments
to this bill.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member knows it is not permitted to refer to the
presence or absence of members in the House of Commons.
But having done so I think it is only fair to point out that his
party is far outnumbered.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, I gather that is not
taken as a point of order. I did not make any remark about
members opposite but since the point has been raised I will say
that normally one finds more members in the opposition benches
than on the government benches.
I was remarking on the heckle of a member opposite who said what
a waste of time to have a quorum call. They believe it is a
waste of time participating here in the highest chamber of
democratic deliberation in the country.
That reflects the sterling commitment to democracy and
conscientious representation we saw from members opposite on the
hepatitis C vote. It is shameful.
It is interesting that members opposite are not willing to sit
here and discuss this important bill to provide amendments to
Bill C-3 on DNA identification.
The Reform Party supports the principle of the bill which is to
provide access to our police forces and agencies to use the new
biological technology available to them to develop evidence for
the prosecution of criminals accused of serious crimes.
This kind of DNA identification is something the Reform Party
has been pressing for over several years. It is well known one
of the raisons d'être of our party is to promote a justice system
where the rights of victims are placed in greater balance contra
the rights of criminals.
In all these bills dealing with the Criminal Code and
evidentiary matters, sentencing matters, we must as members of
this place strike a balance, an equilibrium between the civil
liberties of citizens to not be convicted except in accordance
with due process of law and in accordance with principles of
fundamental justice on the one hand and on the other hand to
ensure that we have a justice system that functions and
throws away the bad guys.
I think all too often we end up with the wrong balance. All too
often we become too concerned about the civil liberties of the
Karla Homolkas of the world and not sufficiently concerned with
empowering our peace officers and our police to enforce the
criminal law.
It is a good thing from our perspective that the government
finally has come forward with some step in the right direction of
DNA identification in Bill C-3 but we do find the bill falls
short on a number of points.
Motion No. 1 from a member of the Bloc Quebecois is with regard
to respect for privacy rights. This proposed amendment goes on
through six clauses giving detail of safeguards that should be in
the legislation with respect to privacy. Quite frankly, this
motion is redundant in so far as the bill already contains
adequate safeguards to protect privacy of people vis-à-vis DNA
identification.
Section 487.07(1) on the respect of privacy and sections
487.08(1) and (2) on the use of bodily substances already
recognize the potential damage if DNA information is improperly
used. Also there are penalties included in section 487.08(4)
which provide penalties for the contravention of these areas
protecting privacy. As a result we find Motion No. 1 redundant
and therefore we will be opposing it.
1545
Motion No. 2 comes from an hon. member of the New Democratic
caucus. It precludes private agencies and labs from taking
samples. It essentially limits the collection of DNA samples to
the government through public agencies. This seems like a
sensible enough safeguard and we will therefore support Motion
No. 2.
Motion No. 3 in this group of amendments deals with safeguards
against the wrong kinds of people accessing information stored in
the DNA databank and proposes a registry of those who would be
accessing the information.
Again we find this redundant in so far as provisions are already
included in the act to protect against unauthorized personnel
from accessing the personal DNA information included in the
databank.
Finally, Motion No. 5 deals with a review for the privacy
commissioner to ensure that the act is not contravening the
privacy rights of Canadians. This seems like a completely
unnecessary amendment in so far as Bill C-3 already empowers the
privacy commissioner to review violations of people's privacy
rights as enumerated in the privacy laws. We will be opposing
Motion No. 5 for that reason.
We really need to ensure with respect to all the amendments in
Bill C-3 that our police agents, our peace officers, are able to
enforce the law without undue red tape, burdens and hurdles. We
want to ensure that the civil liberties of Canadians and their
rights to privacy are protected, but not at the expense of
hamstringing the people who have the difficult job of
investigating serious crimes and who need the evidence to convict
and effectively prosecute the worst criminals in society.
I look forward to speaking to future amendments on Bill C-3 as
we proceed through the debate.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
gives me a great deal of pleasure to enter the debate on Motions
Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in group one.
I would like to focus my remarks on three areas: first, DNA as
a technology; second, the privacy issue which is addressed by
these amendments; and, third, getting to the point which the
Deputy Prime Minister made such a point of in question period
today of doing what is right.
Referring to DNA as a new technology, we now have at the
disposal of our law enforcement agencies a technology that allows
them to pinpoint more accurately the identity of a perpetrator of
a particular crime. Not only is it a very useful tool. It is a
reliable tool and it is a valid tool. Those are the two
absolutely essential criteria that need to be applied to any
scientific test.
If two different scientists looking at the same sample come up
with the same conclusion then we have some reason to believe the
tests are reliable and are in fact are honestly depicting on a
continuing basis, no matter who does the test, what the result
will be. It is also valid in the sense that it is an accurate
depiction of who gave a particular sample and to whom it belongs.
This is a very useful and necessary tool to make sure that
mistakes are not made.
Why is this tool so important when it comes to crime detection
and to identification of perpetrators of crime? The number one
point is obviously to protect society. We want nothing more in
our society than to be secure, to have happy families and to be
safe on our streets. We want to predict with reliability that we
will be able to go down to the corner store to pick up our
groceries and our lives will be safe, and that our children will
be able to go to their school buses or walk to school without the
need bodyguards and things of that sort. That is what it is for.
It is also there to protect the suspect.
All kinds of cases in this regard come to mind. Most
directly is the Milgaard case. He was incarcerated
after being accused of having committed a crime
until the DNA samples revealed unequivocally that he was
not the person who had committed the crime but that someone else had
committed it.
For many years he suffered incarceration because he was
improperly identified. We have here a very useful tool which
should be available to law enforcement agencies.
1550
A couple of the motions deal with privacy. Of course we are
concerned about privacy. There is nothing more significant than
privacy of the individual. In fact we have appointed in the
country a privacy commissioner whose job it is to make sure that
there is not an unusual, unnecessary or unconstitutional
intrusion into the privacy of individuals.
Last weekend we had in this city a discussion on electronic
commerce. The Information Technology Association of Canada came
together with major business interests. What did they talk
about? They talked about privacy. They talked about the
security of information. They talked about the security of
transferring funds from one institution to another or from one
account to another.
What was the news report on Saturday in the Globe and
Mail? It reported that the CIBC had some chip problems. What
was the problem? Several individuals had deposited money and it
was not credited to their account via the automatic bank machine.
The bank assures us and assures those individuals that they have
a record and will be credited with those moneys. However it
points out that the need for privacy is absolutely imperative and
must be reliable and valid. It is essential that this be
provided for in the act and it is provided for in the act.
It goes beyond that. We need to be sure that communication is
maintained in a secure manner so that it goes only to those
people who need to know, who have to know and for whose
protection that information exists. We need to recognize that
not only is it protected from eyes that should not see it but
also protected from use by people who have no right or need to
use that information. Privacy needs to be provided for and it is
being provided for. The amendments that are being proposed are
redundant in that sense and I commend the government for having
done that.
I want to move to the third area of doing what is right. We
need to do what is right. In this connection I refer to the kind
of statement that has been made with regard to hepatitis C
victims. The issue here is doing what is right. In the hep C
case it is making sure the people who are suffering are properly
looked after. That is one issue.
When it comes to the area of crime with which the bill deals we
have three issues to consider. One is the careful identification
and punishment of those who committed the crime. The second is
to identify in order to protect future victims from further
perpetration of the same individual against them. The third is
the protection of society at large.
In a sense when somebody commits a murder, a robbery or a
violent act of any kind indirectly we are all victims because we
do not know where the criminal will hit next. It is important to
protect the rest of us against that kind of perpetration.
What is the right thing to do? The right thing to do is to use
the absolute best technology and tools available for the
identification of those who have committed crimes so that future
victims can be protected and that the victim who is currently the
object of a crime may say the person who did it has been properly
identified and punished accordingly.
It goes beyond that as well. It means to do what is morally
right. The moral thing to do is to provide the assurance for all
of society that the number one concern of the government is to
have a justice system that is fair and that has laws that are
right. The laws must come out on the side of what is right and
must punish that which is wrong. That generates confidence on
the part of the individuals that they can rely on the law. More
important and beyond that is the enforcement of the law.
1555
We spent a lot of money hiring good, qualified and trained
police officers and other law enforcement officers. We want to
be sure that these people not only understand the law but
recognize the significance of the law and are provided with all
tools necessary to carry out the requirements of enforcing the
law.
If we deny them the proper tools we cannot expect them to ensure
our justice system meets the objectives for which it has been set
out. We as the official opposition submit that the DNA test is
one of those. The government will argue that is exactly what the
bill is about. It provides exactly that but it is just the
beginning. The government could have done so much better. It
could have done a complete recognition of the DNA act and have
given it to the law enforcement officers in such a manner that
they could use it unequivocally, unassumably and without
restriction.
Yet the bill restricts. It does not help. It starts and goes
so far and suddenly the persons trying to enforce the law say
they cannot go any further and the very thing needed to bring
about a conviction is denied.
That is not the way a good legal system, a good justice system
should work. It is not the way a solid, good enforcement agency
should operate. It goes beyond this as well. It goes to the
point of recognizing that in order to do this job right we need
to ensure that evidence is intact, remains intact and is
accessible only to those who need to know, and those individuals
are the enforcement officers, the judges and the courts.
I submit that these three motions in Group No. 1 should be dealt
with as being proposed. We would oppose the first motion. The
second one we would support. The third and fifth ones we would
oppose.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
intrigued with the subject of identification of people.
Fortunately I do not have an identical twin; the world could not
take two of us. There is little doubt that I am a unique
individual. The DNA that would identify me is like an individual
serial number that is cranked out at the time of manufacture.
This identifies me as a unique person.
When my wife and I were first married we moved to a little town
in Alberta. Some of my acquaintances, having come from a large
city, said “How can you stand living in that town? Everyone
knows what you are doing”. I said “But I am not ashamed of
anything I am doing so let them know who I am”. The reason I
say that is that I think it underlies the principle we are
debating in this DNA bill.
Those people who have not done anything wrong want the
identification process to work correctly so they are not
incorrectly accused of and convicted of a crime. On the other
hand, those who have done something wrong are the ones who in our
little town would hide behind the shades at night and leave town
so no one would know what they were doing because they were not
doing things they were proud of or they could defend in the
community.
Consequently when we come to identification there really is a
dual question. It is that ancient question of a justice system.
There are two objectives in the justice system with respect to
identification of criminals. As my colleague has just stated,
the overriding principle of our system ought to be the protection
of law abiding citizens. Consequently what we want to do is to
correctly identify those in society who are not playing by the
rules. They are the ones engaging in criminal activity which
endangers the life, property and safety of ourselves and our
families.
1600
What we want to do in this dual objective of identification is
to correctly identify the person who has actually done the crime.
The second part of that which is really the mirror image of it,
is to make sure that we do not falsely identify a person. In
other words, we want to identify the person who is guilty and
name the person as guilty rather than innocent. On the other
hand, we want to be able to demonstrate that the person who is
innocent is falsely accused.
I taught mathematics and statistics for a number of years and we
had in sampling for example the type A and type B
errors. One error was where if one had a sample in a
manufacturing process and wanted to know whether or not a batch
should be approved, one error was that you let the thing slide
through when in fact it should be rejected. The other error was
that you rejected it when in fact it was a sample that was within
the specifications.
DNA is new technology which enables us to do this. It enables
us to identify individuals in a unique way. With respect to
criminal activity, it is unique because individuals who commit
certain crimes leave behind telltale traces of identification. It
is as if I had my social insurance number on little pieces of
paper and whenever I walked, every three feet one of those little
pieces of paper would drop and they could be traced to see
exactly where I went. Criminals leave particles of skin, hair
and other parts of their bodies in various ways. Sometimes they
are injured and they leave some blood. There are many different
ways in which to get a unique sample that carries the serial
number of the individual.
What we are talking about here is using that technology in the
most efficient way so that our law enforcement people can
identify correctly the people who are actually guilty and
exonerate those who are not guilty.
With respect to the motions that are before us today, I would
like to speak just in generalities. We need to make sure that
the police have the mechanisms to ensure that the DNA samples
which are collected and kept are done so in such a way that the
identification process can be implemented in the most efficient
way.
Consequently there is a great need to make sure that the police
are able to collect samples and maintain them in a secure
fashion. Certainly we also have to guard against the incorrect
use of DNA as an identifier because obviously those who become
aware that this is the identification that is used will soon
invent ways of transplanting DNA evidence in order to implicate
people who are innocent. All of those processes have to be very
carefully safeguarded.
It seems that what we are talking about here is protecting the
innocent and making sure that the guilty ones are the ones who
are hauled on the carpet.
As I was saying in my analogy with respect to being ashamed of
what one is doing, I really think that we err when we make rules
favouring even the accused. I have often said that if I am
accused of a crime I want the truth out if I am innocent, I
really do. If there is a databank somewhere which contains the
DNA identification codes of a whole bunch of different
individuals and I am innocent of that for which I have been
accused, I would appreciate there being a databank available so
that the true culprit could be found, arrested and found to be
guilty.
1605
Frankly, I think that only those who are afraid of being caught
would like to see the samples destroyed in a timely fashion. They
would want to make sure that the track of identification is wiped
out as quickly as possible in order to reduce the probability
that they would be identified, accused and convicted of the
crime.
When it comes right down to it, on behalf of law-abiding
citizens of the country we want to strengthen this bill. We want
to make it so strong that it actually works and works efficiently
and favourably to its purpose. Those who say that we cannot do
this and that they do not want to do it, to a degree I do not
really care what they say. They may have their objections but
what takes precedence here?
We talk so much about the rights of privacy, the rights of this
and the rights of that. I sincerely ask at what stage do we say
that the rights of law-abiding citizens and the rights and the
protection of those citizens takes precedence over somebody
having a DNA sample that maybe they should not have? That becomes
secondary.
Of course I would be very concerned if somebody had my
fingerprint, my DNA signature and was able to use it incorrectly
against me. I want safeguards on that, there is no doubt about
it. At the same time, let us not hamper our police forces and
our law enforcement agencies in their ability to do their work.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to agreement
made earlier today, all motions in Group No. 1 are deemed put,
recorded divisions deemed requested and deemed deferred.
The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group
No. 2.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 9, be amended
“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) also apply to information
communicated under this Act that is in the possession of any
Canadian laboratory or federal or provincial law enforcement
agency.”
That Bill C-3, in Clause 10, be amended
by adding after line 34 on page 8 the
following:
“(7.1) The Commission shall destroy the stored bodily substances of a
person without delay after a forensic
D.N.A. analysis of these substances is first performed under this section.”
That Bill C-3, in Clause 22, be amended
by adding after line 29 on page 24
the following:
“(2) Paragraph 487.09(1)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to again have the
opportunity to speak and to try to refocus the debate on the
bill before us today, which is Bill C-3 and the related
amendments. It is a change from talking in vague generalities.
The first amendment proposed is Motion No. 4, which talks about
the destruction of information in the convicted offenders index.
As it now stands, subsection 9.(1) of the bill reads as follows:
9. (1) Subject to subsection (2) and the Criminal Records Act,
information in the convicted offenders index shall be kept
indefinitely.
(2) Access to the following information in the convicted
offenders index shall be permanently removed without delay—
It talks about permanent removal, even in cases where a
conviction has been quashed, or absolute discharge given, or in
the case of young offenders, but this is getting a bit more
technical.
When we raised this in committee and asked why the file was not
simply destroyed, instead of being permanently removed, we were
told that this is complicated with computers, that they did not
really know, that these were files, that it was technical, and
so on.
I was astonished, as were other witnesses. If we have the
technological know-how and scientific knowledge to analyse DNA,
which is such a tiny thing, and are able to penetrate to the
very centre of human cells to identify people, I cannot believe
that we are unable to destroy computer files.
It is with precisely this in mind that the Bloc Quebecois has
introduced Motion No. 4. Instead of permanently removing the
file and allowing it to float around somewhere in a computer
bank, and not really knowing where it might end up later, let us
destroy it and put an end to the problem. Let us remove the
temptation to put this computerized information to an improper
use later on. That was the purpose of Motion No. 4.
1610
We did not come up with this on our own. A number of witnesses
who appeared before the committee said “Hold on, now, DNA
technology is so powerful and potentially so powerful that
something must be done to limit temptation as much as possible”.
That is Motion No. 4.
Motion No. 6 is along the same lines:
“7.(1) The Commission shall destroy the stored bodily substances
of a person without delay after a forensic DNA analysis of these
substances is first performed under this section”.
If genetic testing is done, whether on saliva, blood or hair,
the desired information has to have been obtained.
Why then keep the hair, saliva or blood? We already have the
picture and the information required.
Once again, the purpose of this is to take away possible
temptation—because that is always present—so that our bodily
substances cannot be misused. Let us not forget that, when a
sample is taken for analytical purposes, it is possible to have
a number of pieces of information not only about the person from
whom the sample came, but also about that person's family, his
or her parents, children, brothers and sisters. The closer the
other individual is biologically to the source of the sample,
the more information can be gathered about him or her.
Motion No. 6 is, therefore, in the same vein as Motion No. 4.
Let us take away the temptation, so as to avoid its use for
other dubious purposes.
We now move on to the motions in Group No. 2. Motion No. 13
concerns clause 22 on page 24. This clause talks about section
487.09 of the Criminal Code and reads as follows:
Subject to subsection (2), bodily substances that are taken from
a person in execution of a warrant under section 487.05 and the
results of forensic DNA analysis shall be destroyed, or in the
case of results in electronic form, access to those results
shall be permanently removed—
I come back to what I said with respect to Motion No. 4. If we
have the technology to analyse DNA and see right inside a
person, why make a point of not destroying the computer file?
It can be done, instead of just eliminating the link between a
given individual and his data, which would float around
somewhere in the bank. Let us destroy the information in the
databank.
Let us remove the temptation.
Let us ensure that the right to privacy is sacred and that it
will be respected not just today, but in future as well. It
must not be forgotten that the bill before us today will be good
for five, 10, 15 or 20 years, and is only a precedent that will
undoubtedly change as technology advances, and goodness knows it
is advancing quickly.
Let us therefore remove the temptation and ensure that the
privacy of all Canadians will be respected.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Hepatitis C.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I rise for a number of reasons.
First I rise in support of the Group No. 2 motions to amend Bill
C-3, an act to establish a DNA databank. In speaking to those
motions some things have to be clarified for those who will be
listening to and reading this debate. I refer to some of the
comments made earlier in the House.
There is a question everyone is interested in when we deal with
this subject. It was raised at the committee on numerous
occasions. My hon. colleague from Crowfoot and I had discussions
about this matter. The question is what is the difference
between the DNA samples and fingerprinting? We have heard
various scenarios around that. It was the subject of reasoned
debate and questions to many of the witnesses who came before the
justice committee during the many weeks we took to examine this
piece of legislation.
1615
I have heard comments in the House today that there is no real
difference, that this is the new fingerprinting technology as we
move into the next millennium. But there is a clear difference
and it has to be enunciated and understood. Although I have
still not received the written decisions of the supreme court
justices that were referred to earlier on a point of order, it is
my understanding that they concur with my interpretation of the
difference between fingerprinting and DNA analysis.
To put this into the simplest terms, I questioned different
members of the justice department. Let me explain it this way.
The taking of a DNA sample is a taking of the self. It is a
taking of a piece of the person, whereas a fingerprint is an
image of the person.
Perhaps even a simpler way to put it would be to say that if one
thinks a crime was committed at 1313 Mockingbird Lane, one might
take a photograph of that home. That is like a fingerprint. But
to give the authorities the right to walk into the home and take
the furniture is a completely different thing.
It is a misnomer to say, as we move with this new technology
into the next millennium, that it is the same as fingerprinting.
It is not. It is an intrusion into the very sense of the person,
into the very being of an individual. When my colleague, the
hon. member for Charlesbourg, talks about the necessity of making
sure that we have safeguards, it is to protect the individual
self from any intrusion by the state, by the government into a
person's most fundamental being.
I think that point needed to be clarified. It is an interesting
debate. It is an interesting question. As we enact this
legislation and as it takes shape over the next three or four
years before it comes back to this House for review, it will be
interesting to see exactly how both the authorities and the
courts deal with that question.
If I can move to the issue before the House, that is, the
questions put by my hon. friend from the Bloc, I support them in
part. I submitted myself a very similar amendment which I
believe the government looked at carefully.
It was my contention that the DNA ought to be destroyed
absolutely. My colleague has indicated in his amendment that the
index should be destroyed without delay.
The interesting thing is that there was considerable concern
among the committee members when we were told that the DNA index
of an innocent person could not be destroyed absolutely. That
was the question put to them. “Why do we not say that the index
will be destroyed if the person is innocent?” There was a pause
and then we were told “On the computer screen we cannot destroy,
absolutely, that index. Fragments of it will remain, but they
can't be used for anything. It is impossible for anybody to
detect what it means”.
We have heard over and over again in this debate that technology
is moving at a rapid pace, that we can barely keep up with the
advances in science. Who is to say that if an innocent person's
DNA is taken and analysed and put into the databank and traces of
it remain that the technology in 10 years will not be there to
take those traces and piece them together to determine what the
genetic code of an individual is, whether they have a
predisposition to certain illnesses, whether they ought to be
insured and whether they ought to be hired for particular jobs?
I think the motion put forward by the member for Charlesbourg
has some real merit. For that reason I would support Motions
Nos. 4, 6 and 13, all of which provide safeguards for the
destruction of the DNA profiles and bodily samples.
Why should we keep those samples? My colleague asks a good
question. We live in an age of media celebrity. One can only
imagine how much some hair samples from the scene of the accident
where the Princess of Wales was killed might fetch on the open
market if they were stored in some databank in some DNA
laboratory for the next 20 years.
Why not destroy them? Why not ensure that privacy is protected
and that people are safeguarded?
1620
There have been some comments that the bill does not go far
enough in terms of giving the police what they want. That goes
to the merit and the substance of the bill and I will speak to
that later on.
Today I should point out that we are only at this point debating
the amendments to the bill, so I do not want to use up any more
time than I have to. With regard to the amendments in Group No.
2, I can indicate my support.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise
to speak on the motions in Group No. 2. There are three of them
and they were all put forward by the Bloc member. I appreciate
his participation on the committee, as well as our hon. colleague
from the NDP. They were very concerned about this particular
area of the bill, that is, the privacy and the potential improper
use of DNA samplings.
The question is whether these amendments are needed in order to
maintain the safeguard over not only the DNA samples, but the
analysis, the profile.
Motion No. 6 has to do with clause 10, paragraph (7). The
beginning of it reads: “The Commissioner shall nevertheless
destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay”,
and then the bill gives the conditions: (a), (b), (c), (d) and
(e). The hon. member's motion would come in after (e) and read
this way: “The Commission shall destroy the stored bodily
substances of a person without delay after a forensic DNA
analysis of these substances is first performed under this
section”. It says exactly that at the beginning: “The
Commissioner shall nevertheless destroy the stored bodily
substances of a person without delay”. Why do we need the
second notation to say the very same thing?
Unless I have read this wrong, or unless there is a problem in
interpretation, I do not see the purpose of this particular
amendment. Maybe my hon. colleagues who support the motion and
who moved it can explain the rationale for this, but that
provision is already there under 10(7). I do not understand the
amendment and I am puzzled over it. It is the same thing with
the other two amendments. I think the provisions are already
there to deal with the privacy aspect.
My hon. colleague from the NDP who just spoke is concerned about
privacy. It is a legitimate concern, but when we examined it in
committee the expert witnesses provided very conclusive evidence
that the profile of a DNA sample is useless for any other
purpose. The sample itself can be used for other purposes, but
the profile cannot be. It is the profile that goes into the
index. If it is difficult or impossible to remove the profile
from the index, what is the concern? What harm can it do? They
cannot go further with the profile or do anything more than
simply compare it with another profile. If there is an
identification of that profile then, of course, they can identify
where that sample came from.
I struggle to understand why we are so concerned about a matter
when the evidence before the committee indicated a lack of
concern.
1625
There is the idea that the taking of a DNA sample is intrusive.
However, we now hear that DNA can be picked up off a glass that
someone drank from. It can be picked up from a Kleenex used for
blowing one's nose. It can be picked up from a swab or a
band-aid that might have been put on a finger. I have a band-aid
on my finger because I cut myself. If I discarded this, there is
my DNA sample.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of samples taken every
year. For every child who is born a blood sample is taken.
There are blood banks. Every time we go to the doctor to have a
medical and a blood sample is taken it is stored. We have not
seen any evidence of the abuse of the blood in blood banks now in
existence and growing at a fantastic rate, probably faster than
the DNA bank will ever grow because for every child who is born a
sample is taken and every time we go to the doctor and give a
blood sample it goes into a bank somewhere.
If this were a legitimate concern, that someone might have a
vested interest in getting hold of these samples to do some kind
of insurance check or whatever, I am sure there would be evidence
of that now, and there is none.
When we talk about the threat to our privacy with regard to this
bill and the powers it will give I think we should balance it
with reality. The reality is that there is a huge databank now
in the blood banks. We do not see abuse emerging from them that
my hon. colleagues have suggested could emerge from a databank
controlled by the RCMP.
There is no provision for the misuse of the samples which are
now in society's databanks. In this bill we have a two-year
penalty for any misuse of those samples, or the profiles. I
think that the privacy of the individual who is compelled to
submit a DNA sample is well guarded, certainly more so than when
I went for my last physical and gave a blood sample. I do not
know where that went and I have no reason to be concerned about
it at this particular time.
Therefore, if I am not concerned about my sample sitting in some
databank in some clinic, why should I be concerned if my sample
is sitting in the RCMP databank protected by law, protected by
the privacy commissioner who has the right to audit the operation
of that bank at any time? Why should I be concerned when these
other banks do not have those measures to protect my privacy? I
have no concern that those samples I have given over my lifetime
are being used improperly.
I think we are raising an issue, the justification for which
does not exist. Although I respect the concerns that have been
raised by my hon. colleagues and witnesses who appeared before
the committee, I say show me where there is justification for
this alarm or concern and certainly I will take it under
consideration. But I have not seen anything to indicate that.
The fact of the matter is that nothing can be drawn from a
profile other than the identification factor. From the sample,
yes, it can be done.
I will conclude by saying that I believe the samples should not
be destroyed inasmuch as the new technology may be able to
develop a better form of identification and a higher level of
identification.
If we can protect the samples or if we can protect the profiles
surely we can provide the same protection for the samples under
the act given the provisions within the act.
1630
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to partake in this
very important debate on this very timely and important piece of
legislation.
As has been indicated by previous speakers, the motion put
forward by the hon. member for Charlevoix is aimed specifically
at the protection of the privacy of individuals and particularly
the integrity of the test samples that may be taken by the police
in the course of their investigation.
As with the previous speaker, I find myself in a position where
I cannot in all conscience support this motion. It had been
clearly demonstrated at the justice committee, by a professional
chemist who spoke of the ability scientists would have to destroy
the actual DNA profile, that this is not a possibility. The DNA
profile itself is set up in such a way that it appears on a sheet
with 24 other profiles. If one profile were physically removed
all the other profiles would fall and it would cause a mix. I am
not articulating this as well as the professor, but as I
understand it is a physical impossibility to destroy the profile.
I am puzzled as to the insistence of the hon. member from the
Bloc that this motion be adopted.
Motion No. 4 of Group No. 2 is the first motion. For the
reasons I have indicated I feel it is not appropriate that we
would be quick to embrace this motion.
Motion No. 6 was moved by the hon. member from the Bloc. It
speaks of the necessity of the commissioner to order without
delay the destruction of stored bodily substances of a person
after the forensic DNA analysis of those substances has been
performed. As indicated by previous speakers, I suggest this is
not a necessity and this proposed amendment in its present form
would contradict the previous amendment. That is to say that
section 7.1 as amended would contradict section 7 of the same
clause.
The member for Charlevoix should have indicated in the amendment
that there should be a deletion of section 7 if the amendment
were adopted. In its present form section 7 is clear and
sufficient. It would defeat the purpose if we were to do away
with all the other safeguards. The safeguards are crucial to the
protection of individual rights. The safeguards put specific
onus on the commissioner to take into consideration certain
factors as to when and where the substances and the DNA profile
should be used.
It is not a section that we should tamper with at this time. I
would not be supportive of this amendment for the reasons stated.
Motion No. 13 which appears in this grouping talks of the need
to amend section 487.09 of the Criminal Code which speaks of the
use of DNA sampling in trials or court cases where there has been
an individual who has been found not criminally responsible.
When a person is finally acquitted of a designated offence or any
other offence with respect to the same transaction that
individual would not be subject to any further review or that the
DNA would never be sampled or used again.
This motion calls for the destruction of bodily substances and
the removal of the DNA profile of a person found not guilty by
reason of a mental disorder.
1635
We believe it is important to continue to store and to keep this
information and profile of an individual as the current law does
presently provide. To destroy that information on the basis of
the finding of the court would destroy the ability of the police,
with the use of this sample, to establish that the individual had
committed the actus reus. Whether they had formed the requisite
mens rea, whether they had intended to do this act, would be a
finding for the court. At least they would be able to put some
finality on the investigation. They would be able to say we have
the DNA profile, we have the individual who committed the act.
That is an important feature that this amendment would prevent
the law from doing.
Section 672 of the Criminal Code, which deals with mental
orders, allows the courts to make specific findings with respect
to a person's culpability and whether they have formed the intent
to do so. There are provisions aimed at individuals who have
been deemed to be not criminally responsible. This is not the
time or the place for us to interfere with that, which is what
this motion calls for. It is tampering with the safeguards that
presently exist. It is not something that we should be getting
into at this point.
The important amendments put forward are done so with the best
of intentions. They are done so with a very clear purpose by the
hon. member for Charlevoix, to address privacy concerns. Once
again I am afraid that what we are in danger of doing should we
accept these amendments is making this legislation unnecessarily
cumbersome and more complicated than it is in its present form.
What we are hoping to do by the enactment of this important and
historic piece of legislation is give police officers the
necessary tools to conduct criminal investigations, particularly
into very violent offences. This will help police officers to
solve a great number of outstanding murders. This legislation
will give those police officers a tool to get on with the very
important task of solving these crimes not only for the purposes
of holding people accountable for their atrocious acts but to
give victims some closure. It will give the families of those
who have been affected an opportunity to come to grips with what
has happened. There are 600 cases in the province of British
Columbia alone.
I hope the process we are embarking on today by going through
this piece of legislation and looking at ways to improve it and
to beef up what the intent of this legislation will help police
officers to perform the important tasks they are charged with.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Motions Nos. 4, 6
and 13 deal either with the destruction of DNA samples or
information relative to the DNA databank.
[Translation]
Motion No. 4 introduced by the member for Charlesbourg is more
or less the same motion introduced, albeit in another form
perhaps, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
rejected it on technical grounds, as several members have
already pointed out.
The motion poses problems, particularly from a technical point
of view because of the limits of the technology that was and
will be used, because data concerning a particular offender
cannot be destroyed. We have already explained the technical
reason for this.
The link between identifying information and the actual profile
is severed.
It would be like removing all the telephone numbers from a
telephone book, leaving a random list of telephone numbers and
people's names, with nothing to connect them. The link would be
severed like that.
1640
The second part of the same motion deals with the communication
of DNA information. Once again, it is felt to be unnecessary,
because clause 6 of the bill stipulates that the RCMP
commissioner may communicate information in the databank only to
a Canadian law enforcement agency or laboratory that the
commissioner considers appropriate. This is already covered in
the bill.
Motion No. 6 deals primarily with the distribution of DNA
samples.
[English]
Again we have a problem. The whole basis of DNA legislation is
to establish a databank. A databank cannot be established if we
do not have the samples, if we destroy the samples immediately
upon taking the profile and the analysis at this stage. Our
committee heard numerous testimonies that the technology and the
analysis advance on almost a daily if not weekly basis.
As a result, if we were to destroy the samples right after the
establishment of this one databank we would be defeating the
purpose of the legislation which is to establish a DNA databank
that will be useful not just now but in the future.
As a consequence we would like to keep the samples. It is
important to keep the samples because as technology evolves, we
would have requirements at times to retest the samples. The
administrative costs associated with resampling everybody would
be enormous. DNA samples should be kept.
Regarding Motion No. 13, the government supports this amendment.
I am of the opinion, having spoken to some of the other members,
that the Reform Party and the Conservative Party do not support
this amendment.
We do because Motion No. 13 would amend paragraph 47.09(1)(b) of
the Criminal Code to ensure consistency with equivalent
provisions as outlined in the bill currently.
Bill C-3 proposes the destruction of bodily substances of
acquitted persons. Unfortunately it does not make any
distinction regarding the Criminal Code between substances
obtained for acquitted mentally disordered and non-mentally
disordered offenders.
This motion will therefore ensure that bodily substances taken
from any acquitted person are destroyed. That is why we are
calling on members to support this motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on the second group of motions
to make a few remarks.
I think the hon. member from the Bloc had the best intentions in
mind when he proposed these amendments. They do not make the
picture clearer as far as what we are trying to do with this
bill.
I think the overriding principle of this bill should be that we
protect the law-abiding citizen, that we do everything possible
to give that protection to people who are affected by criminal
acts.
I want to go back to about March 1995 when my son was brutally
attacked in Winnipeg. He was beaten beyond recognition but hung
on to life by a thin thread for a number of days.
When I phoned the police in Winnipeg to see what was being done
to apprehend this person or persons who had attacked my son and a
friend so brutally, they were rather at a loss. They had had a
similar incident at the same place in October and a person was
killed.
They felt this was another incident where a gang had demanded
some kind of violent act from people who wanted to be initiated
and that killing a person was part of the initiation to get into
that gang. I would have done anything to catch that person.
1645
Had there been a databank available for the police to use in
October, they could have at least marked the person even if they
could not have apprehended the person. They could have then
cross referenced that sample with the sample of the persons who
attacked my son. I would have been very supportive of that.
I agree with the parliamentary secretary that we cannot try to
take a piece out of a map. A map is very important to me when I
travel across the country. If a destination on the map has been
erased or there is a detour I did not know about, I would get
lost and the map would not be of much value to me. That is the
way I look at this databank. If we are going to form the bank,
put some of the funding principles of the bank into the system
and then erase the data samples of those who have been wrongly
accused, we will run into a lot of problems.
Often the intent of the bills we pass in this House is very good
but the bills do not go far enough. That is similar to when
people plan trips. They have a time limit within which to get to
a destination. That is the way I look at this databank. It is
another tool we are being given to make sure we arrive at the
destination we have been planning on over the last number of
years.
Fingerprinting was a good tool. It has worked for many years.
It has been used in some good investigative work. Now we have
the extra tool of a DNA databank. We should make full use of it.
We should use it to its best within the circumstances so that
citizens and not the criminals get the protection.
We are so often worried and concerned that criminals will not
have their rights. In my opinion when a criminal violates the
law and he is involved in a violent act or in some act that
affects society, there is a price to pay. If the databank can be
used to mark this individual in a way that is not public but is
there for the protection of the ordinary citizen, then it should
be used to its fullest extent.
It is very important that the crime rate in Canada be brought
down. Statistics show that violent crimes are continually going
up. This is not just happening among the general population but
with young offenders, adults and even some seniors. When I read
of violent crimes by seniors I do not know whether it is old age
or their attitude toward each other.
We were in the United States for a short holiday. A couple of
seniors were playing cards and before the game was over they were
both dead. One wonders how a couple of friends could be playing
cards and get into such a furious fight that they would kill each
other.
Sometimes things are overdone but in many cases when these
criminal acts occur, it is a matter of the police finding out
what has happened and getting to the bottom and the truth of it.
If criminals are aware of the fact that there is very little
chance of them escaping the law, that in itself will deter crime.
It is important that we have more impact on criminals to make
them realize they will be caught and will serve a penalty. That
can override the few freedoms they demand because of the charter
of rights.
I would rather sacrifice somewhat and err on the principle of
freedoms and rights than on the principle of criminality that the
non-violent law-abiding ordinary citizen was not paying a price
for.
1650
It has become almost an accepted fact that someone in every
family will suffer from a violent act. That is sad. Years and
years ago when I was a teenager it only happened in large cities
and it only happened to someone else. I hear of drive by
shootings in my own little town of Altona. I hear of a murder in
Miami because of the drug trade. And I found out in the last
couple of weeks that one of my neighbours was gunned down because
he was involved as an undercover agent for the RCMP, and there
are no clues as to who did it.
I am therefore very determined that we in this House pass
legislation that will make sure the criminals are apprehended.
This bill is another tool for doing that. It is important that
we make this bill as effective a tool as it can be to apprehend
criminals. I think everyone is concerned about privacy and
rights, but once people are affected by crimes and suffer through
violent crimes, it becomes more important that we as lawmakers
pass legislation that will protect citizens.
There are experiences in other countries where we can see how
laws have affected the land. I was in the Soviet Union in 1991.
I was told there were only 40 people in the city of Moscow to
enforce the laws. That was scary. The government at the time had
dictated law through the military regime. There had been no
civil law and the government's policy of perestroika was taking
place. The government did not have the laws of the land to
protect law-abiding citizens. Following Soviet history in the
last couple of years the criminal element has become stronger
rather than weaker.
It is so very important that we give our RCMP and law
enforcement officers a DNA databank that can identify people and
which will not just catch criminals and ensure they were the ones
involved in the criminal act but will also protect individuals
who were not involved but happened to be in the wrong place. I
mentioned David Milgaard earlier as an example.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
group of motions but particularly Motion No. 4 strikes at the
heart of the provisions of Bill C-3.
For the people watching, Bill C-3 is an act which provides for
the establishment of a national DNA databank to be maintained by
the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and used to
assist law enforcement agencies in solving crimes. That is the
overriding concern of Bill C-3.
It seems to me that this group of amendments and particularly
Motion No. 4 would suggest the elimination of the DNA index which
is the exact purpose behind the whole bill. I respectfully
suggest that the purpose behind the motion may have been not to
abuse or provide inadvertent access to the index.
I can certainly respect, admire and support that intent. However,
the way it is written suggests that the index itself should be
eliminated. It seems to me that contradicts the very purpose and
essence of Bill C-3.
1655
The bill goes on to do some other things. It states exactly
what the databank will consist of. It consists of a crime scene
index containing the DNA profiles derived from bodily substances
found in places associated with the commission of certain types
of serious offences and a convicted offenders index containing
DNA profiles obtained from persons convicted or discharged of
these types of offences. This gives us a very clear indication
of what exactly needs to be done here.
The purpose and intent of establishing an index is to protect
both society in general and in particular a person who might have
been found near the scene of the crime, who may not have
perpetrated the crime but may have looked like he did the job and
really did not. The evidence that comes out of comparing
profiles provides a much more accurate tool for the law
enforcement officers to do the job they are charged to do.
The bill goes on to state that the enactment amends the Criminal
Code to provide for orders authorizing the collection of bodily
substances from which DNA profiles can be derived for inclusion
in the DNA databank. It also amends the Criminal Code to
authorize the collection of bodily substances from offenders who
meet clearly defined criteria and also are currently serving
sentences. A compulsory collection is included here.
The purpose of the bill, while admirable and while moving in the
right direction, does not go far enough. It suggests the right
things and moves in the appropriate direction but it is clear
that it does not give to the enforcement officer the freedom to
use the best judgment available at the time in order to collect
the necessary information and data so that a conviction might
later result when comparing the various profiles.
Finally the enactment contains specific provisions for
regulating the use of these bodily substances collected and the
DNA profiles derived from them and the use and communication of
and access to information contained in the databank.
It is precisely in this connection that we have Motion No. 4
which pertains to clause 9(2). Subclause (2) is very clear. It
amends the Criminal Code in that “access to the following
information in the convicted offenders index shall be permanently
removed without delay after” and the conditions are spelled out.
The intent here is clearly to limit the access so that if a
person has been charged with an offence and the charge does not
result in a conviction, while the evidence and the profile may be
in the index, which should be and will be in the index, the
access to that information is cut off if there is no conviction.
Is this not exactly the kind of thing the charter of rights and
freedoms is about? It wants the privacy of the individual to be
safeguarded so that it is not abused by other people and so that
it does not become the object of abuse and misuse by other
people.
It is really significant that this provision be in the act.
However the motion does not suggest access to the information.
It would destroy the index itself. That is the error as I see it
in this particular motion.
I wonder if the member who proposed this motion actually thought
about the fact that this would remove the index rather than
provide the adequate safeguards for abuse or the access to
information by persons who might use it for their own purposes or
for misguided purposes of one kind or another.
1700
With all due respect to the member who submitted this motion, I
suggest that probably it is not the kind of motion that would
serve the interests of the intent of the bill, nor would it
provide for the purposes intended of a sound and adequately
balanced justice system in Canada.
I want to revert now to the purpose of the DNA profile in
the first place. We have had cases in Canada where individuals
have been accused of committing a crime and where all the
evidence points in the direction that the individual did commit
the crime, but there was no conclusive evidence. It was largely
circumstantial. In fact, the circumstantial evidence was so
powerful that the best lawyers' and the best judges' minds were
put to work on this case and the individual was convicted and
incarcerated.
Then with the persistence of people moving on and on and saying
we need absolute evidence that is incontrovertible so that we can
say clearly this person did commit this crime, they discovered
that the circumstantial evidence was not supported by more
concrete evidence. What was the evidence that was used to take
away the doubt in this case? It was the DNA profile.
I think it is absolutely essential if we are to have a fair and
just justice system that we have a tool, the best possible tool
that has been made available to us through technology and
science, to identify clearly and unequivocally who the individual
was. That is exactly what the DNA index is designed to do.
That is why it is so essential that the enforcement officers be
able to collect those kinds of samples that will result in an
accurate and indisputable profile of a person and that the
profile is absolutely unique and completely distinguishable from
any other person.
When that kind of operation is possible, it should not be
restricted to be used in an arbitrary or capricious way. The
amendments proposed in this bill in general are the good ones.
They should be supported. But the bill should go further.
Motion No. 4 in my opinion does not do that. In fact, it
restricts the bill even more. I recommend that we oppose this
amendment and consider very carefully how we can improve the
enforcement of our legal system and also make sure justice
prevails, that our streets are safe and that law-abiding citizens
are protected and carefully rewarded.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are
speaking now to the second group of motions. I want to clearly
identify for the folks at home what we are speaking to. It is
Bill C-3, the national DNA databank. There are 13 motions. We
are now referring to Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13.
To give a brief thumbnail sketch, one motion would basically
destroy the convicted offender index. The whole purpose of the
national DNA databank is to establish an index of those people
who are convicted offenders.
I believe it speaks directly against the whole purpose of the
bill. If the purpose of the bill is to establish a national
index of convicted offenders and if Motion No. 4 proposed by a
member from Bloc is to actually destroy the index, then it speaks
directly against the main purpose of the bill.
There is more destruction yet. Motion No. 6 speaks to the
destruction of stored bodily substances.
To develop the index we need stored bodily substances. There is
a debate in terms of whether once we have a profile established
we need to keep the bodily substances, because once we have the
profile, supposedly we have the profile.
1705
I ask hon. members to think back with me in a bit of a tale.
Imagine if previous to the discovery and the understanding of the
double helix structure we had the ability to collect substances
from the scene of a crime but without DNA evidencing or without
being able to break things down on a DNA level and without being
able to analyse bodily substances we would not be able to know
whether they were the substances of that offender or criminal.
It is like we are standing on the edge of a technological cliff,
on the edge of a brave new world. If we destroy these substances
when the government has admitted here today that it was brought
forward by chemists in committee that each day or each week
advancements are being made in DNA technology, in the ability to
analyse these things forensically or otherwise, we are tossing
away data that will be vital in terms of the prosecution of these
crimes. That is a crime in itself. That speaks to Motion No. 6.
If we destroy these bodily substances when it would be easy
enough to keep them on file and to bank them, all we are doing is
keeping the profile as it stands right now at the simplistic
level.
Far be it from me as somebody who is not a chemist but a mere
politician to determine whether 10, 15 or 20 years down the road
chemistry will advance or DNA analysis will have advanced to the
point where the profiles can be much more expansive than what
they are right now.
Motion No. 13 is with regard to once again destroying bodily
substances. Here the idea is to keep it in sync with other parts
of the Criminal Code in terms of destroying substances or pieces
of evidence in the case of acquittal.
Once again let us think about this is terms of the victim and in
terms of those who are innocent and want to be proven innocent
and want to get their acquittals as opposed to those people who
are actually the offenders.
Too many times we have taken into account the rights of the
criminal rather than the rights of the victims in this
circumstance. I am will now go over some of the arguments that
have been brought forward today with regard to the second set of
motions.
One of my colleagues in the Reform Party brought this up and it
was very effective. The idea comes up that if one lives in a
small town everybody knows what one is up to and is that not
awful. Actually it is only awful if one is not very proud of
what one is up to. This once again speaks to the whole idea of
innocents.
If we have this national DNA databank and if substances are kept
past one's acquittal and if bodily substances are kept rather
than just the minuscule or whatever type of profile we are able
to have at this time, never mind what we are going to have 10, 15
or 20 years down the road, the only people who have something to
fear in this case are the criminals, not the innocent, for indeed
they are the ones who shall be set free.
Merely it raises the question of what these people are doing if
they are so worried about having a DNA databank that stays for
longer than a year or for just that crime or case. The whole
purpose of having the index is so that we can cross-reference
these things when other crimes come up.
One of the Bloc members asked why we should keep these
materials. We may need more samples to go ahead and verify a
sample. Once again, I am not an expert in these things but if
there are multiple clippings of hair or types of blood at a site
and merely one sampling is taken then destroyed, what if there
were other blood samples mixed in? We want to be able to know
these things, so keeping the actual bodily substances is
important.
The second point that I have already raised is to future
testing. I think I would be a poor person to judge at this
moment in history whether technology will change and allow us the
ability to make further testing, more comprehensive testing than
what we have right now.
1710
NDP members also had a chance to speak to this set of motions.
They said it was an intrusion of the self and that it was too
important in terms of the intrusion of the self to allow these
bodily substances and these databanks to be maintained. They said
we should seriously question this. The destruction of these
things in what they considered to be due process it would be the
best thing to do.
I think that is part of what we are getting at here. If all we
are worried about all the time is the intrusion on the actual
criminal, if we are worried about in a sense how the case of the
defence stands, then we are not having as a primary concern the
rights of the victims rather than the rights of the criminal. In
that case, when there is a rape or a murder, why are we more
worried about the intrusions made on the victim than the
intrusions made on the criminal in these investigations?
Too often we are concerned with the criminal legal system, not
enough with the victims.
We also heard today from a Reform colleague of mine about how
blood banks are far exceeding the expansion and growth than
anything we could possibly be worried about at this point with
DNA databanks. If that is the case we certainly have a precedent
set already with the expansion of blood banks for every new
infant. To collect data in the case of crimes is merely doing
due diligence for law-abiding citizens who want to see injustices
righted.
The Progressive Conservatives, our Tory friends in the House,
also spoke to this, the member in mind having actually sat in on
the justice committee. He said that according to people who
presented there was great difficulty, indeed an impracticality,
with regard to the destruction of DNA profiles.
Having 20 profiles on a page and trying to destroy one, and
thereby in some way tampering or destroying an entire page, it is
getting rid of the whole purpose of having an index. Once again,
if we are going to go to this trouble, if we are to increase the
effectiveness of the enforcement of law, why tamper with the
index in any way? We should want to have it. It is going to
help in the prosecution of crimes.
We had Liberals who spoke to this group of motions and their
words were often encouraging when they said why destroy samples
when technology progresses day by day or week by week. I pointed
that out as well, so good on them for recognizing something that
has true value. They spoke to the costs and the administration
of resampling these things. We would not want to burden
taxpayers with more cost and more administration. It just does
not make sense.
To my Liberal colleagues across the way who wanted to cut down
on the administrative costs of resampling, good on them. I only
wish they kept these things in mind on more issues.
Another Reform colleague spoke to the whole idea of indexing.
Trying to get rid of the index is working against the very
purposes of the bill and the underlying justice we are trying to
achieve.
With that I leave it to other members in the House and say that
in no way can we support some of these amendments, namely Motions
Nos. 2, 4 and 13. We have to stand against them.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I too am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-3, an act
respecting DNA identification, and Motions 4, 6 and 13.
As I indicated during my earlier remarks, we do support the
principle of this bill but think it is too filled with
exceptions, loopholes and red tape to provide our peace officers
with the kind of latitude they need to make this important public
safety legislation actually work for victims and potential
victims.
1715
Our first and final consideration should be to give our police
officers, our prosecutors, our courts and our entire justice
system the kind of evidence they need to convict people guilty of
serious crimes and to ensure that they do not get around
conviction because of legislative loopholes which allow the
destruction of important DNA evidence or prevent its collection
in the first place.
I would like to make specific reference to Motion No. 4 proposed
by one of my hon. colleagues from the third party. It would
amend clause 9:
(a) by replacing lines 21 and 23 with the following:
“the convicted offenders index shall be destroyed without delay
after”
(b) by adding after line 34 on page 6 the following:
“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) also apply to information
communicated under this Act that is in the possession of any
Canadian laboratory or federal or provincial law enforcement
agency”.
It appears to us that this amendment would eliminate the entire
index. It would be destroyed. Perhaps this is a problem in the
English translation. We cannot understand why our colleagues in
the third party, or any other party, would be in favour of such a
sweeping amendment that would undermine one of the central
purposes of the act, which is to develop an index that can be
used for future reference after convictions have been established
against criminals.
The current legislation makes provision for the destruction of
certain parts of the evidence. It narrowly defines which
elements of the index can be destroyed. Motion No. 4 makes no
such distinction. Instead it opens the door to the wholesale
destruction of the convicted offenders index. This is something
we cannot support. It occurs to us that this motion, as the bill
on a whole, tends to place too great an emphasis on the rights of
the criminals as opposed to the rights of the victims, a tendency
we see all too often in criminal justice legislation of this
nature.
I move to Motion No. 6 in Group No. 2. The motion was made by
one of our colleagues in the third party. It would amend clause
10 after line 34 to read:
For forensic science purposes it is important that substances be
kept as new testing techniques are developed. We cannot project
what kind of advancements forensic science will make in the years
to come. Fifteen, twenty or thirty years ago legislatures in
this place could not reasonably expect to have ever had the kind
of sophisticated DNA testing science that is now available to us,
our police officers and our prosecutors. Let us not hamstring
future courts, future prosecutors, future police officers and
investigators from using new technology as it becomes available.
Let us keep this evidence on file. Let us keep it in the index.
Let us not destroy it unnecessarily.
I do not understand what leads to these kinds of amendments. Why
should the objective of this legislation not be to build up as
comprehensive an index of DNA evidence as we possibly can while
at the same time respecting the privacy rights of individuals who
are not convicted?
Let us not fill the legislation with all sorts of loopholes and
measures like this one. Evidence could be destroyed given this
amendment which could later be necessary to use in the conviction
of a violent offender. We cannot take such a risk.
One piece of evidence in this databank could be enough to save
future potential victims from violent offenders. We should err
on the side of a comprehensive databank which does not destroy
evidence for no particularly good reason.
1720
I will move on to the third and final motion in the Group No. 2
amendments to Bill C-3, Motion No. 13 as proposed by the same
hon. member from the third party. We find this motion difficult
to understand. I am not sure the hon. member understands it.
Perhaps he could enlighten us further. Apparently it would seek
to amend paragraph 487.091(b) of the act and replace it with the
following:
We do not see the purpose of this amendment. It seems to be a
dilatory and frivolous amendment with no useful purpose. It does
not strengthen the bill in terms of its ambit or coverage or the
size or extent of the DNA databank. We see no reason to support
this amendment and will be opposing it.
In closing I want to summarize the importance of not turning the
legislation into Swiss cheese for criminal defence attorneys to
allow their clients to get through the loopholes and to tie up
the courts, our police officers and prosecutors in legal red tape
designed by and for people who are more concerned about the
rights of criminals than they are about the rights of victims.
We oppose all three of these amendments and will continue to
call on our colleagues in all parties to support the kinds of
amendments which would make the legislation meaningful in terms
of providing a comprehensive collection of a DNA databank of
convicted criminals.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk to report stage of Bill
C-3, an act respecting DNA identification, and to make
consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts.
We are now looking at Group No. 2 which includes Motions Nos. 4,
6 and 13. As my colleague has just said we oppose all three of
these amendments.
The amendment indicates that the entire convicted offenders
index will be destroyed. We support the bill in its intent, but
changes need to be made to make sure it is an effective bill that
will work for the police forces and the people of Canada, which
is the most important point. When fingerprints are taken they
are never destroyed. When blood type is taken upon birth it is
never destroyed. Why anybody would want to do anything that
would destroy an index of DNA is beyond me and the people in my
party.
Motion No. 6 also put forward by the Bloc would destroy the
bodily substances. It is very important, especially with the new
science of today, that we do not destroy anything in our
possession. There have been too many examples in the last few
years of people who have been convicted on DNA evidence. Crimes
have been solved after people have spent years in jail because
with the new technology that has come along we have managed to
prove who really committed the crime.
There is a case before the courts now where a gentleman spent a
lot of his life in jail. Now somebody who was suspected at the
time is now to be charged with the crime, will have to face the
courts and the people, and will probably be convicted of a crime
that he committed many years ago. If we had had the DNA evidence
and material, the innocent person would never have gone to jail
and the guilty person would have been convicted a long time ago.
Certainly we have to make sure we maintain the substances taken
from people.
We obviously oppose Motion No. 13 which is part of this section.
1725
When I look at the motions put forward in this section, I see
that the government received some legal opinions from three
former judges. We do not quite know how it hand-picked the
judges. As we all know, when we are dealing with lawyers we can
get an opinion from anyone we want. It depends on how much we
want to pay for it and whom we want to go to. I would like to
know who they were, as all three of these judges were unanimous
in their decision in this case as to what can and cannot be done
according to the Constitution.
I quoted Mr. Taylor, QC, in a previous talk earlier today on
some other motions and I would like to quote his conclusion. He
said:
It follows that I am of the opinion that legislative extension of
police authority authority under Bill C-3 to sanction the taking
of DNA samples without judicial warrant in the case of persons
charged or arrested but not tried and convicted would be held
contrary to the guarantees contained in one or more of ss. 7, 8
and 11(d) of the Charter, would not be saved by s. 1 of the
Charter, and would therefore be found unconstitutional and of no
force or effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The reference in the last line was to the Constitution Act,
1982. It gave the judges a lot more power than I believe they
ever should have. I believe the Parliament of Canada should make
the laws instead of the judges in the Supreme Court of Canada and
the other courts in Canada.
What I find interesting about the statements that the former
judge makes in this report to the government and some of the
motions that are before the House is that right now blood samples
are taken. Before I go into that I would like to read another
conclusion by a former judge and then I can tie it together with
the three motions we are talking about here. They make some very
interesting points. Mr. Bisson, in his conclusion, says “I
would conclude as follows: an enactment authorizing upon a
person—”
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not believe we have quorum right now. I would like
a quorum call.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will verify that
right away.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I believe we now have
a quorum.
Mr. John Reynolds: It is now nice that we have a few
Liberals in the House, including the hundreds of thousands who
are listening out their in the audience.
I was quoting Judge Bisson and his conclusions. He said that
therefore, the guaranteed rights of a person by the charter
having been infringed, the legislation would have been
invalidated because section 1 of the charter could not save such
legislation, the prerequisites having not been met. There was no
equation to be made between the confirmed validity of the taking
of fingerprints upon arrest and the taking also upon arrest
without judicial authorization of bodily samples. Fingerprinting
was not a search and seizure but the taking of bodily samples was
and as such should not be performed without the greatest
safeguards, the first of them being judicial intervention.
This is where I totally disagree with these judges. They are
taking a position that there is a difference here. When people
are arrested the police take fingerprints. Their fingers are
placed on a piece of dirty stuff and then pressed on a piece of
paper. They are kept on record and stay there whether or not
they are convicted. From then on, if they are ever arrested in
the future, the fingerprints will be on file.
They talk about this being an intrusion. They can take a DNA
sample by a simple Q-tip on a person's tongue. They do not have
to stick a needle in and draw blood. There are lots of ways to
do DNA samples. What intrusion is that in anybody's system?
When people are arrested they should be happy to have that done
because they will be part of the system from now on and if they
ever do it again we will easily catch them.
For people to be fighting this, I just do not understand.
1730
It is great to bring in this legislation, but let us make sure
it is going to work. There are literally thousands of unsolved
rape and murder cases in this country. With the DNA samples of
people in prisons right now we can solve some of those crimes
immediately. The police know that, the people of Canada know
that, so why do we have legislation that protects these criminals
instead of bringing peace of mind to parents who have lost their
children? People have lost family members and we have unsolved
crimes.
I go back to the case I was talking about before. That man is
going to go on trial for murder while an innocent person has
already served time in jail. This man will be proven guilty by
DNA. If we had his DNA 15 years ago we would not have had this
miscarriage of justice.
I am sure we will have a chance to talk about this over and over
again before the bill is passed. It is extremely important that
the government look at this bill and accept some of the
amendments being put forth by the opposition. I know from
talking to some members on the other side that the same feeling
comes from them. We are going to keep talking about this bill
until we get some proper changes before the legislation is passed
in the House.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today to take part in the
debate at report stage of Bill C-3. The Group No. 2 amendments
deal with the disposition of DNA evidence which I will talk
about.
First, I will tell a little story. A couple of years ago my
constituency office was broken into at night. No one was there
and no one was hurt. The next morning the police came and
discovered that the television set was all that was missing. It
is too bad because it was a new television set. The police
dusted the place for fingerprints. They talked to us for a while
and then went away. That evening a police officer came to my
home with my television set in his arms. I asked him how he got
it back so quickly. He replied that there had been a fresh
snowfall the night before. They simply followed the footprints
of the fellow to a vacant garage where he had put the television
set, waited for him to return and they picked him up. I tell this
story a bit facetiously.
The act states that DNA profiles are uniquely private and
personal information that may be used only for purposes of
identification. It strikes me that that is basically what
fingerprints are about. I am really glad that fingerprints are
already included in the legislation. I would hate to think what
would happen if we tried to legislate and categorize footprints
in the snow. I can see the problems that would exist for some of
our Liberal colleagues. It might be discrimination against a
person on the basis of his weight because the impression was deep
in the snow. It may have been a man, a woman or a crippled
person and we could tell by the way they walked. We would be
discriminating against these people by using such evidence.
My concern is that in looking at the DNA issue we are looking at
a means of identifying someone who has done something really bad.
We need to know who that person is and call that person quite
appropriately to account for what they have done. The only reason
the DNA evidence is needed is for identification. It should be
kept on file until that purpose is accomplished. The only reason
is for identification. It is not to talk about the genetic type
of the person or to talk about latent genetic defects that may
exist in future generations, it is only for identification. All
of these other issues are protected.
1735
This is an important issue for Reform members. In fact in the
last parliament an almost identical bill, Bill C-94, was
introduced toward the end of the second session. Even though the
bill was seriously flawed, our party was willing to walk with the
government, to fast track it through parliament. We felt that
this DNA tool was just too important for our law enforcement
agencies to be without.
The amendments in Group No. 2, all proposed by the Bloc member
for Charlesbourg, relate to the destruction of DNA evidence. Why
would it be important to destroy DNA evidence that has been
appropriately collected?
I am concerned about Motion No. 6 which states: “The
Commission shall destroy the stored bodily substances of a person
without delay after a forensic DNA analysis of these substances
is first performed under this section”. Why would we destroy
this evidence without delay?
The concern that comes to mind when looking at this motion may
be cost. We are aware of the concern over the cost of
establishing and maintaining this databank.
However, this amendment could actually increase the costs of the
databank, not only the costs involved in the destruction of the
evidence, but the costs of re-establishing the evidence,
regaining the evidence or seeking the evidence from someone who
is no longer around. What happens then?
As we are well aware, technology is expanding at a tremendous
rate. As technology develops, tests and analysis change and
improve. Although the DNA analysis is far more accurate than
other technologies we have seen to date, in a couple of years
this analysis may prove dramatically better than it is today.
In some sense, then, it seems like a waste of time and money to
destroy evidence now which may be required at a later date for
re-analysis.
As I think of the premature destruction of DNA materials I am
concerned about the possible inaccuracies, the mistakes that
could be made by a technician in analyzing the DNA evidence at
hand. If the evidence is misanalyzed and then immediately
destroyed, how do we recover the loss? I alluded to this
earlier. This is still a relatively new technology. The tests
and the analysis are not totally foolproof yet.
What happens if a technician who runs the initial tests did
something wrong and, as a result, the analysis is off? What
happens if the person whose sample is falsely analyzed is not in
custody, is not available, cannot be found and the law
enforcement agencies cannot obtain another sample?
I think it is much more cost effective and safer to keep these
DNA substances in storage for a specified period of time rather
than to prematurely destroy this valuable evidence.
This raises the question of why we destroy evidence that is
legally, properly, appropriately gathered and is stored and
maintained only for the purposes of identification. Why can this
not be kept on record simply as fingerprints are today?
I cannot understand why there would need to be a move to destroy
this evidence. It seems to me that it would be of benefit in two
ways. First, if someone has committed a crime the evidence is
there on file and can be used for identification purposes at a
later date if that person reoffends. Second, if someone is
apprehended this evidence could well turn out to be what is
required to free an innocent person. The issue cuts both ways.
It is not only the apprehension of those who are guilty who we
are concerned about, but the correct application of justice so
that those who do not offend and who are apprehended and
mistakenly charged may be cleared and the charges dropped.
Those people may then go about having normal lives with their
families without further disruption and harm.
1740
These are the concerns that I have. I hope to be able to speak
to the other groups as they come up. I find this issue one that
is interesting. It is extremely important for the maintenance of
justice. We have seen time and again how people who have been
incorrectly convicted and sent away to jail for long periods of
time have had their names cleared with the proper use of DNA
evidence.
We cannot forget this. It is too important. It is a valuable
tool. We must use it as vigorously as necessary within properly
prescribed limits and we must quit the nonsense of how we can
avoid using it when it is needed.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a few brief comments to make. I raised some
questions this morning in the debate which have not yet been
answered by the government. I feel it is incumbent upon the
government before we move on to answer these concerns.
Another thing that concerns me with regard to Bill C-3 and the
privacy issue that the government has raised is simply this. We
have raised a lot of concerns about Bill C-68, which is a bill
that the Liberals passed in the last parliament. They infringed
on citizens' rights with regard to privacy and so on. Now, in
relation to this bill, they are raising the privacy issue for
criminals.
When it was law-abiding citizens they were not concerned with
privacy. Now that we are dealing with people who have been
charged with major offences they say we have a privacy concern.
We can put in place legislation to protect the misuse of
information that people would gather in this process, but for the
government to be more concerned about privacy when it involves a
criminal than when it involves a law-abiding gun owner I think is
a real contradiction and something that should concern Canadians
a great deal.
I think it is incumbent upon the government to explain to us why
it cannot put safeguards in the bill so that the information that
is gathered by the police is safeguarded.
I will review what this DNA databank would be. They would
gather information, a hair sample, a saliva sample, a small
amount of cells from the human body of the person who has been
charged with a serious crime. They could use that to either
prove the innocence or the guilt of the person. Because of
technology these days we can look at these things and examine
them closely. The molecules that are involved in this and the
science behind it I will leave for another discussion, but the
explanation is that the science is now available to use this to
convict people or to declare them innocent.
We should use these new tools. The police are asking for them.
We should put them in place.
I was reading the history of this. When fingerprinting was
first brought in people raised all of these same concerns about
privacy and about whether we should use this kind of thing.
Nobody would question the use of fingerprints now. They have
become a tool that we accept.
Just because it is new, using a DNA print from a person should
not just be dismissed by this government. There are some very
good things that can be done. The police have the ability now to
use this. It would help a lot of people possibly in prison who
say they are innocent to prove their innocence. It has been used
already. But it will also help the police to solve a lot of
crimes. They are saying it would and I think we should seriously
listen to them.
The government has put too many restrictions on that with what it
has done and some of the amendments in this group and others
address those. I think we should look at them closely.
1745
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to agreement
made earlier, all motions in Group No. 2 are deemed put, a
recorded division deemed requested and deemed deferred.
The House will now proceed to debate on Motion No. 7 in Group
No. 3.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 6 on
page 9 with the following:
He said: Madam Speaker, I am the only member with a motion in
Group No. 3, so I suppose that makes it somewhat exclusive on my
part.
I would like to make some general comments first. Some members
of the Reform Party have commented on the importance of ensuring
that police have an investigative tool. The NDP supports this
wholeheartedly.
The average police officer on the street today needs every bit
of assistance he or she can have to investigate the commission of
a crime and do their job properly. The NDP certainly supports
them in the work they do and we hope this bill with its flaws
will provide police officers with some of the investigate tools
they require to properly bring to justice those who have
committed crimes.
I make the distinction between the accused and the criminals
purposely because a couple of my colleagues in this House, the
hon. members for Calgary and Calgary West, said at different
times when speaking about the NDP that we wanted to put the
rights of the criminals ahead of the rights of the victims.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
We want to ensure that the rights of the accused are balanced in
the justice system. Certain members forget that one is not a
criminal when one is accused. Certain members forget that anyone
in this House, including the members who have used the
terminology, can be accused of the most heinous crimes. They are
not criminals at that point and indeed the reason we have
safeguards in the system is that many people over the years have
been wrongly convicted.
As a responsible and just parliament and as a society that takes
its responsibilities seriously, we ensure there is a balance,
that police have the necessary investigative tools to do their
job and the courts have the proper rules to ensure innocent
people go free and criminals are punished.
I move to my motion which increases the penalty for someone who
violates the law. The current legislation provided by the
government states in section 11:
Every person who contravenes subsection 6(6) or (7), section 8 or
subsection 10(3) or (5)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and
liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding six months, or to both.
Because we recognize how important DNA information is and how
private it has to be, the act provides that no person who
receives a DNA profile for entry into the databank shall use it
or allow it to be used other than for the purposes set out in the
administration of this act.
Anyone working in the laboratory who receives the DNA
analysis must keep that information confidential and can use
it only in the way parliament deems it should be used. Subsection
(7) goes on to say:
(7) No person shall, except in accordance with this section,
communicate or allow to be communicated a DNA profile that is
contained in the DNA data bank or information that is referred to
in subsection (1).
1750
What I am saying in a capsule form is that the act makes it a
crime to communicate improperly any information on any person's
DNA. The maximum penalty for committing that crime is two years
imprisonment. My motion says we should increase that penalty to
a maximum of five years. We still have a minimum penalty that
can be imposed. The courts have some discretion in determining
how much of a penalty could be imposed.
The reason I suggest we do that is that, once again, the taking
of the DNA and the index has to be kept regulated government and
properly administered by the government. Anyone who breaches
that should be considered breaking the law of this House and
should pay a serious penalty. This would bring home to
individuals how important it is to keep that privacy.
We live in a scandalous age in some ways. We have people
selling love letters of the Princess of Wales for millions of
dollars. We know that a taped interview of someone speaking to a
political person can fetch thousands of dollars on the open
market from the tabloids. We have to recognize that this most
personal information, be it mine, be it anyone's watching the
House debate tonight, be it anyone's on the government side or
the opposition side, is so personal and so private that any
attempt to communicate it other than provided by law ought to be
punishable with a severe sentence. By increasing the sentence we
would be sending out that message.
It is an important issue of law and order. Let me be very
clear. The New Democratic Party is concerned about the safety of
people in the communities of this country, those who are
concerned about crime.
We also have a concern about misinformation that gets sent out
to people. It was said in debate tonight that we know, we can
take as a fact, that someone in our families will at some point
be assaulted or be the victim of crime. That statement was said
willy-nilly without a single statistic to back it up. Many
people sitting in their living rooms watching this debate because
we are parliamentarians accept with some respect what we say.
An hon. member: They do not believe a word we say.
Mr. Peter Mancini: It is our obligation to rise above
that cynicism and give an honest debate on the issues before this
House. Statements made without facts to back them up, statements
made to inflame debate, do little to convince those people that
we are seriously considering the needs and the laws that have to
be in place for all the people of this country.
We take the recommendation of the Canadian Police Association
seriously. We take the recommendation of the privacy
commissioner, who is at the other end of the spectrum, seriously.
We take the recommendations of the Canadian Bar Association
seriously.
As parliamentarians it is our job to weigh each of those
arguments, to balance them in the needs and interests of
Canadians, after a thorough, informed, intellectual exercise. We
have to be very careful when we stand up and say that the rights
of criminals take precedence over the rights of victims when we
are talking about accused persons. This country was founded on
the rule of law. The rule of law has one tenant, that you are
innocent until proven guilty. That is the purpose of this
legislation, to allow the police the tools to help in determining
whether someone is guilty. Once that determination is made then
the rights of the criminal ought not to exceed those of the
victim. I make those points for the people listening tonight.
I thank the House and I ask for support for my motion.
1755
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise after my colleague in the New Democratic Party
and tell him that he is not alone. His motion may be the only
one in Group No. 3, but he will not be the only one supporting
it, far from it.
I must first say that, after asking parliamentarians to support
a number of motions I introduced earlier, in order to emphasize
the importance that the House and the government must attach to
privacy, I was disappointed that these motions did not receive
all the support I had hoped.
Motion No. 7, however, introduced by my colleague, the member
for Sydney—Victoria, addresses the same principle, but from
another angle that will perhaps appeal more naturally to some of
the members sitting to the right of me, and perhaps even further
right than that politically.
The motion calls for increasing from two to seven years the
maximum sentence for individuals contravening certain provisions
of the bill designed to try to keep information collected as
secret as possible.
We in the Bloc Quebecois attach considerable importance to the
protection of privacy. When it comes to anything to do with
information, the Bloc Quebecois takes an extremely hard line.
We were, for example, in favour of stiffer penalties for the
destruction of information that should be accessible under
access legislation.
We want the greatest possible transparency, but we do not want
this transparency to enable some individuals to obtain
information to which they have absolutely no right.
It is important to remember that DNA reveals to us an
individual's deepest secrets, his or her hair colour, and
certain physical characteristics. For all we know, a few years
from now, technology may make it possible to discover someone's
personality. This is a very powerful tool, and it is essential
that people be discouraged from using DNA data for purposes
other than those set out in the bill.
It is therefore with pleasure that I support the motion
introduced by my colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria.
I hope that other members to my right and across the way will do
the same, in order to underscore the fundamental importance of
the protection of privacy in this bill.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to partake in this debate and pleased
particularly to follow my hon. friends and colleagues in the NDP
and the Bloc.
I do note with some amusement that what we have here in the
motion is a defence lawyer asking for more time in a sentence. I
think that is telling and I think it is indicative of the intent
of this motion, to emphasize the importance of protection of
privacy here and to put a greater degree of flexibility before
the courts to allow a judge to impose a sentence of up to five
years when an individual chooses to breach this important piece
of legislation by potentially misusing DNA evidence.
It is something that we in the House and hopefully the
government will take very seriously and perhaps embrace the
suggestion brought forward by the hon. member for
Sydney—Victoria.
The flexibility, the discretion it would allow is certainly very
important. It is also going to be safeguarded, as the hon.
member for Sydney—Victoria indicated, in the sense that a judge
still has discretion. There is still the fallback position that
there is the summary offence by which the crown can proceed, that
coupled with the fact that the crown and the defence will always
have input into the sentencing process.
The judge will then be called upon to apply the sentencing
principles, to ensure fairness, to ensure that it is a measured
response and not a cookie cutter response, a phrase that my hon.
colleague from Nova Scotia will have also heard in courtrooms.
1800
It is there. It is implicit in the particular system we have
that there is not going to be a disproportionate response.
The hon. member's motion in essence broadens the ability of
judges to look at the factual scenario before them if it involves
a breach of this privacy, a breach or misuse of DNA evidence. I
therefore concur with his remarks. I believe it is an important
motion he is bringing to the House.
It emphasizes and provides a more serious note and response to a
criminal activity that would involve the criminal misuse of DNA
evidence. It is important that we look at this and consider it
very seriously because in bringing forward the bill we are arming
the government and police with a very important tool to respond
to a very important and widespread problem in Canada.
That is why we on this side of the House are encouraging the
government to go all the way. I think this is going to be the
emerging rallying cry about this particular piece of legislation,
all the way with DNA. Let us use this to the full extent. Let
us for once be on the cutting edge of the justice system. Let us
move forward, not with tentative steps. With no disrespect
whatsoever to the supreme court, let us not clutter our minds too
much with what the supreme court will do with this piece of
legislation. Let us move forward in an informed way.
We have had extensive hearings on this particular bill. Numerous
witnesses have given input before the committee. Members of the
policing community, members of the victims advocates groups,
members of the science community who are going to be called upon
to implement this bill, all of them are encouraging us to make
the most of this opportunity we have at this time. This is the
time for parliament to act, to do something in a positive way
that is going to help the law enforcement community and
significantly help satisfy those victims who feel that the
justice system is failing them.
To put a point on this, we have an opportunity to reflect the
serious reprisals when this legislation is breached. If a person
chooses to misuse this, the hon. member's suggestion is that we
should raise the ceiling to five years for an indictable offence
involving the misuse of DNA technology. That sends a very clear,
unequivocal message to those who would be so inclined to partake
in that criminal activity. It ups the ante on the importance of
ensuring that there is deterrence, that there is a significant
response from the government and from the justice system when
this legislation is breached.
We need to ensure that the police and Canadians at large know
they have the support of parliament and know that parliament is
working to protect them.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, we support this
particular amendment. We support it as an important step in
building a piece of legislation that is workable and that is
taken very seriously by Canadians. It allows the police to get
on with the very important task they are charged with, to
implement and to use this tool in a significant way in their
daily fight against crime.
With those remarks, I congratulate the hon. member for
Sydney—Victoria, my colleague from Nova Scotia. He brings
forward a very important amendment. I urge all members of this
House at the time of the vote to take it very seriously, turn
their minds to this suggestion and to support it. That is what
should happen.
1805
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I too
urge and recommend support for this motion. I put forward a
recommendation in committee that we strike the summary conviction
portion of this section and leave it at a two year indictable
maximum penalty. Of course that was struck down but we will see
what happens when we come to the vote on this increasing of the
penalty.
What are we doing here? We are safeguarding privacy, yet we are
expressing a fear and an apprehension that is inconsistent in
many ways. When I give my doctor a blood sample, he can do
whatever he wants with it. I can volunteer a blood sample to a
police officer and he can put my sample into the DNA bank
together with the profile. According to the bill, if he misuses
it, he can be charged and sentenced to jail for a maximum of five
years, but not my doctor. He can use my blood sample in any way
he wants. He will not face a charge let alone a five year jail
sentence. There is an inconsistency in what we are doing, yet we
are doing it. Why are we doing it? Because of the apprehension.
By way of examination that apprehension is mythical.
We looked at all of the privacy concerns and the misuse of the
profile and the samples. I saw no basis for the concern. Yet we
have this here. This kind of apprehension is real. We saw it in
the justice officials who appeared before our committee. They
were so apprehensive of what the supreme court could do if we
went all the way with DNA and allowed the taking of samples at
the time of arrest or at least at the time of being charged for
one of the primary designated offences. There is an enormous
apprehension so I suppose the House will recognize that
apprehension whether it has a basis or not and we will proceed
cautiously in the shadow of the Supreme Court of Canada.
That is why we are saying if anyone dares to do what anyone else
in charge of databanks, blood banks or whatever can do with
immunity, we are going to sentence them to a possible maximum
penalty of five years. The underlying motivation for it is that
apprehension which we recognize as members of parliament, and we
have to. Yet at the same time the law enforcement agencies tell
us what they need to solve the unsolved crimes.
I will touch on something mentioned by my NDP colleague about
the rights of the accused, and he is right. This bill deals
with more than just the accused. It also deals with those who
have been convicted of one of the designated offences and who is
in custody as a result. It will allow for the taking of DNA
samples from some of those individuals. It goes beyond just the
recognition of the rights of the accused to defend themselves and
to not self incriminate.
When we examine what this bill will do, there is no
justification for our not going all the way. The reason is that
if we examine even what the three former judges have said, we
already have the means and the right to take a blood sample if a
police officer believes a person is impaired by way of alcohol or
drugs while operating a motor vehicle or a vessel. I think it is
under section 254. We have that authority now.
1810
When I rushed through the three constitutional legal opinions on
this bill, I found only one to be a realistic examination of the
inconsistencies that arise. What did Mr. Taylor say about it?
He said that it was allowed because it was an offence in progress
and that the evidence can dissipate from the system of the
individual over a period of time.
Nevertheless, I think it is a very weak argument to suggest that
to take a blood sample from that individual under those
conditions is constitutional but that it is not constitutional to
take a sample from someone who is under arrest and charged with a
designated offence, whether it is murder, rape, manslaughter,
aggravated assault or one of the other designated offences. I
see an enormous inconsistency which is based on apprehension.
The real testimony we should be adhering to and listening to is
the testimony that comes from the forensic scientists themselves.
They know whether or not there is a privacy danger. They know
whether or not there is a possibility of misuse and whether we
should guard against that. They know all of these things.
When we listened to the witnesses who appeared before the
committee, with the greatest respect to them, we were hearing an
apprehension and in most cases a baseless apprehension. We will
guard this right of the police to take samples. We will set up
hoops for them to jump through. I predict at the end of the day
we will deny them the right to take a sample from an individual
under charge who has a previous conviction for a designated
offence. Perhaps I am speaking ahead of my time but that motion
is coming up and we will see how members vote on it.
I simply say that the apprehension contained within this motion
where we are going to make it a possible five year jail term for
someone who improperly uses a DNA sample is enacted within this
legislation. Other databanks do not have that kind of
legislation governing the use or misuse of the samples that are
taken from babies and individuals every day and which are
certainly lodged with their names attached.
I support the motion. I understand the reason for it very
clearly. It is simply an expression of the apprehension that
surrounds this whole area. Apprehension of what? It is the
apprehension of the Supreme Court of Canada. Individuals on that
court will examine this from their viewpoint and say either yes
or no, that we have gone too far or that it is okay. So far they
say it is okay. We can take samples now under certain
conditions. All they are really saying is that we can take
samples not by statutory authority but by judicial authority. We
need judicial authority. A judge must issue a warrant in order
to take a sample under bill 104.
It seems that statutory authority is not sufficient. Reasonable
and probable grounds to believe someone has committed a
designated offence is not enough. Even charging them and having
them appear before a judicial official and swearing out an
information based upon reasonable and probable grounds is
insufficient. Judicial authority is needed through the issuance
of a warrant. That is the way it seems to be.
Perhaps we need to move in this slow and cautious way and open
it up as years go on until we see that the apprehension and fear
is simply a myth and does not really exist.
1815
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to
point out that many witnesses were heard. Also, as has been
pointed out, we heard a lot of testimony.
I may have missed one of the meetings. Unless I stand to be
corrected, I do not recall any of those witnesses asking to
increase the penalty for the misuse of any information from two
to five years. As I said, we heard a lot on privacy issue
concerns that were generally raised, but not once did I hear any
testimony from any witness asking what this motion calls for.
As a government we have been very concerned about any potential
misuse. That is why from the onset we entrusted the
administration, the establishment and the co-ordination of the
DNA databank with one of the world's most respected police
agencies, the RCMP through its commissioner. They will be
entrusted with the administration and the set up of the databank.
We have tried to find the proper balance between making sure that
there would be no potential misuse of any information provided
and to show Canadians that we are serious about DNA.
As has been pointed out, the profile can disclose much more than
a fingerprint. As the member for Sydney—Victoria pointed out
during committee hearings, we have a tendency to compare DNA
profiles with fingerprinting. As he so aptly put it, a
fingerprint is an impression of me whereas DNA is a part of me.
There is a substantial fundamental difference between the two yet
we often confuse the two.
I would like to caution hon. members. This amendment refers to
subsections 6(6) and (7). These subsections refer to the misuse
or disclosure of the contents of a profile. We are not talking
about the identification of the individual to whom the profile
may belong. It is similar for samples.
We are saying that if it is misused it is a very serious
offence. We have tried to strike a balance. We did not consult
the supreme court on everything as the critic from the Reform
Party might lead us to believe. We simply said that there here
is a crime. Here is the message we want to get across to
Canadians, that it is serious to misuse any of this information.
We simply tried to be consistent with similar offences that are
established already in the criminal code.
We believe that if the government were to extend the penalty
from two years to five years it would be inconsistent with
similar offences in the criminal code and very excessive. To
that end I ask that the hon. members vote against it for those
reasons.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. parliamentary
secretary make the comment that no committee witness had
advocated this kind of penalty. I would ask him to note that
while it may not have happened in committee there have been at
least four witnesses in the House of Commons who are advocating
that.
I encourage the member not to base his judgments on the
legislation simply on the committee and on the witnesses. I
encourage him to remember that the members of the House come here
with a point of view that represents many other people as well as
their own. We represent positions to the House and to the
government so that they may be aware that in this instance people
are very concerned about the inadequacy of the justice system in
apprehending serious violent offenders who are doing great harm
and great damage to individuals, to our communities and to the
structure of our communities.
1820
There is no question that the issue of the DNA testing is a very
serious one. The parliamentary secretary is quite correct when
he says that these profiles provide an enormous amount of very
personal information.
It is extremely important that everyone realizes that within the
legislation it is necessary that this information be used only
for what it was intended, that is for the identification of
people who have been apprehended and to help in the determination
of their innocence or guilt by the evidence provided there.
There are some interesting paradoxes in the government's point
of view. As I consider this issue I see how important privacy
is. I would not want to diminish that importance in any way. I
could also point out other instances where the importance of
privacy is not nearly so important.
For example, I received a letter from a constituent who is a
financial counsellor. He is concerned about information he has
received from StatsCan. Now StatsCan is promoting a purchase of
information from individual tax returns, about the financial
situation of communities, districts and right down to the
individual.
This is all based upon postal code. How could a profile be
developed from a postal code? In one instance a postal code
might be a large apartment building. It would not be too
difficult to determine to which individuals, from the profile
that StatsCan provides, it would apply in a very personal way. As
members are aware, the information that comes out of a person's
income tax return is pretty personal.
I want to tell of another instance of a profile based upon a
postal code. When my family and I lived in Calgary we had a
house on a corner of a block in that city where we had an
individual postal code for that house in that city.
I did not realize at the time that by postal code profiles
StatsCan could open my income tax return to financial
institutions, financial advisers and anyone who cared to pay them
money for the information.
My point is that there are some instances where personal privacy
is very important to the government. In other instances it is
not nearly so important.
I believe that Motion No. 7 is drawing attention to the
importance of the private nature of this information. If it must
be used for a specific purpose only and beyond that there is a
heavy penalty, it draws attention to the importance of this
personal information. It must be used in an appropriate way. If
it is not used in an appropriate way then there are serious
consequences.
I congratulate the member for Sydney—Victoria for presenting
the motion. I think it is timely. I think it draws attention to
a very important aspect of the bill. I notice my colleague from
the Conservative Party mentioned that he is a defence attorney.
Now that we have had both the prosecution and the defence speak
on this issue, as well as a number of lay people like myself, we
have our bases covered.
Strengthening this section to make it a more serious offence by
increasing the maximum sentence for indictable offences may serve
as more of a deterrent for those who may entertain some thoughts
of misusing this information.
1825
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I just want to respond for a moment to the comments that
were made by the government representative across the way.
He said that “a fingerprint identifies me but DNA is a part of
me”. If that is the argument then in fact he should support
this amendment. At the present time if this DNA data is being
used for purposes anything beyond what a fingerprint is used for,
we are saying there should be a punishment for that. That
punishment should fit the crime. I applaud the NDP
representative who brought forth the amendment. I am glad to see
they did it. If in fact what he said is a valid argument then he
should be supporting the amendment. He said that “DNA is a part
of me”.
Let me give a little science lesson here. When you leave a
fingerprint behind the technology is going to be there in the
next year or so to take from that fingerprint the same
information that you could get if you took a hair or a saliva
sample from someone. We need to have appropriate punishments in
place if someone uses that. The government should be supporting
this amendment.
We will have the technology soon to do all kinds of things and
we should be protecting the public from misuse of this
information. The DNA data should be used in the same way as a
fingerprint is used to identify the person; no more, no less. We
would support that.
I agree with what the NDP has done here. It is interesting and
it is almost historic that the NDP recognizes the severity of a
penalty does send a signal to society on the severity of a crime.
I think we need to do that. If people can devise some kind of
method in the future to misuse the DNA samples and invade
people's privacy, we should be looking forward and making sure
there are appropriate punishments in place.
Maybe we do not see the big picture, but the question that is
before us in regard to this amendment is should or does the
length of a sentence send a signal to the public as to the
seriousness of a crime. That is what we are debating and that is
why the government should support this. There is the potential
to commit some serious crimes with the misuse of these data.
The public also has a concern that the courts are not using the
provisions of the law to send a signal to society on the severity
of some of the crimes. I may be off on a little tangent here but
in my riding we had some very serious crimes committed, murder in
fact, and the courts dealt very lightly with them. Some of the
penalties were less than eight years. One penalty was four
years. They were out in less than two years on parole. That
sends the wrong signal to society. It is abundantly clear that
we need to send the kind of a signal that this can be very
serious.
In conclusion I want to talk a little bit about the
contradictions that this government is making by not supporting
an increase in the penalty.
The government put in place legislation that if you make a
mistake on the gun registration certificate, the little
piece of paper you fill out when you are supposed to register your gun in
a few years, you could get up to 10 years in prison for making a
mistake on that. Here you could do something much more
serious, misuse DNA data, and you only get two years. I find
that ironic. If find it unbelievable that this government would
do something like that. It is a real contradiction and that is
why the government should change its mind and support the
amendment that the NDP MP has put forward.
1830
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.30 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)