Canada is graced by a diversity, tolerance—

The Speaker: I am sorry, but I must give the floor to the hon. member for Roberval.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister fails to understand that the Calgary declaration is viewed as dangerous because the members opposite wish to create the illusion that there will something in it for Quebec. That is what is dangerous.

If the House of Commons resolution to recognize distinct society has any value, how does the government explain that it did not rely on it when it came time to create the millennium scholarships program, which tries to force Quebec into the same mold as the other provinces and ignore its specificity?

The Speaker: Before giving the floor to the minister, I believe we do not have simultaneous interpretation. We are going to try to sort that out.

The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the budget speech indicated clearly that we were deeply concerned with respecting the country's diversity and existing education programs, and we are negotiating very hard to respect Quebec's existing programs.

This too flows from the Calgary declaration, from our commitment to a just federation that would take into account the true nature of the country, including the unique character of Quebec society.

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

When we asked the Prime Minister about the sometimes odd approaches the provinces took in consulting on the Calgary declaration, he said it was not his concern and they could choose how they went about it.

What explanation does the minister have for the Prime Minister's statement on the weekend that the parliamentary commission established by the Government of Quebec was nothing more than a trap for Jean Charest? Are we to understand that the federal government has suddenly decided that what the Government of Quebec does is of concern?

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a polite man. He simply repeated what the Quebec premier said, which was to the effect that the premier wanted to trip up the leader of the official opposition—not yet, but anyway—the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party on the Calgary declaration.

This objective is not about informing Quebeckers on the content of the declaration. This is why Bloc Quebecois surveys never ask people whether they agree with the content of the Calgary declaration.

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before they are consulted, they have to know what it is about, because 90% of the people have no idea what the Calgary declaration is about.

It was to be a sort of lifebuoy for the Quebec Liberal Party and federalist Quebeckers.

How can he now claim that a parliamentary commission to look into it suddenly amounts to a trap for the current head of the Liberal Party, Jean Charest?

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will keep looking at what the declaration has to say.

Canada's gift of diversity includes Aboriginal peoples and cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages and a multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world.

In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including its French speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well being of Canada. Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.

*  *  *

[English]

THE ECONOMY

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Prime Minister heads off to the G-8 bragging, no doubt, about the rosy economy even though more Canadians are living in poverty than ever, 1.5 million children. What a tragedy.

1425

Will the Prime Minister be explaining to his G-8 colleagues his Liberal government's formula for increased prosperity for the few and growing poverty for far too many?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a lot more to be done but I am sure the Prime Minister will explain that the unemployment rate has gone down almost 3% since he took office. It is now at the lowest rate in eight years.

He will explain that inflation has disappeared. He will explain that interest rates are at record lows. He will explain why the Globe and Mail, which is no friend of the government, had a headline on the weekend “Jobs aplenty as economy booms”.

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's grasp of the poverty reality is about as real as the Prime Minister's homeless imaginary friend. Maybe the next team Canada mission should be right here at home so the Prime Minister and his colleagues can discover the Canadian reality of growing poverty.

Child poverty in Canada is the highest in 17 years. Will the government recommit to Canada's millennium project, unanimously adopted by the House, namely eliminating child poverty by the year 2000?

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that even though the economy has been performing very well and we are very pleased at the general approach we have been having there remains too much poverty in the country. Many Canadians find it difficult to cope with that reality. We hope that more and more individuals will be picked up by the booming economy which remains a top priority of the government.

We have for the people who still find it tough the national child benefit which we will increase in the next three years to $1.7 billion. We have also improved the family income supplement in the last budget and in many other measures regarding poverty.

*  *  *

TREASURY BOARD

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Pierre Corbeil, a Liberal Party fundraiser, has been convicted of influence peddling for hitting up companies that had applied for grants under the transitional jobs fund.

Mr. Corbeil knew which companies to go after because someone who worked for the minister responsible for the Treasury Board gave him the confidential list of companies. That someone was Jacques Roy.

Can the minister confirm whether Jacques Roy is still his employee?

Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that it is the government that asked the RCMP to make an investigation into the allegation.

The RCMP made a thorough investigation. It reviewed all allegations including the fact mentioned and made a charge against one individual who has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the minister does not seem to know who works for him or, if he does, he does not want to admit it. Jacques Roy is still employed by the minister.

Can the minister explain why one of his staff, who was party to activity which resulted in a Liberal fundraiser being criminally charged and convicted, is still working for him?

Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has investigated these facts thoroughly. It has in the end come to a conclusion. It has charged one individual.

The government has co-operated fully with the RCMP. One individual has been charged and sentenced.

*  *  *

JUSTICE

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Reena Virk was a Victoria school girl who was beaten mercilessly by a pack of 15 young offenders. They swarmed her, beat her and burned her with cigarettes. She staggered away barely alive but they came back. They got her and they killed her.

The first two attackers were sentenced last week. One of them got away with just a year in open custody, no jail; she just got grounded.

Does the justice minister think that is fair?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everybody is very aware of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Reena Virk.

Let me inform the House today that I will be tabling tomorrow afternoon before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the government's response to its proposals for the renewal of the youth justice system.

1430

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is time for more than a response. It is time for legislation.

I hold this minister accountable for the broken Young Offenders Act which she has refused to fix for 335 days. This was the bloodiest beating in the history of Victoria. The Young Offenders Act means these murderers will just walk free.

Is the Minister of Justice prepared today to look Reena Virk's mother in the eye and say that everything will be corrected tomorrow at this little press conference?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have said in this House on many occasions, the renewal of the youth justice system is a complex and serious matter. It should not be trivialized or sensationalized for cheap political points.

Therefore let me reiterate. Tomorrow this government will table its response on the renewal of Canada's youth justice system.

*  *  *

[Translation]

HEPATITIS C

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The federal government is announcing that it will be seeking a consensus at this week's meeting with the ministers of health on settling the hepatitis C question.

Does the Minister of Health admit that, in order to reach a consensus between the provinces, given their far from equal financial means, he will have to agree to use some of the government surplus to inject more money in order to compensate victims?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first we must find out the positions of the provinces, our partners in the health care system.

I trust that Minister Rochon of Quebec will be in attendance, for I am particularly interested in the Quebec position .

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Health claim he wants to find a real solution for the hepatitis C victims, if he does not announce his intention to inject more money, when he is the one who can afford to and this is a prerequisite to a solution?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has already committed $800 million for 1986 through 1990. Now we are waiting for the position of all our partners to be determined.

As the hon. member is already aware, the provinces have expressed a variety of positions, so we shall see next Thursday whether a new consensus will be possible.

*  *  *

[English]

JUSTICE

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the public is tired of having this wait and see game for the Young Offenders Act. National consultations were completed five years ago, yet this government only plans now to respond with a strategy to a committee and then talk some more.

When is the minister going to introduce legislation? Will it deliver the people's agenda of real change or will the minister just rename the act?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the opposition and other interested Canadians will have the opportunity to review and comment on the government's response when it is tabled before the standing committee tomorrow.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the countdown to see young offenders legislation by this justice minister totals a disgusting 335 days.

Can the minister state today that her young offenders strategy response will become substantive legislative change? Will she deal with age, secrecy, consequences and victims for true young offenders rather than just youthful adult criminals under the Young Offenders Act?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of pre-empting the role of parliamentarians by commenting directly on what is in the government's response.

I look forward to the positive contributions of the official opposition when the response is tabled tomorrow.

*  *  *

[Translation]

MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all of Quebec agrees that the federal government has no business interfering in education and that it should let Quebec administer the federal millennium scholarships program itself, according to its own priorities.

But, once again, the federal government is sticking to its guns and trying to impose its scholarship program.

How does the Minister of Human Resources Development explain the government's refusal to make any change whatsoever in the millennium scholarships program, although that is what everyone in Quebec is asking it to do?

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think that this legislation offers tremendous possibilities and that the Bloc Quebecois opposition has not even begun to take a serious interest in what these possibilities could be at the present time.

1435

What I can say is that, one month ago, at the request of Premier Bouchard and the minister, Mrs. Marois, negotiations led by my deputy minister were begun. We are negotiating in good faith and in the firm belief that, within the existing framework agreement and legislative provisions, we can find solutions that are consistent with the interests of young Quebeckers wishing to attend university.

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister claim to be acting in good faith when he is stubbornly ramming his bill through and not giving an inch in negotiations? Is this not more like hypocrisy than good faith?

The Speaker: I ask you, dear colleagues, to be very careful in your choice of words, and the word hypocrisy is not allowed. The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, understandably, when they run out of arguments, they have to resort to this sort of abusive language.

We know that the millennium will be here in a year and a half. We are proud to have a government that has decided to celebrate the knowledge and skills of young people so that they can function in the knowledge economy. We wish to do this as an adjunct to the excellent work being done by the Government of Quebec with its loans and grants programs. We are going to implement the program without any duplication and ensure that our young people have access to the best options possible for the economy of the future.

*  *  *

[English]

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's information commissioner should be the person who ensures access to information requests are processed in a timely, comprehensive manner; no illegal shredding, no whiteouts, no lost documents. This person should be independent minded and should not be a hand picked Liberal appointee.

Why not produce a job description, advertise it and open it up to anyone who wishes to apply and who can meet the standards?

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no candidate's name has formally been offered yet for the position of access to information commissioner. The hon. member knows it.

Anyone can apply for the position. If the hon. member has a name to offer we would be quite willing to hear it.

The hon. members across ask what the job description is. I find it unfortunate that they did not bother to read the act.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what we need is openness and accountability, something this government promised and has not delivered.

Can anyone in this country apply and does that person have to be a Liberal appointee and have connections to the bureaucracy in order to be appointed?

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Of course, Mr. Speaker, anyone can apply. That is obvious.

The problem is that the people across in the Reform Party have not read the act and they admit not even knowing what the job is about.

*  *  *

[Translation]

VARENNES TOKAMAK PROJECT

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. The Varennes tokamak research team has just received the Canadian Nuclear Association's 1998 award of excellence for its exceptional contribution to the development of nuclear fusion science and technology. Yet, tokamak is struggling to survive, for lack of federal funding.

Why is the federal government not maintaining its $7.5 million contribution, so as to ensure the survival and development of this project of the future?

[English]

Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has contributed some $90 million to this project in Quebec since 1981. In 1996 when the decision was taken not to proceed with fusion work the government undertook a lump sum payment of $19 million to discharge its further obligations with respect to the project. That additional sum of money was paid in 1997.

*  *  *

IMMUNIZATION

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Co-operation.

A report this morning from the World Health Organization identifies immunization as a key factor for increased life expectancy. This reinforces the goal set at the world summit for children in 1990 to immunize every child against diseases such as polio and measles. What is Canada doing to support global immunization efforts?

1440

Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has been a key supporter of global immunization. This morning I announced a five year, $50 million international immunization initiative.

We are working with the Canadian Public Health Association, Rotary International, UNICEF and the World Health Organization. Canadian vaccines as well as Canadian made syringes will be used as part of our initiative to help all children become immunized.

*  *  *

THE SENATE

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we had a lame duck question from a Liberal to a Liberal. I thought this was question period, not the time to make announcements.

The Speaker: Colleagues, if we begin to comment on the quality of members' questions, I would urge you to stay away from comments like that, as all they do is incite one another.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, an Angus Reid poll released today shows that the majority of Canadians want the Senate changed.

Only 11% of Canadians are satisfied with the Senate as it is; over 84% want change. Alberta is taking a lead by electing a slate of senators in October. Ontario and B.C. have senate election bills pending. Clearly Canadians are not happy with an unelected, unaccountable upper chamber.

What concrete steps is this government prepared to take to give Canadians a Senate that works?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people who answered the poll were very disappointed to learn that the Reform Party supports efforts by the provinces to elect senators who would then be appointed and then be totally unaccountable. Surely the Canadian people deserve something better than that.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that has to be a Liberal answer. We have had 131 years of a system that does not work. Let us try something that will work.

The polls also show that only 14% of Canadians think the Prime Minister should replace Andrew Thompson's seat by an appointment. The Prime Minister has promised Senate reform. He has produced 28 straight partisan appointments.

My question is regarding the Ontario seat of Senator Thompson. Who will fill that vacant seat, the Prime Minister's choice or the choice of the people?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party had a chance to bring about a real reform of the Senate when the Charlottetown accord was before Canadians. Instead it voted against the Charlottetown accord and caused any real reform of the Senate to be put off indefinitely. Reformers should look at themselves in the mirror and see where the blame lies.

*  *  *

POVERTY

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The finance minister talks about growing economic optimism but a National Council of Welfare report shows devastating growing poverty. Poverty is up by 17% and child poverty has reached a high of 21%. These millions of Canadians are not optimistic, they are desperate.

Will the Prime Minister heed the warning of the national council and stop this growing inequity and set real targets to eliminate poverty?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have looked in a preliminary way at the report and it points to a problem we are already beginning to work on.

1445

In the last budget of the Minister of Finance, 400,000 low income Canadians were taken off the tax rolls completely. Millions more low and middle income Canadians are having their taxes reduced. We are increasing by $850 million the child tax credit which is aimed at helping lower income Canadians.

These are just a few examples of our efforts to deal with the issue of poverty, particularly child poverty.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the deputy prime minister spouts empty rhetoric while children go hungry.

The truth is that federal support for welfare, health and education has been slashed by $3 billion since 1996 and poor people are paying the price. They are standing in food lines, living in shelters and raising kids on welfare rates that keep them in poverty.

Will the government replenish transfers to the provinces and ease the suffering of the poorest of Canada's citizens?

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the very first gesture of this government was to restore the Canada health transfer by $1.5 billion. That was a very welcome gesture.

Second, this year and in the coming two years we will be investing $1.7 billion in the national child benefit to fight child poverty. We are also increasing deductions for child care and we have increased tax relief for low income Canadians. I could go on.

*  *  *

ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, a political staff member of the minister's office has been directly involved in the commission of a criminal offence and nobody in this government is taking any responsibility for it.

The Liberal code of ethics claims transparency and accountability, which have surely been trampled in this case.

What is the President of the Treasury Board doing to prevent Jacques Roy or any other member of his staff from using confidential information to raise money for the Liberal Party in the future?

Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was at the request of the government that the RCMP made a thorough investigation.

The government has co-operated fully with that investigation. The RCMP received all the facts. It charged only one individual. That individual has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be suggesting that unless a criminal charge is laid everything is okay.

We know this is not the case. Pierre Corbeil did not act alone. He committed a crime thanks to confidential information provided by someone in the minister's own office.

Will the President of the Treasury Board stop hiding behind these meaningless statements and bureaucratic gobbledegook and clean up his office? Or does he condone the activities of Mr. Corbeil?

Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has investigated this matter thoroughly. It has had the full co-operation of the government and it charged only one individual. That individual has pleaded guilty and has been sentenced.

*  *  *

ORGANIZED CRIME

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is national police week. Canadians say thank you to the police officers who work in our communities and on the front lines against crime.

More and more, Canadian society is being victimized by organized crime where the front lines are not so clear and the criminals themselves may operate from other countries.

My question is for the solicitor general. What is the Government of Canada doing to protect Canadians from this growing international threat?

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is right to characterize the organized crime issue as international. That is why there are 1,000 delegates in Toronto this week, representing some 20 countries' law enforcement agencies, all dealing with the question of organized crime.

As we discussed this morning, the government has primarily two responsibilities. One is to provide the tools. That is why we provided the witness protection program, the proceeds of crime legislation and the anti-gang legislation. That is why we established the national co-ordinating committee on organized crime under the leadership of the RCMP. That is why next week I will be in Washington discussing this very problem with Janet Reno.

The fight against this scourge on Canadian society continues.

*  *  *

THE SENATE

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can send us a press release.

On June 11, 1990, Stan Waters was appointed to the Senate after being elected by the people of Alberta. That did not require constitutional change.

In 1993 the Prime Minister had this to say about the Senate: “The Liberal government in two years will make it elected. As Prime Minister, I can make it happen”.

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister whose leader promised us an elected Senate. How does he plan to make it happen?

1450

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to check the total transcript that the hon. member is referring to.

Secondly, to make it happen there has to be a constitutional amendment and I do not see any resolutions in any of the provinces to amend the Constitution. Until the Constitution is amended the Prime Minister has an obligation to follow the Constitution.

Simply electing people who then have to be appointed for life does not change the Senate, it just compounds what the hon. member is complaining about.

*  *  *

[Translation]

POVERTY

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The government made a very firm commitment to the fight against poverty. Since then, however, it has slashed funding to education, social assistance and health. This morning the National Council on Welfare issued a statement reminding the government that it is responsible for the rise in poverty everywhere in the country.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that, if the government is serious about wanting to really fight poverty, it must first and foremost hand back over to the provinces the billions of dollars it has cut from health, education and welfare, under the pretext of reducing its deficit?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fight against poverty is currently being waged with tax cuts and increased tax credits for poor children. We are going to continue that fight until a true victory has been won. We have made considerable progress already, moreover.

*  *  *

[English]

HEALTH

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, patients in Canadian hospitals today are receiving unlicensed blood products without their knowledge or consent. Hospitals have been informed of a shortage of the human serum albumin and told that unlicensed product is available through the Emergency Drug Release Program. Manufacturers are still not compliant with licensing regulations that were passed five months ago.

Is this not the same kind of situation that led to the spread of HIV and hepatitis C through the tainted blood scandal? Will the minister investigate this serious situation today and indicate what steps he is taking to ensure that manufacturers comply with the blood licensing regulations?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take account of what the member says. I will look into it and respond to her.

As a general matter, we have now agreed with the provinces to the creation of a new blood system which will open its doors later this year with a form of governance that mirrors the Krever recommendations and a form of regulation from the federal government that reflects the Krever recommendations. At least when we start the new blood agency it will be on a new foot and hopefully toward a new and safer age.

*  *  *

NATIONAL FOREST STRATEGY

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has stated that Canadian woodlot owners are like any other Canadian business. Yet Canada's national forest strategy for 1998 to the year 2003 recognizes that woodlot owners are not like other businesses and that a change to capital gains taxation is required.

I wonder what the Minister of Natural Resources thinks of the taxation recommendations in our national forest strategy.

Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has repeatedly explained the impact of the current tax rules to the hon. gentleman.

Recently federal and provincial ministers and a variety of others interested in the forest sector have worked very hard on developing a new forest strategy for Canada for the next five year period. Over the course of those five years all of us will be working very hard to ensure that we maximize sustainable development in our forests, including in the woodlot sector. All worthy ideas will be taken into account.

*  *  *

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

There have been concerns expressed in my riding regarding the financial accountability of native reserves.

Can the minister tell Canadians what First Nations are doing to improve their governance structure in order to address these concerns?

Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as was emphasized both in the Speech from the Throne and In Gathering Strength, our response to the royal commission, this government agrees with aboriginal people that building strong, accountable and transparent governments is a priority.

1455

It is important to share with the House the progress that is being made in this regard.

I would note that the Assembly of First Nations recently signed an agreement with the Certified General Accountants of Canada to train First Nations accountants and to develop a code of ethics for First Nations accounting.

I would also note that all First Nations are developing conflict of interest guidelines as part of funding agreements. The Alberta chiefs are developing an accountability framework and through the British Columbia First Nations Financial Officers Association—

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

*  *  *

THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the scandals of TAGS stand as a lesson that costly programs motivated entirely by politics do nothing but harm Atlantic Canadians.

It has been harshly criticized by fishermen, the auditor general and the premier of Newfoundland, and has resulted in a major lawsuit against the government. Now it wants to do it all over again.

Would the minister name one single feature of the second TAGS that will prevent the mismanagement and incompetence that dominated the first TAGS?

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the hon. member can stand in the House to say that. Canadians experienced terrible difficulties when we realized there was no fish in 1992 and 1993 we had to act and act quickly.

What we did was not perfect, but what we did was the best we could do to help Canadian citizens who were in a difficult situation. We put forward that money to help the fishermen through a difficult time.

We are addressing the post TAGS environment. We are learning from our experiences of the past and we will do better in the future.

*  *  *

[Translation]

NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

This morning, we learned that India conducted three limited strength underground nuclear weapons tests on the weekend. These tests are the first conducted by India since May 1974 and are part of a strategy of confrontation with Pakistan.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House what concrete action he intends to take to show Canada's disapproval of this dangerous initiative?

Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's high commissioner to India has already indicated the Government of Canada's concern about this event. The matter has also been raised in other world capitals.

We are taking this situation very seriously. It is completely contrary to the desired approach world-wide on the resolution of nuclear matters.

*  *  *

[English]

JUSTICE

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has been over 21 years since Leonard Peltier was extradited to the United States on the basis of alleged false information.

In 1994 the then justice minister authorized a full review of the case and in February 1997 indicated the findings would be made public prior to the June 2 election. They were not.

Will the current Minister of Justice tell the House why the review has not been made public and if and when she intends to do so?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the hon. member that we are reviewing that report right now in relation to privacy concerns.

As soon as I am satisfied and the privacy commissioner is satisfied that we can release that report I will do so.

*  *  *

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is a research project in the works proposing such things as aroma therapy and massage as treatment for criminal behaviour.

Could the solicitor general confirm that CSC is investigating alternative therapies? If it is, if it could include me and a few of my colleagues on these massages that would be wonderful.

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my suggestion would be that what we need to investigate is the research capacity of the Reform Party which has a tendency to make these things up.

*  *  *

THE ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Tony Cunningham of Shelburne County, Nova Scotia is anxious.

He is anxious because Mr. Cunningham will soon stop receiving TAGS support. He wonders when this government will announce the licence retirement program that allows him and thousands more like him the opportunity to leave the groundfishery.

Could the Minister of Human Resources Development inform the thousands of people like Mr. Cunningham when they can expect to hear of a package that allows them to retire their licences?

1500

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the situation. The TAGS program will be ending in August. We intend to address the post-TAGS environment very well. This is why we have conducted all the consultations we have with individuals, with the communities and with the provinces.

We are working very hard right now, some of my colleagues and I, to make sure that we have the best approach in the post-TAGS environment.

*  *  *

PRESENCE IN GALLERY

The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Yordan Sokolov, President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

---

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[English]

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am honoured to table, in both official languages, achievements of the international business development program for 1997 and 1998.

*  *  *

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

*  *  *

PETITIONS

CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of submitting a very large petition, in fact one of the largest to come to the House.

The petitioners request parliament to prescribe the mandatory minimum jail term of seven days for persons found guilty of a first offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm or death by amending section 255(1)(a) of the Criminal Code to read as follows.

Everyone who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely for a first offence, to imprisonment—”

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. House leader but I think he knows the rules of the House precluding him from reading petitions. I invite him to comply with the rule and summarize the petition for hon. members.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I thought you would allow another 10 seconds on the issue given that it is the largest petition in the House.

For a second offence, to imprisonment of not less than 14 days and finally for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than 90 days.

1505

HERBAL REMEDIES

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with a great number of names to present this afternoon. It is regarding the way government may regulate herbs and teas in the future.

The petitioners are basically asking that their freedom of choice not be ended in terms of how they use those products. The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and ask for their freedom back and not to have herbs and teas defined as vitamins or as drugs.

*  *  *

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question No. 33 will be answered today. .[Text] Mr. John Cummins:

With regard to the refusal of sport fishing lodges, in particular the lodges owned by Oak Bay Marine Group, to provide catch data during the summer of 1995 as required by section 61 of the Fisheries Act and meetings or conversations between Ministers and the lodge operators or the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia: (a) did any Minister of the Crown meet or have conversations with either the lodge operators or the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia in the summer of 1995, in 1996 and in 1997, and if so, who attended these meetings or participated in these conversations; (b) did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Justice or other agency prepare briefing material or otherwise brief any Minister of the Crown or their staff for any of these meetings or conversations; (c) when were Ministers of the Crown or their offices first informed that lodges, including those of the Oak Bay Marine Group, were refusing to provide catch data; (d) did any Ministers or their staff participate in the Department of Fisheries Pacific Salmon Management Teleconference calls in 1995 which considered the refusal of the lodges, including the Oak Bay Marine Group lodges to supply catch data; (e) were Ministers of the Crown briefed on June 11, 1997 or thereafter on the refusal of sport fishing lodges to povide catch data to the Department of Fisheries in 1995 and the legal actions on-against them; (f) did any Minister or their staff meet with officials of Oak Bay Marine Group in 1995, 1996 and 1997 (other than in the occasions referenced above) and on any of those occasions did the company make clear their displeasure at being required to provide catch data to the Department of Fisheries, and (g) did any Minister of the Crown go fishing with a representative of Oak Bay Marine Group in August of 1997, what was the date of the fishing trip and who was in the party in addition to the Minister?

Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed as follows.

(a) It is routine for the minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, and staff to meet and speak with various members of the fishing community, including lodge operators and the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia, to discuss stakeholder issues. Former minister, the honourable Brian Tobin, met with sport fish lodge owners on July 12, 1995, to discuss chinook conservation measures and their impacts on lodge operations. Departmental staff are unaware of any other meeting, or conversation which took place during this timeframe relating to the context of the question.

(b) With regard to the July 12, 1995 meeting reported in (a) above, any briefing which took place was verbal information provided by senior departmental officials.

(c) Further to the honourable Brian Tobin's meeting on July 12, 1995, with sport fish lodge owners, the honourable Brian Tobin was informed about the subsequent refusal of lodges to provide catch data on August 17, 1995. Former DFO minister, the honourable Fred Mifflin, received briefing material on June 10, 1996. Departmental records indicated that the honourable David Anderson, at the time minister of revenue and member of parliament for Victoria, was briefed in late July, 1995 regarding the refusal of lodges in the Queen Charlotte Islands, B.C., including Oak Bay Marine Group, to provinde catch data to DFO.

(d) Departmental officials advise that a staff member of former DFO minister the honourable Brian Tobin's office attended one DFO Pacific salmon management teleconference call on May 26, 1995, which discussed proposed chinook salmon conservation measures. Discussions included expected opposition to the measures by Queen Charlotte Island lodge operators including Oak Bay Marine Group. The department is unaware of any DFO minister or his staff members participating in further teleconferences.

(e) Departmental staff provided a response to an anticipated oral question for the House of Commons relating to the referenced subject matter to the honourable David Anderson on September 24, 1997.

(f) Departmental staff and current ministerial staff are unaware of any meeting during the stated timeframe between Ministers or their staff where Oak Bay Marine Group officials made clear their displeasure at being required to provide catch data to DFO.

(g) Yes, the honourable David Anderson did go fishing for 4 hours on August 12, 1997 on a private vessel owned by Martin Dowling of Campbell River, B.C. The members of the party in addition to the minister and Mr. Dowling were Greg McDougall, Gerry Kristianson and Randy Wright, who is the vice-president, operations, of the Oak Bay Marine Group.

All other ministers have no information on this subject.

[English]

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, once again I rise with respect to a question that was placed on the order paper on October 3, 1997.

Seven months have passed. We are into the eighth month. It is a very straightforward question. We have been told time and time again that they will be getting back to us, that they will provide us with the answer. It just does not seem to be happening. I ask the parliamentary secretary again when we can expect an answer to this question.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the commentary. That message will be conveyed to the parliamentary secretary to the House leader.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

---

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[English]

DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 7.

The Deputy Speaker: When the bill was last under consideration by the House the hon. member for Medicine Hat had the floor. He has eight minutes remaining in his speech.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to address the motion in Group No. 3. My friends across the way were hoping I was finished but sadly for them and for me too, I guess, we are not finished yet.

I will touch on two issues and just remind members why we are supporting the motion by the NDP member. The reasons are twofold. We are concerned about the privacy aspect. As I pointed out before question period, there are concerns among the public in an age when technology has become so prevalent that if the government through the DNA databank were to receive a piece of information, a DNA sample, somehow it will become public and could be used in other ways the public would be very concerned about.

That is a very legitimate concern. Many Canadians are concerned that the government already has too much information about them. If we are to ensure that this very useful tool is given to police for use in stopping legitimate criminals, we must ensure the public's concerns are allayed. The best way to do that in this case, other than using due diligence when this DNA databank is set up, is to put in place very stiff penalties so that if people misuse the information they will face very severe consequences.

That is why we are very pleased to support the Group No. 3 motion that would place a maximum five year penalty on anybody who misuses the data. We are supportive of it. I believe the original legislation has a two year penalty.

When I read through the bill from cover to cover, as I often do before I turn in for the evening, that aspect concerned me. I was happy to see this amendment come forward. Reformers will stand in support of the motion.

We believe the DNA databank is a good idea. We want it. We think it is important for the police to have it, but we need to ensure legitimate concerns are dealt with. We think this is one way we could deal with this concern and therefore will support this motion.

1510

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have been given just a few moments to comment upon what is happening in the House today. We have a bill on the topic of using DNA samples as a tool to suppress crime, a bill in fact that the Liberals never really wanted. They were brought to the issue by the sweep of international events as other countries were responding to changing enforcement technology.

The Canadian people are far ahead of the government on the will to respond to crime. They want more than the narrow limits of the bill on DNA. The theme I am talking about here is how philosophically weak is the Liberal government. It specifically shows in the comments to the groupings of the amendments before us.

I heard a comment the other day that seemed to fit my point. After some political talk around a table over drinks with some obvious frustration, one interrupted the other and asked “Just what do the Liberals really stand for anyway?” The answer I overheard was telling.

She said something to the effect that “When you get right down to it I suppose I have to admit that Liberals really stand for what will get us elected. When I think about it, it does not seem to matter too much about the long term view of what I think is good for the country. My party keeps changing and I really do not think we stand for anything exclusively. We have the red book now but things always change”.

I know that understanding or admission is a touchy sore point with the Prime Minister. I have heard him on several occasions in the House try to cover the inherent weak nature of his party and deliver his personal prescription of what it means to be a Liberal in the usual puff phrases referring to democracy, compassion, pragmatism and so on. I have heard this from every political stripe, from the diehard socialist to the deluded fascist, every group imaginable.

We say much about democracy and equality in our party also, but we write them down in a blue book after exhaustive voting, grassroots debate and discussion. Then we publish it for the country and we are on the record as accountable for those positions.

Reformers have been doing that for years before the Liberals ever conceived of the idea of a red book. It is because Reformers had a blue book and were killing the Liberals in the polls in the west that they quickly hothoused the production of the 1993 Liberal red book. The country knows that one now very much as the list of broken promises or the red ink book.

In other words, the Prime Minister knows in his heart how weak and without courage Liberals are. His pronouncements in the House about it betray him. The private admission of the lady to whom I referred who said she was a Liberal is not news. Everyone has heard those comments. The sad part of it for our country is that the lady, in spite of her admission, did not seem to feel motivated to do something.

To her it seemed okay that despite how much her party hurt the country or despite how short term expediency left Canada missing opportunities for greatness and raising the human spirit, she seemed content to sit with the insiders Liberal club; no risk, no hint of courage, no concern about leadership, just complacency.

In spite of what the Prime Minister has done on the hepatitis C file, Liberals who know better just shed their tears in private. They unfortunately stay in their Liberal seats instead of joining the people's agenda on our side.

Liberal manoeuvres on the DNA bill are typical of so much of their administration of the people's business. They are weak and this weakness has produced the consequence now that will directly affect the basic safety of our citizens. Liberal weakness to defend the streets of Canada against evil and the perpetrators of crime is a reflection of their inadequate policy. Our country faces challenges and to be a Liberal today is obviously just not good enough to meet those challenges.

The basic economic policies of the government have been timid. Liberals have put the country through needless pain by drawing out the ordering of our national finances in halting steps, while sending shaky mixed messages to the investor community about where we are going. The Liberals are weak and are not up to the job of running the finances of the country.

On Saturday, May 9, a Vancouver Sun headline read “Only weak dollar helps us keep pace with Americans”.

1515

The article shows how Canada has fallen behind the U.S. in productivity, foreign investment and the generation of jobs and income. The finance minister does get some good advice on how to stem the trend, but he is weak. He is afraid of the politics of envy of the NDP. The socialist tendencies in his party hold Canada back. That results in keeping unemployment unnecessarily high.

I will make another point. The minister of trade is so weak that he cannot explain or sell an MAI type of agreement that would protect Canada's economic interests as we try expanding our economy abroad. He is so inadequate that he lets Maude Barlow and others lie baldface to the nation and deceive communities right across this country with their socialist, small minded inferiority complex.

The Liberal trade minister was not up to building a national political mandate within our country or lead internationally to overcome the problems of the MAI, even when Canada has a former cabinet minister in charge of the OECD. No wonder. The record is there. He is just a weak Liberal who is out of his league when he takes Canada to the international table.

I make those observations leading up to the greatest admission of weakness by Liberals that I have seen for some time. It was the press release of May 1 by the solicitor general and the justice minister. I quote in part:

May 1, 1998, Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of Justice and Attorney General Canada released today the conclusions of three eminent jurists asked to review the constitutionality of taking DNA samples without prior judicial authorization at the time a person is charged with a designated offence, such as sexual assault.

Since 1995, DNA samples can be taken for investigative purposes under the authority of a judicial warrant and the federal government now has legislation before parliament, Bill C-3, that would create a DNA databank based on DNA samples collected after conviction.

Responding to a number of individuals and organizations that have continued to press for such amendment, the Department of Justice sought legal opinions from former Justice Martin Taylor of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and from former Chief Justices Charles Dubin of the Ontario Court of Appeal and Claude Bisson of the Quebec Court of Appeal. Each concluded independently that this proposal would not survive charter scrutiny.

If charter scrutiny is the problem, then maybe the charter is wrong or out of date. If we have judges who will not approve a more expansive bill, then maybe we have the wrong kind of judges. After all, the public has had no input into their selection.

It comes down to courage and confidence of the government, courage and skill to act for the people. Make the supreme court reflective of Canadian society. Change the charter if we have to, the people are behind it. Pass legislation in this House that meets the challenges of the job. If the judges are not up to speed and strike it down, then use the notwithstanding clause. Under this Liberal administration parliament no longer seems supreme.

We are attempting to amend this bill through these various report stage motions. It is good as far as it goes, but I call on the government to show some resolve and strength of leadership. The DNA bill should be parallel to taking fingerprints. Liberals hiding and running because of legal technicalities is not a government of the 21st century. Opinions will continue to vary. We do not need this weak government. We need a government to positively decide and lead with courage.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you will note that because I am going to the Senators game tonight we will have a victory over there. That is why the juggling of the order, to allow me the time to get ready so that I can help them out.

DNA evidence has been used in the courts since 1988. The question is why has it taken a full decade for the government to come up with comprehensive legislation for the collecting of DNA samples to allow peace officers and the justice system to do their jobs. The tools are widely available for the collection of DNA samples. The track record for proving convictions and for proving innocence such as the recent high profile exonerations demonstrates the validity and viability of DNA testing.

Why is the government so far behind in this technology? Why is the government going through such great lengths to limit these tools and methods of DNA collection? Should the government instead be concentrating on regulating and safeguarding the methods available? The government is concerned with the protection of the rights of the criminals. That is why the bill allows only for the collection of DNA samples after a conviction for a crime that has been committed. Too bad the government does not use the same rationale in protecting the rights of law-abiding Canadians. The government has no problem setting up a central gun registry forcing people who have not committed a crime to give private information to the government and to keep a central databank.

1520

Why is the government willing to punish law-abiding Canadians by establishing a flawed gun registry while at the same time hindering justice by not collecting DNA when a person is charged with a crime?

The Canadian Police Association represents the frontline of our justice system. Police officers are concerned that if they have to wait until a conviction in order to collect DNA samples, they will not be able to introduce DNA evidence during trial proceedings. This would be like not using fingerprints as evidence until after the person has been convicted.

Will the government tell us what it is afraid of? Will it accept the Canadian Police Association's recommendation that DNA samples be collected when a person who has previously committed a crime is being charged with the present crime? The police are concerned that if they have to wait for the conviction before collecting a DNA sample the accused would rather skip bail or not fulfil parole conditions rather than voluntarily submitting to DNA samples being taken from him or her.

Why volunteer to give evidence which may very well convict him or her of an unsolved crime? How can the government continue to argue against the rationale that is being given by the police who know and have to work with the criminal element? Why is the government willing to listen to people protecting the rights of criminals rather than the Canadian Police Association which promotes the interest of our police men and women?

The public is already concerned with the lack of teeth in Canada's justice system. The Young Offenders Act is under public scrutiny because it sees young offenders repeating crimes. The public is concerned about criminals released on early parole because once released many are again committing crimes. If these repeat offenders knew that their DNA samples were in a central registry, would they not be less likely to commit a crime? Does it not make sense to put into place preventive measures such as an extensive DNA sample bank for future victims?

The Canadian Police Association's main philosophical objection with Bill C-3 is this. It is a fundamental disagreement over the sovereign legislative authority of parliament in originating criminal law as opposed to a judicially supreme system favoured by the department and some justices. Having responsible government taken away from a free people is a terrible thing but giving it away is surely worse.

The government was concerned about what the courts would think of this bill when it was drafting it. Rather, should the courts not be concerned about what parliament is thinking? It is parliament that makes the laws, not the courts. The job of the courts is to enforce the laws that parliament makes. If this business of second guessing each other continues, it is the legislative function of parliament that will be hindered. It is known now that parliament is being hindered by the courts.

We all have a desire to protect our families and society. This bill would provide for matching DNA samples taken from a crime scene with those samples in the DNA bank. Does it not make sense that the larger the data source of the DNA bank, the likelier a match will be found? Why not seek measures to increase the data in the DNA bank rather than limiting the tools needed by law enforcement officers?

I have two more points. One of my colleagues said that this bill is a half step. It is obvious that this bill is going to have to be amended a number of times over the next few years. In the meantime because of samples that are not taken as a result of this proposed legislation, crimes will go unsolved. There is no question about that.

1525

Why not get the bill right the first time? Why not accept the valuable suggestions from the Canadian Police Association and the opposition so that we have a bill that works from the start rather than having to amend it in the future?

All of us are concerned about due process. All of us are concerned about privacy. None of us want to see a system of DNA registration that would hinder our individual rights. The safeguard that has been proposed is that anyone who has already been convicted of a crime when charged with another would have to provide DNA samples. This way the general law-abiding public would not be subject to undue process in the courts.

Does the government think that people who have committed crimes against society have the same privileges as those who have kept the law? It is obvious attention is not given to the independence of this House. It is not given to the innocence of the victims but rather we are determined to continue to give rights to those who have already committed a crime.

As Churchill said, give our police the tools so they can finish the job. Do not hinder them in their pursuit of doing their job of bringing criminals to trial.

*  *  *

[Translation]

CANADA LABOUR CODE

BILL C-19—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION MOTION

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report and third reading stages of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a Minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

Some hon. members: Shame.

*  *  *

[English]

DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 7.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak regarding Group No. 3 in this DNA bill, particularly to speak in support of Motion No. 7 which amends clause 11 of the bill. It proposes that the penalty be increased from two to five years for anyone who violates, misuses or communicates any part of a person's DNA sample.

This motion would clearly be a deterrent to those who would be inclined to use this information for criminal purposes.

I can understand why this motion is necessary since there is considerable nervousness surrounding the privacy of individuals. The privacy commissioner has stated on a number of occasions that he has serious reservations with the storing of DNA samples themselves rather than just the analysis.

He felt this legislation seeks to use DNA to link specific offenders with specific crimes. Keeping the DNA sample itself would inevitably invite further uses of the DNA that have little to do with identifying offenders such as allowing researchers to use the material to study genetic links to criminal behaviour. That is the idea being proposed now in Correctional Service Canada.

I have been told by the commissioner's office that we are looking for alternative therapies to criminal behaviour. The problem with the privacy commissioner's theory that the analysis of the DNA is sufficient without the need to preserve the actual sample is that he did not take into account that in order for the databank to keep pace with technological advances the samples are needed. If not we would have recollect samples should the original analysis be obsolete.

The expenses associated with the repetition of these tasks would be astronomical. I hope that that would be taken into account.

1530

The motion of my hon. colleague from the NDP should put the privacy commissioner's fears to rest knowing that a strong penalty was in place for the misuse of samples. There is only one word in this whole business that I have mentioned that frightens me a bit in the sense that it is a word which would cause most Liberals if not all of them to reject this kind of amendment to a bill.

The word is deterrent. Anytime we talk about creating penalties for breaking the law, penalties for doing wrong and that we need to impose penalties that would be a deterrent to individuals doing these things, the Liberal government seems to reject it. Deterrent is not part of the Liberal government's language.

Liberals have these flowery ideas, soft cushy mushy ideas that criminals have to be coddled in all fashions imaginable in order to change in their lives and make things better. I hope the Liberals will look at this part and say that yes we do need to deter people from misusing DNA samples that are collected. Anybody who would misuse or abuse that position should suffer the consequences. It would cause others to think twice before they did the same thing.

I only wish we could put people into power. Maybe someday we will, when we get rid of these pussycats in the government's front row who do not know the meaning of good law and order and strong discipline. The government is forever coddling criminals. It is to the point that in the penitentiaries the disposable income for a convict is $150 per month whereas the disposable income for a soldier in our army is about $40 a month. We do not look after law-abiding people nearly as well as we do the people behind bars.

Anytime any kind of bill is introduced that would be strong enough to deter people from other activities along those lines would be wonderful. It would bring about some changes this government would not want to see, not the way the government coddles up to the convicts making sure their rights are looked after while the victims rights in our land continually go downhill, depleted day in and day out. The victims are just poor victims but the criminals, man oh man, the things that are done for them.

We really have to be careful when we take these DNA samples according to the government. Criminals immediately get psychological attention. They can get massages, legal aid, all these things come to their rescue. I have talked to family after family after family of victims. If they need a psychologist to deal with someone who has lost a loved one, they have to pay for the service themselves, if they can afford it and most cannot, but we make sure the criminal gets that. If a criminal needs psychiatric help and has to be placed under observation for 30 days, we make sure the taxpayers pay for it while the victims, if they want any service at all, will have to pay for it themselves, if they can afford it and of course most of them cannot.

It is high time we focused on the victims in our country. The victims are the people that are being terribly offended in this nation by a government that does not seem to care at all about them. The government shows about as much care for victims of criminal activities as it has shown for the people who were affected by hepatitis C before 1986. This caring loving government.

The government is completely off track. These amendments would help bring it back on track. The police association and all those who work on the front line, the ones who want to make the arrests who want to clean up the problems we are having with criminals in our land are saying to the government “Let us take the sample at the time of arrest, let us take it at the time of charge”. But no. We are not going to allow that to happen until after.

1535

Those are the police all over the country and anyone who works with crime and law and order. Walk into a police department in Calgary, Toronto or anywhere. Ask the police when it should be done and they will say that it certainly should not be done after conviction because it does not make sense.

However, we have to be careful when we do anything in this country because we will offend the charter of rights of the criminals. This is the charter that the mighty government under the Trudeau leadership brought in, to our great nation's dismay. It has been a roadblock to good justice in this land for far too long. I for one am really getting tired of watching progress being moved in a direction only to have the Supreme Court of Canada rule that under the charter of rights and freedoms we cannot go any further in that direction because it would offend or hurt the poor criminal.

I hope Canadians wake up to what is really going on in this land and that this government gets what it deserves in the next election, booted out of here so we can put something in that will do something with law and order.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, my colleague from Wild Rose mentioned the criminals and the easy life they have. The criminals in my area of the country get to play golf. The average taxpayer in my riding has to pay more than $50 a round but the criminals get to play golf on their own golf course. Is that not great?

If I were to think about this, I think the average Canadian would say that if we kept criminals busy 60 hours a week, 40 hours a week eight hours a day doing meaningful work and 20 hours of study a week learning to be better people, they would come out of those places a lot better than the people who come out after all the mollycoddling with colour television sets and playing on the golf course when other people have to pay. It is entirely wrong and is not the way it should be done.

As one of my colleagues said, if the government would just accept the sensible amendments to these bills, we would not have to keep revisiting these things. It is amazing how many bills come back for amendments one or two years later. The Nunavut bill is back in the House. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is running around handing out $300,000 for polls, which could have been done for $8,000 by professional companies, to try to justify and support bills that were passed when they had no idea what the definitions would be. It is a total mess.

If the government would just accept meaningful changes to its bills, little amendments like the one we are looking at here under Group No. 3, the bills would be much better. They would work better and they would not have to keep coming back here.

Under Group No. 3, the motion was put forward by a member of the NDP. We on the Reform side support the motion. It proposes a change in the penalty for releasing the DNA results for any other reason than for the purposes of the act. The government has a two year penalty in there. If somebody gets these DNA results and sends them out on a mailing list or allows them to be publicized in some way, there is only a two year penalty provided for under the act.

As my colleague from Wild Rose said, this is a typical example of the mollycoddling approach the Liberal government has toward criminals. This is a serious crime and it should have a much greater penalty. The proposal that has come from our NDP colleague is a five year penalty. We agree with it because if it was two years we could bet the person would be out in three months. That is just the way it works with this Liberal government.

Speaking today about the DNA act takes me back to when the member for Wild Rose actually got the first DNA bill through this House. Anybody who was here in the 35th Parliament, and all of those Liberals sitting on that side were here, will remember the day in question period when the member for Wild Rose stood up and challenged the then justice minister to do something about authorizing the use of DNA. On that day, whether it was by mistake or good fortune, the minister agreed to meet with the opposition. He said if the opposition would meet with him that day it could be done. The member for Wild Rose got right back up and said “We will do it this afternoon” and it was done. Within a very short time we had a bill through the House.

1540

I was thrilled as the member for North Vancouver because the very first crime that was solved using that bill was a crime in North Vancouver. The police had been waiting for the power to use the DNA results. Why it had been delayed for so long heaven only knows. All it took was the willingness of the government to sit down and do something sensible that the people of Canada wanted. When we look at the DNA bill and the amendments proposed by the opposition members, anyone reading the bill can see that they are sensible amendments and really should be made.

As my colleague for Wild Rose alluded to, we have had 30 years of the Liberal wishy-washy bleeding heart approach to crime. Where has that got us? Absolutely nowhere. The situation today is that the police are frustrated. They can arrest people for crimes and they cannot get convictions.

I know I cannot use props but the tiepin I am wearing today was lent to me by a policeman friend. The policemen I know are friends and they should be friends of law-abiding people. These days the police are forced to act as facilitators because if they actually arrest anybody, they have a terrible job getting anyone convicted. The tiepin is a pair of gold handcuffs that the police wear to represent the difficult time they have in actually getting criminals convicted. I wish we could do something in the House to assist the police to do their work.

One of the frustrations alluded to by two of my colleagues is what we call the tyranny of the judges. The supreme court overrules the intent of parliament, turning us into an even worse type of wishy-washy Liberal approach to crime. I wonder, but perhaps I do not have to wonder too much what that has to do with the fact that the government actually appoints the judges and we end up with the same philosophy in making judgments on what comes down in the way of the law.

A few weeks ago the Supreme Court of Canada made a judgment on the Delgamuukw case, the Indian land claims case that came out of B.C. The case goes back probably about a decade. Many years were spent hearing the testimony in the case in B.C. It took more than a year for the judge to come out with his judgment. The judgment that there was no Indian claim to title was upheld by the B.C. supreme court after lengthy hearings. Then it went to the Supreme Court of Canada. In a lightning fast hearing a central Canadian court overturned everything that had been determined in the British Columbia courts and created nothing but chaos for the land claims process in the province.

This is another example of the type of tyranny that goes on that should be dealt with with the notwithstanding clause as mentioned by the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby. These sorts of decisions undermine the parliamentary process. They make it very difficult for parliament to do its work.

Over the Easter break I was in Australia. I was looking at a similar problem Australia ran into. About five or six years ago a court made a similar ruling to the one that has just been made by the Supreme Court of Canada. The court ruled that the aboriginals of Australia basically owned everything. They had title to everything. That created such chaos in Australia over the next three to four years that every time the government tried to do something, to develop a new park, to build a school, whatever it was trying to do, aboriginals would lodge claims in the court that they owned the land and nothing could be done with it.

We already see that happening in B.C. Three or four weeks ago the B.C. government announced it was building a new school in the heart of the city. What happened? Immediately some natives claimed that they own the land and the school cannot be built until they have settled their land claim. We can see this whole process running away into uncontrolled judicial decisions.

1545

In Australia, after putting up with that for four years, they finally passed the native land titles act to put an end to the tyranny that was shown by the judges and to extinguish that aboriginal title.

All of these things stem from the refusal of government to treat crime in a meaningful manner and to treat criminals for what they are, criminals.

We know what causes crime. Criminals cause crime. We need to take a much harder line with criminals than we have been taking.

While the opposition is pleased to see this type of DNA legislation coming through, we would certainly like to see amendments made to reinforce the provisions of the bill.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-3, the DNA act. The motion in Group No. 3 that we are debating would increase the penalty for anybody who abuses this information. If the information is used for anything other than what was intended, a very severe penalty should be applied. This is needed because the information is very useful in fighting crime. It is also very personal and should be used only for what it was intended.

DNA profiles contain uniquely private and personal information. This information should be used only for the purposes of identification.

The essence of this bill is to create a databank to identify every person who has committed a crime in this country. If the profile is on file, then anytime it comes up again we know exactly who the person is.

This would give a strong tool to our police, to our crime fighters. It is a strong tool for the protection of society. It is a strong tool for deterring criminals from acting because they will know there is a positive means of identification on file and that there will be no mistakes.

This motion goes on to state other reasons it is important to protect these profiles. The improper use or disclosure of DNA profiles can lead to significant harm to the individual, including discrimination in areas such as employment, education, health care, reproduction and insurance.

There seems to be a great deal of concern about the rights of people. If we have rights for the average citizen in Canada, then we need to secure those rights and make them stronger.

If we have this DNA information on file, it should be used for crime prevention and that is all it should be used for.

We support this amendment from the member for Sydney—Victoria.

If this very personal information gets out for any reason other than that for which it was intended, then the crime should be very, very strong. This should, in itself, go a long way in putting to rest some of the fears of the people who are worried about the rights of criminals. However, I think we should worry more about the rights of the individual.

Forensic DNA analysis provides information not only about an individual, but also about the individual's parents and children, thus implicating family privacy. Again, this is the type of information we do not want to be made public. The information is meant to be used as a tool to fight crime. It is not meant to be used as a tool to invade anybody's privacy.

Again, there is a need for a strong deterrent for anybody who would abuse this databank. Once this databank is in place, we need a very strong deterrent for anybody thinking of taking up criminal activity.

DNA profiles are also tied to reproductive decisions which are among the most private and intimate decisions an individual can make.

The reasons that have been put forward to protect DNA information indicate why we need this amendment. We need a strong penalty for anybody abusing this information because it delves into absolutely every aspect of a person's life. There are no secrets when a DNA profile is created.

Also, the bill states that the commissioner shall ensure that the national DNA databank authority maintains a record of every person who accesses the national DNA databank established under subsection (1). There has to be a record of any person who uses this databank to absolutely make certain that the use of this information is for what it was intended and that it cannot be manipulated for use in any other manner.

1550

It was mentioned earlier the research that could be done with the DNA databank information on criminals. Persons could take all of that information and use it for various reasons. But it has to be kept for the use that was intended. That is why this motion was put forward.

It also states that every three years after this legislation comes into force a complete investigation must be carried out with respect to the national DNA databank and all aspects surrounding it. This is another aspect that was put in place to ensure the privacy of the individuals in the databank.

Anybody who thinks this bill is going to invade a person's rights must realize that all manner of legislation is being put into place to protect against that. The legislation is being put in place to make this bill acceptable to the people who feel that the information could be used in a improper manner.

With all of these aspects to the bill and the fact that this amendment has been brought forward to increase the penalty for the improper use of the databank, I think we have come to the point where it will be usable, the information will be protected and we will not have to be concerned with that.

Let us allow this DNA databank to exist. Let us use it as a strong tool to fight crime. Let us use it as a strong tool to protect people's rights in this country. Let us use it as a tool for deterrence and police action.

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support Motion No. 7 under Group No. 3 which is before us. This motion recognizes the reality that not everyone in the public service is always pure and without fault. It recognizes the reality that confidential information can be misused. In fact, we can cite many instances where confidential information has been misused. Take for example the Income Tax Act. Everything is supposed to be confidential, yet every year we get specific examples of information having been improperly released by bureaucrats.

Although I am not big on very severe criminal penalties for ordinary citizens who get fouled up in the law, I am very supportive of strong penalties for people in positions of trust who abuse their responsibilities and commit offences. I would say that this proposal to raise the maximum penalty from two to five years for the improper release of information is very well placed.

We also could list examples of the improper use of lists. This government is great for lists. In fact all Canadian governments have been great for lists. We will recall that Bill C-68 was passed in the last parliament. Because there were lists of all the lawful owners of handguns in this country the government was able, suddenly and out of the blue, to declare that about 400,000 people owned firearms which were no longer legal. They were, in effect, confiscated because their value was reduced to zero by the stroke of a government pen.

If the government did not have a list, the government could not indulge in this sort of hanky-panky. It is no wonder the Canadian people are reluctant to have their names on anything, particularly in the computer age.

There are other amendments, of course, which we will be supporting to this particular legislation as we go on through the day and perhaps tomorrow.

1555

There is the absurdity, for example, that DNA samples can be taken only after conviction. I suppose we should take fingerprints only after conviction and take mug shots only after conviction. Why there should be different rules for DNA than for fingerprinting is something I do not understand. However, that is another amendment which we will be discussing at a later time.

Getting back to Motion No. 7, I think it is very well thought out. I compliment the hon. member for bringing this forward. I notice some people on the other side nodding in agreement. I hope this amendment will ultimately pass because it really does improve the legislation.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues here that I think we should stop to take a look at.

The hon. member who just spoke made the point that we will not be able to take DNA samples until after a conviction. I think that is something we had better take a long, hard look at.

What this specific amendment is dealing with, however, is the fact that we are going to increase the penalty for misuse of a DNA sample from two years to five years.

It is a pretty simple proposition. This is not complicated. Even members of the government should be able to fathom this one, turn it around in their heads and support it. I expect they will. However, it begs a few more questions. Who are we protecting? Are we protecting the person who commits the violent offence? Are we protecting the public? Are we protecting some unknown entity? I am a little confused in the circle of life here.

It is time that we simplified the laws of this land instead of making them more complicated. If we are talking about misuse of a DNA sample, then let us increase the penalty. Let us understand what it is for, but let us also use that tool.

The police associations have asked for it. The barrister associations are a bit mixed on it. We do not have one complete answer there. However, it is a useful tool.

I am not catching the explanation that tells me that it is some type of an invasive plan or that it is invasive to the person who actually has a DNA sample taken. By plucking a hair from a head or by taking a swab of saliva out of a mouth we have a DNA sample. Is that somehow more invasive than putting ink on a person's hands and fingerprinting them at the point where that person is charged? We do not have to wait. What is going on here?

As responsible people, as the people who help to set the laws of this country, we should come to grips with this. This is not a complicated issue. This is childishly simple. Let us deal with it.

This is past due. We spent far too much time arguing about this and discussing this in the House of Commons. The justice committee has come in with specific recommendations. It is time to approve those recommendations and move forward.

We should understand that this is a new tool in the arsenal against crime. It needs some protective measures so we do not abuse it. We always run the risk of abuse in government or abuse by officials or abuse by a third party with some type of an ulterior motive.

Let us not think that we are quite in the days of Orwellian thought yet. This is not Nineteen Eighty-Four. We have the opportunity here to move forward. This is not an invasion of somebody's home. It is not an invasion of their bedroom. This is about a DNA sample which is going to be held in a databank with protective measures so that it will not be available to the general public.

1600

We have spent too long, and I probably have as well, discussing this subject. I think it is time we move forward on it.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion before us today.

It is important when Canadians look at their justice system that they feel the system actually has the ability to achieve what it sets out to achieve. It is vitally important that the justice system have teeth in it for those who would break the law.

One of the biggest criticisms—and it is coffee shop talk everywhere we go in the country—is that there is not sufficient teeth in the system right now. Many Canadians feel that serious and violent offenders are getting off with a mere slap on the wrist in many cases.

It is also important to have built-in safeguards to protect the safety and the privacy of citizens and to respect their individual rights. I have spoken many times in the House on my very deep commitment to individual rights in Canada, something that I do not think we stress nearly enough.

Therefore I am very supportive of the motion which would provide a much stronger guarantee to individuals that information obtained from a DNA profile would not be used improperly. In fact anybody who would do so would be faced with very severe penalties.

It is important that those penalties be articulated in the act and that they are tough. I do not want to see this databank abused.

As I said, Canadians are very much tired of a justice system that does not deliver. They are very much tired of a justice system that has no teeth in it. They are very much tired of a justice system where they see plea bargains that end up with serious and violent offenders getting a mere slap on the wrist for committing heinous acts and crimes.

It is no different when we are talking about the protection of individual rights. I believe that we have to consider the rights of individuals to their privacy. We have to accept the fact that the government has a very strong obligation to ensure that information obtained under a DNA profile is not abused.

I am very much in favour of the notion of DNA databanks. As a person who has absolutely no intention of ever committing a crime, I have no problem signing up for the program and making my DNA available to a databank right now.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Mike Scott: I hear members across the way objecting to that, and I do not understand why.

Many people voluntarily provide their fingerprints for a variety of reasons to a fingerprint databank. I have absolutely no problem with making the job of law enforcement easier. I have absolutely no problem with the notion that people charged with a serious crime be compelled to provide a DNA profile or a DNA sample.

What I have a problem with is a justice system which mollycoddles those who commit serious crimes and those accused of committing serious crimes and which does not extract proper compensation or proper retribution for the transgressions.

1605

As a parliamentarian, as a person who is going to be required to vote on the motion, I have absolutely no problem. I believe very strongly that the motion as it is written is a vast improvement to the bill.

We as parliamentarians have an obligation to Canadians to provide a justice system that works and that provides the safeguards Canadians expect, especially when it comes to their individual rights. Therefore I believe the motion as written addresses both those concerns, particularly if the justice system and the courts in the future will interpret the motion and will apply the motion as it is written. It will be a big step forward in terms of how our justice system in Canada is applied and does work.

I reiterate my support for the motion. It is time that we have a justice system in the country that works. It is time that we have means of identifying criminals and those who are accused of serious crimes. It is time that Canadians feel their justice system is working for them and not for the criminal element in society. It is time that we as a nation recognize our obligations primarily to our fellow citizens to provide for their safety and for their well-being.

For all of those reason I will be supporting the motion and will be encouraging all my colleagues in the House to do so as well.

[Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to the agreement made Monday, May 4, 1998, Motion No. 7 in Group No. 3 is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred.  

The House will now proceed to the motion in Group No. 4.

[English]

Pursuant to agreement made on Monday, May 4, 1998, the motion in Group No. 4 is deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motion No. 8.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved:  

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-3, in Clause 12, be amended

(a) by replacing line 11 on page 9 with the following:

“12. (1) The Governor in Council may make”

(b) by adding after line 13 on page 9 the following:

“(2) The Solicitor General of Canada shall have each proposed regulation laid before each House of Parliament.

(3) Each proposed regulation that is laid before a House of Parliament shall, on the day it is laid, be referred by that House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct enquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.

(4) A proposed regulation that has been laid pursuant to subsection (1) may be made

(a) on the expiration of thirty sitting days after it was laid; or

(b) where, with respect to each House of Parliament,

(i) the committee reports to the House, or

(ii) the committee decides not to conduct enquiries or public hearings.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “sitting day” means, in respect of either House of Parliament, a day on which that House sits.”

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would first like to point out that the group of amendments containing Motion No. 8 was initiated by my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg. As he is busy with other duties related to his role as an MP today, he is unable to move the motion and I will therefore do so on his behalf. I am pleased to do so because this is not the first time this kind of amendment has been introduced by the Bloc Quebecois. I will go into further detail later. The motion has primarily to do with the intended procedure for passing regulations related to legislation.

I would like to point out briefly that we are still talking about Bill C-3. For those unfamiliar with the bill, it allows genetic fingerprinting in certain cases in order to establish a DNA databank for identifying individuals who have committed crimes.

It is a way of taking more modern scientific and medical technologies, which have made enormous strides, one step further. There is already a similar structure in place for fingerprints. According to the scientific information we have been given, DNA testing is very accurate and has a very high success rate.

1610

To a certain extent, this bill represents that approach. It is important to understand that this is a first, that it represents something new and different, which demands a degree of caution. It is to be expected that the public will ask questions and that there will even be some reluctance. Some kind of legislative and regulatory framework is required.

This is what worries us a bit in this particular case, giving latitude to others than this House, this Parliament, when the time comes to define the type of regulations which will accompany an act like this one.

The use of DNA samples for identification, or for ultimate use in evidence being a relatively recent development, a great deal of caution is needed in our approach. At this point, it is the House which has the opportunity to debate the matter.

We are at the report stage. The bill has been debated at second reading and in committee. Situations may crop up when the powers will need to be expanded, or restricted. a little, and this requires much care and much follow-up. Parliamentarians should have some control over the regulations.

People expect us to be the ones in society with the power to make decisions on legislative measures, and they do not want to see others—even a well-intentioned minister—making use of departmental employees or ministerial staff to define practices, particularly if these are new practices. This would give them the sole power to make the rules and to have them passed by cabinet. All these powers, the way the bill is set up at present, are concentrated in the hands of a single individual, and do not lie with this Parliament as a whole.

This is not the only case where this is happening. It is a frequent occurrence. Without referring to any specific case, I would just say that this is a general government trend, this desire to get their hands on as much power as possible One way of doing so is through regulations. So, yet again the role of members is being reduced because their impact in the formulation of regulations is being restricted.

It is all very well to talk about the stages in committee and so on, there should still be a formal process providing for the consultation of the House in the passing of regulations. In our parliamentary system, that includes the other House to some degree and that is why the motion refers to it. You are no doubt aware of our opinion about the usefulness of that House, and when I say “that House” I mean “the other” House. It is an obstacle we can do without. We could even save some money. However, since they are still there, the motion refers to the usual course of legislative process and thus approval by the other House of amendments to the regulations.

All members of Parliament should be in agreement with this. I do not know how any member, regardless of political stripe, in the government or in opposition, can object to being consulted, to having a say and to taking a larger part in the legislative process.

We must never lose sight of the fact that a member of Parliament has a role to play in the legislative process, first and foremost. This is why we were elected, why people sent us here. People have expectations. Who gets the ultimate blame if things go wrong? We do. So it is only right that we be included as much as possible.

The tendency is to always put regulatory powers in the hands of the executive, cabinet, in other words, and the tendency must be stopped somewhere. Perhaps right here. I have trouble seeing how members, particularly Liberal members, could oppose this motion, Motion No. 8, in Group No. 4, in a series of amendments.

It is in this spirit that my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, introduced his amendment. He is an expert and could have gone into much greater detail about Bill C-3 than I have, and he will perhaps have another opportunity to do so depending on how debate goes.

1615

What I have tried to do right now is to explain the purpose of Motion No. 8 in Group No. 4 and to say that the member for Charlesbourg will obviously be able to count on the support of all his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois. I hope he will also be able to count on the support of colleagues in other parties, including the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, who I am sure will give us his support, and other members of the Liberal Party who are listening very closely today.

I therefore conclude my remarks and hope that members will be persuaded by the argument that we should play a greater role as lawmakers, and that all parliamentarians will pass this amendment, which is Motion No. 8.

[English]

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure to see you back in the chair. I was giving speeches on Thursday and there you were. You had to listen to two. You will probably have to listen to two today. I can see you are thrilled with that prospect.

We are debating Group No. 4, Motion No. 8 on Bill C-3, the DNA bill. This motion amends clause 12 of the bill. As the bill now reads, under clause 12 the governor in council can make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the bill but there is no statutory requirement for the regulations to be laid before parliament or the appropriate committee for review. We see this as a major problem. Parliamentarians and eventually the joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations should be able to properly review, comment on and correct problems in the regulations.

The Bloc member wished all parliamentarians would support this motion because it would give us more say in the running of things. He will be hoping for that result but I suspect the Chrétien lookalikes will end up all standing in their places and doing what they have to do. While I will argue in favour of this motion I do not think for a moment that we are going to see support for it. None of the members opposite have stood in support. There is a very large attendance of them today. They are drastically interested in the bill. I see some laughter from the gallery and I think we all know why they are laughing when I talk about the large number of Liberals here today to listen to the content of the speeches.

We have had problems with regulations. When they do not go before a committee there is a danger there will be some sort of flaw in them. I am a member of the joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations and I have been on that committee since I was first elected in 1993. I suspect most members would wonder what it is all really about and what that committee does. It is probably one of the most useful committees on the Hill. It is totally non-partisan in nature. We look at purely the legality and the appropriateness of the regulations that come before us.

Unfortunately it usually takes a few years before the regulations work their way through the system and come to our attention. On the odd occasion when a member of the House or some outside person notices some sort of problem in a regulation, they can bring that to our attention and we can take a look at it to see whether that regulation is ultra vires or whether it is appropriate. I admit that most of the problems we deal with are minor in nature. They tend to be related to translation where there could be a different word in French than in English. They may be minor misprints of one type or another. Sometimes they are technical in nature or legal in nature and the concerned departments will readily agree to alter them.

From time to time we strike things that are major in nature. The committee presently has the power to make a report to the House requesting disallowance of a regulation. We are very close to that situation now in connection with regulations for the participation of the police in political activities. For some years the committee has been very concerned about the police regulations which in effect make it illegal for a policeman to even stand at a shopping centre and gather names on a petition to not have a roadway go through his area.

1620

That is how serious those regulations are. They so restrict political participation by police officers even on their own time that probably many of the activities of policemen during elections municipally, provincially or federally are illegal and they do not even realize it. For example, to wear the button of a political party when off duty or to have a sign on their lawn is illegal.

There is a major court case going on now in Quebec where these regulations are being challenged. Even with this, the committee has already recognized that this is inappropriate. We have been pressuring the solicitor general to get the law changed.

The process is happening right now. We are having a meeting tomorrow. We believe there will be new regulations drafted that meet the requirements for appropriateness. This is a very powerful function that the committee performs.

We have looked at the regulations in a totally non-partisan way. We have dealt with them. We have spoken with the solicitor general, with the drafters and we are getting those regulations replaced.

In the absence of any committee scrutiny or process whereby that can occur, all we end up with are ongoing legal battles. Eventually they reach some conclusion but it is a lot better for the political process to fix these problems promptly.

This is one of the reasons Reform is very supportive of this motion. The motion is not ideal in that the committees that these regulations will go before will probably be pretty much yes men and women for the government.

An hon. member: Yes persons.

Mr. Ted White: Yes persons, as one of the Liberals said. Isn't that just the ultimate in political correctness.

These yes persons, or the Chrétien lookalikes as I mentioned earlier, will each bleat their approval of any of the regulations without really considering seriously whether they are appropriate or legal.

At least by putting them through the process, eventually they will reach the joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations and could even be brought to our attention earlier.

If the regulations go before the justice committee, then at least members of the opposition or a member of the public, a witness who sees those regulations coming forward and has concerns about them, can bring them to the attention of the joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. We can give our input.

One of the things absolutely essential with regulations is to get a regulatory impact statement. Then there is an obligation on the department producing the regulations to also produce a regulatory impact statement explaining what impact is expected for the regulation to have on the public or on those affected by the regulation and it also gives the cost and whether alternatives have been pursued.

There could be other ways of achieving the same result. Those regulatory impact statements are an important part of the process.

I endorse the motion put forward by the Bloc. I doubt very much that the government will find in its heart to support this very good suggestion at the time of the vote but we certainly will.

[Translation]

Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in order to facilitate debate, I would like to read the motion, with its five points, two of which are of greater concern to us.

The motion reads in part as follows:

12.(2) The Solicitor General of Canada shall have each proposed regulation laid before each House of Parliament.

(3) Each proposed regulation that is laid before a House of Parliament shall, on the day it is laid, be referred by that House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct enquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.

I will stop there. For a political party such as the Bloc Quebecois which, for four or five years now, has constantly complained about duplication and overlap, I find this amendment somewhat strange.

The member for North Vancouver himself mentioned that the House already has well established procedures requiring all departments to publish proposed regulations ahead of time.

1625

Any interested party may comment on a proposed regulation before it takes effect.

[English]

It is well established. As the member for North Vancouver alluded to in a non-partisan way and to quote his words, there is a process already in place which provides for the prepublication and consultation of any regulations implemented.

As a result, the government considers this amendment unnecessary. I ask all hon. members to vote against the amendment since it is not needed.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. This might come as some dismay to the hon. member opposite, but I do not share that opinion. This is an important part of the process to have embodied in this piece of legislation.

It attempts in a substantive way to keep elected officials in the legislative loop, to keep them as a part of the process and to ensure that arbitrary changes do not occur. The hon. member for Charlesbourg does go about this in an interesting way. One could almost draw from this an inference that the Bloc or the hon. member are supportive now of the Senate's being actively involved in the review of this type of legislation.

The bill in its present form would not allow those members of parliament who are most affected on behalf of their constituents in the changing of the legislation to be directly involved. In the current reading of the bill the solicitor general could bring about a change arbitrarily. He could bring about a change without going through the normal process of review of looking at the legislation and bringing in what might somehow be interpreted as damaging to the entire bill.

I do support what the hon. member for Charlesbourg is trying to effect in this amendment. It is something that I think we all want to encourage. We want to encourage consultation and participation in the process. It recognizes as well the importance of both houses.

Draft regulations are fine. Putting a process in place is fine. But what we want to do here at all times is ensure there is proper review and consultation. Parliamentarians are certainly a necessity and must be consulted when we are reviewing something like this. Let us not forget that this is arguably one of the most important opportunities we in this House have to bring forward a piece of legislation to combat serious violent crime.

The sad reality is that the bill in its current form does not go far enough. It does not allow police officers to use this legislation to the full extent. It does not allow them to arm themselves with an investigative tool to permit them to combat violent crime. It does not allow them to investigate fully and make full use of the technology. We are not keeping up with the rate at which technology is changing.

It also is consistent with the need for transparency and the need for responsibility for those who are entrusted with this important task of changing legislation to have their say, to have the ability to go before committee, to talk to the amendments, to flesh out ideas and to call witnesses if necessary. Therefore they can follow the procedure that has been put in place.

I encourage all members to take a serious look at this legislation, including the member opposite. I encourage them to support this type of change. It would be consistent with the stance that his government has taken to encourage openness and transparency. This amendment does that.

We have to encourage these types of amendments at this point when we are debating them in the House, before they are law, before they are put in place hard and fast. We know when that does occur we will have to go back almost to the start.

1630

It is then a very complicated process to invoke the change. Time is certainly of the essence with this particular bill. The clock is running. Sadly we know that each day in Canada violent crimes are happening. As we speak, violent crimes are being perpetrated across this country. As we speak, police officers are still unable to use DNA to the full extent that they could and which this bill offers them an opportunity to do.

I encourage all hon. members to partake in this process. Support this type of change which will allow members of the justice committee, members of the House on behalf of their constituents and all Canadians to have in place entrenched in this bill a process where they can surely have a voice in any changes that may come in the future with respect to DNA legislation.

We know that this is in many ways the beginning of what may be a very expansive use of DNA. This is something we have to keep in mind. The opportunity is before us. The opportunity is there for all members to partake in this, to seize the moment to put forward a piece of legislation that is going to empower police officers to make the most of this technology.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the amendment as proposed by the member for Charlesbourg.

Clause 12 as written in the bill permits the governor in council to make regulations as he sees fit, but we have seen how this government operates in this House on the recent hepatitis C issue. The Prime Minister decides. The backbenchers follow orders. A mistake, an injustice occurs and it takes an uprising to force the government to re-evaluate.

Motion No. 8 merely permits some form of parliamentary scrutiny over the power to make regulations or laws in this country. After all, have all members of parliament not been sent to this place to control and make the laws that are to affect their constituents back home?

If we leave clause 12 as it is presented in the bill, we are abrogating our responsibility to oversee, debate and influence. We will be leaving it all to be decided by the governor in council.

I fully appreciate how the members opposite leave everything to the Prime Minister and the powers within the party, but hopefully this will not always be the case. Hopefully, at some time and some time soon, all members of parliament will have the power and will be able to exercise that power to scrutinize and control the legislation and operations of this place.

The legislation must be set up so that when that day occurs, the members of this place will have the authority to review regulations or laws with respect to DNA identification. That is what democracy is all about.

Why would we ever want to leave the control of this place in the hands of a select few? Do we all not receive the same mandate to represent our constituencies, to ensure our laws are fair and just to all of us?

As has been previously stated, Bill C-68 which introduced the firearms act has an identical scheme of review as proposed by Motion No. 8. Surely we should be consistent by providing a similar scheme here as well. I urge all members to support this amendment.

The Deputy Speaker: Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, Children; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Health; the hon. member for Mercier, Employment insurance fund.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill C-3 proposed by the hon. member for Charlesbourg. I stand in the House today on behalf of the New Democratic Party indicating our support for the amendment put forward.

For those who will read Hansard or who may be listening to the debate today and who sometimes think of this House as one where there is no serious debate and no cohesion and no understanding of the principles of legislation, it is interesting to note that on both this amendment and the prior amendment, members of the New Democratic Party are supporting a motion put forward by the Bloc, supported by members of the Reform Party and by members of the Progressive Conservative Party.

In a most serious bill such as this Bill C-3, it is important that we be open to changes to the legislation that will make it better. The motion put forward by my justice committee colleague, the Bloc Quebecois member, indicates that any regulations that make significant changes to this bill be brought before the House for debate and for review and be referred, and I think this is particularly important, to the appropriate standing committee for review.

1635

The public should know that at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and other standing committees of this House we examine pieces of legislation. We call witnesses before the committee to understand the impact and the implications of changes.

The scope of this legislation is so far reaching. The methodology of obtaining DNA samples and the whole area of DNA are so new that there are provisions within the legislation itself to bring it back before the House for review. That is something which is telling because this is complex legislation. I think all members of this House are dealing with it in an intense way and in the best way they can, however there are provisions to bring this legislation back to the House for review to make sure that we can correct any defects.

The motion proposes to bring back before this House important regulations so we can continue to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation as we move forward.

I stand in support of it and indicate to the House that the NDP will be supporting it.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, prior to resuming debate, I would like to call for quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

1640

And the bells having rung:

The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate people coming in to listen to these important speeches.

My colleague from the Conservative Party and my colleague from the NDP made some excellent points as to why we should support Motion No. 8. My fellow colleagues from the Reform Party did likewise. It is important that members hear the arguments as to why we should and should not do something in the House. It would be different if they paid close attention and started listening to what these individuals finish saying and why we should support these things. We would be a lot better off in this place.

I am here likewise to support Group No. 4, Motion No. 8. The motion amends clause 12 of Bill C-3 regarding regulations. Clause 12 now reads that the “governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act”. There is no statutory requirement for the regulations to be laid before parliament or the appropriate committee for review. This amendment will ensure that members of parliament are provided the opportunity to review the regulations made by the governor in council.

Bill C-68, the firearms legislation, has an identical section as the one proposed in this particular amendment. Although we support this amendment, given the need for the regulations to be scrutinized by the appropriate committee, we know from experience with Bill C-68 last November and in February 1997 that the committee just goes through the motions. All Reform amendments to these regulations were defeated by the Liberal members of the committee.

It amazes me that they feel that these regulations do not have to be scrutinized by parliament. I want to repeat that. I am amazed that there are people here who represent Canadians and who feel that regulations of this nature do not have to be scrutinized by parliament. What are members of parliament sent here for if it is not for something like that and particularly that, to scrutinize the regulations in the bills that are presented before the House.

The government has become such a dictatorship that it feels it can usurp parliament and its function. How can a law be enacted that will not be monitored? It is an absolute shame that time and time again all we do is go through the motions.

1645

A majority of members in the House of Commons, mainly on the government side, go through the motions. They just do not pay attention and do not care. Whatever the lead sheep tells them to do they will jump up, bow down and do as they are told. That is not the way it ought to be but unfortunately it is. Maybe it is party politics or dedication to a leader: whatever I say you shall do. When will they rise to their feet when they have the opportunity to represent the voice of Canadians?

The DNA bill is one of the greatest things that could be available to our police departments to provide the kind of protection society needs, deserves and wants. However they will not support an amendment that states we should scrutinize these regulations and monitor them as elected people. According to that side of the House we do not have to do that. We simply take the orders in council and whatever they say we shall do. That should come to an end.

Members on that side of the House who cannot support a motion that states the people of the country would be far better represented by doing those kinds of things needs to take a good long look at themselves and ask why they are here. Is it for themselves? Is it for the party they represent or is it for the Canadian people? If it is not the Canadian people they should resign and go home.

I ask them to support Motion No. 8.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the amendment before us. It may be the most important one.

The legislation needs to come to the House to be scrutinized by the people who were elected to represent the people of Canada. We have already seen this done in Bill C-68, the gun registration bill, and it needs to be done here. We were elected to come here to represent the people of Canada. We are not here to take what the House wants back to them. That has been the problem with governments since time began.

We want to review the legislation. As representatives of the people of Canada we want to have a look at it. That is what this opportunity is for.

We support the Bloc amendment for its openness and transparency. That is what we need more of in the country and the amendment will start the process of going down that road.

The DNA act, Bill C-3, is very important to the people of Canada, the population in general. We are here to represent those people. We should be the ones who review the legislation, not a governor in council order.

I wonder why we have to stand to debate this type of legislation. Why is it that members elected by the people of Canada to represent them do not get a chance to look at it and that it comes through the governor in council?

When the DNA bill is in place it will be a tool that will change the way crime fighting is done in the country. It will help to put some sense back into our system. It will not allow criminals to hide behind any legality. Once the profile is in place it can be used whenever a crime is committed.

Allowing us to debate the bill in the House and in committee and to bring it to our constituents to get their feelings on it is the only way we should proceed.

1650

I congratulate the Bloc for bringing the amendment forward. It is a strange day when all opposition parties support the same amendment, but this is one of those days.

The importance of public scrutiny or scrutiny by the House cannot be overemphasized. We cannot have bills or rules coming forth to govern bills that have not had the blessing of the people of Canada. That is what we are here to do and that is why we are supporting the motion.

It is not precedent setting. It has already been done with Bill C-68, which helps to move us along that way. I wanted to add my voice to the support of Group No. 4. Hopefully members opposite can find it in their hearts to do so as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to agreement made on Monday, May 4, 1998, the question on the motion in Group No. 4 is deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deemed deferred.

The House will now proceed to debate on the motions in Group No. 5. Pursuant to agreement made on Monday, May 4, the motions in Group No. 5 are deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos. 9 and 14.  

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved:  

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-3, in Clause 15, be amended, in the French version only,

(a) by replacing line 2 on page 13 with the following:

«gereuse causant des lésions cor-»

(b) by replacing line 5 on page 13 with the following:

«façon dangereuse causant la»

(c) by replacing line 10 on page 13 with the following:

«capacité affaiblie causant des»

(d) by replacing line 13 on page 13 with the following:

«avec capacité affaiblie causant la»

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-3, in Clause 22, be amended, in the French version only, by replacing line 5 on page 25 with the following:

«électronique, rendus inaccessibles une fois pour toutes dès que»

Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Motion Nos. 9 and 14 are essentially very technical amendments of minor nature.

Motion No. 9 will correct the French version description of our offences in the secondary designated offence list to ensure consistency with the French criminal code references for the same offences.

Motion No. 14 will amend the incorrect French translation for permanently removed in section 47.09, subsection (3), so that it reads:

[Translation]

“rendus inaccessibles une fois pour toutes”.

[English]

Therefore both motions will correct oversights in the French wording to ensure consistency in terminology throughout the bill with the Criminal Code.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we support this group of amendments, Motion Nos. 9 and 14. It is an oversight and the government has corrected it. I wish it would correct some of the major oversights that are coming up.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General will take a serious look at the motions in Group No. 6 and perhaps have a change of heart. We consider them to be the crux of the debate on the bill. It is a very important grouping. The debate will determine whether or not some members of the House, including the Reform caucus, will be able to support the bill at final reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made Monday, May 4, 1998, the motions in Group No. 5 are deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred.  

The House will now proceed to the motions in Group No. 6.

Pursuant to the order made Monday, May 4, 1998, the motions in Group No. 6 are deemed to have been put and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos. 10 and 11.

[English]

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.) moved:  

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-3, in Clause 17, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 15 the following:

“(4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, if a person is charged with a designated offence and at the time of being charged has a previous conviction for a designated offence, a qualified peace officer is authorized to take samples of one or more bodily substances by means of the investigative procedures described in section 487.06.

(5) Samples taken pursuant to subsection (4) shall be retained in accordance with the regulations made under subsection (6) and not sent for analysis until either,

(a) the person is convicted of the offence charged, or

(b) the person fails to appear as requested by law in relation to the charge whereupon analysis shall be completed and, subject to section 9 of the DNA Identification Act, the results entered into the offender index.

(6) The Governor in Council shall make regulations respecting the retention of samples taken pursuant to subsection (4).”

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC) moved:  

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-3, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 17 with the following:

“subsection, had been convicted of a designated offence and on the date of the application was serving a sentence of two years or more for another designated offence, or”

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have 10 minutes to cover two very important areas of Group No. 6 which have a direct bearing upon the workability of the new DNA databank and the authority of the police to take DNA samples from individuals suspected or charged with a primary designated offence.

1655

The bill does not provide authority for the police to take a DNA sample from anyone who is under arrest or from anyone who has been charged. We understand the procedure for taking a sample granted under Bill C-104 which has been operative for some time now. However that requires evidence of a DNA sample at the scene, reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an individual is responsible for leaving that DNA at the scene, and then a judge's warrant authorizing the taking of a sample from the individual.

This is very cumbersome. The witnesses who appeared before our standing committee, particularly the crown prosecutors and witnesses representing the Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police, stated very clearly that if the bill were amended to allow them to take DNA samples at the time a person is charged it could save lives. It could identify individuals who have left their DNA at the scenes of rapes, murders, assaults and other primary offence scenes.

We also heard that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of unsolved crimes of murders, rapes, serious assaults, manslaughter cases or so on where DNA samples have been left at the scene. Individuals who have committed those offences have been undetected. The police want a mechanism whereby when a person commits one of the primary designated offences the police can take a sample of DNA from the individual. This was rejected at clause by clause consideration of the bill.

We have introduced in Motion No. 10 a somewhat watered down version but still a very important part of the bill that would allow police to take a DNA sample from anyone charged with a primary designated offence who has been convicted of a previous primary designated offence. They could take the sample, hold it and not have it analysed until after conviction or after the individual has failed to appear in court.

If the individual runs and does not appear in court, an analysis can be conducted to determine whether or not the person is responsible or at least left any of his or her DNA at the scene of unsolved crimes. This is extremely important because on a yearly basis I understand from the testimony we heard before the committee some 60,000 individuals do not respond to reconnaissance or to bail. They simply skip and do not appear.

The concern is that if we have to wait until after conviction before the sample is taken it means for the individual on bail, knowing full well if he is convicted of the offence for which he is charged, that the DNA sample taken from him may link him to a more serious offence or at least another offence where he has left his DNA at the scene. The individual simply may disappear and never honour the reconnaissance or honour the bail he has been granted. Therefore it will be a frustration for police. We have been told by police witnesses that this bill of all bills could begin to save lives immediately. That is why it is so important.

We have heard from the government side that this would not be constitutional. It would not survive a constitutional challenge based upon privacy and based upon the intrusivity of taking a DNA sample at the time of a charge without the authority of a warrant. The Canadian Police Association provided us with a legal opinion that refuted that.

1700

A testimony submitted by Mr. Scott Newark, director of the Canadian Police Association, stated very clearly that they were willing to pay the cost of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada before this bill goes forward any further to determine whether the government's hesitancy and timidity in this area is grounded, to determine whether the legal opinion submitted before the court would be acceptable and that these tests could be taken at the time of arrest or at the time of charge.

The government has refused this. After the fact it obtained three legal opinions. I suspect the government went shopping for legal opinions. It has now submitted legal opinions to members of the committee and members of the House in support of its viewpoint.

Now members can look at four legal opinions, three saying it would not be constitutional and one saying it would be constitutional. We never had an opportunity to question the retired justices on their deliberations, considerations, recommendations and conclusions. We never had an opportunity to have constitutional experts testify before the committee as to the veracity of the conclusions that are now part of the record. This is very unfortunate.

These legal opinions should have been placed before the committee at the time the bill entered committee. We would have been able to examine them carefully. We would have had the time to look at the opinions and perhaps obtain other legal opinions from those with a different viewpoint on the constitutionality of taking samples from the accused at the time of arrest or charge.

The police have the authority to take breath samples. They have the authority to take blood samples in cases of suspected impaired driving. What is the difference? If they can take one bodily sample already and the authority exists under the Criminal Code to do so, what in the world is wrong with doing it under the auspices of this bill? Why not allow the police to take a DNA sample from an individual who has been charged with a designated offence and who has one previous conviction to show that person is a repeat offender in this area? What is wrong with taking a sample and holding that sample until the individual has been convicted or fails to appear in court before it is analysed and placed in the bank? Once it is in the bank it can be compared with the samples and the profiles of other DNA left at the scenes of rapes, murders, serious assaults and manslaughters.

I urge all hon. members to carefully examine this motion. We think it is a balanced motion that draws a healthy balance between the concerns expressed by the justice officials and the requests and demands of police officers across this country and others in law enforcement. I urge all hon. members to give this motion their support when the vote comes.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to speak on this legislation. I have been privileged to sit on the justice committee throughout the deliberations and to examine the legislation as it has made its way through the committee stage.

1705

I do support the bill. It is an excellent piece of legislation. I also support my friend's motion which I consider to be a point of philosophical divergence.

There are three points at which a DNA sample could be taken, point of arrest, point of charge, point of conviction. The purpose of this legislation is to give the police access to DNA profiles for the purposes of identifying individuals so they can be linked or not linked as the case may be to crime scenes. It is not conclusive proof but taken with other evidence adds to the weight of evidence against an accused. It also works the other way to eliminate suspects.

We were told at committee stage that a properly gathered sample creates a 1 in 94 billion probability sample. Notwithstanding this high level probability, it is not in and of itself conclusive as to the issue of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The crown would still have to adduce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence charged. Defence counsel will still attack reliability, credibility, means of gathering the sample, the integrity of the sample, the errors in collection, et cetera. Nevertheless, it is of significant use to police investigation. Canadians have only to witness the Morin inquiry to understand the powerful input of DNA evidence.

If this is such a great tool, then why can the Parliament of Canada not make it readily available to the police? What could be the possible justification for withholding a tool that is readily accessible, surrounded by safeguards for abuse and would be of great assistance in solving outstanding crimes? The issues revolve around the point at which the sample is taken and the means by which the sample is taken. There are three points at which a sample of blood, hair or saliva could be taken, at arrest, charge or conviction.

It was not seriously argued before us that samples should be taken a point of arrest. This would simply create a fishing expedition on the part of the police and imperil the liberty of the citizen. The argument came down to a choice between point of charge and point of conviction. If truth were known many if not all members of the committee would have been content with a charge regime. To lay the charge the police must have reasonable and probable grounds that a crime has been committed. At that time, as a matter of routine, fingerprints and mugshots are taken; similarly, so could DNA samples. The police want to be able to take DNA samples at that point and enter the results in a DNA bank for cross-reference purposes and for identification.

The technology has become so advanced that the taking of a sample is minimally intrusive. Logically if the taking of DNA samples is less intrusive than fingerprinting why should the justice system be deprived of that tool? If it is constitutionally okay to take a fingerprint and a mugshot, why is it not constitutionally okay to take DNA?

Here is where legal theory becomes so arcane and obscure as to lose even the most diligent of students. The core of the argument is that the state is absolutely prohibited from intruding on the sanctity of the person without consent. The person has an absolute right to the integrity of his or her personhood. Therefore the taking of a cell by any means, however intrusive or non-intrusive, is a breach of that person's privacy. The state is absolutely forbidden from doing it.

In addition, the depth and range of material revealed by DNA samples provides to the state a marker of that individual which is not only a complete profile but could be used for other purposes. In other words, the legal wall between the person and the state has been breached and the state knows far more about that individual than it has any right to know.

The argument is of dubious merit for two reasons. The first is the fear of using the profile for purposes other than identification. I believe the committee was not concerned about that issue as the procedures and safeguards were such a series of Chinese walls that it would be virtually impossible to breach those walls.

The second is the issue of invading the privacy of a person. The charter gives protection to the undue invasion of privacy. However, it can be statutorily sanctioned as it is with fingerprinting. If one can invade privacy by statute on fingerprinting, one can also surely do it by DNA sample simultaneously. We are after all legislators and our business is that of creating law. If statute sanctions fingerprinting as not unduly invasive, why cannot DNA sampling by statute, such as this this bill, also be considered to be not unduly invasive? Nice question with no neat answer. The advice of justice lawyers was that if we move the sample from point of conviction down to point of charge the bill would not withstand a charter challenge.

1710

I have been in and around law for about 28 years and consider the views of justice lawyers to be excellent. When you retain lawyers you do not stand up and contradict them easily.

When the matter came to a clause by clause stage the minister and his lawyers from the justice department were quite adamant that the charge regime would not survive a charter challenge. To their credit, their arguments were strong. If we go to a charge regime the bill would not survive a charter challenge.

One week after the bill was taken back to the House justice lawyers were quoted, however, in the front pages of The Globe and Mail as saying every time they go to the supreme court they do not have a clue what will happen. Flip a coin. The supreme court is adrift in a sea of confusion.

The additions of Justices Binnie and Bastarach do not help in predicting the outcome. When this was brought to the attention of the justice minister she stated in committee that she was obtaining three more outside opinions from retired justices. To no one's great surprise, the opinions support the government's position.

This resembles the theatre of the absurd. The Parliament of Canada stands on the sidelines while justice lawyers and their surrogates argue out a position based on established precedent; hardly the point. The motion says in effect we have read your opinions, we have heard your arguments and we are not persuaded.

We believe there are adequate safeguards to protect privacy and sanctity of the person and that search and seizure is warranted in this instance. The tabling of the opinions could amount to the subtle use of a notwithstanding clause.

The bill has a huge hole in it. If Paul Bernardo were sitting in a police station this morning charged with a sexual offence he would not be DNA banked until he was convicted and if not convicted he would never be banked. The police could say to themselves with legitimacy they do not have the resources to do this. He is a blond, blue eyed boy with a job and a home in beautiful downtown Guildwood, which happens to be my riding. They could also state they have a lot more pressing problems than to get a justice warrant. The police in Fredericton who are conducting other investigations would never know about it. Nor would the police in Edmonton. So this is quite a large gap in the legislation.

Members may have detected a bit of skepticism on my part with respect to the efficacy of the bill but I am ultimately persuaded that the good qualities in the bill might be lost to charter challenge. However, I do support this motion and I do wish that the government had exercised a more subtle approach in excising out a charge regime be it on one conviction or on two convictions so that the bill could have a charter challenge at the point where we could try to advance the law in this area.

This brings me to my final point, the doctrine of supremacy of parliament. I was greatly intrigued by the comments of Mr. Justice Cory in the Brin decision. He said that courts use the charter to dialogue with the legislature. Dialogue as experienced by this legislator is more like a monologue. We speak, you listen.

Courts develop legal theory, charter theory about trees and branches and living documents to arrive at conclusions which look suspiciously like ex post facto reasoning, you legislators sit down.

I have been in and around the justice system in Ontario for quite a number of years and consider it to be one of the finest in the world. Ultimately, however, it is a very crude means of resolving disputes. Lawsuits have winners and losers, unevenly resourced litigants and narrow views of relevance materiality.

Legislation such as this is a product of years of analysis, drafting, study and witnesses. The committee spent months looking at this legislation and it went through an extensive consultation process prior to being introduced.

The members of the committee represent in excess of one million people who come from a variety of backgrounds, both philosophical and political. I would argue with little fear of contradiction that if we as a committee had our choice absent charter arguments that we would be presenting a regime based on charge.

In my view judicial attitudes are not consistent with Canadian values on this issue and judges need to know that after extensive debate and analysis parliamentarians are only presenting this bill due to limited and narrow thinking by judicial activists.

1715

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, my hat goes off to the previous speaker. I think he gave a very compelling address to this parliament. I have the greatest respect for him, his legal background and his input on the justice committee. He obviously has substantial experience which is of benefit to us at that committee.

We have before us, in the form of amendments, Motions Nos. 10 and 11. This is perhaps our last chance to right a potential wrong because we are not going to have the opportunity to do it again for some time.

The motion put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot is aimed specifically at allowing for the collection of DNA evidence at the time of charge. It has an additional safeguard, which was put in I suggest as a compromise to entice members of the government to take a second look at this amendment. This amendment would allow a person who has previously been convicted of a schedule of offences that have been deemed heinous enough or serious enough to suggest that therefore the prevention element should take precedence over that particular convicted person's right to be free from this intrusive taking of a DNA sample.

I will speak to that issue of intrusiveness later in my remarks, but the important point to be made here is that what we are talking about is the taking of a DNA sample which would allow for the prevention of the further commission of an offence, potentially, because the police with the DNA in their possession at that point in time could then take that sample and match it with crime scene samples that are connected to outstanding crimes.

Figures were discussed at the justice committee. In the province of British Columbia alone there are 600 unsolved murders. If we calculate that in terms of the population across the country, in terms of sexual assaults, serious assaults and unsolved crimes, what greater benefit could there be than for the use of such an innovative police investigative tool to address and solve these crimes? We should keep in mind that the perpetrators of these crimes are still out there. They have not been caught. They are not accountable. They have not been brought to justice. They are ready, I would suggest, to do it again.

This amendment would allow the police to make that match, to make that connection, to go out there armed with that evidence and hopefully complete an investigation that might prevent the perpetration of another crime.

I have the greatest respect for the hon. member who spoke previously. He has a great deal of confidence in the justice lawyers. I do not share the same degree of confidence. We have seen in the past that the Department of Justice has gone outside of its own lawyers' cadre to get a practising lawyer to represent the government in court. We have seen that in the current firearms challenge in Alberta. Similarly what we saw here was an opinion at the eleventh hour from three very respected jurists. There is no question they are very respected, but I would suggest that the question that was put to them was put to them in very narrow terms, coupled with the fact that we already knew the position of the government. Mr. Speaker, you will have to excuse my scepticism on the response that we received.

That is of course not the only opinion that the justice committee had the benefit of. We had the benefit of a similarly respected and decorated criminal lawyer, Mr. Danson, who gave the opinion in a very straightforward way that in fact the sampling at the time of charge, and that is without this added designation of having a previous conviction, would withstand a charter challenge.

I embrace some of the comments with respect to the supremacy of this parliament and the responsibility that we have here to make laws in the area of criminal law.

1720

The remarks of the hon. member I think reflect, in many ways, the opinions of a lot of the non-partisanship that must go into the criminal field. The members of the committee voiced very similar opinions regarding the fact that we are being supreme court driven. That is a dangerous area in which to find ourselves.

Criminal law, first and foremost, has to be accountable and responsible to the people. The people have elected members of parliament. They have entrusted them and placed in them their hope and desire that we will make laws which reflect the protection of the public and the accountability we must find in our criminal justice system.

When there is a supreme court paranoia or a supreme court constipation about criminal law it is a very dangerous position to be in.

The hon. member gave the very apt example of Paul Bernardo. He said that under the current legislation we would not be able to use his DNA in future investigations. The very premise of this motion is that we should be taking a very proactive as opposed to reactive role in the use of DNA in the criminal justice system.

The important example made and emphasized by the Canadian Police Association was that an individual taken into custody for a designated offence, who was previously charged and convicted of a designated offence, has the benefit of due process.

If the police cannot take a DNA sample and use it in the course of a trial, use it as a sample against other outstanding, unsolved offences, it is a lost opportunity. It will slip through our fingers.

The Canadian Police Association emphasized the fact—and there are statistics to support this position—that individuals who are released on bail are simply not going to return. If criminals have in the back of their minds that if they return and are convicted of an offence they must face the possibility that they will have their DNA matched with a crime they knew they committed in another part of the country, they will not return for trial.

They are certainly not going to return if they are charged with a break and enter offence and they know they were involved in an offence of a much more serious personal nature, such as murder or sexual assault. If that opportunity is lost because of the way the current legislation is drafted it would be an absolute tragedy.

This motion, in a very straightforward way, would address that. It would allow police to use DNA to a much greater degree. That is the intention here. There is no hidden agenda. I would suggest that this motion is put forward in a very constructive, straightforward and practical way. I am surprised there is not more support for it.

Luckily we will have the opportunity to vote. I am still holding out hope and optimism that common sense will prevail and we will find that this amendment will be accepted.

The safeguards we have in place in the rest of the bill, that is to say, the provisions that would make it criminal if a person was to misuse the DNA technology, I suggest would protect individual rights. They would protect individuals from the fear of misuse; the Orwellian thought that somehow, some way, a person might misuse this DNA and therefore create a miscarriage of justice.

We cannot succumb to that fear, given the public interest and the importance of optimizing the use of DNA technology. It will happen. Mark my words. If Canada does not seize the opportunity to be on the cutting edge, to be a country prepared to move forward, making the most of this DNA legislation, we will be left behind. Other countries will be looking at our country, shaking their heads and saying “Why didn't they do it when they had the opportunity?”

1725

In conclusion, I want to suggest that both of the amendments found in Group No. 10 could gain the support and the confidence of all members of this House. When the vote is before us, I am encouraging and hoping that all members on both sides of this House will put partisanship aside and put common sense and good, right-minded thinking first.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this particular amendment. It is one of a number of amendments that have been proposed to this bill governing the establishment of a DNA databank.

It is important to note that the amendment that is proposed at this point is directed at a mechanism which would take a DNA sample, analyze it for a DNA profile and put it into a DNA databank where it would, for practical purposes, be stored and kept indefinitely.

There are other ways in which the state can obtain a DNA sample and do an analysis. It can do it by warrant.

With respect to this particular motion, it is the desire of the mover and those supporting it to see a DNA sample taken when an individual is charged with a serious offence, the individual having been previously convicted of a serious offence, perhaps even a related offence.

It is important to keep that in mind. Just because one would not be able to take a sample at the point of charge does not mean the state could not move by warrant to obtain a sample from the individual at the time of charge for the purposes of investigating the offence at hand.

In this case the sample being taken, as proposed under this amendment, is not for the purpose of investigating the offence at hand, it is for the purpose of obtaining a DNA profile of the individual and putting it into the DNA databank for future reference and for the protection of society that would come from that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: No, it could be used for both.

Mr. Derek Lee: The member points out that it could be used for both. I accept that the amendment is proposing that it be used for both. However, I am not so sure the amendment is drafted in a way that I would accept is suited to both.

In any event, I wanted to take note of the reasons that some members of the House, including myself, view this amendment as having some potential difficulty.

I agree with the member for Scarborough East and other members that if I were king I would implement a measure which would allow a sample to be taken at the time of charge, such as is proposed by this amendment. However, there are several areas of difficulty. I want to put them on the record because I never want it to be said that the reason the House did not adopt this, and the reason the committee that studied the bill did not adopt a similar type of amendment, was because we knew it would not be legally acceptable. I would not want that to be taken from the procedure here today, or previously, or from what may evolve in the House.

I believe that in the next while there will be a procedure which will allow DNA data to be taken at the time of charge in appropriate circumstances and not just when one is investigating the particular case at hand.

The reasons the government is sensitive to this are based on a series of charter decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada.

1730

In each case we have a snapshot, a photograph, a freeze frame decision by the supreme court about a particular aspect of our civil rights, about a particular perspective on our charter rights. When we add up all the snapshots the court, as it is supposed to do, cautioned the state about certain aspects of the freedoms of Canadians. By the time they are all added up, which is what the justice department did, we have a significant body of caution directed at actions of the state which would remove a sample from an individual's body. In order to do that in our society the state has to have justification. That is a search and seizure. There must be a reasonable ground to do it. There has to be a reasonable basis even to do it under a warrant. One may be able to construct a reasonable justification for doing it at charge.

One threshold, one snapshot provided us by the supreme court of which we take note is the view that taking something from the human body is actually quite an intrusive act. In the case of DNA data sampling now it can be a rough of some of the skin, a swab from the inside of the mouth or a hair taken from the head. In each case it involves the taking from the body of something that is a part of the body. The court has defined and construed that as quite intrusive, and I accept that at this point in time.

It is true that under warrant or under reasonable circumstances in other parts of the Criminal Code peace officers or other authorized persons can take breath samples, blood samples with a warrant, and DNA samples with a warrant. We must remember that this amendment deals with taking a DNA sample for profile at the time a person is innocent of the charge because he or she has not yet been convicted. At that point in time is when this amendment would cause the sample to be taken.

It is pretty clear to most of us who sat on the justice committee that within a few months or a few years the obtaining of a sample of DNA will be obtainable technologically by much less than taking something from the body. Technology involving a scan, a brush by, something very much less intrusive than the taking of a piece of the body however minute it might be such as a hair follicle or hair root, does not exist right now.

That snapshot of the intrusiveness of DNA sampling was a caution light which has caused, at least in part, justice officials, the government and some of us in the House to accept that it is an area of caution. In my view it is an area of caution that we will be able to dispense with in the future because the intrusiveness of the sample taking will be much less than it is now.

Members have mentioned the Bernardo case. That is either an easy case or a difficult case depending on how we look at it. If we had had good effective DNA sampling at that time history might well have turned out differently. I wish we could have done it. Maybe in the future with the new technology we will be able to make these kinds of changes and come out with better outcomes in the criminal justice system.

The flip side of the Bernardo scenario, because if the Bernardo case is easy there is another case that is harder, is simply the case where a Canadian who is innocent of the offence charged has a criminal record and is under this amendment asked or required to give up a small piece of his or her body so that the state may analyse and put it in a databank for public safety purposes.

At this point because of the relative intrusiveness of it I believe there was a developing consensus in the Department of Justice that we would be reasonably well served by proceeding to construct a databank, a process, get the thing up and running, have it begin to work for Canadians, get the bugs out of it, ensure it is charter safe and make it work for Canadians.

1735

I would be disappointed as a parliamentarian if within the next two to four years we were unable to increase the frequency or amount of data sampling available under the Criminal Code perhaps in a manner that is suggested by this amendment today. Were we able to do that I think it would enhance the safety of all Canadians in the future.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting both of the motions known as Group No. 6.

In Motion No. 10 the member for Crowfoot appears to be taking the biblical role of Solomon. We have heard much comment on the need of our police to take DNA samples at the time of arrest. We have heard much comment concerning the invasion of privacy and the constitutional rights of the accused. This amendment proposes to take DNA samples at the time of charge but they will not be analysed until the time of conviction.

This would satisfy our police who have been concerned about offenders skipping out through the loopholes presented by Bill C-3 without such an amendment.

During the committee review the government cited finances as a primary reason for not taking and analysing samples at the time of charge. I will not comment on the government's concern over finances as compared to the safety of its citizens because I do not need to do so under these circumstances.

This motion gets around the financial question in that the expense only occurs once a conviction is registered.

There has also been much discussion over the constitutionality of taking DNA samples from those charged. This amendment limits the application to only those charged with a designated offence and those who have previously been convicted of a designated offence.

Parliament will be indicating to our courts that we see a public policy requirement to treat these types of individuals in a much stricter fashion.

Motion No. 11 permits the taking of DNA samples from incarcerated offenders who have been convicted of a designated offence and are serving sentences of two years or more for another designated offence. This amendment broadens the scope of Bill C-3 in that it is not just limited to the offence of murder. The amendment will do much for victims. It will solve and put closure to many unsolved cases.

Why should only incarcerated murderers and sexual offenders be subject to DNA sampling? For example, if someone has been convicted of manslaughter and is serving a sentence of two or more years for another conviction of manslaughter, should we not be taking DNA to determine what other serious crimes they may have committed?

Should the victims of these other crimes not be informed that the offender has been discovered through the comparison of DNA from the sample taken with the DNA profile in the crime scene index? In that way the victim can put some sort of closure on the matter and have some peace of mind that the offender is securely incarcerated and not apt to attack again in the near future.

That concludes my comments. I urge my colleagues in this place to support this important amendment.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the member for Scarborough—Rouge River and the member for Scarborough East who have worked with me over the past several months to try, after I believe three attempts, to come up with a modification to the amendment ourselves but were unable to do so.

Motions Nos. 10 and 11 are essentially the crux of the legislation and the most contentious. Motions Nos. 10 and 11 would do two things. First, they would allow a police officer to take DNA samples for the DNA databank from a person charged with a designated offence who has a previous conviction for a designated offence. Second, they would expand the retroactive scheme of the bill to capture offenders serving a penitentiary sentence for one of those offences previously designated offence convictions. Both proposals, in my opinion and in the government's opinion, pose a very serious charter risk as has been debated in the House.

With regard to the timing of taking samples, I would also like to point out to hon. members that the Criminal Code already has a provision which allows police to take samples at any time from a person they suspect of having committed a serious offence, with one proviso, as long as they first obtain a warrant. That provision is in there.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights considered many of the proposals and amendments that are being debated today. To allow the police to take samples of the DNA at time of charge was rejected at that committee. Another recommendation was to expand the retroactive scheme. To that end some changes were implemented by the committee.

1740

We have heard from expert witnesses. The members for Crowfoot and Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough referred to various opinions. I point out for the benefit of the House, as committee members will remember, that officials from the Department of Justice gave us opinions on the charter challenge possibilities. We also heard officials from the ministries of justice and the attorney general of Ontario and the solicitor general of Ontario as well as officials from New Brunswick.

Members have claimed that they did not have ample time to question these officials. On the contrary, all these people testified before the committee on justice. Members had plenty of time to ask all their questions. They may not always have liked the answers or the opinions but they did have time to consult them. It was only after the justice committee presented its report to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada that the opinions of three highly respected judges were sought.

At that time the Reform Party and the chiefs of police decided they would exploit this stance on the part of the government and do everything in their power to make sure the government listened. For the second time in my political career I will be subjected to another billboard campaign. Again, for the second time in my career, I will explain to the citizens of my constituency who I am confident will understand that the federal government has acted with a very balanced approach.

I will respond to the member for Crowfoot because he quoted extensively from the comments of Mr. Newark who suggested that we had asked the wrong question of the three former justices. In actual fact the three former justices were asked to provide an appreciation of the risk of a successful charter challenge pertaining to the taking of DNA samples at the time of charge without prior judicial authorization. They were asked whether the legislation would likely be found to offend one or other charter provisions. They were also asked if it could be saved under section 1 of the charter. It seems to me those questions were very clear.

The Canadian Police Association is now advocating the creation of a new police power to take bodily samples from an accused person who has previously been convicted of a designated offence simply on the basis of a police officer's belief that the person has committed another designated offence, without first going before a judge to seek the authority to do so.

The claim that the judiciary of Canada impinges on the powers of parliament is not justified in fact or in law. The courts perform their constitutional responsibility in reviewing the legislation to ensure the constitutional requirements are respected and to supervise the actions of the police in the enforcement of the criminal law and in the collection of evidence.

Bill C-3 reflects clear statements from our highest court that the invasive nature of bodily searches which are an interference with bodily integrity and undermine human dignity demands high standards of justification. Taking a sample on the off chance that a sample might link a suspect to another offence and the mere speculation that the accused may abscond do not meet these standards.

The notion of recidivism must be respected especially with retroactive sampling. The notion of recidivism can be used for the purpose of justifying to some extent the retroactive scheme. However, where used, the taking of samples for crimes committed before the coming into force of the bill is always on the basis of prior judicial authorization. Possible recidivism is not a justification for excluding judicial supervision prior to the taking of the sample. On the basis of the authorities it is of fundamental importance that the seizure of bodily substances be judicially approved before it takes place.

1745

Where there is an elevated risk of recidivism such as with dangerous offenders, repeat sex offenders and serial killers, the need for special measures to protect the public is justified. To go further and take DNA samples from individuals who pose a low risk of recidivism or may not even be suspected of having committed another offence would place the constitutionality of the scheme in serious jeopardy.

I would also like to state that in Motion No. 10 there seemed to be very little justification for taking the sample at the time of the charge because according to the motion it would only be analysed once the conviction were to take place. The rationale for taking the sample would seem to be one for mere administrative convenience as opposed to what some members have been speaking on, to solve outstanding crimes. It is my understanding that the sample would be taken and only when the person is convicted would it be analysed. Therefore I do not see how outstanding crimes would be solved unless the person was convicted. It is likely that a rationale of administrative convenience would not meet the court test of the highest standards of justification.

Let us look at the consequences if this motion were adopted. Let us say we did support the motion. It is virtually guaranteed that notwithstanding the opinions we have had here, if we did approve the motion the challenge to the constitutionality of this provision would ultimately be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. Most members have spoken to that end. The difference between our approach and their approach is they are willing to let it go to the supreme court. Such a final hearing on the contrary would take several years. During that time the police would take samples and subsequently have them analysed and if consequential amendments were made would have the results placed in the convicted offenders index.

If the supreme court were ultimately to determine that the provision was contrary to the charter and could not be saved under section 1, it would logically follow that all samples taken pursuant to the provisions would be found to be illegal seizures. The major consequence of such a finding would be that the evidence resulting from such seizures would be found inadmissible in court also. This would mean that many individuals would have been wrongfully convicted. As well numerous prosecutions would have to be halted.

In addition the profiles in the convicted offenders index of the people whose samples were taken pursuant to this provision would have to be removed from the data bank.

Finally if the government were to adopt this motion notwithstanding that it has received overwhelming advice from the Department of Justice and eminent private sector counsel that it would be found to be contrary to the charter, such a fact could make the provision even less defensible in the eyes of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In conclusion I have given various reasons why we cannot support the motion. Members have mentioned that we should try to take into account the examples of Bernardo and Clifford Olson. I believe that laws should be made for the benefit of all Canadians and not to circumvent or to try to trap one particular individual. We had that experience in the section 745 hearings when the Bloc Quebecois members voted against that provision and allowed Clifford Olson to have a hearing.

If we try to enact all legislation in that respect we will never get anywhere. I believe that the government has come up with a very balanced approach which I ask all hon. members to approve.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 10 and Motion No. 11 in Group No. 6.

I begin with Motion No. 11 because it is the less complex of the two. I indicate that I would speak in favour of Motion No. 11. It broadens and expands the provisions for the taking of DNA. The current legislation provides that a “provincial court judge may on an ex parte application take from a person who has been convicted of murder”. The motion broadens that and I would support it.

I now turn to Motion No. 10 which as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General has indicated is a more complex and difficult piece to analyse. I commend the hon. member for Crowfoot for bringing the amendment forward. From sitting on the justice committee with him, I know it is one which he struggled with. He has attempted to meet the criteria as set out in the objections that were raised to it. That being said, let us ask exactly what this motion does. I think the hon. member has two concerns.

1750

The motion provides for the police to take a DNA sample at the time of charging an individual who has a prior conviction. To take that DNA sample, two things have to happen. There has to be a charge laid against the person and the person has to have a prior conviction for one of the designated offences.

In order to charge an individual, the police have to have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the individual has committed the offence for which he or she is charged. That is a safeguard in our system to stop the police who have tremendous power in this country from charging anyone willy-nilly. The law is clear. The common law as it has evolved says that in order to arrest and charge an individual, there has to be reasonable and probable grounds.

The bill that allows the police to take a DNA sample with a warrant says that there has to be reasonable and probable grounds to take the warrant. They have to go to a judge and ask the judge if they can take a sample of any individual's DNA and to take that sample there has to be reasonable and probable grounds.

If we look at the purpose of this amendment, if the person has already been charged, then presumably the police already have done the necessary groundwork to take a DNA sample. With great respect to my colleague from Crowfoot, I think the purpose is to say what happens when the offender is charged with an offence and he may escape bail. That was mentioned by one of my colleagues in the House.

Clearly the Criminal Code bail provisions under section 515(10) provide for a bail hearing. Most people should know this. When someone is charged with an offence, they are to be released pending their trial unless the court has reasonable grounds to believe that the offender will escape so that they will not be dealt with according to law. There is a built-in protection to stop someone from leaving the jurisdiction under section 515 of the code to ensure that they do not escape.

In the scenario contemplated by my friend from Crowfoot in good faith, if the crown prosecutor has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual will escape custody so that his DNA sample will not be taken, then the prosecutor can raise that at the bail hearing to ensure that the judge remands that individual pending the trial. There is a mechanism to ensure that the individual does not escape.

There are some other aspects of this piece of legislation and some other comments on this amendment which need to be addressed. The member for Crowfoot asked what the difference is in terms of taking a blood sample, in that we allow that intrusion to happen so why can we not do it with DNA. There is an answer to that.

The taking of a blood sample at the time someone is charged is a crucial piece of evidence because the blood sample will change as time goes on. A person who is impaired at six o'clock in the evening and is charged with impaired driving may not be impaired at 12 o'clock the next day. The taking of the sample for a blood alcohol reading is crucial at that point in time.

The DNA sample does not change. If we wait six hours to take someone's DNA sample, the reading of that sample is not going to change. The reading of a blood alcohol level will change. When people ask what the difference is between taking blood at a particular time and taking the DNA sample, it is because the nature of the evidence is different.

We have been provided with four decisions which have been referred to by members in this House. One was solicited by the Canadian Police Association and three were solicited by the Minister of Justice.

1755

Some of my colleagues have said that they know the three obtained by the solicitor general or the Minister of Justice reflect the government's concern and they question whether or not they come totally unbiased. To be fair, we have to say that the opinion solicited by the Canadian Police Association was also directed and purchased by a particular organization to reflect its point of view and its argument.

It is similar to two parties going into court. One lawyer will put forward the argument for the client he represents and the other lawyer will put forward the argument for the client she represents. We can always ask whether the arguments are tilted one way or the other. Our job is to sift through those arguments and come to the truth.

This is not an easy motion to sift through. Every member in this House has struggled with this, in part because of the lobbying of the police association. I spoke with Mr. Newark just before addressing this motion today.

We have to look at those opinions for what they are. Three of them say that this motion, the taking of DNA at the time of arrest or charge will not withstand the charter. What does that mean? It means that the taking of the DNA sample at that point in time violates the freedoms of the individuals of this country. It means that the state is operating in a most intrusive manner. The courts have said, and it is our job as parliamentarians to say, that the individual cannot be impeded upon by the state all the time without reasonable limits.

Some colleagues in this House have taken umbrage at the fact that the supreme court is dictating to parliament. The supreme court has an important role and that is to interpret legislation that is passed in this House.

Let us be absolutely realistic about the way things happen in this parliament. I accept some of the arguments that say the supreme court is perhaps intrusive and perhaps invades some of the responsibilities of this House, but the supreme court is one of the very necessary checks in a checks and balance system for the Parliament of Canada.

Without substantial reforms to this House of Commons, and I say this without fear of contradiction in this House, the supreme court is the only check in this country on the power not of the government, but of the cabinet. If we look at the way law is made in this country, the cabinet introduces legislation to a majority party in this House of Commons and it passes it. We have seen that happen in the hepatitis C issue.

The Senate is supposed to be a check. We know what the Senate is. The governor general is an archaic check. The only check to the supreme power of the cabinet is the supreme court of this country. Until we reform this House, that check has to stay to protect the privacy of individuals.

Some members have referred to Paul Bernardo. If Mr. Bernardo were arrested and charged, the police would have the power needed to collect his DNA.

I have great respect for the mover of this motion. I understand why he wishes it to pass. We have to look at the best interests of Canadians and stop the state from interfering in their individual rights.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that if there is one comment from the last speaker that disturbs me a great deal it is that concerning our duty to Canadians.

Our real duty to Canadians regarding legislation in a judicial system is to provide legislation that will give them the utmost of safety and the utmost of protection for them to live a life in Canada without having to look over their shoulders, for them to be able to look forward to the future. I believe that this bill will be a major step in that direction, provided that Motions No. 10 and 11 pass.

1800

Motion 10 will allow for the taking of samples at the time of charge from offenders with one previous conviction and retained for analysis on conviction. Our original amendment introduced during clause by clause review was to allow for the taking of samples from all persons charged. Since this amendment was defeated we have put forward an amended version which addresses the concerns raised by the government members of the committee.

Government members cited finance and privacy concerns as the primary reasons why they would not expand the DNA bank and allow for samples to be taken and analysed at the time of charge rather than conviction. Reform's amendment specifically addresses the issue of cost, proposing that samples be taken on charge but not analysed until conviction, therefore reducing the cost associated with the testing of samples.

As well it addresses privacy concerns and concerns regarding individuals incriminating themselves. It also satisfies the Canadian Police Association's concerns regarding offenders released on bail pending trial, i.e. skipping out. A previous speaker said that through a councillor going to a judge and pointing this out to him, bail could be denied but that is no assurance. I have seen in the last five years some very unusual cases of individuals being bailed when there was really no reason that the courts should take the chance doing so.

The police believe that if an offender is guilty of a previous offence for which they have not been charged they may not appear for their trial if they realize that on conviction their DNA sample may be compared to DNA evidence left at the scene of an unsolved crime. This amendment was recommended and thus fully supported by the Canadian Police Association.

The amendment specifies that the offender must have been convicted of one previous offence. Again this is to satisfy concerns regarding privacy and self-incriminating evidence. Government members of the committee said they would be more apt to support the taking of DNA from possible repeat offenders.

This motion goes a long way in correcting the massive flaw in Bill C-3 which is that it does not allow DNA to be taken on arrest except with a warrant. I still cannot understand why these samples cannot be taken just as fingerprints are now or as blood and urine samples are taken in suspected cases of impaired driving. I think public safety concerns are a lot more important than pure civil libertarian concerns.

I had the pleasure of playing an instrumental role back in 1995 when the first phase of the government DNA testing plan was passed. Bill C-104 allowed police to take samples without consent from individuals suspected of criminal offences, generally those involving serious violence.

The sample taken from the suspect would be matched with samples from the crime scene to determine whether the suspect had committed the specific offence being investigated. The legislation did not deal with the storage of the information or samples derived from testing. It provided a reasonable scheme to ensure that DNA samples were not taken from suspects unnecessarily.

I know the results that first phase of legislation had for Tara Manning's family. I will never forget June 20, 1995 when the justice minister said that he was prepared to introduce legislation by the end of the week for the purpose of adding DNA testing to the Criminal Code. This was a great day for victims because it provided a mechanism to answer many questions and for the police in solving crime.

Yet here we are working on phase two of the legislation and we hear arguments that a DNA sample is unduly intrusive compared to fingerprinting. I have to agree with the words of Tim Danson from the Globe and Mail:

The high court has ruled that taking DNA samples as already allowed by law is not unduly intrusive. The method of sampling consists of cutting a piece of a person's hair, rubbing a Q-tip swab inside the mouth, or taking blood by a simple pin device similar to that used by diabetics.

Further, the court has made it clear that privacy is far more affected when an individual is arrested, taken to court and forced to face the public and personal shame and humiliation that inevitably follow. Privacy interests protected by the charter of rights and freedoms relate to a reasonable expectation of privacy and not privacy at large. People who engage in criminal activity should expect some loss of privacy. Their victims certainly have. Perhaps the armchair constitutional academics should join us in the real world.

1805

I certainly agree with that individual's statement.

With regard to Motion No. 11, which I support, it amends clause 117 regarding who samples may be taken from. It allows for the taking of DNA samples from incarcerated offenders who are serving sentences of two or more years.

During clause by clause review we proposed that samples be taken from all incarcerated offenders who had been convicted of one or more primary designated offences, serious or violent offenders. Our amendment was defeated.

Currently the bill allows the taking of DNA samples only from multiple murderers, sex offenders and designated dangerous offenders.

Given that a very small percentage of offenders commit the majority of crimes and there remains a number of unsolved crimes in this country, there is a great probability that a number of persons currently incarcerated for one offence may be responsible for many more offences. Without this amendment, the police will have many cases which remain unsolved.

I fully support this motion. However, it makes no sense to me why we have a databank that does not include samples from all convicted violent offenders. The bill as drafted now allows for samples only from multiple murderers, sex offenders and dangerous offenders. Two people who are exempt from this classification would be Clifford Olsen and Allan Legere.

I think all killers should be obliged to provide the DNA databank with samples even though they were convicted years before the bank was ever imagined. This is why this motion is so necessary and I hope government members will agree.

It is not as if we are suggesting they adopt a proposal like that from New Brunswick which has been the first to publicly press for the use of DNA samples in cases of property damage over $5,000. That day may come, but as of now I think the least we can do is test those who are serving sentences for two or more years.

Another reason for the necessity to test everyone serving two years or more is that a disproportionately small number of offenders are responsible for a disproportionately large number of crimes.

Stats Canada reports that of the approximately 23,000 offenders, 20% had served a previous federal sentence, 11% had served two previous federal sentences, 18% had served more than two federal sentences and 80% had previously been incarcerated.

The truth in these statistics is that the recidivism rate of a small number of offenders means that by taking steps to deal with this group alone would be effective in protection of the public. A recent CSC report confirms that those offenders detained for their entire sentence are less likely to recommit crimes than those released early.

By taking samples of those serving two or more years, it would not only solve many unanswered crimes, it would also send a signal that if you commit more crimes, you will get caught and you will be punished.

That is a deterrent we need to get out to the probable or possible offenders of the future. Do not do it. We will open up wide the use of DNA sampling and you will get caught and you will pay the price.

How can we refuse to accept that kind of legislation which would mean so much better safety for all Canadians throughout the land? Please support this amendment. Without it, the bill is not very good.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I did warn you that you would probably hear from me twice today.

The government has argued it is far too costly to take DNA samples at the time of the arrest of somebody who has been previously convicted.

It amazes me. It has indicated it will not support this amendment which would enable the police to take these samples at the time of arresting someone with a previous conviction.

1810

It says it is too costly and yet it is prepared to spend perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars on registering the guns of law-abiding people like farmers who will never do anything wrong. It will not spend money on building a DNA bank which would solve crimes and therefore save enormous amounts of money in terms of property damage and personal harm done by criminals.

Where is the sense in wasting all that money on law-abiding citizens when there is absolutely no reason to do it and not spending the money where it is required in crime control?

This government is happy to give the Minister of Canadian Heritage millions of dollars to blow away on a flag program and millions of dollars to throw away on a heritage calendar which mentions every ethnic religious holiday one can think of except for Christmas and New Year, but it will not spend the money to help build a DNA databank which would help us solve crimes.

The government will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council which gives grants to professors which appear to be awfully like vacations but it will not give money to build a DNA bank that would help solve crimes for ordinary Canadians.

I was looking at some of the grants of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. There was one for a woman to go to a little island just west of Fiji, a tax haven island. She was going for three years to study housing on this island. It is an absolutely ridiculous waste of money for a person to be given money to do that under the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grants.

These organizations give away money to study the make-up of blueberry jam. The member for Langley—Abbotsford has mentioned that one before. What a lot of rubbish. This is money just poured down the drain on useless, idiotic projects when we have here an opportunity to build a DNA bank that would actually make a difference. It would actually provide a deterrent, would enable the police to actually solve crimes and would relieve the suffering of many law-abiding Canadians.

The Liberals absolutely love spending money on all sorts of social engineering but they hate spending money on crime control or solving crimes. They are completely out of step with the public.

On another aspect of this bill, the government constantly talks about the court test of the legislation. It is so terrified of the court and what the court might do that it has become hog tied. It is unable to produce reasonable legislation because it is so afraid of the supreme court.

There was a clause put into the charter of rights called the notwithstanding clause and it was put there for a reason. It was put there so that notwithstanding the rulings of the courts, if the government felt that a ruling had been made out of step with the will of parliament and the will of the people the notwithstanding clause could be used to correct that problem.

Instead of being so afraid of these judges who defy the will of parliament and the will of the people and spending enormous amounts of money on preparing bills to be charter safe, why not use the notwithstanding clause a few times and show the judges what we expect of them?

We can have the public confirm the decision of the government by putting it to a binding referendum on the public will so that the government then cannot act in a tyrannical manner. If it does use the notwithstanding clause it will be endorsed by the public.

If we continue down this road of constantly talking about making bills charter safe, we surely know from our own experience in life that for every lawyer who says they drew up a document free of challenge and there is no way anyone can challenge this, there is another lawyer across the street who says it is full of loopholes and can be challenged from every direction.

We can have all the experts in committee who can make these suggestions on how we can make bills charter safe, but there is always going to be a lawyer out there who will study that bill and find some loophole or some clause where he can take it to challenge and with perseverance will mock it down. It happens all the time.

1815

It is time we made it clear that we will no longer tolerate that as a society, that we need some crime control, and that if the judges will not help us with that project we will use the notwithstanding clause to ensure they carry out the public will and begin to reflect a little of what society wants instead of what lawyers want.

Notwithstanding the comments of the member for Scarborough—Rouge River when he spoke earlier that there is nothing to stop the taking of DNA samples under warrant, when we look at the amendment being proposed by Reform we could have this amendment and still have the taking of samples by warrant if necessary. This motion gives an opportunity to begin building a DNA bank for repeat offenders so that we can solve some of the crimes they commit. I cannot understand why anyone would oppose that.

The member mentioned again that they are worried about charter challenges. Everything in this place is done worrying about what the courts might do to it. It is just completely crippling us, preventing us from doing our job.

Let us pass this motion. Let us add it into the bill and let us worry about what the court does with it a little later.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Group No. 6. I compliment my colleague from Crowfoot on the hard work he has done on Bill C-3.

Essentially it deals with the timing of DNA samples, the taking of samples at the time of charging the offender and retaining them for analysis upon conviction. It needs to be toughened up a lot. Members from the other side have mentioned a number of times that it is expensive to do these tests. What is the cost of not doing these tests?

I could not find any evidence in Canada, but let us look at the evidence in the United States. The United States has been much more aggressive than we have been in utilizing DNA sampling and DNA as a scientific tool in the fight against crime.

Recent FBI statistics state that less than half of all rapes were solved by police and less than 10% took samples at the scene of the crime for use by the laboratories. In only 6% of 250,000 rape cases was DNA was actually recovered and tested. That points to a significant flaw.

If we look at all the rapes convictions and take it as 100%, of those convictions only 48% or less than half was DNA collected and only in 27% was the DNA typed. Less than a quarter of all the DNA that was collected, which is about 12%, was from those convicted. That is a very small amount.

What are our costs, society's costs, the police costs and the judicial costs in not utilizing DNA as an effective tool against crime? We could think of all the time that would be saved if we could take samples from all those charged, charter challenges notwithstanding.

If one is innocent one has nothing to fear. If one is innocent the DNA can be used to exonerate. An enormous body of work, again from the United States and from the United Kingdom which has been even more aggressive than the States in utilizing the DNA databank, shows very clearly that DNA can be used as an effective tool to exonerate the innocent. It is a double edged sword. DNA can be used as an effective tool to convict the guilty and to make sure the innocent are not convicted. We have had both cases.

We had the case of Paul Bernardo where lives could have been saved if the samples that were taken from Mr. Bernardo were analysed in a timely fashion. Instead they were laid to languish in a laboratory and as a result at least two young innocent women were murdered and countless others were raped. We have also seen cases where the innocent would not have spent time in jail were DNA used as a tool to exonerate them.

1820

If we are interested in justice we will pass Group No. 6. We will pass Motion No. 10 of my colleague from Crowfoot and will use it to make Bill C-3 a stronger bill.

There are other opportunities and other flaws that we can point to in using DNA. The United Kingdom has been particularly active in the DNA database and in employing DNA science. It is using something called STRs, short tandem strands of DNA that are more specific than the tools we are using today. If we use STRs, the short tandem strands of DNA, it is a much more effective tool in making a stronger more specific analysis of the DNA at the site of a crime.

We need to look at other flaws with respect to using DNA. Usually, as I mentioned before, not enough DNA is collected. It is not collected in a timely fashion. It is not collected at the scene of the crime and it is not processed in a timely fashion.

All those can be taken and used. If they are used can we imagine the savings in money and in time in police investigations? In the building and construction of a DNA databank we could have a mass of information that could be used to expeditiously convict a person guilty in the commission of a crime.

We need to learn not only from our experience in Canada which is in its infancy. We also need to look at the United States and in particular at the United Kingdom which have led the way in using DNA as a scientific tool against the war on crime.

It is important for us to look at the motions in Group No. 6, to utilize them and to adopt them to build upon Bill C-3. It is also useful for us to look at Bill C-3 to make sure that DNA can be taken from all those who are charged for the reasons I mentioned before.

Again, collect at the crime scene, use better specimen collection and preservation, and apply it not only to violent offenders. Why do we not apply it to non-violent offences too? What is the problem? If we are interested in the pursuit of justice, if we are interested in the pursuit of truth and if we are interested in making sure that the guilty are convicted and that the innocent are released, why do we not use the DNA databank for those individuals too?

The cost of crime within our society is estimated at roughly $48 billion a year. What is the cost for us of not convicting the guilty? What is the cost of having the guilty released and running amok? All those things are important for us to take into consideration when we are trying to build Bill C-3 into a better bill for all individuals concerned.

I would also like to deal with the charter issue. It is important for us to look at the charter to make sure, when it comes time to revisit it, that the charter can be utilized and changed to ensure that good bills like a modified Bill C-3 are allowed to go through and that charter challenges do not get in the way of the pursuit of justice.

Too many times we have seen situations where individuals who were charged with crimes, who were patently guilty, got off scot-free because of a charter challenge, a loophole that prevents the guilty from being convicted and put in a situation where they will not prey upon innocent civilians.

In closing, I hope the government takes it upon itself to pass the motions in Group No. 6 to build a better Bill C-3. We look forward to its responses in the near future.

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting debate on DNA. A lot of issues around DNA have caused us some concern with respect to privacy rights and issues that relate to catching very serious offenders and not allowing a repeat of the offence.

1825

Many members who participated in this debate have serious concerns. I share those concerns, but I believe the departments of justice and the solicitor general have done a very good job in listening to members, in particular members of the Reform Party, some of whom gave very well formulated and sound opinions and some of whom were off the wall.

That being said, I know there is a serious intent to ensure greater safety and security for citizens of the country by enabling us to target people who have the potential for repeated offences of the worst kinds.

The member for Wild Rose often brings into the House examples of serious offences which need to be addressed. It is very important to ensure in some way that multiple offenders never get out there again to continue those kinds of offences.

There are people who have demonstrated patterns of recidivism which are of serious concern to all of us. The legislation and the changes that have been made to it answer the concerns placed before us in a most efficient and effective way.

We had a conversation around the amendments found in Motion No. 11. I am sure members of the Reform Party recall the discussion around designated offences. The issue of a designated offence is a very broad term. Any designated offence is an even broader term.

I recall for those people who feel we are avoiding the issues in any way, shape or form by buying into the amendment that has been suggested that if we were to suggest an acceptance of Motion No. 11 we would be bringing into the prison system and into the taking of personal DNA, which is the most precious definition of who we are as a people, something that once out there in the public can never be recovered. It is vital information. If one has committed a B and E, has stolen a car or has broken into a shop, should we in those circumstances consider taking DNA? I am not in agreement. We were not in agreement in committee.

I see the member who did a very good job in defending his position in committee. He is talking with the Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General. I am sure they would both agree that this is not such a great idea. All three of us would agree that the best move is the move that will support the bill before us. It is a good bill. It contains the kinds of protection for society we need. Therefore I move:  

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of consideration of Bill C-3.

The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Will all those opposed to the motion please rise?

And fewer than 15 members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Hon. Sheila Finestone: May I continue?

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member may have lost her right to speak by moving the motion.

1830

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motions Nos. 10 and 11. I thought I would not get the opportunity. I thank the hon. member for her motion.

Having listened to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice I wonder who is running this country. The parliamentary secretary gave very lucid arguments as to why we should not tackle the Supreme Court of Canada or put ourselves at risk of a showdown with the Supreme Court of Canada. If in the end the court prevailed and decided we had taken the wrong approach, those convicted during a period of three or four years prior to having the legislation declared void would have to be turned loose because they would have been wrongfully convicted. I appreciate the argument and I would not like to see the guilty going free or conversely the innocent being convicted because of any error on our part.

However, this is a country of laws. It is time we made it clear not only to the public but to ourselves that the House of Commons of Canada is the supreme legislative body of this country and that we do not have to cower in fear of what the supreme court may do. We are trying to make predictions that the supreme court will disallow this legislation or that we think it will disallow this legislation.

If you put three lawyers in a room and ask them for opinions on this or any other subject, you will get at least five opinions. Therefore we should not be cowering here. If the House in its wisdom feels these are good amendments, which I believe they are, then this is the direction we should take.

Compared with what was previously brought forward in committee, Motion No. 10 is relatively innocuous. It states that samples can be taken on charge from previous offenders, not from just anyone who has been arrested. This makes it unnecessary in the event that the charged person is exonerated of having to take special measures in order to rid the databank of the samples as can be done with fingerprints now. If we go only for people with previous convictions then surely we do not have the problem of having samples in the databank from people who have never been convicted of anything because they are convicted before a sample is taken. I think this makes eminent sense. In my opinion there is no civil liberties problem involved in this.

The other question gets a little closer to the bone with the question of civil liberties, taking DNA samples from convicted people who are already in jail. Again the social benefit of doing this in this case may outweigh the danger to civil liberties. These are convicted criminals. These are not people who have been pulled in off the street and hair plucked from their heads to see what their DNA is. These are people who have committed serious crimes, designated offences.

These people could very well have in the past committed violent offences, in particular rapes, for which they have not been caught or charged

1835

When they are in jail and have already been convicted of a violent offence, does it not make practical sense to check to see if maybe the fellow being looked for during the previous five years might already be in custody? I see no harm in this. There is no one in this House who is a stronger defender of civil liberties than I am. People who have known me here for the last few years I think will stand behind me on this.

This is a case where it simply makes sense to go ahead, take the sample and find out if somebody being held has committed some gross crime and if that is the case another charge can be laid and the fellow is kept in for a very long period of time.

I do not buy the philosophy that we have to quiver and shake and say no, the supreme court may override us. If worst comes to worst as I understand the law we could still use the notwithstanding clause to avoid having to turn a bunch of convicted felons loose. I may be wrong on that. Perhaps some of our legal talent could advise me.

That is the way I see it, that the notwithstanding clause could be used and therefore, contrary to what the hon. parliamentary secretary said, no one would have to be turned loose as having been wrongly convicted even if the supreme court did go against us.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to agreement made on Monday, May 4, 1998, the questions on the motions in Group No. 6 are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deemed deferred.  

[Translation]

Pursuant to agreement made Monday, May 4, 1998, the motion in Group No. 7 is deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motion No. 12.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC) moved:  

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-3, in Clause 20, be amended

(a) by replacing line 38 on page 22 with the following:

“order under section 487.051 or 487.052;”

(b) by replacing line 40 on page 22 with the following:

“tion under section 487.055 or 487.091; or

(e) provided voluntarily by any person who is charged with an indictable offence or is serving a sentence for an indictable offence.”

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 12 would allow an individual who is charged with a criminal offence or who subsequent to that charge has been convicted of an indictable offence to voluntarily provide a substance of DNA for analysis and entry into the DNA databank.

What this essentially enables an individual to do is give exculpatory evidence. Once again it demonstrates that this type of technology is not only to be used by the state but can be used by an individual and it would entrench this in the bill by allowing them to voluntarily give their DNA for use in the trial.

I suppose it could be argued that this would exist in any event if an individual wanted to do so and have the sample taken. Perhaps the funding is going to be a question that will inevitably be asked but this would include in the bill an individual's right to have their DNA considered by the state in the prosecution of a criminal offence. We are talking about designated offences.

The drafters of this bill in their wisdom have designated certain serious offences where DNA substances are very prone and very apt to be left.

I suggest this is a useful amendment. It is one that in the past would have been useful. The names Milgaard, Morin and Marshall come to mind with respect to how DNA did and could be used as exculpatory evidence.

It again shows the scope of the use of this type of technology in our criminal justice system and it is a positive suggestion and one which the government and hopefully all members of this House will support.

1840

DNA is going to be used more and more in our justice system. It is inevitable. It is technology. It is going to serve a very useful purpose for those in law enforcement and for those involved in the justice system generally.

I hope all members would embrace this useful motion and would be supportive in their remarks and in the vote which will inevitably take place in the near future.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the government had the courage of its convictions it would grant the police the power to take a sample at the time of charge if the individual has shown by his or her actions that he or she has been in this type of difficulty before and if necessary protect that right by way of the notwithstanding clause.

As one of my colleagues indicated, it is time to tell the Supreme Court of Canada that we want the will of the people expressed through legislation created by elected representatives of this country and not be afraid every time we attempt to do it that nine unelected individuals are going to strike down the will of the majority of the people in this country.

We support this motion. We think this is a good motion. It does not hurt anyone. It causes no undue problems. It is of a voluntary nature. The provision for this type of activity was originally left out the bill. This motion would place it in the bill and recognize the right of individuals to volunteer samples for whatever purpose, but certainly for the purpose of exonerating them from offences they have not committed. How many times have people volunteered for breathalyser tests? How many have given samples of their blood, their scalp hair, their pubic hair in order to have that compared with samples found at the scene and to exonerate them? Other evidence has caused their arrest and charge.

We have looked at the cases that have come forward, the Milgaard case, the Donald Marshall Jr. case, the Wilson Nepoose case and so on. Those are only the ones we know about. Yet we probably have 50 section 690 applications a year going to the justice minister asking for a new trial or asking for mercy based on the conviction these people are innocent. This provides the means in this area whereby identification by way of DNA is allowed. It provides a statutory provision for that.

We support it and we congratulate the member for bringing it forward.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government does not support this motion. We find it problematic because of the charter perspective. It calls for placing in the convicted offenders index the DNA profile of persons charged with an indictable offence who have provided DNA samples voluntarily. A person so charged is entitled to the presumption of innocence and may ultimately be acquitted. Therefore an innocent person's profile should not be part of the convicted offenders index.

There is another problem in that this motion has no provision for obtaining a person's informed consent to place the samples provided voluntarily in the convicted offenders index.

This motion applies to any indictable offence regardless of whether it is a designated offence and is therefore likely to provide DNA evidence that would be of assistance in a criminal investigation.

In light of these serious difficulties I urge hon. members to reject this motion.

1845

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: According to the agreement of Monday, May 4, 1998, the question on the motion in Group No. 7 is deemed to have been put and a division thereon requested and deferred.  

[English]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:  

The Deputy Speaker: To the relief of all hon. members, the chief government whip has requested that the vote on the motions be deferred until tomorrow at the conclusion of the time provided for consideration of Government Orders.

---

ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS

[English]

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

CHILDREN

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely crucial for the federal government to focus on children in the months and years ahead.

It is well known that well-developed children become successful productive adults who are better able to contribute to society's economy and to instigate a cycle of positive effects as they become parents and grandparents of the generations that follow.

As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can to help people carry out the most important job they will ever have and that is of a parent. As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can in the first three or four years of a child's life, noting that they are essential to the child's long term development.

We know now just how valuable it is to get these first years right, but how damaging it can be for children when they do not get the help they need at an early age.

As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent child abuse which is a crime with potential lifetime effects for the young victims. One abused child is too many.

As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent child poverty. Poverty affects not only a child's body but also their emotional and mental state. Poor children are more than twice as likely to suffer long term disabilities and other physical and mental health problems.

We at the federal level and indeed all levels of government need to work very hard to advance the cause of Canada's children. We must do so knowing that there is growing recognition worldwide of the importance of early childhood development. This is something we all have a stake in because it is all about the future of Canada. Early child development is a powerful investment in the future both socially and economically.

I ask the secretary of state responsible for children and youth what the government is doing to support our children. What is the government doing to advance the national children's agenda?

Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member will recall, the Speech from the Throne acknowledged the importance of early childhood development. By investing now in the well-being of today's children this government is investing in the long term health of our society.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments have been working closely for some time on collaborative initiatives aimed at helping children get a better start in life. The community action program for children, the Canada prenatal nutrition program and aboriginal head start are just examples of highly successful programs already in place to help children in target communities.

To ensure that all Canadian children have the best opportunity to develop their full potential, we need a broader and much more comprehensive investment. Early childhood development alone is not the solution. A growing body of research tells us that we must look at the wide range of environmental factors that affect children's lives.

That is why the Speech from the Throne announced the development of a national children's agenda. Three levels of government are working together to develop a national strategy to improve the well-being of Canada's seven million children. This agenda will give us the opportunity to integrate the sometimes fragmented efforts of the different levels of government avoiding overlap and duplication to ensure we get the most out of each dollar we spend on children.

The national children's agenda is a long term action plan that requires a substantial investment of time and effort from all players. In the meantime we will live up to the commitment we made to Canadians.

As announced in the 1997 budget, the Canada child tax benefit will come into force July 1 to help low income families. As announced in this year's budget, we will increase the Canada child tax benefit by an additional $850 million by the year 2000.

1850

Let me conclude by saying to the hon. member that these efforts by the Government of Canada demonstrate quite clearly that we are committed to do as much as we possibly can to move toward the elimination of child poverty, to promote early childhood development and to lay a strong foundation for the future of Canadian children and Canadian society.

HEALTH

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to expand on my question to the Minister of Health about the painful shortfall in federal transfer payments for health care.

I proposed an amendment to a bill that would have required the minister to report every year to parliament on whether transfer payments are adequate enough to meet the needs for health services.

Let me explain why. I received a letter from George Bell whom I wrote to the minister about but have still not received a reply. Mr. Bell waited six months before receiving diagnosis and treatment for a worsening nerve disorder. Last fall the first doctor told him the pain and tingling in his arm would probably go away. It did not. The second doctor booked him for a diagnostic scan for which Mr. Bell had to wait a month. After that Mr. Bell waited another month for more diagnostic services. His treatment only began recently and the surgery has not yet been scheduled.

Mr. Bell is a manual labourer who could not work because of the increasing pain in his arms. The Workers' Compensation Board turned down his claim because it stated he was suffering from a degenerative disc disease that was not as a result of his work duties. Mr. Bell has nothing to live on, is unable to work and is just now receiving treatment for his condition six months after he first approached a doctor.

Unfortunately there are many people out there experiencing similar frustrations and lack of timely care.

Today researchers at the Université du Québec à Montréal released a study that showed that health cutbacks reduced life expectancy for men and women as well as infants. The Liberal government cut $3.5 billion from health care over the past three years alone. That represents a huge number of beds, a lot of medical equipment and hundreds and perhaps thousands of staff. That represents months of waiting for surgery and life threatening hours of waiting in emergency rooms. It is quite simply unacceptable. This is not what Canadians want.

The Reform Party's answer is to introduce two tiered medicine where the rich can pay to jump the queue and the poor die on waiting lists. This is also unacceptable. This is not the Canadian way.

Right now a private hospital is operating in Alberta contrary to the public administration principle in the Canada Health Act. The Liberal government is doing nothing about it. The dollars of desperate and sick Canadians are going into the pockets of the owners of this private health operation instead of all those dollars being used for health services.

This is the way of the future, unless we stop it, unless we can give Canadians a voice in our own health care system. The amendment I proposed was a way to do that but the answer I received then from the minister was disappointing.

I would like the minister's representative to respond to Mr. Bell and to all Canadians who have to wait unreasonable periods of time, often at great personal expense for medical treatment. Why does he not wish Canadians to have a voice in our health care system? Why is he afraid of scrutiny of the current inadequate levels of funding for health care? Why are people like Mr. Bell forced to wait six months for treatment and be unable to work and have nothing to live on in the meantime? What answer does he have for Mr. Bell?

Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the quality of health care available to Canadians is of utmost importance to the government. We know that high quality health care is a key contributor to a healthy population.

Simply focusing on how much money is being spent on health care will not provide a real picture of how good the quality of care is and how well the health system is doing in achieving important health outcomes.

Quality health care is also about the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care, treatment and services available to Canadians as well as providing those services in the most efficient way possible.

This government recognizes the importance that evidence based decision making has for improving the quality of health care. For example, we have implemented the three year $150 million health transition fund to gather in collaboration with the provinces and territories evidence and test pilot approaches in the areas of pharmacare, home care, primary health care and integrated health services delivery.

Also the government is spending $50 million over three years to examine the development of a health information system to ensure that those in the health system have the best information they need to provide quality care to Canadians.

Finally, the 1996 budget allocated $65 million over five years for the Canadian health services research fund.

The Canada health and social transfer provides the stability and predictability by ensuring $12.5 billion annually in cash transfers and total transfer entitlements that will gradually increase from $25.3 billion in 1997-98 to $28.5 billion in the year 2002-03.

[Translation]

The Deputy Speaker: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.54 p.m.)