Jake Hoeppner

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on the second group of motions to make a few remarks.

I think the hon. member from the Bloc had the best intentions in mind when he proposed these amendments. They do not make the picture clearer as far as what we are trying to do with this bill.

I think the overriding principle of this bill should be that we protect the law-abiding citizen, that we do everything possible to give that protection to people who are affected by criminal acts.

I want to go back to about March 1995 when my son was brutally attacked in Winnipeg. He was beaten beyond recognition but hung on to life by a thin thread for a number of days.

When I phoned the police in Winnipeg to see what was being done to apprehend this person or persons who had attacked my son and a friend so brutally, they were rather at a loss. They had had a similar incident at the same place in October and a person was killed. They felt this was another incident where a gang had demanded some kind of violent act from people who wanted to be initiated and that killing a person was part of the initiation to get into that gang. I would have done anything to catch that person.

Had there been a databank available for the police to use in October, they could have at least marked the person even if they could not have apprehended the person. They could have then cross referenced that sample with the sample of the persons who attacked my son. I would have been very supportive of that.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary that we cannot try to take a piece out of a map. A map is very important to me when I travel across the country. If a destination on the map has been erased or there is a detour I did not know about, I would get lost and the map would not be of much value to me. That is the way I look at this databank. If we are going to form the bank, put some of the funding principles of the bank into the system and then erase the data samples of those who have been wrongly accused, we will run into a lot of problems.

Often the intent of the bills we pass in this House is very good but the bills do not go far enough. That is similar to when people plan trips. They have a time limit within which to get to a destination. That is the way I look at this databank. It is another tool we are being given to make sure we arrive at the destination we have been planning on over the last number of years.

Fingerprinting was a good tool. It has worked for many years. It has been used in some good investigative work. Now we have the extra tool of a DNA databank. We should make full use of it. We should use it to its best within the circumstances so that citizens and not the criminals get the protection.

We are so often worried and concerned that criminals will not have their rights. In my opinion when a criminal violates the law and he is involved in a violent act or in some act that affects society, there is a price to pay. If the databank can be used to mark this individual in a way that is not public but is there for the protection of the ordinary citizen, then it should be used to its fullest extent.

It is very important that the crime rate in Canada be brought down. Statistics show that violent crimes are continually going up. This is not just happening among the general population but with young offenders, adults and even some seniors. When I read of violent crimes by seniors I do not know whether it is old age or their attitude toward each other.

We were in the United States for a short holiday. A couple of seniors were playing cards and before the game was over they were both dead. One wonders how a couple of friends could be playing cards and get into such a furious fight that they would kill each other.

Sometimes things are overdone but in many cases when these criminal acts occur, it is a matter of the police finding out what has happened and getting to the bottom and the truth of it. If criminals are aware of the fact that there is very little chance of them escaping the law, that in itself will deter crime. It is important that we have more impact on criminals to make them realize they will be caught and will serve a penalty. That can override the few freedoms they demand because of the charter of rights. I would rather sacrifice somewhat and err on the principle of freedoms and rights than on the principle of criminality that the non-violent law-abiding ordinary citizen was not paying a price for.

It has become almost an accepted fact that someone in every family will suffer from a violent act. That is sad. Years and years ago when I was a teenager it only happened in large cities and it only happened to someone else. I hear of drive by shootings in my own little town of Altona. I hear of a murder in Miami because of the drug trade. And I found out in the last couple of weeks that one of my neighbours was gunned down because he was involved as an undercover agent for the RCMP, and there are no clues as to who did it.

I am therefore very determined that we in this House pass legislation that will make sure the criminals are apprehended. This bill is another tool for doing that. It is important that we make this bill as effective a tool as it can be to apprehend criminals. I think everyone is concerned about privacy and rights, but once people are affected by crimes and suffer through violent crimes, it becomes more important that we as lawmakers pass legislation that will protect citizens.

There are experiences in other countries where we can see how laws have affected the land. I was in the Soviet Union in 1991. I was told there were only 40 people in the city of Moscow to enforce the laws. That was scary. The government at the time had dictated law through the military regime. There had been no civil law and the government's policy of perestroika was taking place. The government did not have the laws of the land to protect law-abiding citizens. Following Soviet history in the last couple of years the criminal element has become stronger rather than weaker.

It is so very important that we give our RCMP and law enforcement officers a DNA databank that can identify people and which will not just catch criminals and ensure they were the ones involved in the criminal act but will also protect individuals who were not involved but happened to be in the wrong place. I mentioned David Milgaard earlier as an example.

[The Senate, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Western Opinion Research just conducted a huge poll in Manitoba. Eighty-six per cent of Manitobans want their senators elected. Only seven per cent said “let the Prime Minister appoint them”.

We know how the Prime Minister treats his backbench MPs like sheep who cannot think for themselves. He whipped them so hard on the hepatitis C vote that some of them cried while they were voting.

Is this how the Prime Minister plans to treat 86% of Manitobans on Senate elections?

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

It does not allow that. One has to be convicted before it is allowed. That is what I read in the bill. You have to be a one time criminal before you can be asked to submit a sample.

We are debating whether or not it is common sense. To me it only makes common sense if we can prevent an offence. I cannot see any harm. When the RCMP suspects somebody or when law enforcement believes it should have the right, they should be able to take that DNA sample and put it in the bank. The way I read it, this bill does not allow that.

We will see during the debate today that the Liberals will try to brainwash us. They will try to put us into a nice comfortable mood and say that this is a bill everybody should support. We support some of it. When the justice critic objects to certain clauses, I support him because he is dead right.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Not all of them. He does not object to all of them. He only objects to the ones that do not make sense.

That is the problem with these Liberal governments. They do not know what common sense is. And when they see it, they distort it. They distort it enough until they think they have got something that is publicly acceptable. People are brainwashed and led to believe that it is good for them. It does not work that way in real life. Real life common sense tells us we have to do what protects the ordinary law-abiding citizen who wants to give his best to the country.

There are people in my constituency who would gladly volunteer DNA because they have somebody in their family background who someday might get mixed up with something that would not be so nice to deal with. There are a number of cases. They would be glad to give a DNA sample to the bank so that they would be protected from things that happened with members of their families.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Jack has his own ideas and he will talk to those ideas. I am talking about the amendments.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, what is privacy all about? This brings me back to a case we heard so much about in the last number of years of David Milgaard who was imprisoned for 20 some years.

David's family lived in the Snowflake area where I farmed for a number of years. People in the community always felt very strongly that David Milgaard was innocent. They knew the family and they knew what type of upbringing he had. There was always the suspicion that he had been at the wrong place at the wrong time and was blamed for an act he was not responsible for.

Had we a DNA databank and some of the information available to the police forces to double check on the evidence they had, probably David Milgaard would have been exonerated from that crime and would have been free those 22 or 23 years he was in prison.

I think society has the right to have protection and that is what government is there for, to give the type of protection from unjust prosecution.

When somebody is caught up in a crime and has violated civil or criminal law there should be a sample of DNA so that in future cases the person can either be charged or exonerated. Having the databank is not just a matter of proving people are criminal or that they were involved in the act. The databank is there to prevent people from being charged wrongly.

In comments in the previous debate the government feels this would cost too much money. It would create a bank that was too costly to manage. The gun legislation, Bill C-68, was passed in order to register guns of law-abiding citizens just to keep track of them in case some of the criminal element might pick up some of these guns and they can be traced. We have seen a number of speculative suggestions or estimates that it would cost about half a billion dollars to register all the guns of law-abiding citizens.

When we look at the databank which would serve a much bigger bank of information on catching people who have committed crime or preventing people from being prosecuted who were not involved, money seems to be an issue. It was not an issue when it came to gun registration. That does not make sense.

When looking at the hepatitis C issue it is money that seems to be what the government is hesitating to talk about. It does not want to admit that maybe it was wrong. It does not want to admit that there could have been something done to prevent the problem of poison blood. That is the same with the databank. The government is very hesitant to make the bank resourceful and to give the bank the authority to take the samples of DNA from people who are suspect of committing crimes.

If I were accused falsely of a crime I would demand that a DNA sample be taken so I could not be charged for something I was not involved in. I cannot understand why that is a matter of private information that I would not want to have in a databank controlled by the government.

Some of the amendments made by other parties concern putting safeguards into the bill in order that the DNA data information collected is not misused. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Had we a databank giving the RCMP and the investigators the information they needed in the David Milgaard or Guy Paul Morin case it would have meant a lot less stress and hardship for those families.

Will it create any stress for people who are forced to give a sample of DNA where it is protected by government and cannot become public information? There is no problem. It is the same as the tax man. When he wants to come and open up my books they are there for him to look at. If I do not give him that information he can force me to give it to him. Is it not easier to provide the information rather than forcing somebody to give that information?

It seems only logical that we should support the amendments. The bill is going in the right direction. We should support some of these amendments to guarantee safety. We should also put in amendments which will guarantee that the legislation contains all the bullets the RCMP and investigators need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is or is not guilty of a crime. It makes sense that we should give this type of protection to our ordinary citizens, whether they are law abiding or living on the edge of the law.

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what is tonight's vote all about? It is about real people with hepatitis C, people who are sick, people who need help from this government, people like Mrs. Laurie Stoll of Maple Ridge, B.C.; Mrs. Joyce Smith of Mission, B.C.; Ed Wheeler of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; Theresa Robertson of Peterborough, Ontario; Allan Ordze of Edmonton, Alberta; Lisa Holtz of Edmonton, Alberta; Ed Neufeld of Winkler, Manitoba; Mr. Wish of Winnipeg, Manitoba; Verla Sherhols of Kanata, Ontario; Cheralynn Adie of Ottawa, Ontario, Etienne Saumure of Gatineau, Quebec; Don Jamieson of Toronto, Ontario; Joan Laing of Calgary, Alberta.

These are people who live in our neighbourhoods all over Canada. Every member of parliament must remember these suffering people in tonight's vote.

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a constituent writes:

I am 32 years old, married and have three young sons. I work hard, pay my taxes and I do what I can for my country. But in the last several years, I find it increasingly difficult to go to work and take care of my young family, because hepatitis C is sucking the life out of me. I am always tired and find it hard, if not impossible, to be a dad to my boys and keep up with my responsibilities.

Not knowing how much longer I will be able to work, or how many years I have left, it would be of great comfort if the government would take responsibility and compensate all victims of tainted blood so I could slow down and preserve my health.

I pray and trust that the Government of Canada will take responsibility and do the right and honourable thing.

Ed Neufeld, Winkler, Manitoba.

I implore this government not to let innocent victims like Ed Neufeld down.

[Bill C-4, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a Senate committee has travelled to the western provinces to hear the concerns of farmers on Bill C-4.

One farmer stated: “If this bill demonstrates democracy in this country, then we are in deep trouble. At Confederation, would we as Canadians have accepted two-thirds of a say in our destiny?”

Another farmer says that they are scrambling to make ends meet, taking off-farm jobs and juggling crops. They are frustrated that they do not see the wheat board scrambling to do anything other than damage control.

The right to own, use and dispose of private property is one of the key foundations of any democratic society. The wheat board act, as presently constituted, violates this fundamental principle.

Ontario farmers will have an opportunity to export wheat directly into the United States. Denying western farmers the same economic freedoms will only serve to foster a feeling of resentment and division.

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, that was really an enjoyable little speech. I can hear that the hon. member did listen to the speech or read it because at least he got some good meat out of it.

What really astounds me is that for 30 years we have had successive Liberal and Conservative governments fill that other place. Every time they change governments they change the positions in there. Why have we $600 billion of debt in this country if they have been doing such a terrific job? They are supposed to be the house of second thought to guide this House along if we do not know the proper procedures or the financial situation of the country.

For 30 years I sat on my tractor and my combine and have heard that things are improving in this country. Where have they improved? We are number 12 as far as income per capita is concerned, the worst of the industrialized nations. I think it is time that someone in this House stood up for two hours and really put the facts before this House. That is why we have the problems, because the house of second thought or sober thought never realized there was no thought in this House. It did not know how to run this country.

We have $600 billion of debt piled on the future of our children and grandchildren. The leader of the official opposition is not supposed to say what is wrong with this place. They cannot listen to him. I think it is high time we started to take the bull by the horns and then take him by the tail, swing him and throw him out. That is what is going to happen.

From one member we came to 52 members. We are now 60 members and the next time there will be 152 Reform members on that side. Then let us see if they are going to listen to what this leader is going to say about the Senate. They will not be getting reappointed, I can tell them that. They will get elected because people will have the right to do that.

Not only that but farmers will not be thrown in jail anymore for selling their own grain when they can get a better price. That is the way we will have this country run. We will have a democracy out here. We will not have a dictatorship. When I see this House and this country compared to the democracy of Cuba I get real upset.

I think we have the right in this House to say what is wrong with this place and to try to improve it. That is why we are here. That is why we will say it time and time again whether it takes an hour or two hours, so I hope the hon. gentleman can give me an answer. Why do we have these problems in this country when it has been Conservatives and Liberals continuously running this country and putting us into this mess?