René Laurin

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when subsidies or money are handed out to some of my constituents, I am not shy to say it. I hold a press conference or send a press release, and it is mentioned in all the newspapers.

I tell my constituents “You were right to take advantage of this or that program.” I do not tell them that they owe their funding to the Liberal government or their member of parliament. I say “The money comes from your tax dollars. It is yours. I am only here to serve you, to try to help you apply to the program and get some of the money.” I do not seize the opportunity to engage in propaganda but that is what the Liberals do and that is why we are so hard on them.

If the Liberals wants to use the CIO to engage in propaganda, they should be blunt about it and not hide the fact. That has always been the trademark of the Liberal government: it is so open.

When we told the heritage minister at midday today that the government had agreed to spend $5 million to celebrate Canada Day in the province of Quebec in the year 2000, she did not deny it. But when she was asked how much money the government was spending for those celebrations in the rest of the country, she declined to answer. That is not what openness is all about.

If the CIO is a transparent information tool, do we then need to ask her how many millions of dollars will be spent in the other provinces of Canada? If the minister refuses to reply, there are grounds for suspecting that the $5 million will likely be the largest amount earmarked for celebrating Canada Day, and it will go to Quebec. Do Quebecers have a greater need to celebrate Canada Day than other Canadians?

Are other Canadians not sufficiently proud of their country, “the finest country in the world” as the Prime Minister tells us? Are they not proud enough to benefit from certain amounts the Minister of Canadian Heritage might allocate to them in order to properly celebrate their national holiday, the birthday of their country?

Why this secrecy? It is simple. It is because they want to imply that it is a totally natural thing for Quebecers to wish to celebrate July 1, Canada Day. They want to make a show by using the money to buy banners instead of using it to let people express themselves. They are going to use it on things, things that will provide visibility and speak on behalf of people, trying to pass them off as great Canadian federalists. That is the intention, so let them come out and say so.

We are not hiding the fact that we are sovereignists. We say so to anyone. We have been coming to Ottawa for the past seven years just to say so. It is no secret. We say “Here we are, we are sovereignists”. We will tell it to everyone. We are prepared to go to the other provinces of Canada to explain our position. Unfortunately the CIO does not organize tours for us. The CIO does not give us any budget for that, whereas the ministers have a budget funded by the CIO. We are forced to pay for such things out of our office operating budget.

If the intention is to provide everyone with honest information, then why not use this money to benefit all members of this House, regardless of party affiliation? That would be honesty, that would be transparency. This not being the case, we are calling for this propaganda office to be closed and we will be vociferous in our demands.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the citizens of my riding who are doing me the honour of being in the public gallery today and whom I am pleased to greet, and for the benefit of the other citizens in my riding and in all other ridings in Quebec and Canada, I would like to explain what we are doing today.

Today is a supply day and on this supply day, the Bloc Quebecois put forward for debate the following motion:

That this House condemn the government for having established the Canada Information Office, which gives lucrative contracts to those close to the government party for, among other things, the purpose of gathering, analysing and collating information about a large number of citizens, and that this House urge the government to close that Office.

The Bloc Quebecois is essentially asking that the CIO or the Canada Information Office be closed. Why?

Because the Canada Information Office is being used as an agency of the Liberal Party of Canada. Because the Canada Information Office shamelessly engages in cronyism and because, since its creation four years ago, the CIO has always been a “grab bag” agency and it has signed countless contracts to help it define its role and its mandate.

After four years, the CIO still does not know what it should be doing. And if it does not know what it should be doing, why are we giving it money? Is this wasted money? We are giving $20 million a year to this agency that hired 83 people without complying with the normal hiring rules.

What we want is quite simple, it is transparency. We are telling the government that if it wants a propaganda agency for Canadian federalism, it should create one but it should say so publicly.

This reminds me of certain drivers. Is there anything more frustrating then when the car up ahead signals a right turn, but abruptly makes a left turn? This is most irritating and even dangerous.

This is what the government is doing now. It says that the CIO is an agency that deals with information. If we follow the CIO, we would expect it to turn toward information. But, to our great surprise, the CIO makes a right turn instead of a left turn, as expected. The right side is the propaganda side. This is surprising, irritating and dangerous. It is a very powerful instrument that can be used to manipulate citizens.

If the CIO is transparent and wants to provide information to all citizens, why does it not spend the same kind of money in other Canadian provinces? Why is it concentrating its information and propaganda budgets in Quebec? Is it because the CIO thinks that Quebecers are not very bright, that they are deaf, that one must explain things to them more often, for a longer time so that they can understand the message? Is it because other Canadians are not interested in the country? Is it because the information that the government has to give out is not of general interest? Is it because the people of British Columbia should not receive the same message as Quebecers?

If it is about the provision of information, then the same information should be provided everywhere using the same means. If Quebecers are likely to be interested in what is happening in the Rockies, why would the people from the Rockies not be interested in what is happening in Quebec? Did the CIO think about marking the 20th anniversary of the first referendum in Quebec? No.

Yet, it spent tens of thousands of dollars to celebrate the 50th anniversary of one of the maritime provinces. It informs and brings attention to important events. That was such an event. Strangely, the CIO was established following a referendum that the government almost lost in 1995. The CIO was created in 1996.

In the beginning, that seemed to be normal, as the CIO reported to the Department of Canadian Heritage. We were told “The role of Canadian Heritage is propaganda, informing all citizens”. We found it almost normal. In 1998, however, all of a sudden, the government decided to take the CIO away from Heritage Canada and give it to the Department of Public Works. The Minister of Public Works told us this week that it was reasonable for the CIO to be his responsibility, since served as an instrument to build Canada.

The government was going to use the CIO to build Canada so it moved it. At the same time, however, Public Works Canada hands out contracts for publicity and all sorts of contracts for propaganda. My colleague from Sherbrooke gave a few examples of this earlier, and I want to mention another.

Everest, a company that received a $75,000 contract, had contributed $20,000, a coincidence, to the Liberal Party election campaign in 1997 and 1998, and one of its managers, Claude Lacroix, headed the Liberal Party's communications campaign in 1998.

Another distressing coincidence involves Le Groupe Action, which received a contract for $46,000. Le Groupe Action has its offices at the same premises as Everest. Le Groupe Action contributed $60,000 to the Liberal Party in 1997-98.

In all this transparency, I would like the government to explain how Le Groupe Action, which received a $46,000 contract, was so grateful as to return $60,000 to the coffers of the Liberal Party election fund. It got $46,000 and it gave $60,000. It must have got something somewhere else. I do not know any company that is generous to the point of giving a political party more money than it got. Something is unclear in all this. What other money did the company receive for it to be so generous with the government?

We want transparency. The ministers tour under the auspices of the CIO and visit our ridings. It was mentioned earlier that they had made 122 visits. When they come to our ridings to inform people, I am happy with their coming to inform people, but when one informs people, one informs everyone. They should not target an audience they have a cheque for under a grant program that would have benefited this audience in any case.

The ministers circulate, meet a small group of 10 or 15 persons represented by the chamber of commerce and certain mayors. The mayors are very well informed. The chambers of commerce are the best informed organizations in our communities. They do not have the greatest need for information. The people do.

Let the government come then and tell the people why they cut billions in health care, as my colleague from Matapédia—Matane said. Why did the government, which created surpluses for itself, soon to be worth $25 billion, in the employment insurance fund by dipping into the pockets of the unemployed, not come and tell the people about that? This is interesting and useful information, because it enables taxpayers to judge the actions of the government. This is the role of information.

Mr. Speaker, you seem nervous. Has my time run out?

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague had no choice but to deny us the opportunity to hear the last part of his remarks for lack of time, but I would be very much interested in hearing the tail end of the remarks he did not finish.

Could the hon. member take a few minutes to convey the message he could not deliver fully?

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what bothers the Bloc Quebecois is not the fact that the government party travels at the taxpayers' expense for so-called information purposes. What bothers us is that they are not providing information; they are handing out cheques for projects on which opposition members have worked. They show up in the riding just to hand out a cheque, and the information they have to give is so public that they forget to actually invite people.

If it were public information, why would the member representing the riding not be invited when the minister stops by? I would be interested to hear the information government members have to give.

If it were real information, it should be public, transparent and clear. They should not be afraid to speak openly and publicly.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from the Canadian Alliance if she does not find it strange that this information is targeted at Quebecers?

Is it because the government thinks that Quebecers are a bit slow that they need more information to find out the truth? Did the member notice in her area, in western Canada, whether these “Heritage Minutes” and all this information was broadcast as widely as in Quebec?

If this is information, then all Canadians should be interested. But if only Quebecers are interested, it is not information any more, it is propaganda. Does my colleague from the alliance believe that this information is shared equally across the country for the benefit of all Canadians?

[Banking, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the secretary of state for finance indicated that the future of Quebec's banks is in the hands of the federal Minister of Finance, and that he would take the interests of Quebecers into consideration.

Why has the minister decided, with his bill, to give immediate protection to the Canadian banks while offering the banks of Quebec up to foreign control? What is the hidden agenda here?

[May 20, 1980 Referendum, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, twenty years ago tomorrow, 40% of Quebecers said yes to the sovereignist approach. In 1995, the figure was close to half. Next time, it will be a majority.

In the immediate aftermath of the May 20, 1980 referendum, Premier René Lévesque described recognition of the right to self-determination as the most valuable outcome of this Quebec referendum.

Unfortunately, the Canadian government, with its Bill C-20, is again challenging this precious right of Quebecers to decide their future freely and democratically.

On the evening of May 20, 1980, René Lévesque told the people of Quebec “If I understand you correctly, you are telling us: wait until next time”. He was convinced that it was just a temporary postponement.

The next time is coming up soon. The next time will be the right one. The next time, Quebec will become a country.

[National Defence, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is preparing to send a team of technicians to Sierra Leone.

The situation there is getting worse, as we know, and the Prime Minister has already expressed his intention to give serious consideration to a request from the UN for troops.

Would the minister promise to hold a debate in this House before sending any troops to Sierra Leone?

[National Defence Act, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, despite the terrible way I sound this morning, I would like to be able to give you my message to the end. I am counting on the co-operation and indulgence of yourself as well as my colleagues so that I may manage to do so properly.

Bill S-10, with which we are dealing today, addresses a most interesting and timely subject, DNA evidence.

DNA is located in the nucleus of human cells and contains each human being's genetic code. In fact, each of us has a personal genetic code, with the exception of identical twins. A person's DNA yields his or her genetic fingerprint. For law enforcement officers and lawyers, the advancement of science in the area of genetics is an indispensable tool for solving crimes, that is for finding the guilty parties and clearing innocent ones.

Before addressing the main thrust of Bill S-10, an act to amend the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the criminal code, I would like to provide a brief overview of Canadian legislation as it applies to the sampling of bodily substances.

Before 1995, the criminal code included no provisions allowing bodily substances to be sampled for genetic analysis on individuals suspected of a crime. Police officers did, nevertheless, collect bodily substances for genetic analysis purposes on accused individuals. This practice was challenged before the courts under the provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The decision in Borden by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1994 is an example of this. In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly says that the taking of bodily substances constitutes a search and seizure. Unless permitted under the law or unless the accused validly agrees to it, it is to be considered abuse. In this instance, hair and blood samples were taken from an accused in connection with an offence involving sexual assault. Since no legislative provision authorized this seizure and the agreement of the accused had not been obtained validly, the supreme court declared the seizure illegal.

This decision moved parliament to legislate in this area in order to respond to the constitutional requirements set by the Supreme Court of Canada. At the time, Bill C-104 added a section entitled Forensic DNA Analysis to the criminal code. These provisions have established the conditions and procedure to be followed for obtaining a warrant to entitle a Canadian peace officer to collect bodily substances for forensic analysis purposes from individuals suspected of having committed certain serious offences.

In 1997 the government decided to go further in the area of collecting bodily substances by introducing Bill C-3. The bill was passed by the House of Commons on September 19, 1998 and the new provisions contained in it are to come into effect in June 2000.

In the future, in addition to the taking of bodily substances when an individual is suspected of a crime, samples of bodily substances may be obtained from people already found guilty of designated offences in order to include them in the DNA data bank.

Indeed, Bill C-3, the DNA Identification Act, created a national DNA data bank administered by the RCMP. That bank will include a crime index containing genetic information collected at the scene of a crime.

It will also include an index containing the genetic identification profiles of adults and teenagers convicted of specific offences under the criminal code. This will help police compare DNA information found at a crime scene with the profiles of suspects and convicted offenders, the objective being to find the guilty party as quickly as possible, with the smallest possible margin for error.

Offences for which the taking of a sample may be authorized are called designated offences in the act. These offences are included in the criminal code and they are classified in the act as primary designated offences or secondary designated offences.

For example, for the purpose of the taking of a sample, murder, manslaughter and sexual assault are primary designated offences, while piracy, assault and dangerous driving are secondary designated offences.

When this bill comes into effect, the justice system will have an effective tool to solve crimes. Only one group had been left out in the previous legislation, namely the military.

Bill S-10, which is before us today, complements the legislation on the taking and the storing of DNA data. There were no reasons to exclude military personnel from the system established for civilians, and this is why the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill S-10.

I will now comment on the main amendments to Bill S-10. Bill S-10 essentially adds to the National Defence Act provisions that will authorize a military judge to issue a warrant authorizing the collection of bodily substances for DNA testing on military personnel who are suspected of having committed a designated offence, or who have been found guilty of such an offence.

First, the classification of offences for which a sample may be authorized is the same as in Bill C-3. It was quite rightly decided to include in this list certain offences specific to the military and covered under the National Defence Act, such as mutiny with violence, endangering a person on an aircraft, and negligence in the handling of dangerous substances.

A military judge may now issue a warrant authorizing the taking of a sample in a case where a member of the military is suspected of having committed a designated offence. The military judge will issue the warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a designated offence has been committed and that a bodily substance has been found at the place where the offence was committed or on the body of the victim.

The results of forensic DNA analysis can be destroyed if the sample of the bodily substance taken does not match that obtained at the place where the offence was committed, if the person is acquitted of the offence, or if the charge is withdrawn.

In addition, when a member of the military is found guilty of a designated offence, the court martial may make an order for the taking of a sample in order to include the accused's DNA profile in the DNA data bank.

The distinction between primary and secondary offences is relevant here because it determines whether the taking of a sample will be ordered. When a member of the military is found guilty of a primary offence, the court martial must order the taking of a bodily substance sample. However, if he is found guilty of a secondary offence, the court martial is not required to make such an order.

In the latter case, a series of guidelines are given to assist the court martial in deciding whether or not to order a sample. The court martial must take into account the impact taking a sample would have on the privacy and security of the person. It can also take into consideration any previous convictions as well as the nature and circumstances under which the offence was committed.

Bill S-10 also contains the provision that, when samples of bodily substances are ordered, they shall be taken as soon as possible, even if there is an appeal. Results of the DNA analysis of bodily substances taken when a member of the Armed Forces is convicted of an office are transmitted to the Commissioner of the RCMP for entry in the convicted offenders index of the national DNA data bank.

Any portions of samples of bodily substances that are not used in forensic DNA analysis are also transmitted to the Commissioner.

Finally, I believe it is worth pointing out that the bodily substances which can be sampled are hair, saliva and blood. The foregoing were the main points of the new provisions to be added to the National Defence Act by Bill S-10 in order to allow the sampling of bodily substances for purposes of DNA analysis.

Bill S-10 goes still further, by also amending the Genetic Identification Act and the Criminal Code. I will therefore present the amendments to the act proposed by Bill S-10.

First of all, there is provision for the DNA profiles, as well as samples of bodily substances from which the profiles are derived, to be used only for law enforcement purposes in accordance with this Act, and not for any unauthorized purpose.

This addition provides additional protection to those who have had samples of bodily substances taken. In fact, these substances may in no case be used to develop a psychological profile or for medical research purposes. The DNA Identification Act will help solve crimes, convict the guilty and avoid legal errors.

We must remember however that every person has the right to privacy and must be assured that DNA information gathered will not be used for experimentation. The law provides penalties for those failing to meet these objectives.

Bill S-10 adds to the DNA Identification Act the requirement that the Commissioner of the RCMP responsible for administering the data bank report to the Solicitor General annually on the national DNA data bank.

Provision has already been made for a committee of the Senate or the House of Commons or a joint committee to examine the application of the law in the five years following its coming into effect. This is why this amendment does not seem crucial to me.

However, in the light of the financial problems the RCMP seems to be facing these days, this requirement may draw the attention of parliamentarians to the problems of implementing the law more quickly and, therefore, resolve them right away.

However, Bill S-10 also amends certain provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the collection of bodily substances. It involves permitting an order for sampling obtained following conviction to be executed in another province.

Let us take the example of an individual who is convicted and sentenced in Quebec of an offence for which the law permits a sample to be taken. The Quebec judge hands down a sentence and orders the taking of a blood sample, to include the DNA profile of the individual in the DNA data bank.

Under the new provision proposed in Bill S-10, if the individual is transferred to a penitentiary located in Ontario before the sample is collected, an Ontario judge can confirm the order issued in Quebec, thus making it possible to collect the sample in Ontario.

In other words, it would not be necessary for an Ontario judge to receive a new application and to issue a new order. This will help avoid having multiple and useless proceedings, thus allowing those who work in criminal law to save money and time.

The second change concerns a criminal code provision allowing the crown prosecutor to obtain the authorization to collect samples for a designated offence under the act on young offenders who are already serving a sentence when the act comes into effect.

These are ex parte applications, which means they are submitted without the offender being present. Under the current act, these applications must be accompanied by a certificate attesting that the offender is indeed serving a sentence for a designated offence, and a notice must be sent to the offender to inform him that the crown will submit the certificate. Since this is an ex parte application, the notice of filing is not necessary and Bill S-10 removes that obligation, which, in my opinion, is something quite acceptable.

A third amendment concerns a section in the criminal code dealing with the execution of the warrant. This section lists the formalities to be observed by a peace officer taking a sample of a bodily substance. One paragraph in this section requires the peace officer taking the sample to inform the offender that he or she may express a preference as to the substance to be sampled.

This requirement, if maintained, would place the peace officer taking the sample in a dilemma. If the judge ordered a sample of hair and the offender preferred to give a blood sample, the peace officer would be unable to enforce the judge's order. Bill S-10 repeals this requirement. I am sure this will avoid many impossible situations.

Under the fourth amendment, a peace officer taking a sample of a bodily substance in accordance with a court order may take fingerprints from the person at the same time. This is not stipulated in the legislation.

The purpose is to allow a comparison with fingerprints already taken at the time of arrest and to ensure solid identification of the offender. I am not convinced of the usefulness of such a procedure. It seems to me to hamper the process, when the fingerprints are already available, when the RCMP is overburdened and unable to keep up. Would this be another sign of a lack of communication between the various departments? Time will tell.

Finally, according to the present criminal code, the court does not have to issue a sampling order when this is not required for application of the law. This was unclear, and has been replaced in Bill S-10 by unequivocally stating that an order shall not be made if the national DNA data bank already contains a DNA profile of the person.

These then are the main changes to the DNA Identification Act and the criminal code by Bill S-10. I would like to close by reminding hon. members that the use of DNA has had spectacular effects on the lives of certain individuals.

We might refer to the case of David Milgaard, who spend 23 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit. In 1997, he was fully exonerated through DNA testing. The tests made it possible to charge a certain Larry Fisher, a repeat sex offender.

Then there was the high-profile case of Guy-Paul Morin, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1992 for a murder that he had not committed. Once again, DNA evidence came to the rescue and provided proof that he was not the murderer.

Undeniably, the use of DNA evidence can virtually work miracles. One cannot help but agree with the results. The sampling of bodily substances for forensic purposes, however, also raises some concerns. Some people fear that holding substances taken from individuals may result in the unjust marginalization and abuse of certain individuals. The profiles must absolutely not be used for such purposes.

This is why it is imperative for vigilance to be maintained in connection with this technology, which is invasive to say the least, and has the potential to allow countless information on an individual to be obtained.

Overall the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill S-10, with some reservations. It is pleased with the provision offering additional protection against the use of profiles obtained for purposes other than those allowed by the law.

[The Criminal Code, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the following situation.

At present, the courts have the power to give sentences of up to 14 years, yet no court has ever sentenced anybody to more than 10 years for such an offence. Therefore, they still have 4 years to play with. Since the Criminal Code was amended to increase to 14 years the maximum sentence for this type of offence, no judge has ever found the offence serious enough to impose the full 14 year sentence.

Will the mere fact of telling judges they can give a life sentence change anything? Up to now, they could impose sentences of up to 14 years, but they never did. What will Canadians think if we tell them that judges have the power to hand out life sentences but never use it? They will say there is even less justice than there was before, because the full life sentence is never imposed.

Will the bill not make our legal system even less credible?