Allan Kerpan

[Petitions, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning to present a number of petitions to the House dealing with two different subjects.

The first petition, which has many names on it from people in my riding and from right across our province of Saskatchewan, calls upon the Parliament of Canada to provide relief by not implementing a tax on health benefits.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here for the last couple of hours listening to the debate on Bill C-3. A couple of concerns that initially come to my mind is that it seems as though all the debate is taking place from this side of the House.

Reform members have spoken about it and a number of Progressive Conservative have spoken about it obviously showing concern for the bill, but I have heard very little, in fact nothing, from the government, the Bloc Quebecois or the New Democrats on an issue which I would think should be one of the prime issues in this fall's session with today being day one in parliament. It should be an issue of great importance and yet the government seems to be sitting back thinking one of two things. It will either let the Reformers and the Tories rant on a little bit about it and ram the thing through, which is all too common in the House over the past number of years, or it does not care about the bill. I am not sure which one of those answers would be accurate, but I have a notion it is probably a bit of both.

I want to make my comments on third reading of the bill. I have spoken on it at least once before, if not twice, if my memory serves me correct. I want to go back a year. A good friend of mine who is a police officer in the Saskatoon police service, Sergeant Jim Bracken, and I spent a week in Washington, D.C.. last October. We went down there for what I think is a very important reason. Jim is as interested in reforming the criminal justice system as I am. When I was appointed deputy critic for the solicitor general I wanted to learn more about the American system. It is not that I think we should go to the American system of justice, but it is always important to study the differences in another country that is our closest neighbour.

We spent a week in Washington talking to people from the attorney general's office, parole board, victims groups and so on. One afternoon we had a meeting in a government building with an expert on DNA evidence. As a bit of an aside, it took us 25 to 30 minutes to get through security. We had to go through a number of x-ray machines and empty our pockets. We just about had DNA testing done on us before we were allowed into the building. From that perspective I am glad we live in Canada.

We had an appointment with an academic in his office. He was the stereotypical academic, a short skinny little guy with big glasses and a bow tie, somebody I would think would be in movies as a scientist. That is what he was. When I first looked at him I expected he would give me a very dry rendition or account of what they had done with DNA evidence there.

As soon as I introduced myself as a member of parliament from Canada and my colleague, a sergeant from the police service in Saskatoon, and told him that we would like to learn about DNA evidence his face lit up like a Christmas tree. We could tell he had something to say. He was absolutely thrilled that somebody would come from another country to listen to him on what he had found and on how the DNA testing system was being implemented in the United States. We spent about two hours in his office. We had not originally scheduled a meeting for that long but we wanted to learn everything we could in that short time.

The Americans are much further ahead with respect to DNA evidence, sampling and databanks. I obtained a book down there of case studies from both sides of the coin. There were cases of people who were wrongfully convicted being later exonerated through the use of DNA evidencing. There were case studies of people already in prison who were convicted of other crimes and who were found through the use of DNA evidence to have committed other violent acts. The more I read from this book, the more I was convinced we were on the right track.

I applaud the government for bringing this issue to the House of Commons. I applaud it for taking upon itself to talk about the idea of DNA bank. However that is as far as I can applaud the government. We are taking what is probably the best, most useful and effective tool that has ever come down the pike for solving crime and we are throwing it away.

Let me use the example of a carpenter to show what we are doing with the bill the way it is. It is like saying to the carpenter that we will let him have a hammer but he is only allowed to pound nails from the outside of the house. It will look good on the outside, but we all know what will happen when we get to the inside.

It would be like saying a doctor may use an x-ray machine but only in certain cases because it may infringe upon the rights of someone. If we take a dental x-ray we might find out that the patient has some other disease we are not prepared to find out about and do not think we should know about because it would intrude upon the rights of the person and his privacy.

When we look into the eyes of a victim of crime—over the past five years since I have become a member of parliament I have had the opportunity to do so—we realize it is incumbent upon us as lawmakers, as the people who really make the legislation and implement it, to do absolutely everything within our power to solve crime.

I want to use a good example that is very well known in Canada. It is a case that happened in Saskatchewan in my city of Saskatoon, the case of David Milgaard. Through the use of DNA evidence we now know for sure that David Milgaard did not commit that murder. We now have another person who is to stand trial for that murder.

Obviously we did not have the use of DNA evidence at the time Milgaard was first tried. I will not argue that. Had we the proper use of this tool, cases like the Milgaard case would be very unlikely to ever happen again because we would be able to ascertain guilt or innocence almost for certain.

I do not want to see anybody else having to spend any time in prison for a crime that they did not commit, just as I want to see crime solved through the use of this tool. We will solve crimes through the use of this tool. It is a given. No one would argue with that except lawyers and the odd Liberal.

We could use DNA evidence for people who have been convicted of other crimes while they are in prison for another crime. The failure to do that is abdicating responsibility as a government to the people of the country. As someone else said previously, if we cannot provide security and safety and the feeling of security for Canadian people then what have we accomplished as a government or as an MP?

I believe, as I have said before many times, that the first and most important role of any government is to provide for the safety and security of people who live in our country.

This coming weekend right behind this building there will be a police memorial service. Many of us have been around to the back of the building and have seen the police memorial located there. I have been a strong supporter of the Police Association of Canada since day one and I continue to be.

I think about those officers who gave their lives in the line of duty protecting every one of us in the country. I think about the fact that we will not give the colleagues they left behind the opportunity to solve crime with the use of this tool. Frankly I am embarrassed to say that we have let down those men and women who have given their lives to protect us on the streets of our communities. That is a sad thing because if we cannot honour the lives of those people then we have done nothing in this area as members of parliament.

Why is it in a country like Canada that in 1998, nearing the year 2000, we are in a situation where we would not pay attention to the most important people in the country, the people who live and work in our justice system on a day to day basis and the people who are victims of violent crimes? Far too often even in our little city of Saskatoon, what normally would be thought of as a very nice peaceful little city, I run across cases of violent crime. I have spoken with the victims. I do not understand why and it is amazing to me the government of the day that sits across the way would not put more credence into what they tell it.

I was at the committee meetings that were held on this bill. Steve Sullivan appeared before the committee on the particular day I recall offhand and spoke on behalf of a number of victims. They want to see all steps taken that are possible and reasonable to prevent crime.

As was mentioned before, the police association, some 35,000 strong, completely support the idea of DNA sampling taken at the point of arrest, yet the government fails to listen to them. The government fails to listen to the opposition members here today who I think have made some very, very strong points. I do not see anyone who really seems to care.

I have a notion that this bill will be rammed through and that we will see closure invoked on this bill because it is an emotional issue to a great many people.

I will not stand here today and say that the opposition parties are always right. We are not perfect. I do not pretend to be a perfect member of parliament just as the government is not perfect. However when the huge outcry of emotion on this issue is heard, just like on other issues such as Bill C-68, where the government refuses to listen to the vast majority of the people, we have a democratic problem in this country.

My colleague from Wild Rose mentioned in his remarks that there are members opposite who would support our way of thinking but unfortunately the way party discipline works in this place they will not perhaps get the opportunity to vote the wishes of their constituents. That is a systematic problem and one that needs to be changed very quickly.

One of the big arguments from the government about why it would cut this bill off at the knees and reduce its effectiveness is the fear of invasion of privacy or the intrusion into private lives.

I think about this in the same way I think about a breathalyzer test. Obviously we use blood samples. They can be obtained and used for driving under the influence tests. There are also breathalyzers where someone would be required to give a sample of breath which is no different in my opinion than plucking a single hair from one's head to provide DNA evidence. If I had the choice, and thankfully I have never had to have a sample of any sort taken to this point, I would rather have somebody pull a hair out of my head.

Therefore that argument does not wash with me. That is a no brainer, a non-starter in my opinion because it is non-intrusive.

The other thing which is very important and critical to this whole issue is what we will do as a government to prevent the abuse, the misuse of DNA evidence. I think the government is on track on that part of the bill. I do not argue with that.

Strict, harsh penalties will be imposed for anyone who abuses or misuses that DNA information. That is great and so it should be. No one in this House I believe would ever argue that point. If samples are taken for some cases and not others, then the opportunity still exists for the abuse or the misuse of DNA evidence. Therefore that argument does not wash.

The argument that does wash with me is the protection of people. Just a few minutes ago my colleague spoke about the number of houses with security systems in his riding. He thinks as do some others here that we could improve the safety and security of Canadians with the use of DNA evidence, DNA data banks.

I do not think it will happen overnight. If the bill were to go through according to our recommendations, I do not think Canadians would feel safe overnight but they would over time.

It is the right step to take at this point in time because as we move into the next century, I do not see any drop in the number of violent crimes. Our social system is in such a state that it could perhaps get worse. We have to take every step in order to protect people down the road.

The key thing is that if a known criminal knows that DNA sampling and evidence are available, they are more likely to think twice before they enter someone's house or commit a violent crime. They know that DNA evidence and the use of it is available. That also makes them a little bit more concerned if they have committed other violent crimes in the past. Over the long term I believe that we will make Canada a much more safe and secure place in which to live.

Perhaps the biggest group of people who would be opposed to the use of a data bank as we would like to see it is the legal profession. If I am a lawyer anywhere in Canada and DNA evidence sampling is available, it is going to be pretty hard to defend someone who we know almost for sure is guilty. Far too often in my life I have seen the legal profession make a living out of other people's misfortune. That is a sad thing.

I did not stand up here today to take a round at the legal profession because I know that we need them. Everybody should have a token lawyer. They are necessary. There is no question about that. What I am saying is that we must take every step that we can to ensure and assure people that their best interests are looked after.

I want to sum up what I have said. The two most important groups to me on this issue are the men and women who serve us, who defend our property and defend our safety and security on a day to day basis, the police officers of this country. We would do a terrible disservice to those people if we did not listen and heed their words of advice on this bill. A more important group, and the group I will leave to the last is the victims of violent crime in this country. I have looked, and I would ask my Liberal colleagues from the other side to go home this weekend and look deep into the eyes of a victim of violent crime. Then come back next week and tell me that they do not think that the DNA data bank that is effective is worth talking about.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a quick comment and ask a question of my hon. colleague who just made his remarks with regard to Bill C-3.

He talked about his door knocking this summer and noticed that a good number of houses in his riding were equipped with security systems. When I campaigned in 1997 that was one thing I took note of in Saskatoon. At least half the houses in supposedly small town Saskatoon were equipped with alarm systems as well. Saskatoon is number three on the crime list in Canada. Regina is number one and Vancouver is number two in the number of crimes committed per capita.

From my colleague's perspective why does he think that the crime rate is increasing not only in my province but in his as well? What steps could the Liberal government take in order to get tough on crime?

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have been involved in the debate on Bill C-3 since its inception about a year ago. I would like to ask the opinion of the member for Wild Rose on this. The thing that bothers me more than anything, as far as the government's position on the bill, is that it has thrown out, it has ruled out, it has given no credibility to probably the two most important groups in this country on this issue. One of those groups is the people who serve us on a daily basis, the front line police officers who, right across this country, have given overwhelming support to the idea of taking samples at point of arrest.

The Liberal members have put far more credence into the opinions of their appointed pals, the judges, on this issue rather than listening to the front line people, the police officers of this country and the victims' associations of Canada, the two groups who have far more to say, in my opinion, on making changes to the justice system in order to make it work better and to make it more effective.

I want to know from my colleague from Wild Rose if that is his opinion. Does he think, as I do, that the Liberals put far more credence into those elected judges rather than the people whom I believe are the most important in this country, police officers and victims' associations?

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I found two things interesting in my colleague's remarks with respect to Bill C-3 on the DNA data bank. First is the opinions of judges on what is constitutionally or lawfully allowed to be taken in terms of samples by any police force or judicial system.

The last time I checked, this was the building and we were the people who were supposed to be the law makers. The judges who are appointed in this country were supposed to be the group of people who uphold those decisions. I think it is another indication of where this government has gone, putting far more responsibility in allowing the courts, including the supreme court, to make the decisions that need to be made and enforced from within this House.

The question I have for my colleague concerns the innocent person. He talks about protecting the rights of innocent people. I know a lot of police officers in police forces across this country. They do not go around arresting innocent people because they have nothing else to do on a Saturday night. They obviously have some strong evidence in order for them to make that arrest initially.

Under our recommendations, the bill would make it so that it is a guarantee that anybody who was arrested by mistake would be found innocent. It is almost an ironclad guarantee with the use of DNA evidence.

I would ask my colleague that very simple question. If he is so interested in protecting the rights of innocent people, why would he not be in favour of using DNA evidence at the point of arrest? If that person is found innocent, then that DNA evidence or report would not go into the DNA bank. It is very, very simple. To me it makes no sense that we would not be looking at that kind of system.

[Division No. 188, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would it be possible for the Chair to seek unanimous consent that those members who wish to present petitions would get that opportunity as it was omitted earlier this morning.

[Young Offenders, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I just noticed that if the two members across the way want to have a conversation they should probably take it to a room somewhere.

The professor over there may know nothing about justice but she knows a lot about politics. She knows about blocking and stalling and propaganda. For example she says “few offenders under the age of 12 are involved in serious violent crimes” but according to Stats Canada, more than 5,000 children under 12 were involved in crime in 1996 and 833 of those were violent crimes.

Does the professor really think that 100 crimes a week—

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-3, the taking and storing of DNA samples.

When the solicitor general introduced the bill last fall I attended the press conference for the release of the bill. One of the biggest concerns members of the media had was how we would protect ourselves, protect society from the misuse and abuse of someone holding key information that we all contain in our bodies, DNA sampling.

I want to make it straight, up front, plain and clear that we in our party felt the idea of a DNA bank and sampling was a great idea, a wonderful idea. Make no mistake, we certainly support that type of thinking.

I spent a week in Washington, D.C. last fall speaking with experts about DNA sampling and other justice matters. One of the things I discovered when I was there is how much faith the Americans are putting into this DNA bank. Certainly there are some things in the American system that I would not want to see in Canada, make no mistake about that. The feeling among the scientific and technological community in the United States is that this is the biggest breakthrough since the introduction of fingerprints in being able to identify criminals. That is a huge step. This DNA identification act is such an important part of such groundbreaking technology that it has the absolute ability to solve crimes committed many years ago. Where most evidence may have been lost, misplaced or forgotten about, we have the ability under this bill with this kind of technology to solve a crime that has remained unsolved for years. Think of the impact that is going to have on families of victims.

Many who have never been able to find out who committed a terrible act against a member of their family will now have that opportunity through this technology to solve those crimes.

On the other side of that, and we have seen it recently with a couple of major cases in Canada, is the ability to exonerate people who have been wrongfully accused. There are people on both sides of this issue, also those who would like to see DNA not used for many reasons. We have now the ability to exonerate people who have been wrongly convicted. I think that is just as important as it is for those who need to see crimes solved.

The key to this is that the samples for this DNA registry must be taken at the proper time, used properly and stored properly. That is what Group No. 3 deals with, the absolute assurance that these DNA samples will not be used for other types of activities that would be both illegal and morally wrong.

I have been a strong supporter of the idea that we need to take DNA samples at the point of arrest because obviously that is the most beneficial time. We need to have those samples go with that accused person right through their trial and if they are found guilty, those DNA samples would remain a part of our DNA registry that would become a large part of our criminologists' files.

The final step is that the samples of those people who are found not guilty must be removed from the registry in order to safeguard the privacy of innocent people.

Group No. 3 also talks about the ability to assure our society that these samples are not used improperly. This is an opportunity to have a very strong set of regulations in this area. I spoke a few minutes ago on Bill C-26. I said government overregulates and we have far too much bureaucracy and I still believe that. But here is an area where we must come down hard. We must use the maximum amount of punishment to assure people that their DNA samples will not be used for devious purposes. This is an area where government policy and laws need to play a very important role.

We all know people have access and have the ability to hack into computers. We know this is happening. There is no question in my mind that people are getting into our police computers on a regular basis and it is pretty hard to stop. We must have strong enough laws in place to make sure that those people are caught, convicted and punished to the full extent of the law.

That is the only way we are going to see a DNA registry really have the acceptance and the success that I think it can have. It can be a major breakthrough in crime detection and even prevention. We know a criminal will say that if there is an increased chance they will get caught for this crime, they will think twice about committing that crime in the first place, especially in the areas of rather petty crimes.

We have to put all the links of this chain together to make Bill C-3 successful, in the taking and storing of DNA samples.

Without all those pegs being put into the proper holes, the registry or the bank itself has the very strong possibility of not being successful and not being used to its fullest extent.

I really support the kind of idea where we would come down heavy. I want to also be a little negative toward the government because in some areas of other amendments that we proposed for this bill, it has pretty much ignored us.

The government is not prepared to move on some of the amendments we talked about such as taking samples at the point of arrest. I think without having all these links in place the bill itself may fall far short of what it is really capable of.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands says that I do not understand. I guess he is absolutely right. I just do not understand why we do these things in our system today.

There is a simple way to do it in Bill C-26. We have the computer system and the technology. We have other check-offs to which we have access if we want to take them. However, when I sell my load of lentils and if I choose to buy the insurance should be up to me. It must not be up to the bureaucracy or the federal government.

One of my learned colleagues in the Chamber just a few minutes ago mentioned the cattle industry. I produce a few cows. I have the opportunity to sell to whom I want. I do not have to worry about check-offs. I do not have to worry about the bureaucracy. If I lose money by selling to the wrong person and a cheque bounces, that is my responsibility. I have nobody to blame but myself.

For far too long, in both provincial and federal governments, we as a country, in all areas of our society, have come to say that government must be all things to all people.

The time is long past for that kind of thinking. We must take some responsibility for our own actions. If we buy something that does not work, if we sell something that does not work, yes it is unfortunate, but we have to be prepared to look after ourselves.

Another issue that comes to mind is the Canada pension plan. We went through a huge debate on that during the last six months as to how it should work. We are hearing more and more people say they are not going to rely on the CPP because it probably will not be there when they retire.

That is the same kind of thinking that we are getting from farmers in the agriculture industry. They are saying “Get out of my face. Leave me alone. I will look after myself. If things go bad I have no one to blame. Nobody else has to take that responsibility”.

A member of our party mentioned a while ago the pretty good success that farmers, at least in western Canada, have had with special crops. My area is no different. We have been able to grow lentils, peas and other things that we never grew before simply because the varieties are better and we have had good weather, resulting in some decent crops.

We made some money over those few years. We have made a few dollars on those special crops. In fact they have kept a lot of the farmers in my area in business. During the late 1980s and early 1990s prices were deflated and many farmers went bankrupt. They were forced to switch to those special crops. The only thing I would say is that we probably waited a little too long because they have been very good for us. What could put a damper on that sector of the industry is overregulation from any level of government and I think that is what we are seeing in Bill C-26.

Bill C-4 which amended the Canadian Wheat Board was passed by this House not too long ago. It is now in the Senate. Again, that bill will overregulate. It will put people in place to create a huge bureaucracy where none is required.

I would tell the government to back off, to listen to what the regular farmers are saying and only give that type of assistance or help where people want it and where it is required.

I would say to the member for Brandon—Souris that I appreciate the fact that he brought this amendment back to the House at this stage. Certainly I would support that kind of thinking.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

We hear the member for Prince Edward Island. Those people happen to be very wealthy. I do not know why he is even in the House speaking about this issue because they do not need an insurance program in P.E.I. The point is that it has to be voluntary.

I will look at a side issue, GST, and how it is collected from farmers. A huge bureaucracy has been created in Revenue Canada to handle the GST revenue. It is ridiculous. I have always said that.

If farmers are buying a product, a piece of equipment or something that they need for the farm and it is zero rated, why do they pay the GST up front, go through the bureaucracy of applying to get it back, run it through a paper trail that is six miles long and finally get their cheques back for the GST in about four or five months?