Bill C-13 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act

This enactment amends the provisions in the Criminal Code respecting the taking of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis and the inclusion of DNA profiles in the national DNA data bank and makes related amendments to the DNA Identification Act and National Defence Act. It clarifies that the forensic DNA analysis of the bodily substances taken from convicted offenders for the purposes of the national DNA data bank will be conducted by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In particular, the enactment
(a) adds offences to the lists of designated offences in the Criminal Code, including participating in the activities of a criminal organization, the commission of an offence for a criminal organization, instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organization, uttering threats and criminal harassment;
(b) reclassifies robbery and break and enter into a dwelling-house as primary designated offences;
(c) provides for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person who has committed a designated offence but who was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder;
(d) provides for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person who committed one murder and one sexual offence at different times before the coming into force of the legislation;
(e) includes several repealed sexual offences (indecent assault male, indecent assault female and gross indecency) as designated offences and sexual offences referred to in paragraph 487.055(3)(b) of the Criminal Code;
(f) provides for the review of defective DNA data bank orders and for the destruction of the bodily substances taken under them;
(g) compels offenders to appear at a certain time and place to provide a DNA sample; and
(h) allows for a DNA data bank order to be made after sentence has been imposed.

Committees of the House

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, following an editorial amendment consented to by all parties, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, November 2, 2004, your committee has considered Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act, and agreed on Tuesday, May 10, 2005, to report it with amendments.

(Bill C-13. On the Order: Government Orders:)

May 12, 2005--Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada--second reading, report stage and third reading of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act.

Justice

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative amendments to the DNA bill have been unanimously accepted at the justice committee. These changes would compel dangerous offenders, like Karla Homolka, to provide a DNA sample to police.

I think the Prime Minister will find unanimous consent in the House to fast-track the entire bill through second and third reading, as the government is doing with Bill C-45, the veterans charter bill.

Will the Prime Minister also commit to fast-tracking Bill C-13, the DNA bill?

Standing Orders and Procedure

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, 10 minutes is not long enough to talk about this important area. Let me go over it quickly.

It has been argued that Parliament has been abdicating its responsibility with regard to legislation, the reason being that much of our legislation includes references to regulations, which parliamentarians do not see during the normal cycle of legislation. They are in fact promulgated after the fact and often include policy initiatives which, had members known about them, might in fact have influenced their opinions on certain of the clauses, if not the bill itself. I wanted to raise that as a general concern and give a specific example.

In the last Parliament, the 38th Parliament, in the second session, the second half of Bill C-13 on reproductive technologies had to do with controlled activities. There were about 24 references to the regulations. Royal assent was given to that bill on March 29, 2004, over a year ago, and those regulations still have not appeared. They are very important to the functioning of the bill. The bill is very important to Canadians, yet those regulations are still outstanding. I would simply ask why. I think there has to be a sunset clause at some point in time, where, if regulations cannot be promulgated within a reasonable period of time, the bill must come back to the House and we must determine what the problem is.

I would also suggest, as a pre-emptive strike, that we should require all bills having references to regulations to include where possible draft regulations or at least a statement of intent of the regulations so that the members can have a reasonable opportunity to understand what they can expect in that bill.

I want to move now to report stage motions, on which I got quite a bit of experience during that same bill. These motions are opportunities for members who are not on the committee to have some input into a bill. Under the Standing Orders, members can put them in. If there are too many, the Speaker has the right under the Standing Orders to group them. Since each member only has 10 minutes to debate, on one grouping alone I had 13 report stage motions.

If every report stage motion is to be respected, it is not acceptable to have more than five report stage motions in one group, simply because how could anyone possibly describe their motion and make their argument as to why that motion should be accepted in such a short period of time? I think that has to be looked at. Under Bill C-13, there were something like 10 or 12 groupings. It does not happen very often, but in controversial bills it will. I just suggest that we have to look at this situation.

We also have to look at the timing. When a bill finishes at committee and is reported back to the House, report stage motions can happen very quickly. As members know, the transcripts from the committee are not available until several days, if not a week or so, after the hearing. Report stage motions are inadmissible if they have already been dealt with at the committee stage.

Therefore, members are spending all kinds of time drafting report stage amendments that will ultimately be thrown out because they were dealt with at committee. How can a member possibly know unless when a bill is reported the committee should also report all of the amendments that were proposed? Then we have to provide a reasonable amount of time for members to draft up their ideas, submit them to the Journals branch and get the proper form in hand, in both official languages, for review prior to signing off.

The current time under the Standing Orders is absolutely insufficient to allow members of Parliament to properly deal with report stage motions. I believe that if we are going to respect report stage motions as having legitimacy we have to amend the time and the arrangements with regard to report stage motions so they get the attention they deserve.

I also want to refer to a problem that occurred. It was a very serious problem. A motion that was passed at committee stage by the committee on a particular bill came to this place in a report stage motion. There was a government motion to reverse that motion. It had to do with having a 50% representation of women on a board related to reproductive technologies.

The debate was over on that report stage motion, at which time the Speaker's normal process is to say, “All those in favour of the motion will please say yea”, and “All those opposed will please say nay”. Then the Speaker is supposed to say, “In my opinion the yeas have it” or “The nays have it”, whatever is the case.

In this case, the Speaker in the chair at the time, Reg Bélair, did not indicate in his opinion who had it and then proceeded to say, “Carried”. A very important motion of the committee was overturned. There was no opportunity to deal with it in a proper vote, because the Speaker made a mistake. He thought he had said, “In my opinion the yeas have it”. That was not the case.

I rose on a point of order. He said, “No, I did. I called it. It is carried”. That was it. The next day I rose and, with the Speaker in the chair, raised the issue again on a matter of privilege. The Speaker said the person in the chair at the time had made his decision and it would stand. That was a very serious problem. I think there has to be a solution.

Let me suggest one solution. It would be that the Table have a running recording of the dialogue going on in the House, which could be quickly reviewed in the event that there were ever a question about who said what and when. We just cannot rely on hearing “go away” and count on the blues. Sometimes important motions die because mistakes are made. I simply raise it because it can happen, it did happen and it was a very serious issue with regard to this place.

Finally, there is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Very often during routine proceedings the procedure and House affairs committee chair comes before this place and tables a report. Then, at motions, he stands and requests the unanimous consent of the House to concur in that report he has just tabled and no one has seen.

If that is the will of the House, that is fine, except that what happens if from time to time there is a substantive matter there that members have not seen? I understand that there are routine matters of changing people on committees or other routine matters that have to come forward, but what happens if there is a substantive matter that members have not seen? The point is, why should I be asked to give unanimous consent and even vote on a report that I have not seen? I think it is inappropriate to ask members to put themselves in that position.

In my view, to the extent that the procedure and House affairs committee has routine matters there should be an amendment to the Standing Orders that would make them deemed adopted on tabling, just as we have with other routine matters.

If it is viewed that all matters coming out of the procedure and House affairs committee have representatives of all parties at the highest levels, and if they are going to make the decisions on our behalf, then we might as well say any report coming from procedure and House affairs, once tabled in the House, is deemed to be adopted. We have to make that decision.

I know that the Lord's Prayer was deleted or eliminated from this place on a Friday by a report that was tabled and for which concurrence was obtained immediately during routine proceedings. I believe that sometimes there are items within the reports of the procedure and House affairs committee that members should be apprised of.

I also believe that if we could at least have those non-routine items here that there shall not be automatic concurrence given, that there should be a requirement for a concurrence motion to be put and to be debatable, like there is for any other standing committee. It is a standing committee and standing committee reports are debatable, but when I rose on one occasion to debate an item of interest in a report, I asked for debate on the motion to concur and was denied. The reason given was that it is traditionally not our practice.

I do not care about “traditionally not our practice”. I care about what the Standing Orders are. The Standing Orders say that the reports of standing committees are debatable in this place.

One way or another we need to address the activities of the procedure and House affairs committee. I do not want to see someone sneaking into the House in the middle of debate, interrupting the House and asking for unanimous consent to adopt a report that was brought forward during routine proceedings.

Again, I find it absolutely untenable that members would be asked to vote on something and have no idea what is in it. We should not be interrupting the House if that is going to be the case and if that is the will of the House.

Finally, I have talked with many members about the activities that go on in the House and how we can improve the operations of the House and the productivity of members. I have also served on a couple of the committees on the improvement and the modernization of Parliament. I have found them very exciting, interesting and productive, but most members in this place do not get anywhere close to that. It is their whips and House leaders who are driving the agenda here.

I believe that other members in this place have a vested interest in how this place operates. They should have an opportunity. I would strongly recommend that the House leaders get together and provide for a broad consultation meeting where all members of Parliament would be invited to provide their input on how to make the House of Commons more productive.

Supply

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I also rise today to speak to the Bloc motion encouraging the government to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden of proof in proceeds of crime cases. This would require accused, once found guilty, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their assets were not obtained from proceeds of crime.

The underlying message behind this motion is that criminals, especially those motivated by profit, should not financially benefit from their criminal activity. We agree.

This motion, and the message underlying it, are consistent with the government's recent legislative, operational and international initiatives aimed at disrupting and deterring criminal organizations in Canada.

We took a significant step in the fight against organized crime in 1997, with amendments to the Criminal Code through Bill C-95—which created the indictable offence of participation in a criminal organization and provided law enforcement with additional significant investigative powers.

Two years later, in 1999, amendments to the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act barred those convicted of offences related to organized crime from access to accelerated parole review. While, that same year, amendments to the Competition Act and other acts created new offences for deceptive telemarketing and defined these crimes as enterprise crimes subject to the proceeds of crime regime.

Further, in 2000 the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act was enacted and provided for mandatory reporting of suspicious financial transactions and created the Financial Transactions Report Analysis Centre of Canada to receive and manage this reported financial information.

Most significantly in the fight against organized crime, the government brought forward amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts through Bill C-24, which came into force in 2002.

Bill C-24 provided substantial new measures directly targeting criminal organizations, including a simplified definition of “criminal organization”, three new criminal organization offences separately targeting those participating in or contributing to the activities of a criminal organization, those who commit indictable offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, and an offence directed at all of the leadership levels in criminal organizations. Under these provisions, penalties range from a maximum of five years imprisonment for participation, to life imprisonment for leaders. It is important to also note that consecutive sentencing applies to all three of these offences.

Bill C-24 also improved the protection from intimidation for people who play a role in the justice system, and broadened law enforcement powers to forfeit the proceeds of crime and seize property that was used in a crime.

Finally, amendments were made to the Criminal Code in 2004 through Bill C-13 in order to enable investigators to better obtain documents or data from third parties through judicial production orders. This investigative tool is now available in respect of all criminal offences and is expected to be of particular assistance in the investigation of criminal organization offences.

In addition to the legislative measures that were passed and previously mentioned, the Government of Canada has taken major operational steps to fight organized crime.

Of particular relevance is the creation of Integrated Proceeds of Crime Units in Canada, first launched in 1996. These units are found across Canada and are staffed with federal, provincial and municipal police officers, Justice Canada Crown counsel, customs officers, federal tax investigators, and forensic accountants. They support other law enforcement units by undertaking the investigation and prosecution of the proceeds of crime aspects of organized crime.

They also support other anti-organized crime initiatives, and help to fulfill Canada's international commitments, particularly those set by the multilateral Financial Action Task Force in which Canada plays a leading role.

Canada is also working internationally to combat organized crime. In this regard, in 1997 Canada and the United States established a Cross-Border Crime Forum to strengthen cooperation and to focus law enforcement efforts on such issues as cross-border crimes, telemarketing fraud, money laundering, and high-tech crime.

In addition, Canada played a key role within the United Nations in the development of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, signed in December 2000, providing countries with a shared framework to enhance international cooperation.

It is clear that the Government of Canada has taken many deliberate and effective legislative, operational and international steps in the fight against organized crime. It is this proven commitment, giving the tools to our dedicated law enforcement and Crown prosecutors, which seeks to ensure that criminal organizations in Canada are disrupted, deterred, and dismantled.

Organized criminals commit crime predominantly for monetary benefit. These financial gains sustain these criminal groups and facilitate their growth, both in numbers and influence.

It is for this reason that I support the development of a charter compliant reverse onus in proceeds of crime cases.

With this enhancement of the law, coupled with the other existing tools outlined previously, we would be in a better position to thwart the plans of criminals motivated by material gain or profit in Canada.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think I was giving the straight talk on what in fact is in Bill C-13. I do not believe we are talking about anything that was canned.

It is very important that the member go back and look at that bill and look at the implications. Fourteen years as a maximum penalty is a significant penalty in terms of the criminal law and it really should have a deterrent effect. However until we have the opportunity to put it into play and where in fact people can react to this, I do not think that one can form the conclusion that the hon. member is forming.

Earlier the hon. member said that she did not believe that we had an effective program dealing with a drug strategy. When the cannabis reform legislation was first introduced, the government committed to spending an additional $245 million on Canada's drug strategy and a significant portion of those funds will go to the police to enhance their ability to detect and take down marijuana grow ops.

I think this is a good bill and the member ought to take another look at it.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, in looking at this question, I think we do need to look very seriously at the component parts of Bill C-17 and at what Bill C-17 represents.

I think it represents overall the widespread view that the full criminal process is not the best way to combat the use of small amounts of marijuana for personal consumption.

The potential consequences, including the loss of job opportunities and the inability to travel to some destinations, is, quite frankly, disproportionate to the offence.

The bill responds to the report of the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs in the last Parliament. Rather than easing the restrictions on simple possession of marijuana, however, the approach in Bill C-17 should lead to a more effective and more consistent enforcement regarding marijuana possession which, I must remind the member, will still remain illegal.

In any event, while media attention has been focused on the possession offence, I think we need to look at Bill C-17 for its significant change in the sentencing of those who are involved in the cultivation of marijuana, which clearly the public is very concerned about.

In the bill, it proposes that if one is cultivating between one and three plants it would be punishable by a fine of $500 or $250 for a young person. This is probably more than one would pay if the police and prosecutors bothered to lay a charge for an amount that small. More important though, if a person is growing between four and twenty-five plants, the bill proposes a maximum penalty on indictment of five years less a day and eighteen months and/or up to a $25,000 fine on summary conviction. In the case of 26 to 50 plants, the offender faces a maximum of 10 years. Where a person cultivates more than 50 plants the maximum sentence will be 14 years or double the current maximum.

The government is well aware of the problems that marijuana grow ops have been creating in our Canadian communities. For that reason, Bill C-13 contains significant guidance to the courts as to when they should impose a term of imprisonment on marijuana grow operators.

If more than three plants are involved, the court will have to give reasons for not sending the offender to jail where: first, the person used real property that belongs to a third party to commit the offence, for example a grow op is located either in a farmer's field or in a rented house; second, the offence constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children in or near the area where the offence was committed. We know that some houses have been extensively modified to become grow ops and children are living in these homes. Third, the offence constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; and last, the person set or placed or allowed to be set or placed a trap, device or other thing that was likely to cause death or bodily harm where the offence was committed.

Clearly the bill addresses both the origins of the marijuana and the use of marijuana. We think it is a very important bill. We think it will go a long way toward dealing with the problem that needs to be addressed and hopefully meeting some of the hon. member's concerns.

Points of Order

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response to a question earlier from the member for Winnipeg North I inadvertently misled the House. I indicated that Bill C-13 was introduced on September 15 when in fact the regulations were proclaimed on September 15. I want to correct the record, if I may.

Securities Industry

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Wise Persons' report and the work that has been done on that to date, the minister introduced Bill C-13 on September 15, which in fact deals with the very issues raised by the member, namely, corporate fraud. I am sure that we will therefore enjoy the hon. member's support as that bill proceeds through the House.

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a few comments on Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts.

I understand the House has had the opportunity to hear representations from the parliamentary secretary and others to ensure that the substantive matters of the bill have been brought to the fore. Based on the debate that has been held thus far in the House it appears there is substantial concurrence, notwithstanding the issue of a report stage motion dealt with at committee.

I was in the same position when a committee on which I was a member made an amendment to a bill but during report stage a motion was tabled that reversed the work of the committee. As an ordinary member of Parliament I find that a little troubling but I also understand that if a deal is not struck with regard to the disposition of the motion the full House will have the opportunity to vote. I am sure the House will deal with it appropriately.

I appreciate the situation in which hon. members who are concerned about this find themselves. I might remind members that under the rules of this place within 90 sitting days of the commencement of a new Parliament there has to be a debate involving the procedures of the House. I think this might be an interesting example that can be dealt with.

I know members wanted to seek a precedent. In fact, on Bill C-13 in the last Parliament, after about two or three years of study and consideration of perhaps 100-plus amendments proposed by members, two amendments were passed by the health committee. When the bill finally was reported back to the House there were two report stage motions to reverse the two amendments that the committee had passed. After all of that work, the committee's work was basically reduced and the bill that came to it originally was the bill that ultimately went forward.

From the standpoint of the work of committees, I tend to think committees do excellent work. I appreciate that the issues that have been raised here in debate are not so broad that there is no concern but this is an important bill that we need to get on with.

The summary of the bill basically states, to establish the department. I have often thought that since September 11 Canada has not had the need to establish this type of departmental responsibility that would require parliamentary approval. However we now have a minister who is responsible and we have established relationships with the United States.

Last evening I was very encouraged to see reasonable developments with regard to border crossings, that Canadian citizens will not be unduly delayed, at least at the one border, which I believe is the Sarnia crossing, and that this will be implemented across Canada. We do continue to play our role.

As well, in the last month we have had the opportunity to welcome some of the senior officials from the United States to have discussions with Canadian parliamentarians to discuss our important relationship with the United States as it relates to the safety and security of Canada and the United States and North America as a whole.

The bill would provide a framework in which the department will operate. It would give the department the full authority to take action on behalf of the people of Canada.

I have not heard it yet but I am not sure if there are any lingering concerns about whether or not establishing some sort of a parallel framework and the collaboration that has been going on over the last number of years has in any way compromised the sovereignty of Canada. I know that from time to time we have issues that come before this place. One will be hurtling toward us, no pun intended, being the ballistic missile defence.

This raises the question about the elements of providing emergency preparedness and the safety and security responsibilities of this new department.

Emergency preparedness is something that we can learn from the examples around the world. We know many of the risks that have resulted in some tragic situations around the world. We are doing substantive work on putting into place some of those elements to ensure that emergency preparedness is something that we can be proud that we are doing the very best possible.

I do not think there is anybody who could give a 100% guarantee that we can be protected from all risk, at all times, at all places. It is just not possible. However we must take reasonable steps. I think the minister has shown that all reasonable steps have been taken with regard to that element of the file, the emergency preparedness.

The safety and security part of it becomes a little more difficult to deal with, particularly from the standpoint of the debate that will go on with regard to what constitutes defensive measures as opposed to what could be construed or maybe manipulated to be offensive measures.

Certainly there are examples where people feel that one of the best defences is a good offence. It will be interesting as we go through the process of developing safety and security measures on behalf of Canadians. It will also be extremely important for us to communicate in plain terms to the Canadian public the important work that is being done to ensure our safety and security, certainly with regard to emergency preparedness.

I think this is the first time I have come across a bill in which a new ministry has been created. The bill also has a number of transitional provisions because, like anything, responsibilities have to be taken into account. There are changes as well to the Access to Information Act, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act, the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal Act, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Citizenship Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and it goes on. The point being that this is not a small change in the discharging of the responsibilities of the Government of Canada.

This House would also be seized with other matters. For instance, I mentioned the change in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which I believe is at committee, that deals with marijuana grow houses and the penalties related to the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Some questions have already been asked as to the impact on trade and the border activity, et cetera. It goes to the very heart of the issue here, which is that we have to ensure that emergency preparedness is in very good shape and that the safety and security issues are also in place, but not to the extent that we impair the trade relationship that we have. Over 75% of our export trade is with the United States. Traffic must keep moving but safety and security is also a priority and balancing those priorities will be the biggest challenge for the Government of Canada.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the referral to committee before second reading of Bill C-13.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-13, which has been introduced by the government. In this day and age, political discourse is often focused on the respect of human rights and freedoms, and I agree with that. We have taken part in some debates that illustrate this, the one on same sex marriage in particular.

It is also important to note that individual rights encompass individual security. In a society based on rule of law, such as ours, the right to personal security is essential. If this is to be more than merely theoretical, and to exist in reality, it is important to provide law enforcement bodies with the tools necessary to fight the crime that so often harms our communities.

The Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C-13. We feel that it will provide police officers with more effective investigative tools, which should permit them to resolve more crimes.

Members have examined this bill with care and will have realized that it makes some rather technical amendments to legislation already in place. When the bill is examined in committee, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the changes proposed represent real improvements to the existing system of DNA testing. In addition, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the RCMP has the funds to accommodate the expansion of the DNA bank this bill will bring about.

To make a small aside, it is all very fine to announce measures, measures we support, but there must be money attached to them. As hon. members are aware, the RCMP has decided—for financial reasons, or so we are told—to close detachments in numerous locations in Quebec. There has been much opposition to this, from mayors, municipal counsellors and reeves, backed up of course, as is only natural, by myself and my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois.

It does not, therefore, make any sense to talk of increasing the responsibilities, as well as the operating costs, of a police force, the RCMP, while making cuts here and there, including cutting police detachments scattered outside the urban centres.

And so I hope the government will reverse its decision to close these detachments. I believe my hon. colleague's riding of Joliette is affected by the RCMP detachment closures. I know that the mayor, municipal officials and prefect have made him aware of the situation. It is the same in Saint-Hyacinthe. I hope the RCMP will reverse its decision. If it wants to fight crime effectively, the force must be present throughout the area.

Having finished my aside, I return to Bill C-13, which takes up for the most part the provisions of Bill C-35 from the last legislature, the bill to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has referred.

Bill C-13 amends the provisions in the Criminal Code respecting the taking of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis and the inclusion of DNA profiles in the national DNA data bank. It also makes related amendments to the DNA Identification Act and National Defence Act.

I have five minutes left. That is a very short time to address such a technical bill. That is why we are going to examine it very seriously in committee.

Bill C-13 makes other amendments, which ought at least to be listed in the parliamentary record of debates. It adds offences to the list of designated offences in the Criminal Code for which a judge is required to make an order for the collection of a DNA sample from the offender, unless the offender can convince the court otherwise.

It adds offences to the list of designated offences for which an order for the collection of a DNA sample can be made if the prosecutor so requests and the court agrees.

It provides for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person whohas committed a designated offence but who was found not criminallyresponsible by reason of mental disorder. This ties in somewhat with the subject matter of Bill C-10, which we are also working on.

It creates new provisions for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person who committed one murder and one sexual offence at different times before June 30, 2000, when the legislation on the DNA data bank came into force.

It provides for the review of defective DNA data bank orders and for the destruction of the bodily substances taken under them.

It allows the destruction ofthe bodily substances of offenders who are finally acquitted of a designated offence.

It compels offenders to appear at a certain time and place to provide a DNA sample.

It allows for a DNA data bank order to be made after sentencing.

Finally, it makes related amendments to the National Defence Act to ensure that the military justice system remains consistent with the civilian justice system.

So, this bill proposes many things. I must say that we are somewhat uncomfortable with the retroactive provisions included in this legislation and we hope they will dissipate with the review in committee. Obviously, any retroactive provision, particularly in the criminal justice area, raises serious issues relating to rights and freedoms and to the charters, whether it is the Quebec or Canadian one. In this regard, we are anxious to hear the witnesses and experts, who will tell us whether the bill does indeed respect the charters.

We also wonder why the bill adds participation in the activities of a criminal organization to the list of secondary designated offences, that is to the list of offences for which the taking of a DNA sampling is not mandatory, but optional. We wonder why such offences were not included in the list of primary designated offences. This is an issue on which we want to get an answer as quickly as possible.

All to say this is a very technical bill and it requires a thorough study of its provisions. At this stage, the Bloc Québécois supports its referral to a committee. We will work very seriously, as we always do, to ensure that, on the one hand, enforcement agencies have the necessary tools to fight effectively criminal activities in which the public is all too often the victim, and, on the other hand—and this is important in a society such as ours—to ensure that the rights and freedoms of the accused are respected. As I said earlier, the whole issue of retroactivity will also have to be thoroughly examined.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-13. The purpose of the legislation before us today is to broaden the provisions governing the national DNA data bank.

In 1998, Bill C-3, an act representing DNA identification, was enacted. This legislation created a new statute governing the establishment and administration of a national DNA data bank and amended the Criminal Code to permit a judge to make a post-conviction DNA data bank order. These orders authorized the taking of bodily substances from a person found guilty of designated Criminal Code offences in order to include the offender's DNA profile in the national DNA data bank.

The DNA data bank, which was officially opened on July 5, 2000 here in Ottawa, is maintained by the RCMP.

The party that I represented at the time Bill C-3 was enacted was firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system by providing law enforcement agencies with the latest technological tools to quickly detect and apprehend criminals. We did not support Bill C-3 because we believed that it blatantly denied police the full use of the technology that was available at the time.

In 1998, there were literally hundreds of unsolved rapes and murders outstanding in the country. However, because Bill C-3 did not allow for the retroactive taking of samples from incarcerated criminals, other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers, these cases remained unsolved.

Fortunately, Bill C-13, the bill before us today, does expand the retroactive provisions for DNA sample collection orders.

If enacted, Bill C-13 will allow judges to order that DNA be taken from anyone convicted of one murder and one sexual offence committed at different times before the DNA data bank legislation came into force.

To illustrate the importance of DNA technology, especially involving old murder cases, and to encourage the government to expand the list of designated offenders from which retroactive samples can be taken, I would like to read a portion of an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on July 15, 2004. It states:

Sometime in the early hours of Aug. 27, 1991, Richard Mark Eastman broke into the Mississauga apartment of Muriel Holland...a 63-year-old former playright and model.

Eastman, 48, raped and strangled Holland while her 95-year-old father slept in the next room. Although Peel Region police obtained a partial thumbprint and a DNA sample from the crime scene, their investigation into this brutal attack led nowhere for a decade.

The key break in this cold case would have to wait until after June 30, 2000. Then, after years of debate and false starts, parliament proclaimed a bill that would create a national DNA data bank.

The article went on to state:

Peel Region investigators didn't know it at the time, but the timing of the bill meant they were involved in what would become a landmark case. They sent a DNA sample from Holland's rapist to the new data bank on Nov. 28, 2000. The sample was stored in a database that indexes DNA evidence obtained, but not yet identified, at crime scenes.

Separately, the DNA data bank maintains profiles of serious criminal offenders. A sample from Eastman, who had been convicted in 1995 of sexual assault, was forwarded to the data bank on May 4, 2001. Within hours, data bank scientists matched Eastman's DNA profile to the Holland case.

Two days later, Peel Region police charged Eastman with murder--making this the first homicide case that emerged as a result of a cross-match between the two main databases in Canada's DNA data bank.

I would like to point out that there would have been many more matches if in 1998 the Liberals had seen the wisdom in expanding the retroactive provisions for the DNA collection orders as recommended by our party and as recommended by the Canadian Police Association.

The Canadian Police Association recommended the list of convicted offenders, from which retroactive samples could be taken, be greatly expanded.

The CPA, with our full support, also strongly advised that DNA samples be taken at the time of arrest as opposed to the time of conviction to prevent potentially dangerous offenders from fleeing before their court date.

The CPA also expressed concern about a provision within Bill C-3, which allowed judges to exempt offenders from having a DNA sample taken if the judge believed that it would impact an individual's privacy and security.

This unnecessary and dangerous exemption has not been removed under the new legislation, nor have the other issues raised by the police officers all across the country. Those issues similarly have not been addressed in the legislation.

I would therefore suggest that the concerns raised by the Canadian police in 1998 should be raised again. Their concerns I am sure will be nothing more than dismissed by the Liberal justice minister.

On a final matter, I have serious concerns that the legislation does not address the backlog within the RCMP evidence recovery units.

In August 2003, I received some information, which I relayed to the then solicitor general, regarding the closure of the RCMP recovery units in Regina and Edmonton at the end of 2004, as well as the closure of the Halifax unit in March 2005. I expressed my concerns about these closures because of the serious and detrimental effect these closures would have on the timely examination of criminal evidence, especially DNA. My concern was based on the evaluation of the auditor general regarding the large case backlog within the RCMP laboratory system.

Since 1997, the RCMP forensic laboratories have been undergoing changes with the introduction of the DNA technology. Limited funding, insufficient resources and an increased workload due to this new technology resulted in a backlog in 2001 of 900 cases requiring DNA examination being stalled. This backlog prompted the auditor general to recommend a reorganization in order to gain increased efficiencies.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government took this to mean the closure and centralization of evidence recovery units, which will, in my opinion, complicate the process not ease the backlog.

My concerns, although never properly addressed by the solicitor general, were confirmed by a news article in the National Post on October 9, 2003 which read:

Joe Buckle, the RCMP's assistant commissioner in charge of forensic laboratory services...acknowledged, however, that the RCMP's forensic labs have not received a funding increase in the past five years.

Moreover, he did not dispute that in the first eight months of this year, 74% of the RCMP's most serious DNA cases failed to meet the Mounties' own 15-day analysis deadline.

Scientists familiar with the RCMP's six forensic labs paint a much different picture. They say the lab system is in such disarray, and the DNA case backlogs so overwhelming, that serious criminal investigations involving homicide, sexual assault and threats to national security have been delayed for months at a time, potentially jeopardizing the chances of arrests and convictions.

In closing, I reiterate that we need proper funding. Without better funding and better resources for the RCMP, the forensic labs and police agencies, we are in dire straits. We also need to make sure that we have the ability to bring forward the proper amendments that Bill C-13 needs.

Canada has to restore confidence in our justice system. We have to be able to give the resources to the police agencies. We have to build confidence that we do have a justice system that works. Unless we can make some amendments to the bill, the confidence will not be restored.

When the bill does go to committee I encourage the government to look at some very serious, workable amendments that would make the bill a better bill.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, picking up from where I left off last evening, the second change that would enhance safety is the inclusion of those individuals found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder within the DNA data bank scheme. We currently have in the House Bill C-10 which proposes important changes to the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with the mentally disordered offender.

While Parliament rightly does not submit persons who have a mental disorder conviction to imprisonment because of their diminished responsibility, we must remember that these persons have been found beyond a reasonable doubt to have done the act that constitutes the physical element of the offence. It is clear they may be very dangerous and so they are made subject to the jurisdiction of a provincial review board.

By making it possible for a judge to order that their DNA profiles be included in the DNA data bank, we may be solving crimes that they have committed in the past. As well, if they should be released and commit a crime where they leave their DNA, we will solve that crime.

Members should remember, however, that having their DNA in the data bank could be a benefit to a mentally disordered offender who has been released into the community. In the event of a crime similar to the one for which they were tried being committed near where they reside, they are likely to be suspects. However, if their DNA does not match the DNA from the crime scene, the police will know they were not involved and leave them undisturbed.

Another important change is creating a process for compelling the offender to attend at a specified time and place to provide a DNA sample. The current legislation requires that a DNA sample be taken at the time the person is convicted or as soon thereafter as is feasible. This has proven unworkable on the ground in some jurisdictions. The police cannot always have a trained officer attending at every court and so the courts have been ordering offenders to present themselves at the police station at a specified time. Unfortunately, this procedure was not foreseen by the Criminal Code so there is no express provision for issuing a warrant to arrest the person if he or she does not show up. Some offenders who should be in the data bank have not shown up and the police need the tools to make the court order effective.

Bill C-13 would permit a judge to make an order for the taking of a DNA sample at a time other than the imposing of the sentence. It also provides a warrant for the arrest of the person if the person fails to appear for that DNA sampling. As a result of consultations with the provinces, the warrant will be for the purpose of taking a sample rather than for the more usual arrest and bringing the offender back to the court that made the order. This means that an offender convicted in Toronto who skips and then is subsequently arrested in Vancouver will not have to be flown back at great expense to have the finger pricked for that test. The Vancouver police will be able to do it under the DNA data bank order.

While it is not known how many offenders have failed to show up, I understand this is a major concern for the police. We should move swiftly to fix this problem.

The most important changes proposed by Bill C-13 are the changes in the list of designated offences covered by the DNA data bank scheme. The list of designated offences is the lynchpin of this legislation. A DNA warrant can only be granted for a designated offence and the crime scene index only contains DNA found at the scene of or on the victim of a designated offence.

It is very important that the members of the House consider sending the legislation immediately to the committee so that we can put in place those issues that I have been outlining here today. They are of great concern to the police, the provinces and those of us in the House.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to recommend that Bill C-13 be referred to committee before second reading. I believe that all parties in the House are in favour of a national DNA data bank and want to make it as effective a tool as possible for law enforcement.

As of October 15, the DNA data bank has 66,080 DNA profiles entered into the convicted offender index and 17,199 entered into the crime scene index.

By comparing the DNA profiles in these indices against one another, the DNA data bank has linked 2,333 offender profiles to a crime scene profile, thereby assisting in the investigation. The DNA evidence has been vital in resolving very serious offences, including 165 murders, 391 sexual assaults and 319 armed robberies.

Members are aware that the legislation creating the DNA data bank calls for a parliamentary review within five years of the legislation coming into force; that is, by June 30 next year.

However we should not delay making needed changes that will make the DNA bank more effective. Parliament should move promptly by passing Bill C-13 to make the proposed amendments and improvements in the DNA data bank legislation to ensure the effectiveness of the legislation rather than postponing the changes until after the parliamentary review.

No one in the House can foretell when that review will be started, how long it will take or when remedial legislation will be enacted.

The bill will make significant changes to the DNA Identification Act that governs how the DNA data bank works. Although these are major changes, I will focus on those that concern the Criminal Code and those directly related to public safety.

In my view, the following are the most significant changes proposed by the bill that would contribute to protecting the safety of Canadians.

The first major change is the inclusion of the offences of indecent assault female, indecent assault male and gross indecency in the list of designated offences and in the list of sexual offences for the purposes of the retroactive DNA data bank provisions.

Although these offences have been repealed, charges can still be laid since elements of proof are often not discovered until many years after the crime.

Moreover, there are persons who should be in the data bank, that is, the DNA data bank, as a result of having committed a series of sexual offences prior to the legislation coming into force.

The Criminal Code does allow for a judge to authorize taking DNA samples from persons convicted of two or more sexual offences. This change to the definition of sexual offence would broaden the scope of the retroactive provision.

As well, Bill C-13 would now make it possible for an application to be made for a DNA sample to be taken from an offender who before the coming into force of the DNA data bank legislation in June 2000 had been convicted of one murder and one sexual offence committed at different times.

I am advised that the combination of the change to the definition of sexual offence and the inclusion of persons who have one murder and one sexual offence would make another 400 offenders eligible for inclusion in the data bank. There are currently 1,876 offenders who have been included in the data bank under the retroactive scheme.

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

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-13, the DNA data bank legislation.

My constituents in Fleetwood--Port Kells take great interest in criminal justice issues, particularly when it comes to making the appropriate resources available to the criminal justice system.

Naturally, all parliamentarians have an interest in the legislation, after all, law enforcement agencies in Canada can only be as good as the tools with which they are provided. It is this House, through the Criminal Code and other acts, that provides the tools they need to do their critically important work.

One of the newer tools in the arsenal available to the criminal justice system is the DNA data bank, which came into force in June 2000. Bill C-13 seeks to make amendments to the Criminal Code, the DNA data bank legislation and the National Defence Act.

These changes include the following. The bill seeks to update the DNA data bank legislation by making certain changes and additions to the list of offences that require a judge to issue a DNA collection order. It would add to the list of offences where the crown may make application for a DNA collection order. It would permit DNA collection orders to be issued against a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It would expand retroactive provisions where DNA collection orders may be made in certain circumstances.

These amendments are improvements on the status quo but, unfortunately, they fall quite a bit short of the changes requested by police and provincial attorneys general.

Some of the items raised by law enforcement and our provincial colleagues include the need for a judicial order to make a DNA bank authorization for offences committed before the DNA bank came into effect in 2000. Law enforcement has also asked for the reasonable ability to collect DNA at the time charges are laid, as opposed to at the time of conviction.

It is routine for police to collect fingerprints at the time charges are laid. They are only seeking the ability to collect DNA samples as well. As there is no evidence that suggests such a practice would violate the constitution, I would urge my Liberal colleagues to consider such a course of action.

In addition, the bill does not provide for the collection of DNA at the time of conviction for all indictable offences, once again, as is the case for fingerprints.

Another problem with the bill is the ability for a convicted offender to appeal to the court in order to prevent the collection of a DNA sample. Rather than giving criminals the ability to duck the law, the law should require all convicted offenders to provide DNA samples.

The functioning of the national DNA data bank is something that all members of the House should take seriously because it is such an important tool in our criminal justice system, and yet the government does not seem to be all that enthusiastic about its own program.

One only has to look at the massive backlog in the production of DNA results to understand just how unimportant this issue is to the government. Until the government gets serious about providing the appropriate resources to support the collection and processing of DNA, any changes to the legislation are not particularly meaningful.

Without the timely production of DNA results, law enforcement agencies do not have the full use of the arsenal of tools at their disposal to bring criminals to justice and to protect our communities. It is imperative that our police forces and attorneys general be given the resources to do their jobs properly.

We ask them to protect us, our families and our communities. I know the citizens of Fleetwood—Port Kells appreciate the hard work done on our behalf by the police and the courts.

I also know that those citizens want us to make that work as effective and timely as possible. It is only fitting that we do everything in our power as parliamentarians to make certain they have everything they require.