House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was samples.

Topics

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating the minister for introducing Bill C-6. It is a very fine Liberal initiative in the tradition of modern Liberal thinking. It will go a long way in the long overdue recognition of the rights of our native people. It will provide for a land claims agreement which we have all wished would see the light of day and finally the day has come.

Bill C-6 would implement the terms of the Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive land claim agreement as well as the Gwich'in comprehensive land claim agreement. This is to be done in terms of land use planning and land and water management. Also it takes into account environmental impact review as to the implications of certain specific proposals. This is a long overdue initiative as the land claim agreement in question deserves full implementation as soon as possible.

There are a number of important issues that should receive the attention of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I would like to indicate a few through this intervention.

The committee could study ways and means to ensure that there is an integrated system of management of land use planning, land and water management and environmental impact assessment. This is the first and most important consideration if the bill is to live up to the considerations and goals relating to sustainable development.

The second point is the committee would be very wise in examining the effect of this bill on the quality and type of environmental assessment that will be done in the Mackenzie Valley. It might be worthwhile noting that the Mackenzie Valley covers quite a wide territory. It includes everything north of 60, south of the Inuvialuit claims area, east of the Yukon border and west of the Nunavut settlement area. It is a huge area.

At present the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act applies in much of the land north of 60. Together with other existing and proposed regimes we could over time end up with a patchwork of environmental assessment regimes as they apply in the north. That is something we would like to prevent.

The existing regimes include in addition to the federal act, the process under way under the Inuvialuit land claims agreement process and the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement. The proposed regimes include the Yukon development assessment process, better known as DAP, and the process to be administered by the Nunavut impact review board, plus the framework proposed in part 5 of this bill.

Before such a patchwork is to emerge, it might be worthwhile for the committee to examine certain questions. For instance is the system which is currently in place working? Will the proposed additional regimes improve the situation? Will each of the new regimes address transboundary, international and environmental impacts? A cursory review of clause 141 of the bill which is entitled “Transregional and External Developments” seems to indicate the need for stronger wording so as to ensure a comprehensive review of potential effects whenever they may occur.

Mandatory rather than permissive language will also make for greater certainty of the process to be followed which is in the interests of all participants. This is a point of discussion in almost every piece of legislation relating to the environment. They are more effective when mandatory rather than permissive language is used.

The fourth point has to do with the following question. Is there adequate provision in the bill for participant funding in environmental assessment? Participant funding is a critical component for decision making because it requires meaningful public participation. Members of the public do bring important contributions to the discussion of what comprises their health and what effects there may be on the environment of an area where industrial development is proposed. In addition, the public can bring important input to whether there are health and environmental trade-offs for the development that is being proposed.

Canada has many environmental assessment regimes. The federal act provides for funding for participants. We are very proud of that fact. This funding was introduced by Liberal legislation some years ago.

I would like to add that the co-management bodies established under this bill will constitute institutions of government. Therefore, it will be essential for parliamentarians to become involved. This will require thorough committee reviews. Of course, the availability of funding for participants is very essential. With that thought in mind, might I say that the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee would be well advised to travel to the northern communities to hear the views, which I am sure are diverse, on this bill.

To save time in this debate, because this is a fine measure which ought to be given speedy passage, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for introducing the bill. I would reiterate my suggestions for the committee, namely to consider how it can ensure that environmental assessment, as well as land and water management, are conducted in accordance with the principle of sustainable development as outlined in the Brundtland report entitled “Our Common Future”. In doing so we will achieve something of lasting value for many generations to come.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Health; the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac, Public Works.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Pierrefonds—Dollard Québec

Liberal

Bernard Patry LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Davenport for his speech, knowing his dedication to environmental issues.

I have one question. Is the member supportive of the provisions of Bill C-6 where it provides for joint environmental reviews, co-operation and co-ordination, by the National Energy Board, the Yukon and Nunavut territory, a province or the Minister of the Environment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act?

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question which relates to joint reviews.

In reading that passage of the bill I was struck by its broad scope and its imaginative approach. I think it can only lead to very positive results. Therefore, my answer is in the affirmative.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on what the hon. member on this side previously said.

I listened very intently to—

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member must direct his comments to the hon. member who is engaged in the debate at this time. We will be calling for debate again after the time allotted for questions and comments. Perhaps the hon. member could put his point at that time.

On questions and comments, the hon. member for South Shore.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, because the Mackenzie River Valley is 4,241 kilometres long and because the north—

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

It is tough some days. The microphones, as hon. members know, pick up any little sound. I recall one time when an hon. member had a clock timing his speech and we were all looking around wondering what that little beep was. Again, on questions and comments, the hon. member for South Shore.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience. I will put my paper down. I am not going to grind my paper and I am not going to grind my teeth but I will rub my hands.

However, because of the size of the Mackenzie River Valley and the fact that the people in the Northwest Territories and along the Mackenzie River Valley have waited since 1973 for some action on this matter, 24 years, that is why we need to support the bill and that is why this bill needs to move forward.

We can listen to the criticism and we can listen to the debate, but I would like to make one point on this for the House. Are we going to move forward on this very important matter? Are we going to have some devolution of power in this House to the Northwest Territories or are we going to wait another 24 years, as some would seem to think we should, or are we going to move ahead? I suggest we move ahead.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think that everybody in the House today would agree with the hon. member that it is time to move ahead and with speed.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Is the House ready for the question?

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Accordingly the vote is deferred until the end of government orders today.

On a point of order, the hon. government House leader.

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997Government Orders

4:35 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties and I believe that you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That the order referring Bill C-10 to the Standing Committee on Finance be rescinded and that the said bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.

(Motion agreed to)

Bill C-3. On the Order: Government Orders

September 25, 1997—the Solicitor General of Canada—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Fredericton New Brunswick

Liberal

Andy Scott LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

moved:

That Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to speak with you being in the Chair I would like to congratulate you. I know you are going to do a great job. I enjoyed very much our working together in the past.

I am pleased to speak today to the motion to refer Bill C-3 to committee before second reading. Bill C-3 provides for the establishment of a national DNA data bank. The DNA identification act will make Canada one of only a handful of countries in the world to have a national DNA data bank. I am also pleased to inform the House that with this groundbreaking legislation we have reached a major milestone in the government's safer communities agenda. Forensic DNA analysis has been instrumental in securing convictions and has also helped to exonerate wrongly convicted individuals. It has already proven to be one of the most accurate methods of obtaining solid evidence in criminal investigations. However, DNA analysis also raises important privacy concerns because it has the potential to reveal much more about a person than does the analysis of a fingerprint.

Given the scope of the issues surrounding the use and potential misuse of DNA profiles and samples, we want to ensure detailed and careful study of this legislation. The introduction of the DNA identification act marks the second phase in the government's DNA strategy. The first phase was implemented in July 1995 when amendments to the Criminal Code were passed to allow the police to obtain DNA samples from suspects in criminal investigations with the use of warrants.

With those provisions now firmly in place we are now creating the legal framework for storing both the biological samples and using the identifying information that they hold. It is another concrete step toward protecting Canadians from violent criminals. I wish to share what has been done to bring us to this point.

The former solicitor general began a process of consultation in January 1996 with the release of a DNA consultation document to various groups and individuals across Canada. Input was sought on several key issues, such as whose DNA profile should be banked, under what circumstances and whether biological samples should be retained.

Last year consultation sessions were held across the country and written comments were received from over 70 respondents. The results of those consultations were summarized in a report that was released in February 1997. A tremendous amount was learned through this process. The consultations indicated strong support for the creation of a national DNA data bank. However, a number of concerns were raised in relation to privacy and charter considerations associated with the collection of biological samples and the storing and use of DNA profiles.

The views of those who participated in the consultation process have been carefully considered. We are confident the bill strikes the appropriate balance between privacy and charter concerns and our goal to do more to protect Canadians from violent crime.

The national DNA data bank will be an important tool that will help police link a suspect with evidence left at the scene of a crime. It will be much easier for police to identify repeat sex and violent offenders and help eliminate innocent suspects in the course of their investigations. Combined with the DNA warrant legislation, which is already in place, the ability to store and later retrieve DNA profiles will shorten investigations and help prevent further victimization from repeat offenders. It is the next logical step to ensure that the warrant legislation is used to its fullest potential.

I will briefly explain how the proposed data bank will work. Biological samples will be collected from offenders convicted of designated criminal offences. These include the most serious personal injury offences, including homicide and sexual offences. Young offenders will be treated in the same manner as adults with respect to the taking of DNA samples for the purposes of data banking. The DNA extracted from the sample will be analysed with the resulting profile entered into a convicted offenders index in the data bank.

The DNA data bank will also contain a crime scene index that will contain DNA information retrieved from unsolved crime scenes. The data bank will be established and maintained by the RCMP. It is very important to note that access to the DNA profiles contained in the convicted offenders index and to the samples themselves will be strictly limited to those directly involved in the operation of the data bank.

The benefits of using such a system are numerous. Police will be able to identify and arrest repeat offenders by comparing DNA information from a crime scene to the convicted offender's index. They will also be able to determine whether a series of offences was committed by the same offender or whether more than one perpetrator was involved. Police will be able to cross-reference and link DNA profiles to other cases within and across jurisdictions.

Using DNA profiles will help focus police investigation by more quickly eliminating suspects whose DNA is already in the data bank in a case where no match with the crime scene evidence is found.

Finally, we anticipate that the knowledge of DNA testing to solve crimes may also deter offenders from committing further offences.

We are keenly aware of the significant privacy concerns associated with the bill, particularly in relation to the retention of biological samples. Strong arguments have been advanced by the scientific community indicating that in its view the retention of biological samples is essential for the DNA data bank to be able to adapt to technological changes in the future.

We are aware that the field of forensic DNA analysis is developing rapidly and forensic scientists have told us that as the technology evolves the DNA profiles of today are likely to be come obsolete later on. If samples are retained, they can be reanalysed using new technology, thereby ensuring that Canada's data bank is able to keep pace with technological advances.

The bill includes strict prohibitions and criminal penalties in relation to any misuse of either the samples or the information contained in the samples. However, despite the safeguards included in the legislation there continue to be concerns regarding the retention of biological samples.

I believe there are compelling arguments on both sides of the issue and this is one of the reasons why I am asking the House to refer the legislation to the justice committee prior to second reading to allow for detailed study and full public debate.

To conclude, there is no doubt that over the past few years we have made enormous progress in our efforts to contribute to a safe, just and peaceful society. The addition of forensic DNA analysis and the ability to store DNA profiles will help us target those who commit the most serious crimes and hold them accountable.

Canadians can continue to enjoy the safety of their streets and have a sense of security knowing that police forces across the country have access to one of the most sophisticated tools worldwide.

I urge hon. members of the House to support the motion to refer Bill C-3 to committee prior to second reading.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Reform

Allan Kerpan Reform Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. This is my first opportunity to say this publicly with you in the chair. As do my colleagues, I look forward to this session with you in the chair.

Let us talk about Bill C-3. No one from our party would be opposed to a national DNA registry. The theory is sound and solid. No one in this party would disagree with that.

However, my concern is that I do not believe the bill takes us far enough into the future and makes arrangement for a DNA registry that will encompass all the things that should be in it. We think the bill at very best is a half measure.

I just spent a week in Washington meeting with officials of the justice department. One of the issues we talked about at some length was the issue of DNA evidence and registry. I would like to quote from a book of case studies carried out and issued by the U.S. department of justice about how important DNA evidence can and will be. I quote Rockne Harmon, senior deputy district attorney for Alameda County, California:

The introduction of forensic DNA typing into the legal system was heralded as the most significant event in criminalistics since dermal fingerprint identification. Few developments ever live up to their advanced billing—but DNA has.

Cases are now being prosecuted that never would have been possible before the advent of DNA typing. Many states have created DNA data bases on known offenders that they can compare against unsolved crimes.

—the results occasionally exonerate a suspect or suspects. Such cases rarely are front page news because the tests have served their purpose. Investigators can redirect their efforts to alternative suspects.

I use that quote because Canada is on the cutting edge, the leading edge of this type of technology. Our thinking on this side is why would we want to cut that process off at the knees. Let us make this DNA registry supply the tools that the people in our justice system need in order to carry out their jobs more efficiently.

Equally important for a DNA registry is the ability to exonerate someone who is actually not guilty of a crime. I use a well known case in Canada, from the province of Saskatchewan, the David Milgaard case. This past summer with the use of DNA evidence David Milgaard was released from prison. He was released because through DNA testing it was found that he did not commit the crime he was accused of and for which he spent 23 years in jail.

The evidence is so conclusive that the Saskatchewan government immediately entered into negotiations with Mr. Milgaard on how much they were going to pay him in compensation. Very few governments would take that route without convincing evidence. The province of Saskatchewan had no doubts about the conclusiveness of the DNA test.

To quote from the same book I quoted from a moment ago, Walter F. Rowe, professor of forensic science at the George Washington University said:

An unforeseen consequence of the introduction of DNA profiling has been the reopening of old cases. Persons convicted of murder and rape before DNA profiling became available have sought to have the evidence in their cases re-evaluated using this new technology. In some cases, DNA test results have exonerated those convicted of the offences and resulted in their release from prison.

The point I am getting at is this technology is so critical and crucial to law enforcement agencies that we must do the very best job we can to put this registry together so it serves the purposes of those involved.

Our plan on this side of the House would be to go much further than the Liberals in their original draft of Bill C-3. We would like to make the DNA registry and Bill C-3 completely parallel to the current fingerprint legislation whereby a suspect at point of arrest would have a sample of DNA taken. That sample would then be used in order to either convict or exonerate that person accused of the crime. Anyone found not guilty of a particular crime would have the right to ask the department to remove their DNA sample from the registry, as they are allowed to do under the fingerprint legislation.

One of the arguments we get from some of the civil libertarian groups is that it goes too far. What is too far? That really is the question.

My answer to that is if you are going to make a mistake, if you are going to err, it is far better to err on the side of victims than on the side of accused criminals.

The other argument I hear is why would you want to take this sample at point of arrest. You are certainly not convicted of a crime at that point in time. That is true, of course. Law enforcement agencies have better things to do than arrest people without some justification. The police I talked to, the men and women protecting this country, have reasonable grounds before they arrest any person.

The other argument I hear is about the security of the registry itself. Of course there is no guarantee and there cannot be any guarantee that the system would be fail safe.

The good part of this bill, and I agree there is a good thing in this bill, is that it does have very tough penalties for the unauthorized use of the registry. That must be continued and strictly enforced.

When I look back through the history of fingerprint legislation, we have never had a problem, to my knowledge, of a breach of security for the fingerprint system.

This bill should be a very critical part of our justice process. That goes without saying. It must be a major part of our process. It is not the be all and the end all of solving cases or exonerating people from crimes they have convicted. However, if used properly, it can go a very long way toward making the justice system, which many people in this country are very frustrated with, more appealing to the Canadian people.

If we give the police and the justice system all the tools available, we could put those resources, both human and financial, to better use. We can put those people back on the streets where they need to be and where they must be.

On the other hand, as I mentioned before, it also gives people wrongly accused of crimes all the tools available in this day and age to ensure them a fair and conclusive trial. That does happen. We have seen evidence of that in Canada during the last few years. That is something no one can argue with in this country.

I know we are going to have the opportunity to speak about this bill as it goes through the regular parliamentary process. I am looking forward to that. I expect that our party may well put some amendments forward to this bill and we will discuss those in the House.

I urge the government to take heart as to what is said in committee from those witnesses who come forward, to take heart and take note of what is said in this House as this bill goes through the rest of the process.