House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member may have lost her right to speak by moving the motion.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motions Nos. 10 and 11. I thought I would not get the opportunity. I thank the hon. member for her motion.

Having listened to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice I wonder who is running this country. The parliamentary secretary gave very lucid arguments as to why we should not tackle the Supreme Court of Canada or put ourselves at risk of a showdown with the Supreme Court of Canada. If in the end the court prevailed and decided we had taken the wrong approach, those convicted during a period of three or four years prior to having the legislation declared void would have to be turned loose because they would have been wrongfully convicted. I appreciate the argument and I would not like to see the guilty going free or conversely the innocent being convicted because of any error on our part.

However, this is a country of laws. It is time we made it clear not only to the public but to ourselves that the House of Commons of Canada is the supreme legislative body of this country and that we do not have to cower in fear of what the supreme court may do. We are trying to make predictions that the supreme court will disallow this legislation or that we think it will disallow this legislation.

If you put three lawyers in a room and ask them for opinions on this or any other subject, you will get at least five opinions. Therefore we should not be cowering here. If the House in its wisdom feels these are good amendments, which I believe they are, then this is the direction we should take.

Compared with what was previously brought forward in committee, Motion No. 10 is relatively innocuous. It states that samples can be taken on charge from previous offenders, not from just anyone who has been arrested. This makes it unnecessary in the event that the charged person is exonerated of having to take special measures in order to rid the databank of the samples as can be done with fingerprints now. If we go only for people with previous convictions then surely we do not have the problem of having samples in the databank from people who have never been convicted of anything because they are convicted before a sample is taken. I think this makes eminent sense. In my opinion there is no civil liberties problem involved in this.

The other question gets a little closer to the bone with the question of civil liberties, taking DNA samples from convicted people who are already in jail. Again the social benefit of doing this in this case may outweigh the danger to civil liberties. These are convicted criminals. These are not people who have been pulled in off the street and hair plucked from their heads to see what their DNA is. These are people who have committed serious crimes, designated offences.

These people could very well have in the past committed violent offences, in particular rapes, for which they have not been caught or charged

When they are in jail and have already been convicted of a violent offence, does it not make practical sense to check to see if maybe the fellow being looked for during the previous five years might already be in custody? I see no harm in this. There is no one in this House who is a stronger defender of civil liberties than I am. People who have known me here for the last few years I think will stand behind me on this.

This is a case where it simply makes sense to go ahead, take the sample and find out if somebody being held has committed some gross crime and if that is the case another charge can be laid and the fellow is kept in for a very long period of time.

I do not buy the philosophy that we have to quiver and shake and say no, the supreme court may override us. If worst comes to worst as I understand the law we could still use the notwithstanding clause to avoid having to turn a bunch of convicted felons loose. I may be wrong on that. Perhaps some of our legal talent could advise me.

That is the way I see it, that the notwithstanding clause could be used and therefore, contrary to what the hon. parliamentary secretary said, no one would have to be turned loose as having been wrongly convicted even if the supreme court did go against us.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to agreement made on Monday, May 4, 1998, the questions on the motions in Group No. 6 are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deemed deferred.

Pursuant to agreement made Monday, May 4, 1998, the motion in Group No. 7 is deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motion No. 12.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Mark Muise Progressive Conservative West Nova, NS

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-3, in Clause 20, be amended

(a) by replacing line 38 on page 22 with the following:

“order under section 487.051 or 487.052;”

(b) by replacing line 40 on page 22 with the following:

“tion under section 487.055 or 487.091; or

(e) provided voluntarily by any person who is charged with an indictable offence or is serving a sentence for an indictable offence.”

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 12 would allow an individual who is charged with a criminal offence or who subsequent to that charge has been convicted of an indictable offence to voluntarily provide a substance of DNA for analysis and entry into the DNA databank.

What this essentially enables an individual to do is give exculpatory evidence. Once again it demonstrates that this type of technology is not only to be used by the state but can be used by an individual and it would entrench this in the bill by allowing them to voluntarily give their DNA for use in the trial.

I suppose it could be argued that this would exist in any event if an individual wanted to do so and have the sample taken. Perhaps the funding is going to be a question that will inevitably be asked but this would include in the bill an individual's right to have their DNA considered by the state in the prosecution of a criminal offence. We are talking about designated offences.

The drafters of this bill in their wisdom have designated certain serious offences where DNA substances are very prone and very apt to be left.

I suggest this is a useful amendment. It is one that in the past would have been useful. The names Milgaard, Morin and Marshall come to mind with respect to how DNA did and could be used as exculpatory evidence.

It again shows the scope of the use of this type of technology in our criminal justice system and it is a positive suggestion and one which the government and hopefully all members of this House will support.

DNA is going to be used more and more in our justice system. It is inevitable. It is technology. It is going to serve a very useful purpose for those in law enforcement and for those involved in the justice system generally.

I hope all members would embrace this useful motion and would be supportive in their remarks and in the vote which will inevitably take place in the near future.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Reform

Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, if the government had the courage of its convictions it would grant the police the power to take a sample at the time of charge if the individual has shown by his or her actions that he or she has been in this type of difficulty before and if necessary protect that right by way of the notwithstanding clause.

As one of my colleagues indicated, it is time to tell the Supreme Court of Canada that we want the will of the people expressed through legislation created by elected representatives of this country and not be afraid every time we attempt to do it that nine unelected individuals are going to strike down the will of the majority of the people in this country.

We support this motion. We think this is a good motion. It does not hurt anyone. It causes no undue problems. It is of a voluntary nature. The provision for this type of activity was originally left out the bill. This motion would place it in the bill and recognize the right of individuals to volunteer samples for whatever purpose, but certainly for the purpose of exonerating them from offences they have not committed. How many times have people volunteered for breathalyser tests? How many have given samples of their blood, their scalp hair, their pubic hair in order to have that compared with samples found at the scene and to exonerate them? Other evidence has caused their arrest and charge.

We have looked at the cases that have come forward, the Milgaard case, the Donald Marshall Jr. case, the Wilson Nepoose case and so on. Those are only the ones we know about. Yet we probably have 50 section 690 applications a year going to the justice minister asking for a new trial or asking for mercy based on the conviction these people are innocent. This provides the means in this area whereby identification by way of DNA is allowed. It provides a statutory provision for that.

We support it and we congratulate the member for bringing it forward.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Vaudreuil—Soulanges Québec

Liberal

Nick Discepola LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the government does not support this motion. We find it problematic because of the charter perspective. It calls for placing in the convicted offenders index the DNA profile of persons charged with an indictable offence who have provided DNA samples voluntarily. A person so charged is entitled to the presumption of innocence and may ultimately be acquitted. Therefore an innocent person's profile should not be part of the convicted offenders index.

There is another problem in that this motion has no provision for obtaining a person's informed consent to place the samples provided voluntarily in the convicted offenders index.

This motion applies to any indictable offence regardless of whether it is a designated offence and is therefore likely to provide DNA evidence that would be of assistance in a criminal investigation.

In light of these serious difficulties I urge hon. members to reject this motion.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

According to the agreement of Monday, May 4, 1998, the question on the motion in Group No. 7 is deemed to have been put and a division thereon requested and deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

To the relief of all hon. members, the chief government whip has requested that the vote on the motions be deferred until tomorrow at the conclusion of the time provided for consideration of Government Orders.

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

Dna Identification ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Liberal Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely crucial for the federal government to focus on children in the months and years ahead.

It is well known that well-developed children become successful productive adults who are better able to contribute to society's economy and to instigate a cycle of positive effects as they become parents and grandparents of the generations that follow.

As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can to help people carry out the most important job they will ever have and that is of a parent. As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can in the first three or four years of a child's life, noting that they are essential to the child's long term development.

We know now just how valuable it is to get these first years right, but how damaging it can be for children when they do not get the help they need at an early age.

As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent child abuse which is a crime with potential lifetime effects for the young victims. One abused child is too many.

As a society we need to continue to ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent child poverty. Poverty affects not only a child's body but also their emotional and mental state. Poor children are more than twice as likely to suffer long term disabilities and other physical and mental health problems.

We at the federal level and indeed all levels of government need to work very hard to advance the cause of Canada's children. We must do so knowing that there is growing recognition worldwide of the importance of early childhood development. This is something we all have a stake in because it is all about the future of Canada. Early child development is a powerful investment in the future both socially and economically.

I ask the secretary of state responsible for children and youth what the government is doing to support our children. What is the government doing to advance the national children's agenda?

Dna Identification ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Stoney Creek Ontario

Liberal

Tony Valeri LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, as the member will recall, the Speech from the Throne acknowledged the importance of early childhood development. By investing now in the well-being of today's children this government is investing in the long term health of our society.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments have been working closely for some time on collaborative initiatives aimed at helping children get a better start in life. The community action program for children, the Canada prenatal nutrition program and aboriginal head start are just examples of highly successful programs already in place to help children in target communities.

To ensure that all Canadian children have the best opportunity to develop their full potential, we need a broader and much more comprehensive investment. Early childhood development alone is not the solution. A growing body of research tells us that we must look at the wide range of environmental factors that affect children's lives.

That is why the Speech from the Throne announced the development of a national children's agenda. Three levels of government are working together to develop a national strategy to improve the well-being of Canada's seven million children. This agenda will give us the opportunity to integrate the sometimes fragmented efforts of the different levels of government avoiding overlap and duplication to ensure we get the most out of each dollar we spend on children.

The national children's agenda is a long term action plan that requires a substantial investment of time and effort from all players. In the meantime we will live up to the commitment we made to Canadians.

As announced in the 1997 budget, the Canada child tax benefit will come into force July 1 to help low income families. As announced in this year's budget, we will increase the Canada child tax benefit by an additional $850 million by the year 2000.

Let me conclude by saying to the hon. member that these efforts by the Government of Canada demonstrate quite clearly that we are committed to do as much as we possibly can to move toward the elimination of child poverty, to promote early childhood development and to lay a strong foundation for the future of Canadian children and Canadian society.

Dna Identification ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to expand on my question to the Minister of Health about the painful shortfall in federal transfer payments for health care.

I proposed an amendment to a bill that would have required the minister to report every year to parliament on whether transfer payments are adequate enough to meet the needs for health services.

Let me explain why. I received a letter from George Bell whom I wrote to the minister about but have still not received a reply. Mr. Bell waited six months before receiving diagnosis and treatment for a worsening nerve disorder. Last fall the first doctor told him the pain and tingling in his arm would probably go away. It did not. The second doctor booked him for a diagnostic scan for which Mr. Bell had to wait a month. After that Mr. Bell waited another month for more diagnostic services. His treatment only began recently and the surgery has not yet been scheduled.

Mr. Bell is a manual labourer who could not work because of the increasing pain in his arms. The Workers' Compensation Board turned down his claim because it stated he was suffering from a degenerative disc disease that was not as a result of his work duties. Mr. Bell has nothing to live on, is unable to work and is just now receiving treatment for his condition six months after he first approached a doctor.

Unfortunately there are many people out there experiencing similar frustrations and lack of timely care.

Today researchers at the Université du Québec à Montréal released a study that showed that health cutbacks reduced life expectancy for men and women as well as infants. The Liberal government cut $3.5 billion from health care over the past three years alone. That represents a huge number of beds, a lot of medical equipment and hundreds and perhaps thousands of staff. That represents months of waiting for surgery and life threatening hours of waiting in emergency rooms. It is quite simply unacceptable. This is not what Canadians want.

The Reform Party's answer is to introduce two tiered medicine where the rich can pay to jump the queue and the poor die on waiting lists. This is also unacceptable. This is not the Canadian way.

Right now a private hospital is operating in Alberta contrary to the public administration principle in the Canada Health Act. The Liberal government is doing nothing about it. The dollars of desperate and sick Canadians are going into the pockets of the owners of this private health operation instead of all those dollars being used for health services.

This is the way of the future, unless we stop it, unless we can give Canadians a voice in our own health care system. The amendment I proposed was a way to do that but the answer I received then from the minister was disappointing.

I would like the minister's representative to respond to Mr. Bell and to all Canadians who have to wait unreasonable periods of time, often at great personal expense for medical treatment. Why does he not wish Canadians to have a voice in our health care system? Why is he afraid of scrutiny of the current inadequate levels of funding for health care? Why are people like Mr. Bell forced to wait six months for treatment and be unable to work and have nothing to live on in the meantime? What answer does he have for Mr. Bell?

Dna Identification ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Stoney Creek Ontario

Liberal

Tony Valeri LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the quality of health care available to Canadians is of utmost importance to the government. We know that high quality health care is a key contributor to a healthy population.

Simply focusing on how much money is being spent on health care will not provide a real picture of how good the quality of care is and how well the health system is doing in achieving important health outcomes.

Quality health care is also about the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care, treatment and services available to Canadians as well as providing those services in the most efficient way possible.

This government recognizes the importance that evidence based decision making has for improving the quality of health care. For example, we have implemented the three year $150 million health transition fund to gather in collaboration with the provinces and territories evidence and test pilot approaches in the areas of pharmacare, home care, primary health care and integrated health services delivery.

Also the government is spending $50 million over three years to examine the development of a health information system to ensure that those in the health system have the best information they need to provide quality care to Canadians.

Finally, the 1996 budget allocated $65 million over five years for the Canadian health services research fund.

The Canada health and social transfer provides the stability and predictability by ensuring $12.5 billion annually in cash transfers and total transfer entitlements that will gradually increase from $25.3 billion in 1997-98 to $28.5 billion in the year 2002-03.

Dna Identification ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.54 p.m.)