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

Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

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

Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred until tomorrow afternoon at the end of Government Orders. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6.

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 7.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Cadman Reform Surrey North, BC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-3 at report stage. I will restrict my comments to Group No. 3.

I support the amendment as proposed by the member for Sydney—Victoria even though it causes me some concern.

Throughout the review of this legislation by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights we heard from many witnesses about their fears and worries over abuse, leaks and criminal misuse of the DNA databank. To overcome these fears and to protect against the wrongful use of DNA information we need some form of consequence.

The hon. member for Crowfoot proposed an amendment before the justice committee to limit the punishment in clause 11 to strictly indictable with a maximum term of two years. Motion No. 7 maintains the dual procedure aspect, but increases the maximum indictable procedure to five years. If we are to protect the information in the databank we require sufficient consequence to offenders.

I believe that many of the naysayers to DNA legislation will be brought on side when parliament impresses upon them how seriously we intend to attempt to protect potentially sensitive DNA information.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the amendment in Group No. 3 to Bill C-3. At the outset I would like to state that this particular amendment addresses two real concerns that I hear constantly from Canadians as I travel across Canada and throughout my riding.

One is the whole issue of the privacy of the individual; the privacy of individual Canadian citizens. The second issue concerns sufficient deterrence to dissuade Canadians who might break the law in some fashion. In this particular case we are talking about those who might reveal information contained in DNA sampling. We want to make the threshold of the penalty sufficiently high enough to ensure that people will be dissuaded from releasing that type of information.

Very clearly, as my hon. colleague for Surrey North just noted, during testimony when the justice committee was reviewing Bill C-3 there were a number of concerns brought forward by witnesses dealing with these two fundamental issues. One concern is privacy. How will the DNA samples be protected to ensure they will not be used in a manner in which they are not intended to be used? We have seen cases in the past dealing with income tax and other issues whereby government agencies obtained certain information about Canadian citizens which was ultimately leaked into the public arena. A growing concern for Canadian citizens is their fundamental right to privacy. One of the major stumbling blocks in this DNA legislation is the need to convince Canadians that it will be used appropriately and properly and that the legislation is in place to protect the well-being of society, because there is an inherent distrust.

I would suggest that with the advent of things like Bill C-68, the gun registration, there is a growing inherent distrust of government on the part of the average Canadian citizen. There are some good reasons for that. Citizens have seen some of their fundamental rights continuously eroded, continuously chipped away by big government. Big government knows best. Big government is going to look after us from the cradle to the grave. We had some speeches on this very point in the preceding debate on Bill C-26.

We have to ensure that the concerns about the right to privacy are adequately addressed. How are we going to ensure that? Simply put, as my hon. colleague from Surrey North just said, deterrence has to be sufficient. Any individual who would break the law and reveal that information has to be dissuaded from doing it. We want to have the penalties sufficient to deter them from doing it. I often refer to the system not as a criminal justice system unfortunately but as a legal system. Too often we see in our criminal justice system that it is not meeting the needs of the average Canadian.

The system is failing. A large part of that is because there is inadequate punishment for crimes. We need some minimal sentences. We need some sentences that truly deter those who would break the law.

We have seen in the last couple of years farmers receive more punishment for trucking a load of grain across the U.S. border and selling their own product without getting the necessary Canadian Wheat Board permits than someone who commits rape, someone who preys on the most vulnerable in our society, the women and children. It is disgusting that people can get away with conditional sentencing. Those people are not deterred whatsoever from committing heinous crimes against the most vulnerable members of society.

This Liberal government continues to do nothing to address the issue of conditional sentencing and the need for minimal sentences to deter these individuals. This is absolutely appalling.

We have contained in Group No. 3 a proposal that deserves serious consideration. We want to increase this penalty from two years to five years to make it sufficient to hopefully deter anyone from doing such things and, perhaps more important, to ensure Canadians can have confidence that the government is serious about preventing this information from getting out.

These Group No. 3 amendments deserve serious consideration and I urge all members to do exactly that.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Allan Kerpan Reform Blackstrap, SK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Group No. 3 motions of Bill C-3, an act that would bring about a DNA database.

There are two key issues we need to address here. One is the issue of privacy and the other is the issue of deterrence. My friend from Prince George—Peace River talked a little about this.

I think it is very important that whatever system is put in place people know their privacy is ensured. As finance critic for the official opposition, I could say how many times we have had people come forward to say how very concerned they are with respect to the information they have to give to banks and to government organizations.

People want to know that information will not be misused. That is a pretty important consideration. I think a lot of people are concerned in a day and age where technology has become all encompassing.

Giving information to one person may mean that it is spread out, that everybody has access to it everywhere. It is a very legitimate concern. I support the hon. member's motion to put in place some big penalties to ensure that if people misuse this information they will face a very severe penalty, up to five years in prison.

I support this absolutely because knowledge is power. I think we need to ensure whatever system is set up that we have the right deterrents in place to guarantee that the information will not be misused.

I support what the hon. member has brought forward as a motion in Group No. 3. I think it is a good idea. We need to support it.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleague, you still have eight minutes left. I know you were just getting into the meat of your argument. We will return to you right after question period.

ItalyStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to honour the victims of the tragic mudslides that ravaged southern Italy last week.

In an instant the mudslides destroyed homes and buried families, killing hundreds and destroying the lives of thousands. Almost 2,000 people are homeless and the economy of the region will feel the effects of the disaster for years to come.

The Ontario Federation of Clubs and Associations of Campania has established an account with the Toronto-Dominion Bank, branch 1890, account number 642. Donations can be made at any TD bank in Canada.

I encourage Canadians to once more show their generosity and solidarity and to contribute to the relief efforts for the victims of the tragic mudslides.

JusticeStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Reform

Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, it has now been 335 days since the justice minister was sworn in. It has been almost one year since the minister claimed amending the Young Offenders Act was a priority.

The minister has been promising for months to introduce those amendments in a timely fashion. What changes has the minister made to the Young Offenders Act after almost a year of claims and promises? Absolutely nothing.

We have had nothing concrete from the federal justice minister despite the justice committee's recommendations tabled over a year ago. We have had nothing in spite of the urging of the provincial attorneys general and we have had nothing in spite of the demands of Canadians from all across the country for a toughening of the Young Offenders Act.

Spring is here. The tulips are in bloom. It is time the gopher got its head out of the hole.

Skills TrainingStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the remarkable achievements of two programs in my riding of Etobicoke North that are helping unemployed workers to get the skills they need to take their rightful place in the workforce.

The Rexdale micro skills project assists recently unemployed women and offers targeted solutions to meet their diverse needs. Going into its 13th year of operation, this program offers computer skills for accounting, for business and industry, for Internet training and training at automated work stations.

The program offered at Humber College provides each client with a unique return to work action plan.

Together, these two programs will help 735 unemployed persons to gain the skills required to get and keep a job.

These valuable programs owe their existence to $3 million in funding from Human Resources Canada.

This is money well spent. I can happily report that 65% to 75% of the Humber College clients and 80% of the Rexdale micro skills graduates go on to full time employment. Bravo.

Hire A StudentStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 30th anniversary of the hire a student program offered through Human Resources Development Canada. The human resources centre for students on Prince Edward Island is working diligently to make this anniversary year the most successful hire a student campaign to date.

This year the centre is also offering services to the farming community. Farming operations that require student workers will have their listings posted for interested and qualified candidates to speak directly with them.

To all island businesses that have supported hire a student in the past, a very hearty thank you. And to those employers who have not experienced the positive impact a student can make to their business, I urge them to become part of this year's 30th anniversary of the hire a student program.

Congratulations to all involved in this program under the youth employment strategy.

Drunk DrivingStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce my colleagues and the people of Canada to a committed and dedicated family from Langley, British Columbia who are in the gallery today.

Ken and Eileen Roffel have worked tirelessly to get drunk drivers off our roads by speaking out about zero tolerance. You see, their son Mark was murdered in Langley, British Columbia by a drunk driver. Since that terrible ordeal they have raised immense awareness about drunk driving by getting petitions signed. Today I have the privilege of submitting one of the largest petitions ever sent to the House of Commons.

It cannot stop here. This House will prepare a draft bill on drunk driving no later than November 30, 1998. We must pay attention to the message Ken and Eileen have brought us through hundreds of thousands of Canadians signing this petition. Do not drink and drive.

Finally, I want to say this. The murder of Mark Roffel was senseless but his family and hundreds of thousands of Canadians will remember him forever. His story will live on through a positive change in drunk driving legislation.

VaisakhiStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON

Mr. Speaker, Sikhs in Canada and around the world are celebrating Vaisakhi, the 299th birthday of the Sikh faith Khalsa, along with festivals associated with the harvest season.

I am sure all members will join me in congratulating Canadian Sikhs and recognizing the credible and considerable contribution they have made to Canada during their 100 year presence in this country.

Today I would like to invite all parliamentarians to join me and members of the Sikh community in the Commonwealth Room following question period for Vaisakhi celebrations.

EmploymentStatements By Members

May 11th, 1998 / 2 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Parrish Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to comment on the steady decline in Canada's unemployment rate. At 8.4% unemployment is at its lowest level in almost eight years.

I am also pleased that much of this new private sector job creation is taking place in my own province of Ontario. Thanks to federal economic policies, interest rates are down and economic activity is up.

Unfortunately the Ontario government has chosen to sacrifice this considerable fiscal dividend by ploughing ahead with an irresponsible 30% across the board tax cut. That means closed hospitals, overwhelming demand at food banks and sky high tuition fees. Ask Ontario's post-secondary students what they think of Mr. Harris' big heart.

Our government eliminated a federal deficit that had climbed to $42 billion. Now that we have a balanced budget, we are cutting income taxes for those who bore the brunt of spending reductions: low and middle income Canadians.

Balanced government policy is what brings unemployment numbers down at a steady pace, not right wing ideology that ignores the everyday lives of low and middle income families.

Legal SystemStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the people of Taschereau in Abitibi—Témiscamingue joined together in protest against our legal system, particularly the practice of releasing people without bail. Close to 5,000 signatures were gathered in three days in support of their action.

This protest was triggered by a tragic event. Christine Bertrand, 17 years old, and Laurie Lefebvre, who was just 18 months old, lost their lives when they were struck while on the shoulder of the highway in Taschereau. The driver responsible for this terrible accident fled the scene.

I wish to assure the people of Taschereau and the surrounding area that they can count on me to support their petition and to bring it to the attention of the House of Commons. They can also count on me to make the necessary representations to the Minister of Justice.

In closing, I wish to express my condolences to the families of the victims and to the community of Taschereau, whom this tragic event has brought together in great solidarity.

Courage To Come Back AwardsStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday evening I had the honour of representing the Minister of Health at the annual Courage to Come Back awards of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto.

The evening provided an opportunity for us to share in the remarkable stories of individuals who have shown extraordinary courage in their recovering from life threatening illness, injury or addiction and now serve as models of hope and inspiration.

I would like to thank Janice O'Born, the chair of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry Foundation; president and CEO of the Addiction and Mental Health Services Corporation, Dr. Paul Garfinkel; and Nancy Coldham, chair of the courage committee. They are fighting the difficult battle against ignorance with respect to mental illness.

We were all very pleased and impressed by the empathy of the evening's special hosts Mark Tewksbury and Silken Laumann. Most important, we were all truly inspired by the evening's award recipients: David Shannon, Ralph Booker, Gabriella Melendez, Jeffrey Ostofsky, Andrea OuHingwan, Sandy Naiman and Ian Chovil. They have all had the courage to come back and go that extra mile in the invaluable role of public education. They are role models for all of us.