Debates of May 11th, 1998

Dna Identification Act

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Wild Rose mentioned the criminals and the easy life they have. The criminals in my area of the country get to play golf. The average taxpayer in my riding has to pay more than $50 a round but the criminals get to play golf on their own golf course. Is that not great?

If I were to think about this, I think the average Canadian would say that if we kept criminals busy 60 hours a week, 40 hours a week eight hours a day doing meaningful work and 20 hours of study a week learning to be better people, they would come out of those places a lot better than the people who come out after all the mollycoddling with colour television sets and playing on the golf course when other people have to pay. It is entirely wrong and is not the way it should be done.

As one of my colleagues said, if the government would just accept the sensible amendments to these bills, we would not have to keep revisiting these things. It is amazing how many bills come back for amendments one or two years later. The Nunavut bill is back in the House. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is running around handing out $300,000 for polls, which could have been done for $8,000 by professional companies, to try to justify and support bills that were passed when they had no idea what the definitions would be. It is a total mess.

If the government would just accept meaningful changes to its bills, little amendments like the one we are looking at here under Group No. 3, the bills would be much better. They would work better and they would not have to keep coming back here.

Under Group No. 3, the motion was put forward by a member of the NDP. We on the Reform side support the motion. It proposes a change in the penalty for releasing the DNA results for any other reason than for the purposes of the act. The government has a two year penalty in there. If somebody gets these DNA results and sends them out on a mailing list or allows them to be publicized in some way, there is only a two year penalty provided for under the act.

As my colleague from Wild Rose said, this is a typical example of the mollycoddling approach the Liberal government has toward criminals. This is a serious crime and it should have a much greater penalty. The proposal that has come from our NDP colleague is a five year penalty. We agree with it because if it was two years we could bet the person would be out in three months. That is just the way it works with this Liberal government.

Speaking today about the DNA act takes me back to when the member for Wild Rose actually got the first DNA bill through this House. Anybody who was here in the 35th Parliament, and all of those Liberals sitting on that side were here, will remember the day in question period when the member for Wild Rose stood up and challenged the then justice minister to do something about authorizing the use of DNA. On that day, whether it was by mistake or good fortune, the minister agreed to meet with the opposition. He said if the opposition would meet with him that day it could be done. The member for Wild Rose got right back up and said “We will do it this afternoon” and it was done. Within a very short time we had a bill through the House.

I was thrilled as the member for North Vancouver because the very first crime that was solved using that bill was a crime in North Vancouver. The police had been waiting for the power to use the DNA results. Why it had been delayed for so long heaven only knows. All it took was the willingness of the government to sit down and do something sensible that the people of Canada wanted. When we look at the DNA bill and the amendments proposed by the opposition members, anyone reading the bill can see that they are sensible amendments and really should be made.

As my colleague for Wild Rose alluded to, we have had 30 years of the Liberal wishy-washy bleeding heart approach to crime. Where has that got us? Absolutely nowhere. The situation today is that the police are frustrated. They can arrest people for crimes and they cannot get convictions.

I know I cannot use props but the tiepin I am wearing today was lent to me by a policeman friend. The policemen I know are friends and they should be friends of law-abiding people. These days the police are forced to act as facilitators because if they actually arrest anybody, they have a terrible job getting anyone convicted. The tiepin is a pair of gold handcuffs that the police wear to represent the difficult time they have in actually getting criminals convicted. I wish we could do something in the House to assist the police to do their work.

One of the frustrations alluded to by two of my colleagues is what we call the tyranny of the judges. The supreme court overrules the intent of parliament, turning us into an even worse type of wishy-washy Liberal approach to crime. I wonder, but perhaps I do not have to wonder too much what that has to do with the fact that the government actually appoints the judges and we end up with the same philosophy in making judgments on what comes down in the way of the law.

A few weeks ago the Supreme Court of Canada made a judgment on the Delgamuukw case, the Indian land claims case that came out of B.C. The case goes back probably about a decade. Many years were spent hearing the testimony in the case in B.C. It took more than a year for the judge to come out with his judgment. The judgment that there was no Indian claim to title was upheld by the B.C. supreme court after lengthy hearings. Then it went to the Supreme Court of Canada. In a lightning fast hearing a central Canadian court overturned everything that had been determined in the British Columbia courts and created nothing but chaos for the land claims process in the province.

This is another example of the type of tyranny that goes on that should be dealt with with the notwithstanding clause as mentioned by the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby. These sorts of decisions undermine the parliamentary process. They make it very difficult for parliament to do its work.

Over the Easter break I was in Australia. I was looking at a similar problem Australia ran into. About five or six years ago a court made a similar ruling to the one that has just been made by the Supreme Court of Canada. The court ruled that the aboriginals of Australia basically owned everything. They had title to everything. That created such chaos in Australia over the next three to four years that every time the government tried to do something, to develop a new park, to build a school, whatever it was trying to do, aboriginals would lodge claims in the court that they owned the land and nothing could be done with it.

We already see that happening in B.C. Three or four weeks ago the B.C. government announced it was building a new school in the heart of the city. What happened? Immediately some natives claimed that they own the land and the school cannot be built until they have settled their land claim. We can see this whole process running away into uncontrolled judicial decisions.

In Australia, after putting up with that for four years, they finally passed the native land titles act to put an end to the tyranny that was shown by the judges and to extinguish that aboriginal title.

All of these things stem from the refusal of government to treat crime in a meaningful manner and to treat criminals for what they are, criminals.

We know what causes crime. Criminals cause crime. We need to take a much harder line with criminals than we have been taking.

While the opposition is pleased to see this type of DNA legislation coming through, we would certainly like to see amendments made to reinforce the provisions of the bill.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-3, the DNA act. The motion in Group No. 3 that we are debating would increase the penalty for anybody who abuses this information. If the information is used for anything other than what was intended, a very severe penalty should be applied. This is needed because the information is very useful in fighting crime. It is also very personal and should be used only for what it was intended.

DNA profiles contain uniquely private and personal information. This information should be used only for the purposes of identification.

The essence of this bill is to create a databank to identify every person who has committed a crime in this country. If the profile is on file, then anytime it comes up again we know exactly who the person is.

This would give a strong tool to our police, to our crime fighters. It is a strong tool for the protection of society. It is a strong tool for deterring criminals from acting because they will know there is a positive means of identification on file and that there will be no mistakes.

This motion goes on to state other reasons it is important to protect these profiles. The improper use or disclosure of DNA profiles can lead to significant harm to the individual, including discrimination in areas such as employment, education, health care, reproduction and insurance.

There seems to be a great deal of concern about the rights of people. If we have rights for the average citizen in Canada, then we need to secure those rights and make them stronger.

If we have this DNA information on file, it should be used for crime prevention and that is all it should be used for.

We support this amendment from the member for Sydney—Victoria.

If this very personal information gets out for any reason other than that for which it was intended, then the crime should be very, very strong. This should, in itself, go a long way in putting to rest some of the fears of the people who are worried about the rights of criminals. However, I think we should worry more about the rights of the individual.

Forensic DNA analysis provides information not only about an individual, but also about the individual's parents and children, thus implicating family privacy. Again, this is the type of information we do not want to be made public. The information is meant to be used as a tool to fight crime. It is not meant to be used as a tool to invade anybody's privacy.

Again, there is a need for a strong deterrent for anybody who would abuse this databank. Once this databank is in place, we need a very strong deterrent for anybody thinking of taking up criminal activity.

DNA profiles are also tied to reproductive decisions which are among the most private and intimate decisions an individual can make.

The reasons that have been put forward to protect DNA information indicate why we need this amendment. We need a strong penalty for anybody abusing this information because it delves into absolutely every aspect of a person's life. There are no secrets when a DNA profile is created.

Also, the bill states that the commissioner shall ensure that the national DNA databank authority maintains a record of every person who accesses the national DNA databank established under subsection (1). There has to be a record of any person who uses this databank to absolutely make certain that the use of this information is for what it was intended and that it cannot be manipulated for use in any other manner.

It was mentioned earlier the research that could be done with the DNA databank information on criminals. Persons could take all of that information and use it for various reasons. But it has to be kept for the use that was intended. That is why this motion was put forward.

It also states that every three years after this legislation comes into force a complete investigation must be carried out with respect to the national DNA databank and all aspects surrounding it. This is another aspect that was put in place to ensure the privacy of the individuals in the databank.

Anybody who thinks this bill is going to invade a person's rights must realize that all manner of legislation is being put into place to protect against that. The legislation is being put in place to make this bill acceptable to the people who feel that the information could be used in a improper manner.

With all of these aspects to the bill and the fact that this amendment has been brought forward to increase the penalty for the improper use of the databank, I think we have come to the point where it will be usable, the information will be protected and we will not have to be concerned with that.

Let us allow this DNA databank to exist. Let us use it as a strong tool to fight crime. Let us use it as a strong tool to protect people's rights in this country. Let us use it as a tool for deterrence and police action.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support Motion No. 7 under Group No. 3 which is before us. This motion recognizes the reality that not everyone in the public service is always pure and without fault. It recognizes the reality that confidential information can be misused. In fact, we can cite many instances where confidential information has been misused. Take for example the Income Tax Act. Everything is supposed to be confidential, yet every year we get specific examples of information having been improperly released by bureaucrats.

Although I am not big on very severe criminal penalties for ordinary citizens who get fouled up in the law, I am very supportive of strong penalties for people in positions of trust who abuse their responsibilities and commit offences. I would say that this proposal to raise the maximum penalty from two to five years for the improper release of information is very well placed.

We also could list examples of the improper use of lists. This government is great for lists. In fact all Canadian governments have been great for lists. We will recall that Bill C-68 was passed in the last parliament. Because there were lists of all the lawful owners of handguns in this country the government was able, suddenly and out of the blue, to declare that about 400,000 people owned firearms which were no longer legal. They were, in effect, confiscated because their value was reduced to zero by the stroke of a government pen.

If the government did not have a list, the government could not indulge in this sort of hanky-panky. It is no wonder the Canadian people are reluctant to have their names on anything, particularly in the computer age.

There are other amendments, of course, which we will be supporting to this particular legislation as we go on through the day and perhaps tomorrow.

There is the absurdity, for example, that DNA samples can be taken only after conviction. I suppose we should take fingerprints only after conviction and take mug shots only after conviction. Why there should be different rules for DNA than for fingerprinting is something I do not understand. However, that is another amendment which we will be discussing at a later time.

Getting back to Motion No. 7, I think it is very well thought out. I compliment the hon. member for bringing this forward. I notice some people on the other side nodding in agreement. I hope this amendment will ultimately pass because it really does improve the legislation.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues here that I think we should stop to take a look at.

The hon. member who just spoke made the point that we will not be able to take DNA samples until after a conviction. I think that is something we had better take a long, hard look at.

What this specific amendment is dealing with, however, is the fact that we are going to increase the penalty for misuse of a DNA sample from two years to five years.

It is a pretty simple proposition. This is not complicated. Even members of the government should be able to fathom this one, turn it around in their heads and support it. I expect they will. However, it begs a few more questions. Who are we protecting? Are we protecting the person who commits the violent offence? Are we protecting the public? Are we protecting some unknown entity? I am a little confused in the circle of life here.

It is time that we simplified the laws of this land instead of making them more complicated. If we are talking about misuse of a DNA sample, then let us increase the penalty. Let us understand what it is for, but let us also use that tool.

The police associations have asked for it. The barrister associations are a bit mixed on it. We do not have one complete answer there. However, it is a useful tool.

I am not catching the explanation that tells me that it is some type of an invasive plan or that it is invasive to the person who actually has a DNA sample taken. By plucking a hair from a head or by taking a swab of saliva out of a mouth we have a DNA sample. Is that somehow more invasive than putting ink on a person's hands and fingerprinting them at the point where that person is charged? We do not have to wait. What is going on here?

As responsible people, as the people who help to set the laws of this country, we should come to grips with this. This is not a complicated issue. This is childishly simple. Let us deal with it.

This is past due. We spent far too much time arguing about this and discussing this in the House of Commons. The justice committee has come in with specific recommendations. It is time to approve those recommendations and move forward.

We should understand that this is a new tool in the arsenal against crime. It needs some protective measures so we do not abuse it. We always run the risk of abuse in government or abuse by officials or abuse by a third party with some type of an ulterior motive.

Let us not think that we are quite in the days of Orwellian thought yet. This is not Nineteen Eighty-Four . We have the opportunity here to move forward. This is not an invasion of somebody's home. It is not an invasion of their bedroom. This is about a DNA sample which is going to be held in a databank with protective measures so that it will not be available to the general public.

We have spent too long, and I probably have as well, discussing this subject. I think it is time we move forward on it.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion before us today.

It is important when Canadians look at their justice system that they feel the system actually has the ability to achieve what it sets out to achieve. It is vitally important that the justice system have teeth in it for those who would break the law.

One of the biggest criticisms—and it is coffee shop talk everywhere we go in the country—is that there is not sufficient teeth in the system right now. Many Canadians feel that serious and violent offenders are getting off with a mere slap on the wrist in many cases.

It is also important to have built-in safeguards to protect the safety and the privacy of citizens and to respect their individual rights. I have spoken many times in the House on my very deep commitment to individual rights in Canada, something that I do not think we stress nearly enough.

Therefore I am very supportive of the motion which would provide a much stronger guarantee to individuals that information obtained from a DNA profile would not be used improperly. In fact anybody who would do so would be faced with very severe penalties.

It is important that those penalties be articulated in the act and that they are tough. I do not want to see this databank abused.

As I said, Canadians are very much tired of a justice system that does not deliver. They are very much tired of a justice system that has no teeth in it. They are very much tired of a justice system where they see plea bargains that end up with serious and violent offenders getting a mere slap on the wrist for committing heinous acts and crimes.

It is no different when we are talking about the protection of individual rights. I believe that we have to consider the rights of individuals to their privacy. We have to accept the fact that the government has a very strong obligation to ensure that information obtained under a DNA profile is not abused.

I am very much in favour of the notion of DNA databanks. As a person who has absolutely no intention of ever committing a crime, I have no problem signing up for the program and making my DNA available to a databank right now.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

I hear members across the way objecting to that, and I do not understand why.

Many people voluntarily provide their fingerprints for a variety of reasons to a fingerprint databank. I have absolutely no problem with making the job of law enforcement easier. I have absolutely no problem with the notion that people charged with a serious crime be compelled to provide a DNA profile or a DNA sample.

What I have a problem with is a justice system which mollycoddles those who commit serious crimes and those accused of committing serious crimes and which does not extract proper compensation or proper retribution for the transgressions.

As a parliamentarian, as a person who is going to be required to vote on the motion, I have absolutely no problem. I believe very strongly that the motion as it is written is a vast improvement to the bill.

We as parliamentarians have an obligation to Canadians to provide a justice system that works and that provides the safeguards Canadians expect, especially when it comes to their individual rights. Therefore I believe the motion as written addresses both those concerns, particularly if the justice system and the courts in the future will interpret the motion and will apply the motion as it is written. It will be a big step forward in terms of how our justice system in Canada is applied and does work.

I reiterate my support for the motion. It is time that we have a justice system in the country that works. It is time that we have means of identifying criminals and those who are accused of serious crimes. It is time that Canadians feel their justice system is working for them and not for the criminal element in society. It is time that we as a nation recognize our obligations primarily to our fellow citizens to provide for their safety and for their well-being.

For all of those reason I will be supporting the motion and will be encouraging all my colleagues in the House to do so as well.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to the agreement made Monday, May 4, 1998, Motion No. 7 in Group No. 3 is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred.

The House will now proceed to the motion in Group No. 4.

Pursuant to agreement made on Monday, May 4, 1998, the motion in Group No. 4 is deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motion No. 8.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-3, in Clause 12, be amended

(a) by replacing line 11 on page 9 with the following:

“12. (1) The Governor in Council may make”

(b) by adding after line 13 on page 9 the following:

“(2) The Solicitor General of Canada shall have each proposed regulation laid before each House of Parliament.

(3) Each proposed regulation that is laid before a House of Parliament shall, on the day it is laid, be referred by that House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct enquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.

(4) A proposed regulation that has been laid pursuant to subsection (1) may be made

(a) on the expiration of thirty sitting days after it was laid; or

(b) where, with respect to each House of Parliament,

(i) the committee reports to the House, or

(ii) the committee decides not to conduct enquiries or public hearings.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “sitting day” means, in respect of either House of Parliament, a day on which that House sits.”

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to point out that the group of amendments containing Motion No. 8 was initiated by my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg. As he is busy with other duties related to his role as an MP today, he is unable to move the motion and I will therefore do so on his behalf. I am pleased to do so because this is not the first time this kind of amendment has been introduced by the Bloc Quebecois. I will go into further detail later. The motion has primarily to do with the intended procedure for passing regulations related to legislation.

I would like to point out briefly that we are still talking about Bill C-3. For those unfamiliar with the bill, it allows genetic fingerprinting in certain cases in order to establish a DNA databank for identifying individuals who have committed crimes.

It is a way of taking more modern scientific and medical technologies, which have made enormous strides, one step further. There is already a similar structure in place for fingerprints. According to the scientific information we have been given, DNA testing is very accurate and has a very high success rate.

To a certain extent, this bill represents that approach. It is important to understand that this is a first, that it represents something new and different, which demands a degree of caution. It is to be expected that the public will ask questions and that there will even be some reluctance. Some kind of legislative and regulatory framework is required.

This is what worries us a bit in this particular case, giving latitude to others than this House, this Parliament, when the time comes to define the type of regulations which will accompany an act like this one.

The use of DNA samples for identification, or for ultimate use in evidence being a relatively recent development, a great deal of caution is needed in our approach. At this point, it is the House which has the opportunity to debate the matter.

We are at the report stage. The bill has been debated at second reading and in committee. Situations may crop up when the powers will need to be expanded, or restricted. a little, and this requires much care and much follow-up. Parliamentarians should have some control over the regulations.

People expect us to be the ones in society with the power to make decisions on legislative measures, and they do not want to see others—even a well-intentioned minister—making use of departmental employees or ministerial staff to define practices, particularly if these are new practices. This would give them the sole power to make the rules and to have them passed by cabinet. All these powers, the way the bill is set up at present, are concentrated in the hands of a single individual, and do not lie with this Parliament as a whole.

This is not the only case where this is happening. It is a frequent occurrence. Without referring to any specific case, I would just say that this is a general government trend, this desire to get their hands on as much power as possible One way of doing so is through regulations. So, yet again the role of members is being reduced because their impact in the formulation of regulations is being restricted.

It is all very well to talk about the stages in committee and so on, there should still be a formal process providing for the consultation of the House in the passing of regulations. In our parliamentary system, that includes the other House to some degree and that is why the motion refers to it. You are no doubt aware of our opinion about the usefulness of that House, and when I say “that House” I mean “the other” House. It is an obstacle we can do without. We could even save some money. However, since they are still there, the motion refers to the usual course of legislative process and thus approval by the other House of amendments to the regulations.

All members of Parliament should be in agreement with this. I do not know how any member, regardless of political stripe, in the government or in opposition, can object to being consulted, to having a say and to taking a larger part in the legislative process.

We must never lose sight of the fact that a member of Parliament has a role to play in the legislative process, first and foremost. This is why we were elected, why people sent us here. People have expectations. Who gets the ultimate blame if things go wrong? We do. So it is only right that we be included as much as possible.

The tendency is to always put regulatory powers in the hands of the executive, cabinet, in other words, and the tendency must be stopped somewhere. Perhaps right here. I have trouble seeing how members, particularly Liberal members, could oppose this motion, Motion No. 8, in Group No. 4, in a series of amendments.

It is in this spirit that my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, introduced his amendment. He is an expert and could have gone into much greater detail about Bill C-3 than I have, and he will perhaps have another opportunity to do so depending on how debate goes.

What I have tried to do right now is to explain the purpose of Motion No. 8 in Group No. 4 and to say that the member for Charlesbourg will obviously be able to count on the support of all his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois. I hope he will also be able to count on the support of colleagues in other parties, including the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, who I am sure will give us his support, and other members of the Liberal Party who are listening very closely today.

I therefore conclude my remarks and hope that members will be persuaded by the argument that we should play a greater role as lawmakers, and that all parliamentarians will pass this amendment, which is Motion No. 8.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure to see you back in the chair. I was giving speeches on Thursday and there you were. You had to listen to two. You will probably have to listen to two today. I can see you are thrilled with that prospect.

We are debating Group No. 4, Motion No. 8 on Bill C-3, the DNA bill. This motion amends clause 12 of the bill. As the bill now reads, under clause 12 the governor in council can make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the bill but there is no statutory requirement for the regulations to be laid before parliament or the appropriate committee for review. We see this as a major problem. Parliamentarians and eventually the joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations should be able to properly review, comment on and correct problems in the regulations.

The Bloc member wished all parliamentarians would support this motion because it would give us more say in the running of things. He will be hoping for that result but I suspect the Chrétien lookalikes will end up all standing in their places and doing what they have to do. While I will argue in favour of this motion I do not think for a moment that we are going to see support for it. None of the members opposite have stood in support. There is a very large attendance of them today. They are drastically interested in the bill. I see some laughter from the gallery and I think we all know why they are laughing when I talk about the large number of Liberals here today to listen to the content of the speeches.

We have had problems with regulations. When they do not go before a committee there is a danger there will be some sort of flaw in them. I am a member of the joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations and I have been on that committee since I was first elected in 1993. I suspect most members would wonder what it is all really about and what that committee does. It is probably one of the most useful committees on the Hill. It is totally non-partisan in nature. We look at purely the legality and the appropriateness of the regulations that come before us.

Unfortunately it usually takes a few years before the regulations work their way through the system and come to our attention. On the odd occasion when a member of the House or some outside person notices some sort of problem in a regulation, they can bring that to our attention and we can take a look at it to see whether that regulation is ultra vires or whether it is appropriate. I admit that most of the problems we deal with are minor in nature. They tend to be related to translation where there could be a different word in French than in English. They may be minor misprints of one type or another. Sometimes they are technical in nature or legal in nature and the concerned departments will readily agree to alter them.

From time to time we strike things that are major in nature. The committee presently has the power to make a report to the House requesting disallowance of a regulation. We are very close to that situation now in connection with regulations for the participation of the police in political activities. For some years the committee has been very concerned about the police regulations which in effect make it illegal for a policeman to even stand at a shopping centre and gather names on a petition to not have a roadway go through his area.

That is how serious those regulations are. They so restrict political participation by police officers even on their own time that probably many of the activities of policemen during elections municipally, provincially or federally are illegal and they do not even realize it. For example, to wear the button of a political party when off duty or to have a sign on their lawn is illegal.

There is a major court case going on now in Quebec where these regulations are being challenged. Even with this, the committee has already recognized that this is inappropriate. We have been pressuring the solicitor general to get the law changed.

The process is happening right now. We are having a meeting tomorrow. We believe there will be new regulations drafted that meet the requirements for appropriateness. This is a very powerful function that the committee performs.

We have looked at the regulations in a totally non-partisan way. We have dealt with them. We have spoken with the solicitor general, with the drafters and we are getting those regulations replaced.

In the absence of any committee scrutiny or process whereby that can occur, all we end up with are ongoing legal battles. Eventually they reach some conclusion but it is a lot better for the political process to fix these problems promptly.

This is one of the reasons Reform is very supportive of this motion. The motion is not ideal in that the committees that these regulations will go before will probably be pretty much yes men and women for the government.

[An hon. member]

Yes persons.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes persons, as one of the Liberals said. Isn't that just the ultimate in political correctness.

These yes persons, or the Chrétien lookalikes as I mentioned earlier, will each bleat their approval of any of the regulations without really considering seriously whether they are appropriate or legal.

At least by putting them through the process, eventually they will reach the joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations and could even be brought to our attention earlier.

If the regulations go before the justice committee, then at least members of the opposition or a member of the public, a witness who sees those regulations coming forward and has concerns about them, can bring them to the attention of the joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. We can give our input.

One of the things absolutely essential with regulations is to get a regulatory impact statement. Then there is an obligation on the department producing the regulations to also produce a regulatory impact statement explaining what impact is expected for the regulation to have on the public or on those affected by the regulation and it also gives the cost and whether alternatives have been pursued.

There could be other ways of achieving the same result. Those regulatory impact statements are an important part of the process.

I endorse the motion put forward by the Bloc. I doubt very much that the government will find in its heart to support this very good suggestion at the time of the vote but we certainly will.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in order to facilitate debate, I would like to read the motion, with its five points, two of which are of greater concern to us.

The motion reads in part as follows:

12.(2) The Solicitor General of Canada shall have each proposed regulation laid before each House of Parliament.

(3) Each proposed regulation that is laid before a House of Parliament shall, on the day it is laid, be referred by that House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct enquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.

I will stop there. For a political party such as the Bloc Quebecois which, for four or five years now, has constantly complained about duplication and overlap, I find this amendment somewhat strange.

The member for North Vancouver himself mentioned that the House already has well established procedures requiring all departments to publish proposed regulations ahead of time.

Any interested party may comment on a proposed regulation before it takes effect.

It is well established. As the member for North Vancouver alluded to in a non-partisan way and to quote his words, there is a process already in place which provides for the prepublication and consultation of any regulations implemented.

As a result, the government considers this amendment unnecessary. I ask all hon. members to vote against the amendment since it is not needed.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. This might come as some dismay to the hon. member opposite, but I do not share that opinion. This is an important part of the process to have embodied in this piece of legislation.

It attempts in a substantive way to keep elected officials in the legislative loop, to keep them as a part of the process and to ensure that arbitrary changes do not occur. The hon. member for Charlesbourg does go about this in an interesting way. One could almost draw from this an inference that the Bloc or the hon. member are supportive now of the Senate's being actively involved in the review of this type of legislation.

The bill in its present form would not allow those members of parliament who are most affected on behalf of their constituents in the changing of the legislation to be directly involved. In the current reading of the bill the solicitor general could bring about a change arbitrarily. He could bring about a change without going through the normal process of review of looking at the legislation and bringing in what might somehow be interpreted as damaging to the entire bill.

I do support what the hon. member for Charlesbourg is trying to effect in this amendment. It is something that I think we all want to encourage. We want to encourage consultation and participation in the process. It recognizes as well the importance of both houses.

Draft regulations are fine. Putting a process in place is fine. But what we want to do here at all times is ensure there is proper review and consultation. Parliamentarians are certainly a necessity and must be consulted when we are reviewing something like this. Let us not forget that this is arguably one of the most important opportunities we in this House have to bring forward a piece of legislation to combat serious violent crime.

The sad reality is that the bill in its current form does not go far enough. It does not allow police officers to use this legislation to the full extent. It does not allow them to arm themselves with an investigative tool to permit them to combat violent crime. It does not allow them to investigate fully and make full use of the technology. We are not keeping up with the rate at which technology is changing.

It also is consistent with the need for transparency and the need for responsibility for those who are entrusted with this important task of changing legislation to have their say, to have the ability to go before committee, to talk to the amendments, to flesh out ideas and to call witnesses if necessary. Therefore they can follow the procedure that has been put in place.

I encourage all members to take a serious look at this legislation, including the member opposite. I encourage them to support this type of change. It would be consistent with the stance that his government has taken to encourage openness and transparency. This amendment does that.

We have to encourage these types of amendments at this point when we are debating them in the House, before they are law, before they are put in place hard and fast. We know when that does occur we will have to go back almost to the start.

It is then a very complicated process to invoke the change. Time is certainly of the essence with this particular bill. The clock is running. Sadly we know that each day in Canada violent crimes are happening. As we speak, violent crimes are being perpetrated across this country. As we speak, police officers are still unable to use DNA to the full extent that they could and which this bill offers them an opportunity to do.

I encourage all hon. members to partake in this process. Support this type of change which will allow members of the justice committee, members of the House on behalf of their constituents and all Canadians to have in place entrenched in this bill a process where they can surely have a voice in any changes that may come in the future with respect to DNA legislation.

We know that this is in many ways the beginning of what may be a very expansive use of DNA. This is something we have to keep in mind. The opportunity is before us. The opportunity is there for all members to partake in this, to seize the moment to put forward a piece of legislation that is going to empower police officers to make the most of this technology.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the amendment as proposed by the member for Charlesbourg.

Clause 12 as written in the bill permits the governor in council to make regulations as he sees fit, but we have seen how this government operates in this House on the recent hepatitis C issue. The Prime Minister decides. The backbenchers follow orders. A mistake, an injustice occurs and it takes an uprising to force the government to re-evaluate.

Motion No. 8 merely permits some form of parliamentary scrutiny over the power to make regulations or laws in this country. After all, have all members of parliament not been sent to this place to control and make the laws that are to affect their constituents back home?

If we leave clause 12 as it is presented in the bill, we are abrogating our responsibility to oversee, debate and influence. We will be leaving it all to be decided by the governor in council.

I fully appreciate how the members opposite leave everything to the Prime Minister and the powers within the party, but hopefully this will not always be the case. Hopefully, at some time and some time soon, all members of parliament will have the power and will be able to exercise that power to scrutinize and control the legislation and operations of this place.

The legislation must be set up so that when that day occurs, the members of this place will have the authority to review regulations or laws with respect to DNA identification. That is what democracy is all about.

Why would we ever want to leave the control of this place in the hands of a select few? Do we all not receive the same mandate to represent our constituencies, to ensure our laws are fair and just to all of us?

As has been previously stated, Bill C-68 which introduced the firearms act has an identical scheme of review as proposed by Motion No. 8. Surely we should be consistent by providing a similar scheme here as well. I urge all members to support this amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before resuming debate, 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 Waterloo—Wellington, Children; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Health; the hon. member for Mercier, Employment insurance fund.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill C-3 proposed by the hon. member for Charlesbourg. I stand in the House today on behalf of the New Democratic Party indicating our support for the amendment put forward.

For those who will read Hansard or who may be listening to the debate today and who sometimes think of this House as one where there is no serious debate and no cohesion and no understanding of the principles of legislation, it is interesting to note that on both this amendment and the prior amendment, members of the New Democratic Party are supporting a motion put forward by the Bloc, supported by members of the Reform Party and by members of the Progressive Conservative Party.

In a most serious bill such as this Bill C-3, it is important that we be open to changes to the legislation that will make it better. The motion put forward by my justice committee colleague, the Bloc Quebecois member, indicates that any regulations that make significant changes to this bill be brought before the House for debate and for review and be referred, and I think this is particularly important, to the appropriate standing committee for review.

The public should know that at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and other standing committees of this House we examine pieces of legislation. We call witnesses before the committee to understand the impact and the implications of changes.

The scope of this legislation is so far reaching. The methodology of obtaining DNA samples and the whole area of DNA are so new that there are provisions within the legislation itself to bring it back before the House for review. That is something which is telling because this is complex legislation. I think all members of this House are dealing with it in an intense way and in the best way they can, however there are provisions to bring this legislation back to the House for review to make sure that we can correct any defects.

The motion proposes to bring back before this House important regulations so we can continue to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation as we move forward.

I stand in support of it and indicate to the House that the NDP will be supporting it.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, prior to resuming debate, I would like to call for quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see a quorum.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate people coming in to listen to these important speeches.

My colleague from the Conservative Party and my colleague from the NDP made some excellent points as to why we should support Motion No. 8. My fellow colleagues from the Reform Party did likewise. It is important that members hear the arguments as to why we should and should not do something in the House. It would be different if they paid close attention and started listening to what these individuals finish saying and why we should support these things. We would be a lot better off in this place.

I am here likewise to support Group No. 4, Motion No. 8. The motion amends clause 12 of Bill C-3 regarding regulations. Clause 12 now reads that the “governor in council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act”. There is no statutory requirement for the regulations to be laid before parliament or the appropriate committee for review. This amendment will ensure that members of parliament are provided the opportunity to review the regulations made by the governor in council.

Bill C-68, the firearms legislation, has an identical section as the one proposed in this particular amendment. Although we support this amendment, given the need for the regulations to be scrutinized by the appropriate committee, we know from experience with Bill C-68 last November and in February 1997 that the committee just goes through the motions. All Reform amendments to these regulations were defeated by the Liberal members of the committee.

It amazes me that they feel that these regulations do not have to be scrutinized by parliament. I want to repeat that. I am amazed that there are people here who represent Canadians and who feel that regulations of this nature do not have to be scrutinized by parliament. What are members of parliament sent here for if it is not for something like that and particularly that, to scrutinize the regulations in the bills that are presented before the House.

The government has become such a dictatorship that it feels it can usurp parliament and its function. How can a law be enacted that will not be monitored? It is an absolute shame that time and time again all we do is go through the motions.

A majority of members in the House of Commons, mainly on the government side, go through the motions. They just do not pay attention and do not care. Whatever the lead sheep tells them to do they will jump up, bow down and do as they are told. That is not the way it ought to be but unfortunately it is. Maybe it is party politics or dedication to a leader: whatever I say you shall do. When will they rise to their feet when they have the opportunity to represent the voice of Canadians?

The DNA bill is one of the greatest things that could be available to our police departments to provide the kind of protection society needs, deserves and wants. However they will not support an amendment that states we should scrutinize these regulations and monitor them as elected people. According to that side of the House we do not have to do that. We simply take the orders in council and whatever they say we shall do. That should come to an end.

Members on that side of the House who cannot support a motion that states the people of the country would be far better represented by doing those kinds of things needs to take a good long look at themselves and ask why they are here. Is it for themselves? Is it for the party they represent or is it for the Canadian people? If it is not the Canadian people they should resign and go home.

I ask them to support Motion No. 8.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the amendment before us. It may be the most important one.

The legislation needs to come to the House to be scrutinized by the people who were elected to represent the people of Canada. We have already seen this done in Bill C-68, the gun registration bill, and it needs to be done here. We were elected to come here to represent the people of Canada. We are not here to take what the House wants back to them. That has been the problem with governments since time began.

We want to review the legislation. As representatives of the people of Canada we want to have a look at it. That is what this opportunity is for.

We support the Bloc amendment for its openness and transparency. That is what we need more of in the country and the amendment will start the process of going down that road.

The DNA act, Bill C-3, is very important to the people of Canada, the population in general. We are here to represent those people. We should be the ones who review the legislation, not a governor in council order.

I wonder why we have to stand to debate this type of legislation. Why is it that members elected by the people of Canada to represent them do not get a chance to look at it and that it comes through the governor in council?

When the DNA bill is in place it will be a tool that will change the way crime fighting is done in the country. It will help to put some sense back into our system. It will not allow criminals to hide behind any legality. Once the profile is in place it can be used whenever a crime is committed.

Allowing us to debate the bill in the House and in committee and to bring it to our constituents to get their feelings on it is the only way we should proceed.

I congratulate the Bloc for bringing the amendment forward. It is a strange day when all opposition parties support the same amendment, but this is one of those days.

The importance of public scrutiny or scrutiny by the House cannot be overemphasized. We cannot have bills or rules coming forth to govern bills that have not had the blessing of the people of Canada. That is what we are here to do and that is why we are supporting the motion.

It is not precedent setting. It has already been done with Bill C-68, which helps to move us along that way. I wanted to add my voice to the support of Group No. 4. Hopefully members opposite can find it in their hearts to do so as well.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.