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.
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Yordan Sokolov, President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria.
Julian Reed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am honoured to table, in both official languages, achievements of the international business development program for 1997 and 1998.
Rey D. Pagtakhan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of submitting a very large petition, in fact one of the largest to come to the House.
The petitioners request parliament to prescribe the mandatory minimum jail term of seven days for persons found guilty of a first offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm or death by amending section 255(1)(a) of the Criminal Code to read as follows.
Everyone who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely for a first offence, to imprisonment—”
PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. House leader but I think he knows the rules of the House precluding him from reading petitions. I invite him to comply with the rule and summarize the petition for hon. members.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thought you would allow another 10 seconds on the issue given that it is the largest petition in the House.
For a second offence, to imprisonment of not less than 14 days and finally for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than 90 days.
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with a great number of names to present this afternoon. It is regarding the way government may regulate herbs and teas in the future.
The petitioners are basically asking that their freedom of choice not be ended in terms of how they use those products. The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and ask for their freedom back and not to have herbs and teas defined as vitamins or as drugs.
Rey D. Pagtakhan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 33 will be answered today. .[Text]
John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC
With regard to the refusal of sport fishing lodges, in particular the lodges owned by Oak Bay Marine Group, to provide catch data during the summer of 1995 as required by section 61 of the Fisheries Act and meetings or conversations between Ministers and the lodge operators or the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia: ( a ) did any Minister of the Crown meet or have conversations with either the lodge operators or the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia in the summer of 1995, in 1996 and in 1997, and if so, who attended these meetings or participated in these conversations; ( b ) did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Justice or other agency prepare briefing material or otherwise brief any Minister of the Crown or their staff for any of these meetings or conversations; ( c ) when were Ministers of the Crown or their offices first informed that lodges, including those of the Oak Bay Marine Group, were refusing to provide catch data; ( d ) did any Ministers or their staff participate in the Department of Fisheries Pacific Salmon Management Teleconference calls in 1995 which considered the refusal of the lodges, including the Oak Bay Marine Group lodges to supply catch data; ( e ) were Ministers of the Crown briefed on June 11, 1997 or thereafter on the refusal of sport fishing lodges to povide catch data to the Department of Fisheries in 1995 and the legal actions on-against them; ( f ) did any Minister or their staff meet with officials of Oak Bay Marine Group in 1995, 1996 and 1997 (other than in the occasions referenced above) and on any of those occasions did the company make clear their displeasure at being required to provide catch data to the Department of Fisheries, and ( g ) did any Minister of the Crown go fishing with a representative of Oak Bay Marine Group in August of 1997, what was the date of the fishing trip and who was in the party in addition to the Minister?
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
I am informed as follows.
(a) It is routine for the minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, and staff to meet and speak with various members of the fishing community, including lodge operators and the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia, to discuss stakeholder issues. Former minister, the honourable Brian Tobin, met with sport fish lodge owners on July 12, 1995, to discuss chinook conservation measures and their impacts on lodge operations. Departmental staff are unaware of any other meeting, or conversation which took place during this timeframe relating to the context of the question.
(b) With regard to the July 12, 1995 meeting reported in (a) above, any briefing which took place was verbal information provided by senior departmental officials.
(c) Further to the honourable Brian Tobin's meeting on July 12, 1995, with sport fish lodge owners, the honourable Brian Tobin was informed about the subsequent refusal of lodges to provide catch data on August 17, 1995. Former DFO minister, the honourable Fred Mifflin, received briefing material on June 10, 1996. Departmental records indicated that the honourable David Anderson, at the time minister of revenue and member of parliament for Victoria, was briefed in late July, 1995 regarding the refusal of lodges in the Queen Charlotte Islands, B.C., including Oak Bay Marine Group, to provinde catch data to DFO.
(d) Departmental officials advise that a staff member of former DFO minister the honourable Brian Tobin's office attended one DFO Pacific salmon management teleconference call on May 26, 1995, which discussed proposed chinook salmon conservation measures. Discussions included expected opposition to the measures by Queen Charlotte Island lodge operators including Oak Bay Marine Group. The department is unaware of any DFO minister or his staff members participating in further teleconferences.
(e) Departmental staff provided a response to an anticipated oral question for the House of Commons relating to the referenced subject matter to the honourable David Anderson on September 24, 1997.
(f) Departmental staff and current ministerial staff are unaware of any meeting during the stated timeframe between Ministers or their staff where Oak Bay Marine Group officials made clear their displeasure at being required to provide catch data to DFO.
(g) Yes, the honourable David Anderson did go fishing for 4 hours on August 12, 1997 on a private vessel owned by Martin Dowling of Campbell River, B.C. The members of the party in addition to the minister and Mr. Dowling were Greg McDougall, Gerry Kristianson and Randy Wright, who is the vice-president, operations, of the Oak Bay Marine Group.
All other ministers have no information on this subject.
Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, once again I rise with respect to a question that was placed on the order paper on October 3, 1997.
Seven months have passed. We are into the eighth month. It is a very straightforward question. We have been told time and time again that they will be getting back to us, that they will provide us with the answer. It just does not seem to be happening. I ask the parliamentary secretary again when we can expect an answer to this question.
Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the commentary. That message will be conveyed to the parliamentary secretary to the House leader.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Shall the remaining questions stand?
The House resumed 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
The Deputy Speaker
When the bill was last under consideration by the House the hon. member for Medicine Hat had the floor. He has eight minutes remaining in his speech.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to address the motion in Group No. 3. My friends across the way were hoping I was finished but sadly for them and for me too, I guess, we are not finished yet.
I will touch on two issues and just remind members why we are supporting the motion by the NDP member. The reasons are twofold. We are concerned about the privacy aspect. As I pointed out before question period, there are concerns among the public in an age when technology has become so prevalent that if the government through the DNA databank were to receive a piece of information, a DNA sample, somehow it will become public and could be used in other ways the public would be very concerned about.
That is a very legitimate concern. Many Canadians are concerned that the government already has too much information about them. If we are to ensure that this very useful tool is given to police for use in stopping legitimate criminals, we must ensure the public's concerns are allayed. The best way to do that in this case, other than using due diligence when this DNA databank is set up, is to put in place very stiff penalties so that if people misuse the information they will face very severe consequences.
That is why we are very pleased to support the Group No. 3 motion that would place a maximum five year penalty on anybody who misuses the data. We are supportive of it. I believe the original legislation has a two year penalty.
When I read through the bill from cover to cover, as I often do before I turn in for the evening, that aspect concerned me. I was happy to see this amendment come forward. Reformers will stand in support of the motion.
We believe the DNA databank is a good idea. We want it. We think it is important for the police to have it, but we need to ensure legitimate concerns are dealt with. We think this is one way we could deal with this concern and therefore will support this motion.
Paul Forseth Reform New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have been given just a few moments to comment upon what is happening in the House today. We have a bill on the topic of using DNA samples as a tool to suppress crime, a bill in fact that the Liberals never really wanted. They were brought to the issue by the sweep of international events as other countries were responding to changing enforcement technology.
The Canadian people are far ahead of the government on the will to respond to crime. They want more than the narrow limits of the bill on DNA. The theme I am talking about here is how philosophically weak is the Liberal government. It specifically shows in the comments to the groupings of the amendments before us.
I heard a comment the other day that seemed to fit my point. After some political talk around a table over drinks with some obvious frustration, one interrupted the other and asked “Just what do the Liberals really stand for anyway?” The answer I overheard was telling.
She said something to the effect that “When you get right down to it I suppose I have to admit that Liberals really stand for what will get us elected. When I think about it, it does not seem to matter too much about the long term view of what I think is good for the country. My party keeps changing and I really do not think we stand for anything exclusively. We have the red book now but things always change”.
I know that understanding or admission is a touchy sore point with the Prime Minister. I have heard him on several occasions in the House try to cover the inherent weak nature of his party and deliver his personal prescription of what it means to be a Liberal in the usual puff phrases referring to democracy, compassion, pragmatism and so on. I have heard this from every political stripe, from the diehard socialist to the deluded fascist, every group imaginable.
We say much about democracy and equality in our party also, but we write them down in a blue book after exhaustive voting, grassroots debate and discussion. Then we publish it for the country and we are on the record as accountable for those positions.
Reformers have been doing that for years before the Liberals ever conceived of the idea of a red book. It is because Reformers had a blue book and were killing the Liberals in the polls in the west that they quickly hothoused the production of the 1993 Liberal red book. The country knows that one now very much as the list of broken promises or the red ink book.
In other words, the Prime Minister knows in his heart how weak and without courage Liberals are. His pronouncements in the House about it betray him. The private admission of the lady to whom I referred who said she was a Liberal is not news. Everyone has heard those comments. The sad part of it for our country is that the lady, in spite of her admission, did not seem to feel motivated to do something.
To her it seemed okay that despite how much her party hurt the country or despite how short term expediency left Canada missing opportunities for greatness and raising the human spirit, she seemed content to sit with the insiders Liberal club; no risk, no hint of courage, no concern about leadership, just complacency.
In spite of what the Prime Minister has done on the hepatitis C file, Liberals who know better just shed their tears in private. They unfortunately stay in their Liberal seats instead of joining the people's agenda on our side.
Liberal manoeuvres on the DNA bill are typical of so much of their administration of the people's business. They are weak and this weakness has produced the consequence now that will directly affect the basic safety of our citizens. Liberal weakness to defend the streets of Canada against evil and the perpetrators of crime is a reflection of their inadequate policy. Our country faces challenges and to be a Liberal today is obviously just not good enough to meet those challenges.
The basic economic policies of the government have been timid. Liberals have put the country through needless pain by drawing out the ordering of our national finances in halting steps, while sending shaky mixed messages to the investor community about where we are going. The Liberals are weak and are not up to the job of running the finances of the country.
On Saturday, May 9, a Vancouver Sun headline read “Only weak dollar helps us keep pace with Americans”.
The article shows how Canada has fallen behind the U.S. in productivity, foreign investment and the generation of jobs and income. The finance minister does get some good advice on how to stem the trend, but he is weak. He is afraid of the politics of envy of the NDP. The socialist tendencies in his party hold Canada back. That results in keeping unemployment unnecessarily high.
I will make another point. The minister of trade is so weak that he cannot explain or sell an MAI type of agreement that would protect Canada's economic interests as we try expanding our economy abroad. He is so inadequate that he lets Maude Barlow and others lie baldface to the nation and deceive communities right across this country with their socialist, small minded inferiority complex.
The Liberal trade minister was not up to building a national political mandate within our country or lead internationally to overcome the problems of the MAI, even when Canada has a former cabinet minister in charge of the OECD. No wonder. The record is there. He is just a weak Liberal who is out of his league when he takes Canada to the international table.
I make those observations leading up to the greatest admission of weakness by Liberals that I have seen for some time. It was the press release of May 1 by the solicitor general and the justice minister. I quote in part:
May 1, 1998, Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of Justice and Attorney General Canada released today the conclusions of three eminent jurists asked to review the constitutionality of taking DNA samples without prior judicial authorization at the time a person is charged with a designated offence, such as sexual assault.
Since 1995, DNA samples can be taken for investigative purposes under the authority of a judicial warrant and the federal government now has legislation before parliament, Bill C-3, that would create a DNA databank based on DNA samples collected after conviction.
Responding to a number of individuals and organizations that have continued to press for such amendment, the Department of Justice sought legal opinions from former Justice Martin Taylor of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and from former Chief Justices Charles Dubin of the Ontario Court of Appeal and Claude Bisson of the Quebec Court of Appeal. Each concluded independently that this proposal would not survive charter scrutiny.
If charter scrutiny is the problem, then maybe the charter is wrong or out of date. If we have judges who will not approve a more expansive bill, then maybe we have the wrong kind of judges. After all, the public has had no input into their selection.
It comes down to courage and confidence of the government, courage and skill to act for the people. Make the supreme court reflective of Canadian society. Change the charter if we have to, the people are behind it. Pass legislation in this House that meets the challenges of the job. If the judges are not up to speed and strike it down, then use the notwithstanding clause. Under this Liberal administration parliament no longer seems supreme.
We are attempting to amend this bill through these various report stage motions. It is good as far as it goes, but I call on the government to show some resolve and strength of leadership. The DNA bill should be parallel to taking fingerprints. Liberals hiding and running because of legal technicalities is not a government of the 21st century. Opinions will continue to vary. We do not need this weak government. We need a government to positively decide and lead with courage.
Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, you will note that because I am going to the Senators game tonight we will have a victory over there. That is why the juggling of the order, to allow me the time to get ready so that I can help them out.
DNA evidence has been used in the courts since 1988. The question is why has it taken a full decade for the government to come up with comprehensive legislation for the collecting of DNA samples to allow peace officers and the justice system to do their jobs. The tools are widely available for the collection of DNA samples. The track record for proving convictions and for proving innocence such as the recent high profile exonerations demonstrates the validity and viability of DNA testing.
Why is the government so far behind in this technology? Why is the government going through such great lengths to limit these tools and methods of DNA collection? Should the government instead be concentrating on regulating and safeguarding the methods available? The government is concerned with the protection of the rights of the criminals. That is why the bill allows only for the collection of DNA samples after a conviction for a crime that has been committed. Too bad the government does not use the same rationale in protecting the rights of law-abiding Canadians. The government has no problem setting up a central gun registry forcing people who have not committed a crime to give private information to the government and to keep a central databank.
Why is the government willing to punish law-abiding Canadians by establishing a flawed gun registry while at the same time hindering justice by not collecting DNA when a person is charged with a crime?
The Canadian Police Association represents the frontline of our justice system. Police officers are concerned that if they have to wait until a conviction in order to collect DNA samples, they will not be able to introduce DNA evidence during trial proceedings. This would be like not using fingerprints as evidence until after the person has been convicted.
Will the government tell us what it is afraid of? Will it accept the Canadian Police Association's recommendation that DNA samples be collected when a person who has previously committed a crime is being charged with the present crime? The police are concerned that if they have to wait for the conviction before collecting a DNA sample the accused would rather skip bail or not fulfil parole conditions rather than voluntarily submitting to DNA samples being taken from him or her.
Why volunteer to give evidence which may very well convict him or her of an unsolved crime? How can the government continue to argue against the rationale that is being given by the police who know and have to work with the criminal element? Why is the government willing to listen to people protecting the rights of criminals rather than the Canadian Police Association which promotes the interest of our police men and women?
The public is already concerned with the lack of teeth in Canada's justice system. The Young Offenders Act is under public scrutiny because it sees young offenders repeating crimes. The public is concerned about criminals released on early parole because once released many are again committing crimes. If these repeat offenders knew that their DNA samples were in a central registry, would they not be less likely to commit a crime? Does it not make sense to put into place preventive measures such as an extensive DNA sample bank for future victims?
The Canadian Police Association's main philosophical objection with Bill C-3 is this. It is a fundamental disagreement over the sovereign legislative authority of parliament in originating criminal law as opposed to a judicially supreme system favoured by the department and some justices. Having responsible government taken away from a free people is a terrible thing but giving it away is surely worse.
The government was concerned about what the courts would think of this bill when it was drafting it. Rather, should the courts not be concerned about what parliament is thinking? It is parliament that makes the laws, not the courts. The job of the courts is to enforce the laws that parliament makes. If this business of second guessing each other continues, it is the legislative function of parliament that will be hindered. It is known now that parliament is being hindered by the courts.
We all have a desire to protect our families and society. This bill would provide for matching DNA samples taken from a crime scene with those samples in the DNA bank. Does it not make sense that the larger the data source of the DNA bank, the likelier a match will be found? Why not seek measures to increase the data in the DNA bank rather than limiting the tools needed by law enforcement officers?
I have two more points. One of my colleagues said that this bill is a half step. It is obvious that this bill is going to have to be amended a number of times over the next few years. In the meantime because of samples that are not taken as a result of this proposed legislation, crimes will go unsolved. There is no question about that.
Why not get the bill right the first time? Why not accept the valuable suggestions from the Canadian Police Association and the opposition so that we have a bill that works from the start rather than having to amend it in the future?
All of us are concerned about due process. All of us are concerned about privacy. None of us want to see a system of DNA registration that would hinder our individual rights. The safeguard that has been proposed is that anyone who has already been convicted of a crime when charged with another would have to provide DNA samples. This way the general law-abiding public would not be subject to undue process in the courts.
Does the government think that people who have committed crimes against society have the same privileges as those who have kept the law? It is obvious attention is not given to the independence of this House. It is not given to the innocence of the victims but rather we are determined to continue to give rights to those who have already committed a crime.
As Churchill said, give our police the tools so they can finish the job. Do not hinder them in their pursuit of doing their job of bringing criminals to trial.
Canada Labour CodeGovernment Orders
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario
Liberal
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report and third reading stages of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a Minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.
The House resumed 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.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak regarding Group No. 3 in this DNA bill, particularly to speak in support of Motion No. 7 which amends clause 11 of the bill. It proposes that the penalty be increased from two to five years for anyone who violates, misuses or communicates any part of a person's DNA sample.
This motion would clearly be a deterrent to those who would be inclined to use this information for criminal purposes.
I can understand why this motion is necessary since there is considerable nervousness surrounding the privacy of individuals. The privacy commissioner has stated on a number of occasions that he has serious reservations with the storing of DNA samples themselves rather than just the analysis.
He felt this legislation seeks to use DNA to link specific offenders with specific crimes. Keeping the DNA sample itself would inevitably invite further uses of the DNA that have little to do with identifying offenders such as allowing researchers to use the material to study genetic links to criminal behaviour. That is the idea being proposed now in Correctional Service Canada.
I have been told by the commissioner's office that we are looking for alternative therapies to criminal behaviour. The problem with the privacy commissioner's theory that the analysis of the DNA is sufficient without the need to preserve the actual sample is that he did not take into account that in order for the databank to keep pace with technological advances the samples are needed. If not we would have recollect samples should the original analysis be obsolete.
The expenses associated with the repetition of these tasks would be astronomical. I hope that that would be taken into account.
The motion of my hon. colleague from the NDP should put the privacy commissioner's fears to rest knowing that a strong penalty was in place for the misuse of samples. There is only one word in this whole business that I have mentioned that frightens me a bit in the sense that it is a word which would cause most Liberals if not all of them to reject this kind of amendment to a bill.
The word is deterrent. Anytime we talk about creating penalties for breaking the law, penalties for doing wrong and that we need to impose penalties that would be a deterrent to individuals doing these things, the Liberal government seems to reject it. Deterrent is not part of the Liberal government's language.
Liberals have these flowery ideas, soft cushy mushy ideas that criminals have to be coddled in all fashions imaginable in order to change in their lives and make things better. I hope the Liberals will look at this part and say that yes we do need to deter people from misusing DNA samples that are collected. Anybody who would misuse or abuse that position should suffer the consequences. It would cause others to think twice before they did the same thing.
I only wish we could put people into power. Maybe someday we will, when we get rid of these pussycats in the government's front row who do not know the meaning of good law and order and strong discipline. The government is forever coddling criminals. It is to the point that in the penitentiaries the disposable income for a convict is $150 per month whereas the disposable income for a soldier in our army is about $40 a month. We do not look after law-abiding people nearly as well as we do the people behind bars.
Anytime any kind of bill is introduced that would be strong enough to deter people from other activities along those lines would be wonderful. It would bring about some changes this government would not want to see, not the way the government coddles up to the convicts making sure their rights are looked after while the victims rights in our land continually go downhill, depleted day in and day out. The victims are just poor victims but the criminals, man oh man, the things that are done for them.
We really have to be careful when we take these DNA samples according to the government. Criminals immediately get psychological attention. They can get massages, legal aid, all these things come to their rescue. I have talked to family after family after family of victims. If they need a psychologist to deal with someone who has lost a loved one, they have to pay for the service themselves, if they can afford it and most cannot, but we make sure the criminal gets that. If a criminal needs psychiatric help and has to be placed under observation for 30 days, we make sure the taxpayers pay for it while the victims, if they want any service at all, will have to pay for it themselves, if they can afford it and of course most of them cannot.
It is high time we focused on the victims in our country. The victims are the people that are being terribly offended in this nation by a government that does not seem to care at all about them. The government shows about as much care for victims of criminal activities as it has shown for the people who were affected by hepatitis C before 1986. This caring loving government.
The government is completely off track. These amendments would help bring it back on track. The police association and all those who work on the front line, the ones who want to make the arrests who want to clean up the problems we are having with criminals in our land are saying to the government “Let us take the sample at the time of arrest, let us take it at the time of charge”. But no. We are not going to allow that to happen until after.
Those are the police all over the country and anyone who works with crime and law and order. Walk into a police department in Calgary, Toronto or anywhere. Ask the police when it should be done and they will say that it certainly should not be done after conviction because it does not make sense.
However, we have to be careful when we do anything in this country because we will offend the charter of rights of the criminals. This is the charter that the mighty government under the Trudeau leadership brought in, to our great nation's dismay. It has been a roadblock to good justice in this land for far too long. I for one am really getting tired of watching progress being moved in a direction only to have the Supreme Court of Canada rule that under the charter of rights and freedoms we cannot go any further in that direction because it would offend or hurt the poor criminal.
I hope Canadians wake up to what is really going on in this land and that this government gets what it deserves in the next election, booted out of here so we can put something in that will do something with law and order.