Debates of May 4th, 1998

Dna Identification Act

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Jack has his own ideas and he will talk to those ideas. I am talking about the amendments.

[An hon. member]

But he objects to the amendments.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Not all of them. He does not object to all of them. He only objects to the ones that do not make sense.

That is the problem with these Liberal governments. They do not know what common sense is. And when they see it, they distort it. They distort it enough until they think they have got something that is publicly acceptable. People are brainwashed and led to believe that it is good for them. It does not work that way in real life. Real life common sense tells us we have to do what protects the ordinary law-abiding citizen who wants to give his best to the country.

There are people in my constituency who would gladly volunteer DNA because they have somebody in their family background who someday might get mixed up with something that would not be so nice to deal with. There are a number of cases. They would be glad to give a DNA sample to the bank so that they would be protected from things that happened with members of their families.

[An hon. member]

The bill allows that.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

It does not allow that. One has to be convicted before it is allowed. That is what I read in the bill. You have to be a one time criminal before you can be asked to submit a sample.

We are debating whether or not it is common sense. To me it only makes common sense if we can prevent an offence. I cannot see any harm. When the RCMP suspects somebody or when law enforcement believes it should have the right, they should be able to take that DNA sample and put it in the bank. The way I read it, this bill does not allow that.

We will see during the debate today that the Liberals will try to brainwash us. They will try to put us into a nice comfortable mood and say that this is a bill everybody should support. We support some of it. When the justice critic objects to certain clauses, I support him because he is dead right.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to express our opposition to Bill C-3, an act representing DNA identification which would make amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts. This bill was previously introduced as Bill C-94 in April 1997. There still appears to be minor differences between this bill and Bill C-94.

My colleagues in the official opposition believe that people are concerned about victims of crime. My constituents and a host of others inside and outside the law enforcement community are very disappointed with what the Liberals have done with this bill.

The Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with a true sense of security. This includes strengthening our law enforcement agencies by providing them with the latest effective technological tools to quickly detect and apprehend the perpetrators of the most violent crimes in society.

DNA identification is that kind of tool. If used to its full potential the DNA databank could be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprints. The technology available through DNA identification would make our society safer. It would protect our homes, our families and our lives from criminal activity and in particular violent crime.

It is my understanding that DNA capabilities will greatly enhance the work of our law enforcement community. This technology over the next few years and decades will virtually change our world in terms of crime solving, crime detection and the positive identification of criminals.

Bill C-3 if passed unamended will provide Canadians with a false sense of security. Therefore the Reform Party cannot support this inadequate and incomplete piece of legislation. The Reform Party fully supports the creation of the DNA databank. We do not however support the limited scope of Bill C-3.

Why do I oppose this bill? I oppose it because Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces full use of DNA technology and because Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of DNA samples at the time of the charge, whereas fingerprints are taken at the time of arrest. Another reason I oppose Bill C-3 is that it does not allow samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers.

As it stands now, Bill C-3 is a hindrance to more effective law enforcement and a safer society. This is a needlessly restrictive measure in Bill C-3. The official opposition does not want to join the Liberals in their attempt to fool Canadians about what this bill does, and most importantly what it does not do.

It does not go far enough and we must not fool ourselves. That is wrong and that is why on behalf of the people of Surrey Central I will be voting against this bill. It is an inadequate piece of legislation.

The Liberals are choosing to slow down the process of the advent of DNA identification into our crime fighting efforts. The Liberals are crippling the ability of our law enforcement agencies to use this technology.

The government has so far refused to allow the amendments to this bill that have been put forward by the official opposition. These amendments would put teeth into Bill C-3 but it is as if the Liberals do not want that. They are afraid to unleash this powerful crime fighting tool because the Liberals are more concerned about the criminals and the rights of the accused than they are concerned about the victims of crime and the rights of the victims.

Our law enforcement agencies should have been given the go ahead to use DNA identification tools when the technology was first invented. For example, it is like forcing people to use candles or kerosene lanterns instead of electric lightbulbs, or for that matter a minister's office asking her staff to use 286 computers rather than pentiums. This is how technology evolves. We should use the advanced technology for the purpose intended.

Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to express a willingness to place the lives and safety of innocent people in jeopardy. Whether by parolling violent offenders who go on to rape and murder again, or by freeing convicted violent offenders through conditional sentencing, or by tying our police officers' hands through Bill C-3, the safety of our society is a secondary issue for this Liberal government.

We are watching the Liberals withhold granting tools to our law enforcement agencies. The Liberals are not getting tough on crime, violent crime in particular. The Liberals are not willing to do the work necessary to give our police agencies better tools to solve crimes and to prevent crime.

Why do the Liberals deny Canadians amendments to the Young Offenders Act? The justice minister continually answers the question by saying she will do it in a timely fashion. What is meant by a timely fashion when it is not timely?

The Liberals say they are concerned about the constitutional and privacy rights of the criminals and that is why they are trying to pass such a watered down DNA identification bill. Yet the Liberals refuse to wait for the report of a constitutional review that would dispense with the issue of DNA identification.

Bill C-3 in its present form denies our police the full use of DNA identification. This maintains an unnecessary level of risk to the lives and safety of our citizens.

Bill C-3 provides a dangerous and unnecessary exemption authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a sample if they believe that in doing so the impact on the individual's privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in the protection of society. It seems to me that if DNA identification were positive unequivocal proof, then the rights of an individual would best be served by that person providing a DNA sample.

DNA samples are conclusive if processed carefully and correctly. A DNA sample can disprove as well as prove the accused's involvement in a crime. The Liberals' argument in support of allowing the judges not to issue a warrant for the taking of a DNA sample fails.

Because of the government's irrational fear of violating the privacy rights of persons accused of heinous crimes, the Liberals are restricting the use of this very important technology by our law enforcement agencies. The Liberals should be ashamed.

Once again we are watching the Liberals use cold-hearted legal talk to deny giving us what we need. The Liberal government used cold legal arguments and numbers to deny help to all the victims of tainted blood. Now the Liberals are allowing certain crimes to go unsolved because they are afraid to violate the rights of the accused.

Clifford Olson would have been charged earlier had the DNA technology been available to the police. More of the murders he committed would have been solved earlier and perhaps some lives could have been saved.

Canadians are devastated when innocent victims fall prey to violence, whether the motivation is drugs, theft, greed or hate.

The government is failing our youth, our seniors, our communities and our society because it lacks the moral strength to deal with all types of violent crime and repeat offenders.

I could go on and on but my constituents and I are warning this government to get tough on crime, to do the work necessary to protect our society. That is why we are not supporting Bill C-3 as it is presented unless the amendments are accepted. The bill does not do the work necessary to give our police what they want in terms of using the DNA identification tool.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate and examining this bill on the DNA legislation, three questions come to mind. I would like to discuss those three questions this morning in relation to this bill.

The first question is: Why does the government persist in registering law-abiding citizens but not criminals?

The second question that I will deal with is: Why is the government refusing to allow the police to use a tool that could help them solve a lot of crimes, reduce court costs and the cost of law enforcement?

My third question is: Why are Liberals keeping innocent people in jail who could be freed if we put in place Bill C-3, this DNA databank legislation that is totally inadequate?

Let me deal with the first question. Why does the government persist in registering law-abiding citizens and not criminals? How is the government registering law-abiding citizens? Several years ago this government put in place a bill that received nationwide attention, Bill C-68; a bill that will force law-abiding gun owners to register with the government when they have never committed a crime.

The government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars going after law-abiding citizens in a huge bureaucratic scheme that its own department now says will accomplish the very opposite of what the legislation intended. Not only that, it will make criminals out of law-abiding citizens because it put the property regulation scheme into the Criminal Code of Canada and people who do not comply with it could end up in jail for one, two, five, possibly ten years for failing to comply with the government's desire to have them register.

On the other hand, we have a government that will not register criminals. People who have been charged with a crime will not, under this legislation, be required to give a little saliva, a hair or a slight skin sample to the police. They will be able to declare their rights not to let the police DNA fingerprint them.

At the present time the police can take a fingerprint from someone who has been charged with certain crimes. The Reform Party is not advocating that everybody comply with this DNA legislation, we are saying that in serious criminal offences this should be allowed.

Why does the government require law-abiding citizens who have not committed a crime or are not a threat to society—in fact the opposite could be argued—to be kept track of but not the criminal element? I do not know. I cannot understand why the government is not doing as the police request.

The police have come before the government. They have pleaded with the government that this is a very effective tool. It could reduce the costs of law enforcement greatly. It could increase the effectiveness of our criminal justice system. It could help to declare people who have not committed a crime innocent at a much earlier stage. No, the government is not interested in that kind of thing.

Is that not deplorable, Mr. Speaker? I can see that you are listening. You are as concerned as I am with the things the government requires law-abiding citizens to do but does not require criminals to do. Why does the government give the criminal more rights than the law-abiding citizen? I cannot understand that. It just blows me away.

In the gun registration scheme the legislation that is before the House will have the effect of increasing smuggling and of increasing black market trade in firearms. It is not just me who is saying that; justice department bureaucrats who have been put in place to put in that huge regulatory scheme are saying that. Why are we doing it? It is absolutely ridiculous.

On the other hand, the police are saying that if we were able to get a DNA fingerprint, which is very easily done because we have the technology, we could solve crimes a lot sooner. We could find people guilty or innocent a lot sooner which would help the police greatly in their efforts to control crime. I do not understand why this government is on the side of the criminal element.

The second question that I want to deal with is: Why is the government refusing to allow the police to use a tool that could help them solve a lot of crimes, reduce court costs and the cost of law enforcement? The argument the government has used is that there could be a lot of misuse of this information. If in fact a criminal gave a DNA fingerprint to the police, in some way or another, down the road, that information might be used in a way that would infringe on the criminal's rights.

The solution to that concern is very simple: punish the misuse of that information if it is used in a way that the government or the police do not find appropriate in solving a crime. Restrict the unethical and unlawful use of that information. That could be easily done and this government has refused to do that.

The answer to the concern that the information may be misused is very simple. We have that protection in many other areas already, so why not extend it to this? It does not make sense.

The government also argues that the courts may not approve of this legislation if we extend it to everyone who has been charged with certain crimes and if we require all of them to take a DNA fingerprint and give that fingerprint to the police. The government said it may infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of criminals.

Again the answer to that is so simple that I do not know why this government does not do it. Why not refer the matter to the courts? Ask the Supreme Court of Canada what measures would be necessary and what could be done in order to protect them. We could put that into this legislation to make sure that it complies with our charter of rights and freedoms. These answers are so simple, why do we not do it?

The third question I want to deal with is that many people have been wrongly convicted in the past 20 or 30 years. Some people have spent five, ten, fifteen, up to twenty years in prison because they were wrongfully convicted. This government allows that to continue by not adequately putting in place a DNA databank that would prevent this kind of thing from happening.

The present legislation, as it is structured, would still allow some of these people to be in prison for many years when they could be freed if we put this in place. Why does the government not put in place something that would help these innocent people be free?

In conclusion, I would appeal to the government to listen to the concerns of members of the opposition and of Canadians who want this to be put in place and, above all, to listen to the police who require this as a tool. I appeal to the government to listen and to not simply use the undemocratic means that it continues to use to ram legislation through. I ask that it consider some of the amendments that Reformers have put in place because they would strengthen the legislation and law enforcement in this country.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my community to add my comments concerning Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts.

To be clear, what are we talking about? In specificity, it concerns an enactment to provide for the establishment of a national DNA databank to be maintained by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to be used to assist law enforcement agencies in solving crimes.

The databank will consist of a crime scene index containing DNA profiles derived from bodily substances found in places associated with the commission of certain types of serious offences and a convicted offenders index containing DNA profiles obtained from persons convicted of or discharged from those types of offences.

The enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide for orders authorizing the collection of bodily substances from which DNA profiles can be derived for inclusion in the DNA databank. It also amends the Criminal Code to authorize the collection of bodily substances from offenders who meet clearly defined criteria and who are currently serving sentences.

The enactment contains specific provisions regulating the use of the bodily substances collected and the DNA profiles derived from them, and the use and communication of and access to information contained in the databank.

Specifically, we are at the report stage debate of this bill and the Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring the confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with a true sense of security. Today's debate is broken down into various sections concerning amendments about which I will speak later.

Canadians really do not have a lot of confidence in our justice system, and no wonder, for essentially it is a liberal justice system. Reformers want to strengthen our law enforcement agencies by providing them with the latest technological tools so they can quickly detect and apprehend the perpetrators of the most violent crimes in society.

DNA identification is that kind of tool. But it can also vindicate possible suspects, protect the innocent and save money for more appropriately focused resources for investigation efforts.

If used to its potential the DNA databank could be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprints. To deny the prosecution the full use of this technology in the fight against crime, as Bill C-3 does in its present form, is unacceptable because it maintains an unnecessary level of risk to the lives and safety of our citizens. Again, from my point of view, it is the usual Liberal half-step in the right direction and further evidence of a weak government.

Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification, if passed unamended will provide Canadians with a false sense of security. It is just not good enough to meet our higher standards.

Members of the Reform Party fully support the creation of DNA databanks. However, we do not support the timid and weak style of Bill C-3. It does not grant our police forces full use of the DNA technology which is readily at their disposal, a tool that would help close hundreds of unsolved violent crimes and a tool that would have the enormous potential of saving lives by removing predators from our streets.

Let me refer directly to the motions in this section of the report stage debate.

I notice at page V of the Order Paper and Notice Paper for Monday, May 4, 1998 that there are 14 report stage amendments. I will speak briefly to the ones in the section concerning our present debate.

Motion No. 1 is brought forward by the Bloc. I believe that the bill already contains adequate provisions covering these areas and that the amendment is not necessary to support them.

Motion No. 2 is brought forward by the NDP. I think it has merit. This amendment precludes private agencies and labs from taking samples and it creates public standards and better accuracy for testing quality. I support the motion.

Motion No. 3 is brought forward by the Bloc. It also has merit. It safeguards against the wrong persons accessing the DNA databank. I support this improvement.

Motion No. 5 is brought forward by the Bloc. I really do not think it is particularly helpful. It is really a make-work amendment and there is no reason for us to have a three year review. It really does not help the general goals of the bill.

Further, Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of a DNA sample at the time of formal charge. It does not permit samples to be taken from incarcerated individuals, other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers.

There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides where DNA evidence has been left at the scene by the perpetrator. DNA identification now offers an unparalleled opportunity to solve many of these cases and bring the perpetrators to justice. However, because of the government's fear of violating the privacy rights of those responsible for heinous crimes, it is restricting the use of this very important technology by law enforcement. It is a typical approach of a weak government.

Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to express a willingness to place the lives and the safety of Canadians in jeopardy. Whether by paroling violent offenders who go on to murder again, or by freeing convicted violent offenders through conditional sentencing, or by tying our police officers' hands through Bill C-3, it appears the safety of society is a secondary issue for the Liberal government.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and to providing Canadians with a true sense of security. This includes strengthening our law enforcement agencies by providing them with the latest technological tools to quickly detect and apprehend the perpetrators of the most violent crimes in society today.

DNA identification is that kind of tool. If it is used to its full potential, the DNA databank could be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprints. To deny our police the full use of this technology in their fight against crime, as Bill C-3 in its present form does, is reprehensible and unacceptable because it maintains an unnecessary level of risk to the lives and safety of our citizens.

Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification, if passed unamended would provide Canadians with a false sense of security. Therefore the Reform Party cannot support this inadequate piece of legislation. The Reform Party fully supports the creation of the DNA databank. We do not however support the limited scope of Bill C-3.

Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces full use of the DNA technology so readily at their disposal, a tool that would help close hundreds of unsolved murders and rapes with the enormous potential to save lives by removing the predators from our streets.

Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of a DNA sample at the time of charge. It does not permit samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers. Bill C-3 does however provide a dangerous and unnecessary exemption authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a sample if they believe in doing so the impact on the individual's privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest and the protection of society.

There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides where DNA evidence has been left at the scene by the perpetrator. DNA identification now offers an unparalleled opportunity to solve many of these cases and bring the perpetrators to justice. However, because of the government's irrational fear of violating the privacy rights of those responsible for heinous crimes, it is restricting the use of this very important technology by our law enforcement.

As it stands now Bill C-3 is a hindrance to more effective law enforcement and a safer society. Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to express a willingness to place the lives and safety of innocent people in jeopardy. Whether by paroling violent offenders who go on to rape and murder again, or by freeing convicted violent offenders through conditional sentencing, or by tying our police officers' hands through Bill C-3, the safety of society is a secondary issue to the Liberal government.

In the newspaper this morning the solicitor general was quoted as saying that we have a terrible problem in Canada with terrorists and people who are here causing real problems. He is to get a lot of police work going to try to solve this problem. He should talk to his colleague in immigration who is letting them come through the border because of poor laws that have been set up. We listened to a supreme court which allows in people who come to our border saying they are refugees. Then we find out later they are terrorists. The bill is the same type of thing as that.

We have a bill that will not do the job. Our party will oppose Motion No. 1. We think it is an unnecessary amendment.

We support Motion No. 2, which is an NDP motion. The amendment precludes private agencies and labs from taking samples. It creates public standards and better accuracy in testing quality. The government should look at this amendment.

We oppose Motion No. 3 which is supposed to safeguard against wrong people assessing the DNA databank. We oppose Motion No. 4 which indicates that the entire convicted offenders index will be destroyed. There may have been a problem with the English translation of this amendment. We oppose Motion No. 5 because we believe there is no need for a three year review.

The Conservative House leader raised the issue of legal opinions sought by the government on the bill. I wonder if we could find out where the government picked the justices from to get opinions. I know there are other opinions within the legal profession that certainly disagree with the three opinions obtained by the government with regard to the issue of blood alcohol sampling comparison.

I will read from page 6, section (b) of the report by the hon. Martin R. Taylor, QC, who says:

The scheme established by s. 254 of the Code governing the taking of samples from drivers for alcohol and drug analysis is directed to the acquisition and preservation of evidence of a particularly perishable kind from those who are actually engaged in the dangerous business of controlling vehicles.

There is no authority under this part of the Criminal Code for the compulsory taking of samples except in the case of persons physically or mentally unable to consent, for which judicial warrant is required under s. 256. But it must be recognized that a police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that the ability of a person to control a vehicle has been impaired by consumption of alcohol or a drug can coerce the person's consent to provide a breath or blood sample, because failure to comply with a proper request for such a sample in itself constitutes a criminal offence.

The s. 254 scheme contemplates the taking of samples of bodily substances without warrant under such coercion of law as may, for practical purposes, be equated with compulsion, and has, in my opinion, more in common with the proposed extension of authority under Bill C-3 to warrantless compulsory taking of bodily substances for DNA testing from accused persons than does the fingerprinting scheme authorized by the Identification of Criminals Act.

There is, however, an important distinction to be drawn from the context of the Charter. The constitutionality of the Criminal Code s. 254 scheme for drug and alcohol testing of breath and blood samples rests on the unique nature of problems associated with drinking and driving. There is obvious need to obtain blood samples promptly both for the purpose of preventing continuing breach of the law and to secure evidence which would otherwise be lost with effluxion of time. The courts, would not, in my opinion, equate compulsory taking of DNA samples without warrant, in the context of the Charter, with the taking of breath or blood samples under coercion of law from drivers suspected of impairment. I say this because personal DNA characteristics do not change with time, and the taking of DNA samples cannot be expected to result in the termination of offences in progress.

I do not believe that either of the comparisons mentioned would be regarded by the courts as persuasive in answering the present question.

Those were the comments of a former judge whose legal opinion was sought. He said that DNA could not be taken from a person who was charged. Yet we could take blood samples if the person were suspected of drinking.

Are we being told that if we take a blood sample from a person caught driving while drunk and can match the DNA with six rapes or six murders that have taken place we will not be able to charge the person because we obtained the evidence illegally?

I am not a lawyer, but it seems that is where we are with this. We have to make sure to protect ourselves. We have to make sure that people caught for crimes will serve for those crimes and that we do not have all the loopholes. The public is frustrated with today's laws, with the number of cases overthrown in the courts because of so-called abuse of people's rights. It seems the criminals are getting all the rights and the victims have no rights at all. Bill C-3, although it is a good start, does not include enough.

A gentleman spoke to our caucus a few weeks ago. He was the chief of police in a major city in Ontario. He pointed out very strongly that there had to be more in the DNA bill. We had to make sure that people who were in prison and were already convicted of crimes had their DNA put on the record. He assured us that if that were the case they would solve literally hundreds of murders, rapes and major crimes in the country.

Once crimes have been committed and the criminals are serving time in jail, they should have no right that says their DNA cannot be taken and put on the record, because their right not to have it there has been violated by them. Many people think we all should have DNA taken at birth so there are good records of everybody.

Surely the government can make sure the criminals in the land have their DNA on record so if they commit other crimes they will be caught. Certainly it has some feeling for solving all those crimes across the nation that have been committed by making the right amendments to the bill.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the report stage amendments to Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification.

It is unfortunate the bill is such a half effort that the Reform Party and the official opposition will not be able to support it in its entirety. The gist of the bill is proper, but it will take a lot of convincing on that side to get me to vote for it. The gist of the bill, the idea of taking DNA samples, is good. The idea of trying to identify and to solve crimes by using DNA, a modern scientific tool, is sound. I just wish the bill had been more thorough and better thought through in terms of how to go about it.

The first grouping of motions under discussion today includes Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.

[The Speaker]

I do not want the member to get too wound up because I know he will continue debate for another nine minutes.

It being almost 2 p.m. I will intervene. However, the member will have the floor when we return to the debate.

Education

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a strong and proud history. Knowledge of that history is disappearing, however. The teaching of our past, a past that reflects our traditions, values and ideas that help to reflect who we are, is disappearing.

Professor J. L. Granatstein in his new book Who Killed Canadian History points out that only 54% of high school and university graduates could name Sir John A. Macdonald as our first prime minister. Only 36% knew the year of Confederation. This is unfortunate and a reflection of the state of Canadian history being taught in our schools.

As a former teacher of Canadian history, I applaud Professor Granatstein for exposing the lack of consistent curriculum.

Canadians want more Canadian history taught in their schools. The Canadian government can act to change this disgraceful trend by providing our young people with an understanding and appreciation of our roots.

Granatstein suggests that Ottawa take an activist role by providing a subscription to every high school to a magazine such as The Beaver and National History . He also suggests that we establish a centre for Canadian history—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Elk Island.

Coinage

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that good decisions come from correct information. That is why we tried to get the issue of the Mint's new coin plating plant to the parliamentary committee.

The various players in this issue have contradictory views and interpretations on costs, savings, security of supply, jobs, international demand and various other subjects. Why not let the committee sort this out?

No, the government does not want the facts to come out. Is this because it is afraid of being embarrassed? Is it afraid of being shown that it is wrong? It seems to me that if the government is so sure of itself it would be eager to appear before the committee and lay its cards on the table. Then it would be vindicated and could get on with its project.

The government's refusal to allow the committee to study this issue is suspect indeed.

Polish Constitution

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Polish Canadians and in particular to the Polish community in my riding of Parkdale—High Park who yesterday celebrated the 207th anniversary of the Polish constitution.

May 3 is a national holiday for Poles, a day to reflect on and celebrate the heritage and ideals of humanitarianism, tolerance and democracy.

The constitution of May 3, 1791 was the first liberal constitution in Europe and second in the world, after the constitution of the United States. It was an attempt to secure rights for broad sections of the population and to mobilize the nation against rising threats to independence. The constitution of 1791 was the instrument that gave rise to parliamentary supremacy. It also gave Polish citizens new found access to parliament.

Constitution day is a proud heritage for Canadians of Polish descent and a confirmation of the basic values and freedoms of our society.

Canadian Cancer Society

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Cancer Society is the number one funding agency for cancer research and care in Canada. It designates almost half of funds raised to research projects. The remaining funds stay in local communities.

April was cancer month in Peterborough, as elsewhere. The two best known activities in our campaign are the daffodil festival and the door to door canvass. I am pleased to announce that this year's daffodils helped raise $40,000. Our thanks to the Beta Sigma Phi sorority.

Another activity is the cops for cancer campaign where police officers shave their heads to raise funds. Their next hair cut is May 9. Golf tournaments and road races are also scheduled.

In the 1997 campaign revenues surpassed $600,000, one of the highest per capita rates in Canada.

As a former chair of the cancer campaign, on behalf of all the branches of the Canadian Cancer Society in Peterborough and across Canada, my thanks to all communities and volunteers for their continued support. Cancer can be beaten.

Queen's Guard

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in 45 years Canadians have taken on the duties of the Queen's guard.

Ninety-six Canadian soldiers from the Princess Patricia's Light Infantry will be standing on parade with British soldiers during the changing of the guard ceremonies at Buckingham Palace during the next few weeks.

The month of May marks the beginning of what unofficially is Canada month in Britain. The celebrations planned are military, literary, cultural and even culinary and centre around the May 13 reopening of Canada House, the landmark Canadian high commission building in London, by Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

Congratulations to Private Jonathan Murphy who grew up in my riding—

[The Speaker]

I remind colleagues not to use our names when making statements or questions.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

The Family

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the law concerning dissolving families when separation and divorce occurs is under much needed review.

In the last parliament legal changes were made to ensure more reliable child maintenance payments. The overly narrow focus of those changes resulted in a rekindling of the gender wars.

Women's groups make their case of being victims without appropriately acknowledging their abuse. Men's groups make their case of being victims of both the system and women without providing sufficient leadership for culpability and remediation.

Fortunately the government relented to permit a joint Senate-House of Commons committee review the Divorce Act. Last week we heard witnesses in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina and Winnipeg. Last Monday in my city of New Westminster I sponsored a well attended open forum giving the public a voice.

It is essential that we fashion a framework that emphasizes parental responsibilities over rights and meets our children's needs over parental wants. To say it simply, we must put our children first.

Battle Of The Atlantic

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Parliament Hill was the scene of a very important event. Every year on the first Sunday of May, Canadians gather to remember the bitter battle of the Atlantic.

During the second world war the supply lines from home to the front lines were crucial to a successful campaign. They carried valuable arms, material and personnel across the ocean. It was not just a simple voyage across the Atlantic. If it was not the dreaded German U-boats travelling in what was commonly known as wolf packs, it was the weather that caused havoc during the run.

For the merchant seamen to cross with the supplies, the air force and navy provided escorts to protect against the enemy. The navy took the bulk of that responsibility.

The battle was costly to Canada; 50 merchant ships and 24 warships lost. Fatalities were almost 4,000 in the two navies and over 200 in the air force.

To our veterans of the battle and to the families of those no longer with us, we thank them for their important contribution to their country.

55Th Anniversary Of The Battle Of The Atlantic

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament Hill, Halifax and Esquimalt, British Columbia were the sites yesterday of ceremonies commemorating the 55th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. This is an event we must not forget, because Canadians played a major role during the course of this battle.

The war was over once the Germans could no longer threaten the Atlantic link between Europe and America, which permitted the transport of troops and equipment in preparation for the landing.

The battle is commemorated to honour those who gave their life and those who survived the war. We have learned powerful lessons, which will help us, we hope, to maintain peace around the world.

Ottawa Senators

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, hard work, discipline and perfect attendance, these are the characteristics of Ottawa's pride and joy, the Senators. Of course I am talking about the NHL Senators, not the red chamber senators.

On Saturday the Senators defeated the New Jersey Devils four games to two, eliminating the Devils from the Stanley Cup finals. The Senators will now go on to play the Washington Capitals and we wish them all the best.

We can only hope that these hockey heroes will set a new standard for their parliamentary namesakes. We also hope that the Ottawa Senators inspire the Prime Minister and that he will seize the opportunity to restore public confidence in the upper chamber by allowing Canadians to elect their senators.

Let us restore the principles of hard work, accountability and good attendance in the Senate. This October the Prime Minister should recognize Alberta's democratically elected senators.

It is time to allow Canadians to cheer for and elect their favourite senators.

Science And Technology

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the new leader of the Quebec Liberal Party paints the province's economic in ever darker tones, a major French scientific magazine has described Quebec's system of science and technology as a model. La Recherche rightly notes that, on a per capita basis, Montreal leads North American cities in providing technical jobs. It also notes that Quebec puts out more scientific publications than does France and that, in the area of venture capital, Quebec is in second place in North America, behind Massachusetts and ahead of California.

This is a broad view of Quebec's potential, when the province has only part of its tools for economic development. Imagine what Quebec will be like when it attains sovereignty. As the federal Minister of Finance would say “You just better watch us”. This is only the beginning.

Leader Of Liberal Party In New Brunswick

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate the new leader of the Liberal Party in New Brunswick, chosen at a leadership convention on the weekend.

Camille Thériault set himself the goal of defending Canada's unity as a francophone in a minority community.

Mr. Theriault has been involved in the constitutional debate and has demonstrated that he is firmly committed to helping to build a strong and united Canada while still promoting the interests of his province.

Mr. Thériault is an old stock Acadian. Born in Baie-Sainte-Anne, he is totally bilingual and has a degree in social sciences, with specialization in political science.

I congratulate Mr. Theriault and I wish him the best of luck as the new premier of New Brunswick.

Canadian Association Of Elizabeth Fry Societies

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise and acknowledge the extremely important work of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies as it celebrates Elizabeth Fry week from May 4 to 10.

The theme of this year's E. Fry week is alternatives to incarceration. The society hopes to raise awareness and education regarding women involved in the criminal justice system.

The E. Fry society has a history of hard work and dedicated service in communities across this country. It provides much needed services in support for women who have come into contact with the justice system.

By focusing on alternatives to incarceration the society hopes to encourage the public to examine productive community responses to the criminal justice system. It is its hope and mine that this type of proactive focus will encourage the development of and support for community based alternatives to incarceration, particularly for non-violent offenders.

Please join me in supporting the very important work of Elizabeth Fry societies across Canada.