Debates of May 4th, 1998

Committees Of The House

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to order of reference of Tuesday, March 17, 1998 your committee has considered 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, and has agreed to report it with an amendment.

Petitions

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many of my constituents and other constituents in the national capital region asking parliament to review the mandate of the CRTC and to direct the CRTC to administer a new policy which includes the licensing of religious broadcasters.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition calling for a public inquiry of Ipperwash. This petition is signed by many residents of the province of Ontario. It indicates that because of the serious and many unanswered questions around the fatal shooting of Anthony Dudley George on September 6, 1995 at Ipperwash Provincial Park, the petitioners are calling for a full public inquiry to be held to eliminate all misconceptions held by and about the government, the OPP and the Stoney Point people.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the appropriate standing order I would like to table in this House a petition regarding Newfoundland's gulf ferry service. This is a petition that I would like to talk about further.

The petitioners are calling upon parliament to respect the terms of the constitutional obligation that Canada shares with Newfoundland in providing an essential public ferry service between the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the mainland of Canada. The petition calls upon the Parliament of Canada to enact an appropriate level of funding for this service and to ensure that indeed it is deemed an essential service so that there is a continuous link.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians including petitioners from my own riding of Mississauga South.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

The petitioners would also like to point out that they agree with the National Forum on Health which stated in its draft report that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families who choose to provide direct parental care in the home to preschool children because it does not recognize the true cost of raising children.

The petitioners call upon parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide direct parental care in the home to preschool children.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: Question No. 92. .[Text]

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

With regard to recent changes in the tax treaty between the United States and Canada, which restore a tax exemption from U.S. federal income taxes to all Canadians who received U.S. social security or railroad retirement in 1996 and 1997, what measures has the Minister of National Revenue taken to ensure a speedy refund to eligible recipients of the excess taxes that were deducted for tax years 1996 and 1997?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Revenue Canada has completed processing the majority of 1996 reassessments for those recipients of U.S. social security benefits who benefit from the treaty change. The department is already working with the Internal Revenue Service to obtain details of the taxes withheld on 1997 social security benefits and will begin processing the 1997 refunds for eligible recipients as soon as this information is available.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I suggest the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

This is again an opportunity I am putting to the parliamentary secretary to advise the House when we might expect an answer on Question No. 21. On numerous occasions I have stood and asked when, not if, but when we might expect an answer. It is a real brow wrinkler when one considers the line of questioning that is put forward in the House that pertains to this exact question that was tabled.

I again ask the parliamentary secretary when we might expect an answer on this question.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I understand the member's concern. I believe we are well over 60% in responses. I will look into the situation on Question No. 21, as I did last week.

[The Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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 the motions in Group No. 1.

Dna Identification Act

[The Speaker]

Before question period the member for Fraser Valley had the floor.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk briefly about Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification. I started my comments just before question period.

For those who are watching this debate it would be useful for them to consider this bill as the new fingerprinting act of the 1990s. It is what used to be done with fingerprints back when that was the leading edge technology for identifying people who had been at the scene of a crime. Once someone was convicted of a crime, their fingerprints were entered into the record never to be taken away. People who were repeat offenders and so on could therefore be found. Bill C-3 in essence should mirror the efforts that were made during what I imagine were similar debates on what to do with fingerprint evidence.

It can generally be understood why we support the bill. It allows the police to take a DNA sample. That DNA sample could be very useful in the prosecution of a crime and the conviction of a criminal. The sample would be in the criminal's permanent records in case that person ever committed another crime. For all those reasons it is easy to support the bill.

It is unfortunate as I said before question period that the bill does not treat evidence the same way as it treats the taking of fingerprints. I will explain that.

When the police charge someone with a serious crime, under the current rules they are taken to the police station and upon charges being laid their fingerprints are taken. Those fingerprints may or may not be kept on the permanent file, depending on whether or not the person is convicted. In other words, the fingerprints are taken. If the person is convicted, the fingerprints become part of the person's permanent record. The fingerprints go along with the person's photo and other information about that individual into the person's permanent record.

Bill C-3 is a half-step toward that. Instead of allowing the police to collect the evidence at the time of the charge being laid, it does not permit samples to be taken other than from designated dangerous offenders, upon the charge being laid. Unfortunately that means that evidence which should form part of the evidence on that person's file is not necessarily available to the police at all stages.

Within this first grouping it is important to note that there are some amendments to support and some not to support.

On Motion No. 1 with respect to privacy we understand the need to keep that DNA evidence, just like fingerprints, if we can think of it that way, and it is important that that evidence not get out into the general public. It would not be proper to take a DNA sample and, because of either sloppy record keeping or a poor effort on behalf of the police or the court, to allow those records to get out into the general population. DNA evidence is evidence used by the police in their work and it should stay that way.

The first motion is unnecessary because the bill already fully recognizes the potential of that DNA evidence to get out into the general public. If it is improperly used, it is a violation of the person's rights or their privacy.

Already in the bill there is a provision that carries a term of up to two years for someone charged who wilfully or knowingly gives DNA evidence improperly.

In other words, if somebody sells DNA, gives it away, does something with it that is improper, this is a criminal offence just like it is to give away evidence that is on police files right now. Those files are secure for obvious reasons, and so they should be.

Motion No. 1 about respect of privacy is unnecessary in our opinion. There are already provisions in the bill that are sound. The provisions are adequate and they respect the privacy necessary with the taking of DNA samples.

Motion No. 2 is easy to support. This amendment says that we do not want all private agencies and labs taking samples and so on. We want to have some quality control on DNA. A single strand of hair, anything, could contaminate or change the DNA sampling process.

It is important that the most rigid standards be upheld so there is no contamination, no possibility of a file being mishandled or misinterpreted. In other words, it should be done with the highest of standards because they may literally be taking someone's life in their hands. That person may be committed to a lifetime of imprisonment if the matter is not handled properly.

We would like to see a government agency handle that. It is not that government agencies have a perfect record, as we have seen from the hepatitis C issue we have been debating in the House of Commons lately. What can be done with a government agency is put restrictions, guidelines and quality control on it that will ensure, to the best extent possible, that someone will not have their DNA sample somehow mishandled.

One agency does it. There is one set of rules. It is a not for profit agency and that is the best way to ensure that standards are upheld. It is easy to support Motion No. 2 and we will be doing that when the vote comes later.

Motion No. 3 talks about safeguards against wrong persons accessing. Again it is the same argument I used on Motion No. 1. There are safeguards against persons accessing that DNA databank. We want to ensure that only properly qualified people who have the authority to work with those samples have access to them.

Again we believe there are adequate safeguards in place and do not believe this third motion to create a new level of safeguards is necessary.

The final amendment within this grouping, Motion No. 5, talks about a three year review of this process. At first blush it might seem like a good idea. It may even be necessary.

The government I believe will be revisiting this bill if it passes it as is. If it does not pass the amendments we have put forward, I believe it will be back for review. It will not be because there is a mandatory three year review. It will be back for review because it just will not work properly.

The Canadian Police Association has already said that it is not happy with the way this bill is drafted. It wants to see some changes in it. It wants to give the police the tools necessary to do their job.

Hopefully, if some of these amendments pass, I do not believe this amendment will be necessary. The three year review will not be necessary. It will be a make work project for a very busy justice committee but I do not believe it is necessary if the amendments go through.

We will be interested to see what the government says during the course of this debate to see if any of these amendments are going to see the light of day. If they are not, we may need a review. I think it will happen whether we ask for it or demand it in legislation or whether it just happens naturally.

The review unfortunately will happen, mark my words, if the government does not pass the amendments the Reform Party and others have put forward today.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify for the people at home that I am generally in favour of setting up a DNA databank. I think it makes a lot of sense.

When fingerprints were first brought in, they helped solve a lot of crimes that previously were unsolvable. Having our DNA databank will give us the technological tools to solve crimes that right now we do not have the capability for. As a result it is generally a good idea. But the problem with Bill C-3 as it stands is that it does not give the government as many opportunities as it would otherwise have with some of the Reform amendments and others across the way to go ahead and break these crimes, get these criminals convicted and incarcerate them.

In the first grouping of amendments, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, the first amendment by an hon. member from the Bloc is with regard to the respect of privacy. Unfortunately I am not going to be able to support my Bloc colleague on this because it basically precludes us from having access to information that we would otherwise possibly need.

So even though it is something done with respect to privacy I would have a tough time in some of these circumstances to look a victim of rape in the eye and because of a lack of due process or some problem that would be laid out in this amendment be able to say that because of a technicality the offender walked free. Therefore I am not going to be able to support the Bloc member on Motion No. 1.

Motion No. 2, proposed by an NDP colleague, precludes private agencies and labs from taking samples and creates public standards and better accuracy of testing quality. I believe these types of DNA materials or DNA information should be kept by the government. I would have some problems with it being doled out to somebody or any group willy-nilly. As a result I support this NDP motion.

The only concern I have with this motion is that I hope, if indeed private laboratories become more advanced than the public ones we have for DNA identification and information gathering, that this will not preclude the use of some of the advanced techniques that private labs may have access to above and beyond the public ones, if that happens. I think it would be a real travesty if we were to prevent justice from having access to advanced techniques that may be available in the private sector that would not possibly be available at that time in the public sector. On that level that is the only caution I give to NDP Motion No. 2.

Motion No. 3 is to safeguard against wrong persons accessing the DNA databank. This again speaks to the first motion. Once again it is from my hon. colleague from the Bloc. We have to make sure there is privacy and this information is not doled out to anybody. It is something used almost exclusively for this criminal work and nobody else has access to it unless they are actually doing work with regard to the investigation of a crime.

Motion No. 5 is basically viewed as a make work amendment in that it asks for a three year review. If we are able to get some of these amendments on the national databank passed then we are not going to have to worry about as many reviews of the legislation in the process if we set it up right in the first place.

Speaking to the generalities of these four motions in the first group motions and how they impact the bill as a whole, we are looking to set up a registration system so that we can track those offenders, those violent criminals, and prosecute and convict them where possible. The government has no problem going ahead and registering people, law-abiding citizens, with Bill C-68. On firearms certainly there should not be a problem with being able to give the necessary tools even above and beyond what we have here in Bill C-3, to enhance the ability of police officers to go ahead and convict.

Some of these suggestions were provided to us by the Canadian Police Association. It is not just the Reform Party standing here in the House today asking for increased powers and expanding jurisdiction of some of these things so that the national DNA databank can be more effective.

The police and their representative, the Canadian Police Association, are asking for some of these things.

These are reasons why some of these amendments need to be included and why the DNA databank needs to be as effective as possible. We would see a reduced cost of enforcement of the law and a greater ability to convict. There would be an increased effectiveness of the enforcement of the law. We believe in public safety. We believe people deserve a sense of security. We should not be instilling a false sense of security. We should make this as effective as we can.

We do not believe in depriving the police, the RCMP or the respective municipal police forces, the tools necessary to to conduct their work in criminal investigations and violations of the Criminal Code.

This will be bar none the most effective thing that has been changed with regard to the justice system in the collection of evidence since the introduction of finger prints. Finger prints with their oils would probably leave some skin samples to enact some DNA information gathering. It has expanded beyond the oils that are left on one's fingers and skin samples to hair and in the case of sexual crimes semen samples and blood samples. All these things are now available to us to test and determine. No one else in the world will have the same DNA of a criminal left at the scene of the crime.

The gist of this is good but half measures are not good enough. That is why we have to make changes to this bill to make sure that it is better than what it is. Because of DNA people who are innocent and who have been charged with a crime will not be convicted wrongly. It is the innocent who will triumph in this. They will be vindicated by DNA information gathering. If they were not at the scene of the crime, it will be that much more easily ascertained.

I leave this caution with the government. We ask some of the fundamental questions of cost, who wants it and other questions I have asked before in this Chamber. The cost of our not making these amendments to make this as effective as possible and to expand the range of the collection of DNA evidence will mean some people will walk free when they are criminals and should not be walking free.

Who wants it? Obviously not only the police officers who enforce the law and the people who want to see justice but also the victims who would see some of their perpetrators walk free.

For the victims, for the Canadian Police Association, the police officers, for the law-abiding citizens who want to see justice served and a more effective justice system, we need to enact some of these changes. We need to make sure that Bill C-3 does not go through without serious questioning and without making it the best that it could be.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to talk about Bill C-3 and the Group No. 1 amendments related to DNA identification.

I like to think Canadians are concerned about health and safety matters above all else. There are some intensely personal questions that come to mind when we start thinking about health and safety issues. It is useful to get off the topic of our criminal justice system for a minute and talk about our medical system to show a commonality in how people approach these intensely personal decisions.

We have, for example, technology breakthroughs in the medical area occurring all the time. People buy into those technologies very readily. It is very simple to equate the medical breakthrough, the medical technology with personal health consequences.

We have had lots of examples today. This morning I was reading an article concerning mice and cancer and the two antidotes that they can put together to basically cut off the blood supply and shrink tumours to nothing. This research could possibly lead to a real breakthrough for humans. We will have no difficulty convincing the public at large, the funding groups, the health care deliverers or anyone else that this is all well and good, the way it should be and that it would have major consequences in a positive way for society at large.

We embrace new technology and people support it. We understand the benefits and want the benefits of technology.

We have a lot of advances in technology on the crime prevention front as well so why would we think a lot differently in this regard? I have some major concerns with this legislation because we and the government know the public wants DNA identification and a DNA databank. It wants all those things. We now know we have the technology as well.

The government has created Bill C-3, which we are debating now, and is selling it as if this will give the public what it wants. I am sorry, but when one reads the bill it is not giving the public what it wants. It is actually completely tying the hands of our law enforcement people to utilize this new tool in a way that is going to benefit society.

The only rationale I can come up with as to why the government would do that is that it shows a consistent pattern. We have seen that consistent pattern displayed in other aspects of criminal justice legislation brought before this House. It was demonstrated in question period today. The justice bureaucracy knows that the fallout from implementing the firearms registry, the way it is currently legislated, will actually lead to increased smuggling and to an increased premium for black market firearms. We have known this on an ad hoc basis for years.

We knew that because we had reports in the media at the time that bill was introduced thanking the justice minister from people involved in those various illicit activities because they were going to improve profit margins. This is not rocket science, but unfortunately it is a case where the government is legislating on a politically correct basis rather than on what will achieve positive results for society.

We have seen the same thing from this government in terms of conditional sentencing. That legislation went through in the last parliament. This is the legislation that allows judges to not impose prison sentences for various reasons. That can be an enlightened thing to do but it is not an enlightened thing to do when we are talking about violent or sexual offenders.

Reform amendments in the last parliament tried to ensure the legislation would apply only to violent and sexual offenders. We were told by the government that it need not be in the legislation because that is the way it would be applied. We are sorry, but that is not the way it has been applied. We have walking, talking, living examples of violent sexual offenders who have been given essentially no sentences, conditional sentences. These people are hazardous and risks to society. Many of them have reoffended because they have not been in prison.

Now we have DNA legislation that only scratches the surface of what is possible. We know national standards are needed with this legislation. Quality control guidelines and restrictions are needed.

Other technologies will be coming to the crime prevention front. If we are to tie the hands of our enforcement people on this technology, what are we doing? Are we denying ourselves the benefits of other new technologies? Another new technology has already proven itself once. It has many of the same benefits of DNA technology but it is all based on odour. Up to a month after it can be determined whether an individual has been in a room in that timeframe.

I have another example of the enlightened use of technology, which I believe happened in England. A perpetrator said in court that he had never been somewhere. It turned out that there was some plant material in his clothing. They compared a sample from his clothing with trees from all over that nation. They determined that the DNA from the plant material could only come from the place where the crime was committed. That is a nice non-intrusive use of DNA.

Why would we not enact the very best legislation we can when we have an obvious public taste for it instead of having the appearance of legislation? I do not know how to respond to that. We used to be able to go to someone with a basic toolbox when we needed to have our cars fixed. Now we have to go to someone with computer technology, with diagnostic equipment and so on. As society moves, our legislation has to move. As this bill is constituted, it does not cut it.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think we have quorum in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We now have quorum.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I note that some of my colleagues opposite regard sitting in the House of Commons to debate as a waste of time. I hope the record reflects that. It is an interesting remark on how they regard democracy and its functioning, a fine example of which we saw the other night during the vote on hepatitis C.

I am rising today to speak to Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification. We are dealing with the Group No. 1 amendments to this bill.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member knows it is not permitted to refer to the presence or absence of members in the House of Commons.

But having done so I think it is only fair to point out that his party is far outnumbered.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I gather that is not taken as a point of order. I did not make any remark about members opposite but since the point has been raised I will say that normally one finds more members in the opposition benches than on the government benches.

I was remarking on the heckle of a member opposite who said what a waste of time to have a quorum call. They believe it is a waste of time participating here in the highest chamber of democratic deliberation in the country.

That reflects the sterling commitment to democracy and conscientious representation we saw from members opposite on the hepatitis C vote. It is shameful.

It is interesting that members opposite are not willing to sit here and discuss this important bill to provide amendments to Bill C-3 on DNA identification.

The Reform Party supports the principle of the bill which is to provide access to our police forces and agencies to use the new biological technology available to them to develop evidence for the prosecution of criminals accused of serious crimes.

This kind of DNA identification is something the Reform Party has been pressing for over several years. It is well known one of the raisons d'être of our party is to promote a justice system where the rights of victims are placed in greater balance contra the rights of criminals.

In all these bills dealing with the Criminal Code and evidentiary matters, sentencing matters, we must as members of this place strike a balance, an equilibrium between the civil liberties of citizens to not be convicted except in accordance with due process of law and in accordance with principles of fundamental justice on the one hand and on the other hand to ensure that we have a justice system that functions and throws away the bad guys.

I think all too often we end up with the wrong balance. All too often we become too concerned about the civil liberties of the Karla Homolkas of the world and not sufficiently concerned with empowering our peace officers and our police to enforce the criminal law.

It is a good thing from our perspective that the government finally has come forward with some step in the right direction of DNA identification in Bill C-3 but we do find the bill falls short on a number of points.

Motion No. 1 from a member of the Bloc Quebecois is with regard to respect for privacy rights. This proposed amendment goes on through six clauses giving detail of safeguards that should be in the legislation with respect to privacy. Quite frankly, this motion is redundant in so far as the bill already contains adequate safeguards to protect privacy of people vis-à-vis DNA identification.

Section 487.07(1) on the respect of privacy and sections 487.08(1) and (2) on the use of bodily substances already recognize the potential damage if DNA information is improperly used. Also there are penalties included in section 487.08(4) which provide penalties for the contravention of these areas protecting privacy. As a result we find Motion No. 1 redundant and therefore we will be opposing it.

Motion No. 2 comes from an hon. member of the New Democratic caucus. It precludes private agencies and labs from taking samples. It essentially limits the collection of DNA samples to the government through public agencies. This seems like a sensible enough safeguard and we will therefore support Motion No. 2.

Motion No. 3 in this group of amendments deals with safeguards against the wrong kinds of people accessing information stored in the DNA databank and proposes a registry of those who would be accessing the information.

Again we find this redundant in so far as provisions are already included in the act to protect against unauthorized personnel from accessing the personal DNA information included in the databank.

Finally, Motion No. 5 deals with a review for the privacy commissioner to ensure that the act is not contravening the privacy rights of Canadians. This seems like a completely unnecessary amendment in so far as Bill C-3 already empowers the privacy commissioner to review violations of people's privacy rights as enumerated in the privacy laws. We will be opposing Motion No. 5 for that reason.

We really need to ensure with respect to all the amendments in Bill C-3 that our police agents, our peace officers, are able to enforce the law without undue red tape, burdens and hurdles. We want to ensure that the civil liberties of Canadians and their rights to privacy are protected, but not at the expense of hamstringing the people who have the difficult job of investigating serious crimes and who need the evidence to convict and effectively prosecute the worst criminals in society.

I look forward to speaking to future amendments on Bill C-3 as we proceed through the debate.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to enter the debate on Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in group one.

I would like to focus my remarks on three areas: first, DNA as a technology; second, the privacy issue which is addressed by these amendments; and, third, getting to the point which the Deputy Prime Minister made such a point of in question period today of doing what is right.

Referring to DNA as a new technology, we now have at the disposal of our law enforcement agencies a technology that allows them to pinpoint more accurately the identity of a perpetrator of a particular crime. Not only is it a very useful tool. It is a reliable tool and it is a valid tool. Those are the two absolutely essential criteria that need to be applied to any scientific test.

If two different scientists looking at the same sample come up with the same conclusion then we have some reason to believe the tests are reliable and are in fact are honestly depicting on a continuing basis, no matter who does the test, what the result will be. It is also valid in the sense that it is an accurate depiction of who gave a particular sample and to whom it belongs. This is a very useful and necessary tool to make sure that mistakes are not made.

Why is this tool so important when it comes to crime detection and to identification of perpetrators of crime? The number one point is obviously to protect society. We want nothing more in our society than to be secure, to have happy families and to be safe on our streets. We want to predict with reliability that we will be able to go down to the corner store to pick up our groceries and our lives will be safe, and that our children will be able to go to their school buses or walk to school without the need bodyguards and things of that sort. That is what it is for. It is also there to protect the suspect.

All kinds of cases in this regard come to mind. Most directly is the Milgaard case. He was incarcerated after being accused of having committed a crime until the DNA samples revealed unequivocally that he was not the person who had committed the crime but that someone else had committed it. For many years he suffered incarceration because he was improperly identified. We have here a very useful tool which should be available to law enforcement agencies.

A couple of the motions deal with privacy. Of course we are concerned about privacy. There is nothing more significant than privacy of the individual. In fact we have appointed in the country a privacy commissioner whose job it is to make sure that there is not an unusual, unnecessary or unconstitutional intrusion into the privacy of individuals.

Last weekend we had in this city a discussion on electronic commerce. The Information Technology Association of Canada came together with major business interests. What did they talk about? They talked about privacy. They talked about the security of information. They talked about the security of transferring funds from one institution to another or from one account to another.

What was the news report on Saturday in the Globe and Mail ? It reported that the CIBC had some chip problems. What was the problem? Several individuals had deposited money and it was not credited to their account via the automatic bank machine. The bank assures us and assures those individuals that they have a record and will be credited with those moneys. However it points out that the need for privacy is absolutely imperative and must be reliable and valid. It is essential that this be provided for in the act and it is provided for in the act.

It goes beyond that. We need to be sure that communication is maintained in a secure manner so that it goes only to those people who need to know, who have to know and for whose protection that information exists. We need to recognize that not only is it protected from eyes that should not see it but also protected from use by people who have no right or need to use that information. Privacy needs to be provided for and it is being provided for. The amendments that are being proposed are redundant in that sense and I commend the government for having done that.

I want to move to the third area of doing what is right. We need to do what is right. In this connection I refer to the kind of statement that has been made with regard to hepatitis C victims. The issue here is doing what is right. In the hep C case it is making sure the people who are suffering are properly looked after. That is one issue.

When it comes to the area of crime with which the bill deals we have three issues to consider. One is the careful identification and punishment of those who committed the crime. The second is to identify in order to protect future victims from further perpetration of the same individual against them. The third is the protection of society at large.

In a sense when somebody commits a murder, a robbery or a violent act of any kind indirectly we are all victims because we do not know where the criminal will hit next. It is important to protect the rest of us against that kind of perpetration.

What is the right thing to do? The right thing to do is to use the absolute best technology and tools available for the identification of those who have committed crimes so that future victims can be protected and that the victim who is currently the object of a crime may say the person who did it has been properly identified and punished accordingly.

It goes beyond that as well. It means to do what is morally right. The moral thing to do is to provide the assurance for all of society that the number one concern of the government is to have a justice system that is fair and that has laws that are right. The laws must come out on the side of what is right and must punish that which is wrong. That generates confidence on the part of the individuals that they can rely on the law. More important and beyond that is the enforcement of the law.

We spent a lot of money hiring good, qualified and trained police officers and other law enforcement officers. We want to be sure that these people not only understand the law but recognize the significance of the law and are provided with all tools necessary to carry out the requirements of enforcing the law.

If we deny them the proper tools we cannot expect them to ensure our justice system meets the objectives for which it has been set out. We as the official opposition submit that the DNA test is one of those. The government will argue that is exactly what the bill is about. It provides exactly that but it is just the beginning. The government could have done so much better. It could have done a complete recognition of the DNA act and have given it to the law enforcement officers in such a manner that they could use it unequivocally, unassumably and without restriction.

Yet the bill restricts. It does not help. It starts and goes so far and suddenly the persons trying to enforce the law say they cannot go any further and the very thing needed to bring about a conviction is denied.

That is not the way a good legal system, a good justice system should work. It is not the way a solid, good enforcement agency should operate. It goes beyond this as well. It goes to the point of recognizing that in order to do this job right we need to ensure that evidence is intact, remains intact and is accessible only to those who need to know, and those individuals are the enforcement officers, the judges and the courts.

I submit that these three motions in Group No. 1 should be dealt with as being proposed. We would oppose the first motion. The second one we would support. The third and fifth ones we would oppose.