Debates of June 4th, 1998

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 2.

Judges Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

In accordance with the motion adopted earlier this day, a recorded division on this motion is deemed deferred until Tuesday, June 9, 1998 at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act, be read the third time and passed.

Canada Grain Act

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise again today at this time to address Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act.

Before I get into exactly what Bill C-26 does and why the official opposition is opposed to this legislation, I wish to express my appreciation to all members involved in the decision that took place last Thursday when Bill C-26 was last before the House.

I was unavoidably committed elsewhere on that day. At first it appeared that I would not be able to have a final chance to address this particular legislation, but with unanimous agreement from all the parties it was decided to bring the bill back today and that allows me the opportunity to speak. I appreciate that decision, particularly on the part of the government.

Bill C-26 will accomplish three distinctly different objectives. First, in repealing the Grain Futures Act, Bill C-26 paves the way for the Manitoba government to regulate the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange rather than having the exchange fall under federal jurisdiction, the Canadian Grain Commission to be specific, which it does at present.

It is my understanding that the exchange wants to offer trading of non-grain contracts, especially hogs, and the repeal of the Grain Futures Act will facilitate that.

As I noted previously during second reading and at report stage, having the province of Manitoba assume responsibility through the Manitoba Securities Commission to regulate the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange is a positive step and one which we support.

Second, Bill C-26 will bring the Canada Grain Act under the umbrella of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, thereby permitting fines for violations of the Canada Grain Act and its regulations to be levied by the Canadian Grain Commission. Because this legislation has a wider range of enforcement options which will allow greater flexibility, we view this as a positive step and therefore one which we support.

This brings me to the third item which Bill C-26 accomplishes.

Because this government once more has failed to listen to the farmers and their representatives who appeared before the standing committee on agriculture, we find ourselves in opposition.

Bill C-26 began with the establishment of the special crops rural initiative program committee. This SCRIP committee is made up of producers and processors from the three prairie provinces and is assisted by a representative from the Canadian Grain Commission.

Since 1993 the committee has consulted with stakeholders and in April of 1996 it drafted a report called the “Special Crops Rural Initiative Program” upon which this bill is loosely based.

Many of the recommendations made by the SCRIP committee are not included in Bill C-26, but will be laid out in regulations which do not undergo scrutiny by parliament.

While it would be impractical to set out specifics such as levy rates and deductibles in legislation, it would be more reassuring for farmers if certain limits were set out. For example, the legislation could have ensured that the levy rate not exceed 1% of the gross value of the grain sale proceeds. This would provide comfort in the years to come that the levy would not simply skyrocket to an unreasonable level.

The government likes to wax poetic about the success of the consultative process through SCRIP, but we saw very early on that SCRIP recommendations were overruled by the Canadian Grain Commission when the levy was set at a higher level than recommended by the committee. That is a rather ominous start and a cause for concern for farmers of special crops.

The farmers who will be affected by this bill will be those producing beans, buckwheat, corn, fababeans, lentils, mustard seed, peas, safflower seed, soybeans, sunflower seed and triticale.

The production of those products or commodities is on the increase all across western Canada. As a farmer myself, as someone who has farmed close to 20 years in the Peace River country, I can tell members that farmers are increasingly looking at these special crops as a way in which to diversify, as a way in which to try to spread their risk and as a way in which to try to increase their profitability.

That is why there is a great concern about this bill and how it is being brought in, and more specifically, how the levy will be structured and administered.

As for the licensing insurance scheme created under this legislation, there is an alarming lack of competition. Even the parliamentary secretary confirmed that the Canadian Grain Commission developed this bill. So there is indeed a high level of self-interest since the commission will also administer the plan.

At present buyers and dealers are free to shop around for the best price on their bond. I brought this issue up when the bill was before the committee and representatives of the Canadian Grain Commission were appearing as witnesses. Under the present system there is a certain competitiveness. The dealers, if they are licensed and are required to put up a bond, can shop around amongst the various agencies in order to purchase that bond. Under this new system they will not have that option. They will not have that freedom of choice.

As well, special crops producers are free to shop around for the best price for their product. In doing so they have to recognize the potential risk if they choose to deal with an unlicensed, unbonded dealer. If the buyer was to go into bankruptcy prior to them receiving payment for their delivery, they obviously would not be covered. That option is available to the producer. If he or she can see that there is a potential for a higher return for the product, they may indeed be willing to accept that risk.

All dealers will be licensed and insured with the Canadian Grain Commission acting as the agent and the Canadian Export Development Corporation becoming the single insurer.

There was a suggestion by the government that sometime in the future one or both of these tasks could be contracted to the private sector. I do not think I will hold my breath. Without such a goal outlined in legislation I see no real hope that the Canadian Grain Commission will be willing to release its grip on the plan so that it can eventually be transferred to the private sector. It is the farmers' money and they should run the insurance plan, not the bureaucrats. We have learned time and time again that the bureaucracy is not very good at running programs and plans such as this, where the expertise, capabilities and resources already exist in the private sector.

While Bill C-26 does provide some positive developments for producers of special crops, it also reminds me of a runaway train that is increasingly getting beyond the control of the farmers.

I would like to digress for a moment and refer the viewing audience at home to some other examples of legislation where this government has increasingly shown open disdain to listen to farmers, the people who will be affected by this legislation. In some ways there is a trend here. There is a similarity with Bill C-19. the labour legislation.

We had a number of producers and farm groups who suggested that because Bill C-19 takes a small step forward under section 87.7 in ensuring that the standard grains will continue to flow, even in the case of a pending labour disruption at the ports, and that ships will continue to be loaded that we should support Bill C-19. But the point we have repeatedly made is, why is it that this government will not listen to farmers and amend legislation? Why is it that it will not listen to opposition members and amend legislation to improve it? We have to settle for second best. We have to make do. We have to simply say that there is some good in the legislation.

In defence of the government, there is some good in the majority of legislation that goes through this House. The government is not bringing forward legislation just because it has nothing else to do. I am sure that it is bringing it forward with the best of intentions. However, the fact remains that almost all legislation, certainly all the legislation that I can think of that goes through this House, could be improved if only the government and its members were willing to listen, and in this case listen to the farmers.

It also reminds me of legislation that is going to come back before the House next week, Bill C-4, the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Here again the government has shown a tendency not to listen to the farmers and act upon their recommendations.

Let us look at what we had to give up to get this plan.

Farmers will be forced to pay for the insurance plan up front whether or not they want to participate. They will then have to write to ask for their hard earned money to be returned to them. It is like a tax in that sense. If they are lucky they will get a refund at the end of the year. It is modelled on negative option billing which I recall the government repeatedly hailed as an unfair way in which to do business.

Criticism of this aspect of Bill C-26 was abundant during witness testimony when the legislation was considered by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. During the month of April besides the Canadian Grain Commission we heard from representatives of the Manitoba Pulse Growers Association, Saskatchewan Farmer Consultations for SCRIP, the Western Canadian Marketers and Processors Association, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, the Alberta Pulse Growers Association, the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers Association and the Western Barley Growers Association.

We had an opportunity to appear before the committee even though the time was shortened and the bill was hastened through the process. There was not a lot of time to hear from them about their presentations or for members, be they government or opposition, to cross-examine the witnesses to probe deeper into their concerns about the pending legislation. We had the opportunity to have a substantial number of farm groups appear before the committee.

We were very fortunate to have had the opportunity to hear from all these witnesses. It is one of the best tools of parliamentarians to accurately determine the will of the people. As a result of their opinions the Reform Party moved a number of amendments at both committee stage and report stage to reflect that feedback.

Unfortunately, as I have said, it appears the government does not value the opinion of farmers and defeated our amendments that would have made Bill C-26 an improved piece of legislation in the opinion of special crops producers.

In the time that I have remaining I would like to go over a few of the amendments the government has chosen to defeat. At committee stage some Liberal government amendments to the bill were put forward and passed which Reform supported. If I recall correctly they were supported by all the parties. Some of them were technical in nature. One amendment to clause 7 was to ensure that a producer's contribution to the insurance plan would be reimbursed after withdrawal from the plan in a more timely manner at the end of the season.

We heard repeatedly from farm representatives about negative option billing where everybody is in the levy. They cannot opt out as it were. They cannot say up front “No, do not collect this. Every time I haul a load of one of the designated crops to the elevator I do not want that taken off my cheque”. They cannot do that. It is taken off anyway. They were also concerned that they would have to keep track of it throughout the year.

I note even with the amendment that it is unclear at this point just exactly how it will operate and how cumbersome the administration will be for individual farmers. That concern was pretty unanimous in the farm representations we heard.

Another Liberal amendment was basically an exclusion amendment which we certainly supported and applauded. A concern was expressed by a number of farm groups representing western producers of special crops. Even the Canadian Grain Commission said that at some point in the future perhaps this levy, this insurance and licensing scheme, could be expanded to include the six standard grains: wheat, oats, barley, rye, canola and flax. A lot of concern about that was expressed by farmers.

When the government brought forward this amendment to very clearly state that those grains would be excluded we supported it.

As well motions were put forward by the other parties. What we heard really came down to two main contentions with respect to the legislation.

We heard that farmers were concerned about the way in which the levy would be collected. They were concerned that like the GST it would be foisted on them. They would have to keep track of it as they went along. Then, if they did not want to have their crops insured with the dealer, they would have to keep track of the levy, which is 38 cents per $100 of sales, how much over the year had been taken off their cheques, and then apply for it. This would create additional bookkeeping they were not too interested in.

They were also concerned about the lack of freedom of choice. They felt once more that government was intervening in the marketplace, in their freedoms as business people, and that if they wanted to accept the risk of selling their product to an unlicensed, unbonded and uninsured dealer or buyer it should be their choice. Once more they saw government intervening and telling them the way in which they should run their business.

We brought forward a number of amendments at report stage to address this last issue. The farmers were also concerned that the advisory committee the minister would be required to set up to advise on the administration of the insurance plan would have no power. Under the legislation it does not have any power despite the fact that all administration costs and the costs of the insurance would be borne entirely by farmers through the levy.

They were telling us the advisory board should be a board of directors that would administer and oversee the insurance plan and decide themselves. It would be farmers looking after their own money since it is their money and dealing with it as best they could.

The official opposition brought forward amendments dealing with all those concerns and the government chose to defeat them. In light of the fact that the government consistently ignores the concerns and desires of western producers and western Canadian farmers, whether it is Bill C-4, Bill C-19 or Bill C-26, the official opposition, the Reform Party of Canada, cannot support Bill C-26 even though as I said earlier there is a lot of good in it. The government will not amend or improve the legislation. Shame on the government. We cannot support it.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act.

The positive effects of this bill are that it will better serve specialized crop producers by providing them with more solid financial foundations and an insurance plan to help protect them from the weaknesses of the present system with grain dealers.

It is to be hoped, therefore, that the minister will select board members from the agricultural community, specifically specialized crop producers. Overall, this bill presents no problem to the party I represent, and our caucus will therefore support it.

I must, however, add that I have several reservations, which I have brought up in both the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food and the House. This bill specifically concerns specialized crop producers in the Canadian West, on the Prairies. It is part of a reworking of legislation affecting that group.

As a Quebec MP, I do not feel much affected by this bill, except to ensure generally that the producers benefit as much as possible from it.

If I were to meddle in this debate at a more technical or more detailed level, this would be interfering in matters that do not concern me, and I have no intention of doing so. For example, where the voluntary contribution to the insurance plan is concerned, we have our own insurance plan and the whole strategy surrounding this debate is totally foreign to me. I will not, therefore, try to get involved.

It is obvious, however, that the interests of the specialized crop producers must be served, and we will therefore be voting in favour of Bill C-26.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

Dna Identification Act

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, for the Solicitor General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The solicitor general has now arrived. Is it agreed that he may speak since he is the mover of the bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consent of the House. I just left the reading room where we were having a familiarization program on our crime prevention initiative. I appreciate the number of representatives of your staff who are participating in that exercise. You are to be commended.

I am pleased to address the House today at third reading of Bill C-3 which provides for the establishment of Canada's national DNA databank. The DNA identification act will make Canada one of only a handful of countries in the world to have a national system of this kind. I am very pleased to say that this groundbreaking legislation is a major milestone in the government's safer communities agenda. Public safety is my priority. To that end Bill C-3 forms an important part of my commitment to Canadians.

Our intention in the legislation is to create a practical law enforcement tool for police that will stand the test of time. We have been mindful that this exercise involves a careful balancing of public safety measures on one hand and privacy rights which Canadians hold dearly on the other. In this regard we have found the right balance.

Since the bill was introduced last September members of the House have proceeded cautiously in their consideration of the legislation. I believe this approach is laudable given the scope of the issues surrounding the use and potential misuse of DNA profiles and samples as well as the legal and ethical considerations. That is the reason Bill C-3 was referred to the committee prior to second reading.

I encouraged amendments to improve it and had every expectations that we would come out of this exercise with a better bill. In my view that is exactly what has been achieved.

I will now explain how Bill C-3 was drafted, how it is to be applied, what its advantages will be, and finally how it has been improved through the efforts of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Introduction of the DNA Identification Act constitutes phase two of the government's strategy on DNA.

The introduction of the DNA identification act marked the second phase of the government's DNA strategy. The first important step involved laying out the requirements for when DNA samples could be obtained for the purpose of criminal investigation. As a result, in July 1995 amendments to the Criminal Code were passed to allow police to obtain DNA samples from suspects in criminal investigations with the use of a warrant.

That legislation provided the police with an effective tool that has helped them solve hundreds of serious crimes. It has been effective because it has been used to help eliminate suspects and secure convictions. It has been instrumental in obtaining guilty pleas, thereby sparing victims the trauma of testifying and reducing overall investigation and court costs. It has also withstood constitutional challenge.

With the DNA warrant legislation firmly in place, the government is proceeding to the next step of its DNA initiative, creating a framework for storing DNA samples and using stored DNA information in the investigation of serious criminal offences.

A national DNA databank will be an important tool to help police link a suspect with evidence left at a crime scene. The ability to store and later retrieve DNA profiles will shorten investigations and help prevent further violence by repeat offenders. This means better public safety for all Canadians.

Further, Bill C-3 will authorize police to collect DNA samples for offenders convicted of designated criminal offences. These include the most serious personal injury crimes, including homicide and sexual offence, which are likely to be associated with DNA evidence being found at the crime scene.

Samples will be analysed with the resulting profile entered into the convicted offenders index of the databank. The databank will also have a crime scene index containing DNA information retrieved from crime scenes. By having this structure profiles can be cross-referenced to find a match in the system.

The benefits of such a system are clear. Stored DNA information will enable police to more quickly identify suspects where they have no leads and identify repeat offenders across police jurisdictions. It also has the potential to deter offenders from committing future crimes as they will know that because their DNA profile is in the databank they will not be able to slip through the cracks.

Throughout the development of Bill C-3 the federal government has sought the advice and expertise of many groups and individuals, including those on the front lines.

In addition, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights held 15 witness hearings on the bill with representatives from 17 different organizations, including police associations, victims groups and legal organizations.

These consultations revealed strong support for the creation of a national DNA databank but there were also a number of concerns regarding Canadian values of privacy, public protection and individual rights guaranteed by the charter. To respond to those concerns and improve the overall effectiveness of the bill, a number of amendments have been made since the legislation was introduced last fall.

Various interest groups, including the privacy commissioner, le Barreau du Québec and the national action committee on the status of women, suggested that the bill did not contain sufficient safeguards to protect the use of DNA profiles from the samples of victims, cleared suspects and people who volunteer samples to help police.

As a result, the government brought a motion to clarify that access to the information contained in the crime scene index shall be permanently removed if it relates to a victim or person who has been eliminated as a suspect in a criminal investigation.

We heard that DNA analysis has come a long way since it was first used in the criminal justice system just 10 years ago. While the technology has matured at a swift pace, one thing remains constant. DNA has the potential to reveal much more about a person than a fingerprint. As one committee member put it, a fingerprint leaves an impression of me, DNA is a part of me.

To ensure that DNA information is safeguarded and used only for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis, the bill sets out very limited access to the databank. It prohibits any improper use of information and limits access only to those directly involved with its ongoing operation and maintenance.

To further protect the privacy of innocent persons, the bill contains a new provision specifying that access to DNA information shall be permanently removed where a person has been eliminated as a suspect.

During committee hearings on the bill we heard from several witnesses and committee members that the proposed designated offence list could be expanded to capture other serious offences for which DNA evidence might be useful.

The committee addressed this by adding infanticide to the primary list and expanding the secondary list to include dangerous and impaired driving causing bodily harm or death and a number of sexual offences.

I believe these changes will be invaluable to police and will enhance public safety. During the committee's hearings, several witnesses recommended that the retroactive scheme be expanded to include samples from not only dangerous offenders and repeat sex offenders but murderers who have killed more than once.

The government acted on this by bringing in an amendment to the bill to allow DNA to be collected retroactively from such offenders. This expansion will capture offenders like many known in Canada and will provide the police with valuable information to help solve outstanding criminal cases.

I conclude by sharing the rationale for taking samples at conviction. The police have expressed strong views that DNA samples should be taken earlier, at the time of arrest or charge.

I remind members that police already have the authority to take DNA samples at the time of arrest where they get a warrant to do so. They will continue to be able to use DNA evidence for investigative purposes in accordance with the DNA warrant scheme in place for almost three years.

The departments of justice and solicitor general consulted extensively on this issue and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights thoroughly reviewed it. The vast majority of those consulted expressed the view that taking samples after a person has been convicted will respect the rights of all Canadians under the charter.

They also shared the position that taking samples at arrest or charge could pose a very serious risk of being struck down as unconstitutional. Given that many individuals and organizations have continued to press for expanding this provision, my colleague, the Minister of Justice, sought independent legal opinion from three of Canada's most eminent justices.

Each one concluded that a proposal to take samples at the time of arrest for databanking purposes would not survive a charter challenge. Some members have brushed the legal opinions aside and have argued that the charter is simply a road block to justice.

Let me remind the hon. members that parliament's authority to legislate flows from the Constitution. The Constitution includes the charter which protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

It is the duty of parliament to exercise its authority in a manner that respects the charter. Taking samples for the databank at the time of conviction rather than at the time of arrest or charge will not prevent police from doing their job.

It will provide police with an effective investigative tool that will allow them to do their job and ensure that the authority to use this tool will comply with our constitutional requirement as recently defined by the supreme court.

As I said earlier, we have come out of committee hearings with a stronger bill. It is the government's view that Bill C-3 is fundamentally sound.

We are confident that we have found an effective balance between the need to provide the police with the tools they need to do their job and the requirement to respect the constitutional and privacy rights of all Canadians. There is no question that the use of DNA evidence has been a significant breakthrough in the criminal justice system. But we must be mindful that it is a powerful tool and one that must be safeguarded against potential abuse. The creation of a databank that can be upheld by the courts will go a long way toward protecting Canadians from repeat violent offenders.

I urge members to support Bill C-3 so that we can proceed in creating Canada's first national DNA databank. I thank all members who have brought much to improve this bill for their participation in this exercise.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sydney—Victoria has a plane to catch. We would be prepared to switch the order of speakers.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria will have 20 minutes with 10 minutes questions and comments. Then we will go back to the two remaining 40 minute speeches from the official opposition and the Bloc Quebecois.

Is there unanimous consent that we proceed in this way?