Debates of Sept. 21st, 1998

Dna Identification Act

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Elk Island for his indirect compliment that he was not completely offended by what I had to say.

I do wish to add that I would be very disappointed if as a result of my remarks I were to be painted as somebody who sympathizes with criminals and will give the benefit of the doubt to criminals before the victims. We always must remember that no one is a criminal until he or she is convicted.

One of the difficulties with this debate in the whole pursuit to try to bring people to justice and to spare victims injury from the acts of criminals is that we must always bear in mind that people are innocent until proven guilty before the courts. There is no question if somebody is convicted that all the DNA sampling in the world ought to be available to the police authorities.

My reservation is before a conviction. This is where I have difficulties with the position taken by some members of the opposition. This is something we have to give second thought to.

The member for Elk Island drew the analogy with blood samples in drunk driving cases, when there is a possibility of charges being laid in the case of drunk driving. I suggest to him that in the very analogy he brings forth there is still some doubt about whether or not this is an infringement of a person's individual rights. We do believe in this country, or we used to believe, as far as I know, that we were not to be required to testify against ourselves. There always has been a problem even with respect to the breathalyzer and whether the breathalyzer takes it too far when it comes to getting the evidence from a person as a result of charges being laid.

I will make one final comment. DNA sampling is a far more invasive and intrusive process than a blood sample or a breathalyzer in that it actually gets genetic information. This is big brother. This is the new world order. We have to be cautious as a government and a parliament when we debate these issues.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-3 today and officially register my opposition to this bill.

My opposition is based on the Liberal government's refusal to allow police officers the power to collect DNA samples at the time of arrest. I feel that is simply a major step backward in the fight against crime.

I listened to the arguments by the member for Wentworth—Burlington. I listened to the arguments by the parliamentary secretary. Once again what I am hearing from the other side is all the things that can be put into place which speak on behalf of the criminals of Canada but there is not a whole lot speaking on behalf of the victims.

I believe the suggestions that we had about the DNA data samples being taken at the time of arrest would be a tremendous victory for the victims of this land.

The Reform Party and the police association called for several amendments to Bill C-3 before third reading in the House of Commons. Since these amendments were not forthcoming, both parties cannot support the bill.

I am looking at a letter that was received on September 16, 1998 from the Canadian Police Association. It was sent to every member of parliament. When we first started talking about DNA there was some action taken back in 1995.

The last paragraph of this letter states “Please accept our offer to work with you to develop legislation that would enhance public safety and still remain constitutionally valid. Despite contradictory rhetoric from the Department of Justice, it is an achievable goal. As an MP we urge you to take this opportunity and come to your own conclusion, not that as dictated by the Prime Minister”.

That is the kind of appeal I would like to make as a member of the official opposition. I would like to say to the people that the police commission is saying it is an achievable goal that is constitutionally valid, that it is sure it can work with us to come up with the legislation that would accomplish that.

Why is it that since 1995 we have not involved the experts in helping us to come up with the proper legislation? Why do we always think we are the big shots, that we know all the answers, that we can come up with the legislation because we have a law degree, or this degree or that degree?

Here we are talking about the crime fighters of the land whose number one goal is to protect the lives and the property of the citizens of this great country. That is just an elementary goal. That is something elemental about the whole justice system. It is supposed to be something that does exactly that.

It is ridiculous when the government rejects certain ideas of those who have the expertise, when it does not even involve them in the process. It reminds me of when I was the principal of a high school, that I should tell all the grade one teachers who they should pass and who they should fail after they had worked with the students all year. It would make about as much sense. It reminds me of bringing into the school a bunch of farmers who had worked on the crops all summer and getting them to determine who should go on to the next grade and who should not because they may have been elected to a school board. Even elected officials of a school board know of their own abilities and authorities.

When we get to this place it is strange. Everything seems to be settled on that front row. Then all the little boys and girls in the back rows do exactly as they are told time and time again.

Here are people who are representing I do not know how many thousands of police officers. They are begging parliament to give them the opportunity to help in the development of legislation that will be constitutionally sound and extremely effective in protecting the lives of the victims of this land. And we are hesitating. It is now 1998 and we have not even involved them. I think the police officers were referred to as an interest group. You bet they are an interest group. They have a lot of interest in doing their work and in doing it well and they want the tools to do it.

My Reform colleague who moved the motion to delay any decision on this bill and to speak to it six months down the road had a tremendous idea. I suggest that during that six months the justice committee and any other members of this House could invite the police commission to come with its expertise to help. We should ask it to help us develop that which would be good for all Canadians instead of letting the Prime Minister's Office and the justice minister, who is another I do not know what, make the decisions while everyone in the back row waits to see what they are supposed to do.

That is going on too much in this country. It could stop and does not need to happen but it will, mark my words. That is enough of this. I can hear the words now. “We have to cut the debate on this bill. We have to cut it out because it is going on too far. We have to make a decision. Here is what you will do”. They will pull the string and they will vote the way they are told. Thank goodness there are a few I know on those backbenches who would not necessarily do that. There are not many but there are a few and I thank them for that.

Look at another paragraph from this letter. It states “This issue is paramount to Canadian police officers and by virtue the CPA. We have obtained an independent”—I want to repeat that—“we have obtained an independent legal decision that states our position on this issue is constitutionally sound”. Why do we not investigate that to see if there is some truth in it? No, we have our justice system made up of all our little lawyer buddies and we go to a selected handful of judges who have not done a great deal about fighting crime. They do not really know what it is like to face a criminal on the streets and they are making all the decisions. They give no credit at all to the people who are genuinely on the streets fighting crime.

I would encourage everybody in this place to stop and think about it. We are going to run through a piece of legislation that according to all the feelings of the experts who fight crime is seriously flawed. It will cost extra billions of dollars to put into place. I do not know if that is necessarily true. I know my friend over there from Renfrew and Pembroke does not know if it is true but he ought to be willing to bring in the experts to find out if it is. Let us do the right thing.

Just because this legislation came out of the justice department does not make it the greatest thing that ever happened.

I had the pleasure of playing an instrumental role back in 1995 when the first phase of the government's DNA testing plan was passed. Bill C-104 allowed the police to take samples without consent from individuals suspected of criminal offences, generally those involving serious violence. The sample taken from the suspect would be matched to samples from the crime scene to determine whether the suspect had committed the specific offence being investigated.

The legislation did not deal with the storage of the information or the samples derived from its testing. It provided a reasonable scheme to ensure that DNA samples were not taken from suspects unnecessarily.

I know the results that the first phase of the legislation had for Tara Manning's family. I am not sure if members remember her but many do. I will never forget June 20, 1995 when the justice minister said that he was prepared to introduce legislation by the end of the week for the purpose of adding DNA testing to the Criminal Code. That brought out quite a cheer from a lot of people. I know it meant a lot to the Manning family.

It was a great day for victims because it provided a mechanism to answer many questions and for the police to solve crimes. The mechanisms were there.

We now have the police association writing to us on September 16, 1998, over three years later, informing us that what we are trying to do now is seriously flawed. However, we are not willing to pay attention. We are going to get this through third reading and vote on it all because the frontline people here have decided that it is great stuff and should be done.

I encourage everyone to at least think about the amendment my colleague made. We must give this more time and bring in the people who say they are willing to help us develop legislation that will enhance public safety and will be constitutionally sound. Let us not judge too quickly that that will not be the case.

We are working on phase two of this legislation. We hear arguments that a DNA sample is unduly intrusive compared to fingerprinting. I have to agree with the words of Tim Danson who said in the Globe and Mail “The high court has ruled that taking DNA samples as already allowed by law is not unduly intrusive. The method of sampling consists of cutting off a piece of the person's hair, rubbing a Q-tip swab inside the mouth or taking blood by a simple pin device similar to that used by diabetics”.

Further, the court has made it clear that privacy is far more affected when an individual is arrested, taken to court and forced to face the public and personal shame and humiliation that follows all of this. Privacy interests protected by the charter of rights and freedoms relate to a reasonable expectation of privacy and not privacy at large. I want to repeat that. It is a reasonable expectation of privacy and not privacy at large.

People who engage in criminal activity should expect some loss of privacy. Their victims certainly have. They have lost a lot of privacy. Perhaps the armchair, constitutional academics sitting over there should join us in the real world.

When we want to solve problems we should go to the people who have the expertise. We should go to the people who do the real work in trying to protect the lives of Canadians. We should talk to the police and give them the opportunity to help develop legislation. We do not always have to listen to the lawyers and the judges. They are not the only smart people in Canada. There are a few more around. I hope they take the time to check who they might be. We would be glad to give them a hand in developing proper legislation.

Let us please not pass this bill at third reading. It is premature. We can come up with better things than what we have in this flawed material that is before us today. I encourage hon. members to think about it.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have been involved in the debate on Bill C-3 since its inception about a year ago. I would like to ask the opinion of the member for Wild Rose on this. The thing that bothers me more than anything, as far as the government's position on the bill, is that it has thrown out, it has ruled out, it has given no credibility to probably the two most important groups in this country on this issue. One of those groups is the people who serve us on a daily basis, the front line police officers who, right across this country, have given overwhelming support to the idea of taking samples at point of arrest.

The Liberal members have put far more credence into the opinions of their appointed pals, the judges, on this issue rather than listening to the front line people, the police officers of this country and the victims' associations of Canada, the two groups who have far more to say, in my opinion, on making changes to the justice system in order to make it work better and to make it more effective.

I want to know from my colleague from Wild Rose if that is his opinion. Does he think, as I do, that the Liberals put far more credence into those elected judges rather than the people whom I believe are the most important in this country, police officers and victims' associations?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do agree with that. There is no doubt about it, there has been no effort made on the part of the committee or anyone else dealing with Bill C-3 to get an independent legal opinion on this particular issue.

There is a group of people who did get an independent legal position and that was the police association. Now they are prepared to say to the people in parliament that they have this statement clearly made by an independent body that the change that we are suggesting, that the police commission is suggesting, can be done and can be constitutionally allowed. It would be extremely effective in saving the lives of numerous Canadians from violent criminals. It would be extremely effective.

That is our plight. That is what we are supposed to do, create legislation that will do some of these things.

I was at a rally where people asked questions at a microphone. Before they asked their questions they were to say what kind of Canada they would like to see in the year 2000. A statement was wanted before they asked their question.

There were people who talked about good job situations, money, prosperity, economics. They talked about the health care system. But one person nearly stopped the whole rally when he asked “Do you know what I want? I want to live in a country where my wife can leave this hotel, walk two blocks to the parking lot where we have parked our car and come back without the fear of being mugged, attacked, assaulted, murdered or raped”.

“I want to live in a country” this man went on to say “where the authorities, the politicians and the elected officials do their darndest to meet the most elemental duty that we have. That duty is to protect the lives and the property of Canadians”. That is an elemental duty and we have that duty.

When we are willing to pass legislation that the experts say is flawed, then we are not responding to that duty. If members cannot respond to that duty, they should not be here, they should be at home. Someone who is willing to do it should be sent here instead.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to say to my hon. friends opposite that I have been one of the people who has been sitting here flaccid, and any other word that the hon. member for Elk Island has said. I have been listening to the debate and it is certainly food for thought.

I want to make one comment and it speaks to the intervention that was just made. I also think it is odd. We are trying to balance various rights and privileges here.

The CPA is also a proponent of gun registration, as is CAVEAT and hundreds of other groups. How can we decide when the CPA is right? Is there a quick way of determining that?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not so sure that there is a quick way of determining that, but there is one thing I can assure the hon. member of. If there is a rash that breaks out on someone's body or if some kind of illness overtakes them, please go to a doctor and not a politician. If someone's child is having a learning problem, please go to a school teacher and stay away from the judge around the corner.

There are experts out there. We do not know what all the answers are. Sometimes even the experts foul up. They certainly have fouled up if they support the idea of registering shotguns and rifles. There is no doubt in my mind.

Let us throw it out there and give them the opportunity. Why should they not have an opportunity to show us legislators that they can produce legislation that will not be flawed, that will be constitutionally sound, that will be balanced and provide a good law for the safety of Canadians?

I appreciate the member listening seriously to the debates. Most of the time that does not happen and I applaud him for that.

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

Madam Speaker, I again feel privileged to take part in this debate. I listened very intently to the comments made by the hon. member for Wild Rose.

The hon. member has articulated some very important points. He has placed some of the emphasis where it needs to be placed, and that is on the rights of victims. I received a comment in that vein very recently. This is something, again, that has to be taken into consideration.

The other comment I would make was raised by the member on the government side, and that is the speed with which we can make this decision based on the conflicting expert opinions and evidence that appears to exist in the context of this debate.

I think that is an important backdrop here. It is exactly what this motion, brought forward by the official opposition, is about. This is too important an issue to rush headlong into, resulting in flawed legislation that might very well wind up back here on the floor of the House of Commons.

There is no guarantee that will happen. Anything that comes out of this legislature is subject to judicial interpretation. But we cannot be curtailed or hobbled in our work with that paranoia in mind.

With those comments, I reiterate that this is an opportunity for us to get it right. This is an opportunity for us to use what can only be called cutting-edge technology.

Another example that I discussed recently with the member opposite is the use of DNA in retrieving the bodies in the recent air crash at Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia, and allowing those families to have closure on the issue. It puts emphasis on how important this is and how important it is for victims to have closure on some of the terrible unsolved crimes. In British Columbia alone there are over 600 unsolved murders. The use of technology to have closure on those matters is extremely important.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, the very quick response is that the hon. member is exactly right. He said what needs to be said.

The important thing about this debate is: Are they listening? It is so important and the listening part has to happen.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak on this particular amendment to the bill. Before I start I would like to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Wild Rose, who put forward the official opposition's position on this bill very eloquently.

On behalf of the people of Surrey Central, I rise to express our opposition to Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification which would make amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts.

My colleagues in the official opposition, Canadians concerned about victims of crime, my constituents and a host of others inside and outside of 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 worst violent crimes in society. DNA identification is that kind of tool.

If used to its fullest 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 capability will greatly enhance the work of our law enforcement community.

Over the next few years and perhaps decades this technology will virtually change the world in terms of crime solving, crime detection and the positive identification of criminals.

If passed unamended, Bill C-3 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. However, we do not support the limited scope of Bill C-3.

Why do I oppose this bill? Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces full use of DNA technology. Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of the DNA sample at the time of the criminal charge being laid.

This is where fingerprints are taken. This is exactly the time to take DNA samples. How can the Liberals fail to provide our law enforcement agencies with the opportunity to get a DNA sample at the time of the arrest?

Bill C-3 does not permit samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers.

In the hands of the Liberals Bill C-3 is actually a hindrance to more effective law enforcement and a safer society. This is a needlessly restrictive use of DNA in Bill C-3. The official opposition is holding the Liberals responsible for denying our police the use of DNA which they have been asking for for quite some time.

The Liberals are so arrogant that they are attempting to fool Canadians about what the bill does and does not do. It does not go far enough and we must not be fooled. It is an inadequate piece of legislation and we cannot support it.

I would like to quote from a September 16, 1998 letter addressed to me by the president of the Canadian Police Association. I am sure that other members in this House may have also received similar letters. This letter which I am going to quote from is a scathing indictment of the Liberal government. On the first page it reads:

The Canadian Police Association represents approximately 35,000 front line police officers across Canada.... Bill C-3, as currently drafted, is seriously flawed, and will needlessly allow Canadians to be put at risk.

The CPA has lobbied for the creation of a DNA databank for many years. Since the beginning, we stressed the important impact a bank could have on public safety, a goal that we work towards everyday whether it be on the streets or on Parliament Hill. We said then, as we say now, that for this initiative to work samples must be taken from suspects when arrested. By doing so, we will maximize the potential crime prevention aspects of the bill which is a goal we all share.

Do not underestimate the importance of this issue to the CPA. We are not, and never have been, averse to take every public opportunity to inform the public when the government creates and passes flawed legislation. We will do that again regarding Bill C-3. We will make sure that Canadians understand that their government is risking their lives. We will make sure that if one of your constituents is harmed because of this flawed legislation, that they will know who to ask for an explanation.

The Liberals should be ashamed that 35,000 Canadian police officers on the front lines have been seriously disappointed by this Liberal government's legislation.

Canadians want our police officers to be protected and do the best job they can. The Liberals are not allowing our police officers the use of DNA identification that they are asking for and our police officers deserve more support from us, from our government, than that which this Liberal government is giving them.

The Liberals are choosing to slow down this 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. This government has refused to allow the amendments to this bill that have been put forward by the official opposition.

This is not an issue to play politics with. These amendments would put teeth into Bill C-3. But it is as if the Liberals do not want that.

The Liberals are afraid to unleash this powerful crime fighting tool because they are more concerned about the criminals and the rights of the accused than they are about the victims of crime.

Our law enforcement agencies should have been given the go ahead to use DNA identification tools ever since the technology was first invented. For example, it would just be like forcing people to use candles or kerosene lanterns instead of electric light bulbs. We ask our police forces to use fingerprints but not DNA identification.

The Liberal government is supposed to be responsible for shaping our justice system. This is the government of the day. Canadians are relying on the government but the government is just sitting on its hands.

The Prime Minister continues to show his willingness to place the lives and safety of innocent people in jeopardy, whether by allowing the parole of violent offenders who go on to rape and murder again or by allowing freedom of 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.

Bill C-3 provides 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 of the individual's privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest and the protection of society. It seems to me that if DNA identification were positive and unequivocal proof then the rights of an individual would be best 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 whether an accused person was involved in a crime. The Liberal's argument in support of allowing the judge 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 a person accused of heinous crimes, the Liberals are restricting the use of this very important technology by our law enforcement agencies.

Once again we are watching the Liberals use cold hearted legal talk to deny giving our law enforcement agencies what they need. The Liberals used cold legal arguments and some kind of numbers to deny help to all of the victims of tainted blood, so probably they are used to it.

Canadians are devastated when innocent victims fall prey to violence, whether the motivation is drugs, theft, greed or hate. My community wants to know how many more innocent people will lose their lives before changes are made in our criminal justice system.

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

During the summer I did some door knocking in my constituency. People were amazed and surprised by why a politician would do door knocking between elections.

While knocking on these doors I noticed that almost second home in my constituency had a sticker on their door or window warning that the home was armed with an alarm system. It gives me the signal that people are not feeling safe on the streets, as we know, but are also not feeling safe in their own homes.

A few months ago a senior was brutally beaten to death in his own home in my constituency. The constituents I represent in Surrey Central are living in the wake of the arrest of five young men for the brutal beating and murder of a temple caretaker.

This Liberal government is spineless, heartless, gutless, deaf and blind. Everyone knows that the government is not getting tough on crime.

My constituents and I are warning this government to get tough on crime. We want it to do the work that is necessary to protect our society. That is why we are not supporting Bill C-3. It does not do the work necessary to give our police what they want in terms of using DNA identification tools.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a quick comment and ask a question of my hon. colleague who just made his remarks with regard to Bill C-3.

He talked about his door knocking this summer and noticed that a good number of houses in his riding were equipped with security systems. When I campaigned in 1997 that was one thing I took note of in Saskatoon. At least half the houses in supposedly small town Saskatoon were equipped with alarm systems as well. Saskatoon is number three on the crime list in Canada. Regina is number one and Vancouver is number two in the number of crimes committed per capita.

From my colleague's perspective why does he think that the crime rate is increasing not only in my province but in his as well? What steps could the Liberal government take in order to get tough on crime?

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for asking this question.

Canadians will recall that when Clifford Olson made an attempt at the faint hope clause his hearing took place in my constituency. If when that violent criminal committed the crime the DNA sampling was there and the law enforcement agencies had that tool they could have solved so many other murders years before. They probably could have put a stop to the murders before more were committed. He was on the loose and we could not convict him. If we had had this particular tool we may have been able to save many more lives.

When we see the alarm signs on the doors and windows of homes in our constituencies it gives us an indication that Canadians do not have faith in this Liberal government. It gives us the message that something needs to be done but the government is sitting on its hands. Why are we not giving such an innovative and modern tool to police forces? Who are we afraid of? Are we afraid of the violent criminal? Do we not want to protect the rights of the victims?

Crime is on the rise simply because there is no one to put a stop to the criminals. I think the government should do something, do the honourable thing and accept the amendments from the official opposition and give a tool with teeth to law enforcement agencies.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the PC Party, as my colleague for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has so eloquently said, believes that recording of DNA is good but it does not go far enough as it is in its present state. Basically it curtails the ability of police to do their job effectively. It can lead to the flight of criminals who have not gone to trial.

Unlike the registration of long guns imposed by the ill-conceived Bill C-68, the registry of criminals through DNA databanking is something we applaud.

I would like to ask my colleague for his comments about the bill not permitting retroactive testing of DNA for convicted criminals such as Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I may not answer the question very satisfactorily because I do not know the background details of this bill. I want to be honest and straightforward.

However, I believe if the amendments proposed by the official opposition are accepted this will be a very effective tool. It will be much more effective than the fingerprints which we allow the RCMP or law enforcement agencies to use.

Let me give an example. Let us say we sent a soldier to war and we give him a gun but we do not give him any ammunition. What good is the gun?

We have given the fingerprint tool but why not DNA identification? The Canadian Police Association is asking for it. There are 35,000 members who have to deal with crime who are asking for this technology. They are on the frontlines defending us, making our streets free from crime and making our homes and streets safe. They are the ones who are pleading in strong language to the government to make DNA identification an effective tool.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here for the last couple of hours listening to the debate on Bill C-3. A couple of concerns that initially come to my mind is that it seems as though all the debate is taking place from this side of the House.

Reform members have spoken about it and a number of Progressive Conservative have spoken about it obviously showing concern for the bill, but I have heard very little, in fact nothing, from the government, the Bloc Quebecois or the New Democrats on an issue which I would think should be one of the prime issues in this fall's session with today being day one in parliament. It should be an issue of great importance and yet the government seems to be sitting back thinking one of two things. It will either let the Reformers and the Tories rant on a little bit about it and ram the thing through, which is all too common in the House over the past number of years, or it does not care about the bill. I am not sure which one of those answers would be accurate, but I have a notion it is probably a bit of both.

I want to make my comments on third reading of the bill. I have spoken on it at least once before, if not twice, if my memory serves me correct. I want to go back a year. A good friend of mine who is a police officer in the Saskatoon police service, Sergeant Jim Bracken, and I spent a week in Washington, D.C.. last October. We went down there for what I think is a very important reason. Jim is as interested in reforming the criminal justice system as I am. When I was appointed deputy critic for the solicitor general I wanted to learn more about the American system. It is not that I think we should go to the American system of justice, but it is always important to study the differences in another country that is our closest neighbour.

We spent a week in Washington talking to people from the attorney general's office, parole board, victims groups and so on. One afternoon we had a meeting in a government building with an expert on DNA evidence. As a bit of an aside, it took us 25 to 30 minutes to get through security. We had to go through a number of x-ray machines and empty our pockets. We just about had DNA testing done on us before we were allowed into the building. From that perspective I am glad we live in Canada.

We had an appointment with an academic in his office. He was the stereotypical academic, a short skinny little guy with big glasses and a bow tie, somebody I would think would be in movies as a scientist. That is what he was. When I first looked at him I expected he would give me a very dry rendition or account of what they had done with DNA evidence there.

As soon as I introduced myself as a member of parliament from Canada and my colleague, a sergeant from the police service in Saskatoon, and told him that we would like to learn about DNA evidence his face lit up like a Christmas tree. We could tell he had something to say. He was absolutely thrilled that somebody would come from another country to listen to him on what he had found and on how the DNA testing system was being implemented in the United States. We spent about two hours in his office. We had not originally scheduled a meeting for that long but we wanted to learn everything we could in that short time.

The Americans are much further ahead with respect to DNA evidence, sampling and databanks. I obtained a book down there of case studies from both sides of the coin. There were cases of people who were wrongfully convicted being later exonerated through the use of DNA evidencing. There were case studies of people already in prison who were convicted of other crimes and who were found through the use of DNA evidence to have committed other violent acts. The more I read from this book, the more I was convinced we were on the right track.

I applaud the government for bringing this issue to the House of Commons. I applaud it for taking upon itself to talk about the idea of DNA bank. However that is as far as I can applaud the government. We are taking what is probably the best, most useful and effective tool that has ever come down the pike for solving crime and we are throwing it away.

Let me use the example of a carpenter to show what we are doing with the bill the way it is. It is like saying to the carpenter that we will let him have a hammer but he is only allowed to pound nails from the outside of the house. It will look good on the outside, but we all know what will happen when we get to the inside.

It would be like saying a doctor may use an x-ray machine but only in certain cases because it may infringe upon the rights of someone. If we take a dental x-ray we might find out that the patient has some other disease we are not prepared to find out about and do not think we should know about because it would intrude upon the rights of the person and his privacy.

When we look into the eyes of a victim of crime—over the past five years since I have become a member of parliament I have had the opportunity to do so—we realize it is incumbent upon us as lawmakers, as the people who really make the legislation and implement it, to do absolutely everything within our power to solve crime.

I want to use a good example that is very well known in Canada. It is a case that happened in Saskatchewan in my city of Saskatoon, the case of David Milgaard. Through the use of DNA evidence we now know for sure that David Milgaard did not commit that murder. We now have another person who is to stand trial for that murder.

Obviously we did not have the use of DNA evidence at the time Milgaard was first tried. I will not argue that. Had we the proper use of this tool, cases like the Milgaard case would be very unlikely to ever happen again because we would be able to ascertain guilt or innocence almost for certain.

I do not want to see anybody else having to spend any time in prison for a crime that they did not commit, just as I want to see crime solved through the use of this tool. We will solve crimes through the use of this tool. It is a given. No one would argue with that except lawyers and the odd Liberal.

We could use DNA evidence for people who have been convicted of other crimes while they are in prison for another crime. The failure to do that is abdicating responsibility as a government to the people of the country. As someone else said previously, if we cannot provide security and safety and the feeling of security for Canadian people then what have we accomplished as a government or as an MP?

I believe, as I have said before many times, that the first and most important role of any government is to provide for the safety and security of people who live in our country.

This coming weekend right behind this building there will be a police memorial service. Many of us have been around to the back of the building and have seen the police memorial located there. I have been a strong supporter of the Police Association of Canada since day one and I continue to be.

I think about those officers who gave their lives in the line of duty protecting every one of us in the country. I think about the fact that we will not give the colleagues they left behind the opportunity to solve crime with the use of this tool. Frankly I am embarrassed to say that we have let down those men and women who have given their lives to protect us on the streets of our communities. That is a sad thing because if we cannot honour the lives of those people then we have done nothing in this area as members of parliament.

Why is it in a country like Canada that in 1998, nearing the year 2000, we are in a situation where we would not pay attention to the most important people in the country, the people who live and work in our justice system on a day to day basis and the people who are victims of violent crimes? Far too often even in our little city of Saskatoon, what normally would be thought of as a very nice peaceful little city, I run across cases of violent crime. I have spoken with the victims. I do not understand why and it is amazing to me the government of the day that sits across the way would not put more credence into what they tell it.

I was at the committee meetings that were held on this bill. Steve Sullivan appeared before the committee on the particular day I recall offhand and spoke on behalf of a number of victims. They want to see all steps taken that are possible and reasonable to prevent crime.

As was mentioned before, the police association, some 35,000 strong, completely support the idea of DNA sampling taken at the point of arrest, yet the government fails to listen to them. The government fails to listen to the opposition members here today who I think have made some very, very strong points. I do not see anyone who really seems to care.

I have a notion that this bill will be rammed through and that we will see closure invoked on this bill because it is an emotional issue to a great many people.

I will not stand here today and say that the opposition parties are always right. We are not perfect. I do not pretend to be a perfect member of parliament just as the government is not perfect. However when the huge outcry of emotion on this issue is heard, just like on other issues such as Bill C-68, where the government refuses to listen to the vast majority of the people, we have a democratic problem in this country.

My colleague from Wild Rose mentioned in his remarks that there are members opposite who would support our way of thinking but unfortunately the way party discipline works in this place they will not perhaps get the opportunity to vote the wishes of their constituents. That is a systematic problem and one that needs to be changed very quickly.

One of the big arguments from the government about why it would cut this bill off at the knees and reduce its effectiveness is the fear of invasion of privacy or the intrusion into private lives.

I think about this in the same way I think about a breathalyzer test. Obviously we use blood samples. They can be obtained and used for driving under the influence tests. There are also breathalyzers where someone would be required to give a sample of breath which is no different in my opinion than plucking a single hair from one's head to provide DNA evidence. If I had the choice, and thankfully I have never had to have a sample of any sort taken to this point, I would rather have somebody pull a hair out of my head.

Therefore that argument does not wash with me. That is a no brainer, a non-starter in my opinion because it is non-intrusive.

The other thing which is very important and critical to this whole issue is what we will do as a government to prevent the abuse, the misuse of DNA evidence. I think the government is on track on that part of the bill. I do not argue with that.

Strict, harsh penalties will be imposed for anyone who abuses or misuses that DNA information. That is great and so it should be. No one in this House I believe would ever argue that point. If samples are taken for some cases and not others, then the opportunity still exists for the abuse or the misuse of DNA evidence. Therefore that argument does not wash.

The argument that does wash with me is the protection of people. Just a few minutes ago my colleague spoke about the number of houses with security systems in his riding. He thinks as do some others here that we could improve the safety and security of Canadians with the use of DNA evidence, DNA data banks.

I do not think it will happen overnight. If the bill were to go through according to our recommendations, I do not think Canadians would feel safe overnight but they would over time.

It is the right step to take at this point in time because as we move into the next century, I do not see any drop in the number of violent crimes. Our social system is in such a state that it could perhaps get worse. We have to take every step in order to protect people down the road.

The key thing is that if a known criminal knows that DNA sampling and evidence are available, they are more likely to think twice before they enter someone's house or commit a violent crime. They know that DNA evidence and the use of it is available. That also makes them a little bit more concerned if they have committed other violent crimes in the past. Over the long term I believe that we will make Canada a much more safe and secure place in which to live.

Perhaps the biggest group of people who would be opposed to the use of a data bank as we would like to see it is the legal profession. If I am a lawyer anywhere in Canada and DNA evidence sampling is available, it is going to be pretty hard to defend someone who we know almost for sure is guilty. Far too often in my life I have seen the legal profession make a living out of other people's misfortune. That is a sad thing.

I did not stand up here today to take a round at the legal profession because I know that we need them. Everybody should have a token lawyer. They are necessary. There is no question about that. What I am saying is that we must take every step that we can to ensure and assure people that their best interests are looked after.

I want to sum up what I have said. The two most important groups to me on this issue are the men and women who serve us, who defend our property and defend our safety and security on a day to day basis, the police officers of this country. We would do a terrible disservice to those people if we did not listen and heed their words of advice on this bill. A more important group, and the group I will leave to the last is the victims of violent crime in this country. I have looked, and I would ask my Liberal colleagues from the other side to go home this weekend and look deep into the eyes of a victim of violent crime. Then come back next week and tell me that they do not think that the DNA data bank that is effective is worth talking about.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to bring out an aspect of this bill that I think we have missed, even though we have heard a lot of speakers and we have had a lot of things brought forward.

The key part of this bill we need to focus on is the fact that the resistance we are running into on this bill relates exactly to the privacy issue, personal privacy. Whose privacy are we actually talking about? We are talking about the privacy of people who have been indicted. The police do not indict someone without good cause. What we are really looking to protect is the privacy of an individual who may have committed a heinous crime as opposed to the security and safety of Canadian citizens. We heard some of the heinous crimes that have been committed against women and children and if we can do anything to stop those heinous crimes. We are trading off the privacy issue and the safety of Canadians.

I have a bill on the same issue and which is going to be voted on next week, Bill C-284. It has to do with allowing parents and those who hire people to look after children to know whether or not the person has a history of being a paedophile. In that situation they would know if he has ever received a pardon. They would not put those children at risk again.

When we debated that bill in the House it was the same kind of thing. Everybody on this side was supportive of the bill, but what came from that side was “We have to protect the privacy of the convicted paedophile more than we need to protect the children who could be exposed to this kind of risk”.

This is the key difference. Are we going to protect citizens as we have been elected to do? Many of us are here because of our frustration with the justice system being too much concerned and overly focused on protecting the rights of criminals or those who are indicted, putting that at a higher level than the victims in our society.

The Liberal approach is just not working. This loose approach to the justice issue not only puts law-abiding citizens at risk, but it makes those who are contemplating criminal activity more likely to step into that kind of activity because the barriers are just not there. They are not seeing it as a deterrent. It has become a laughing stock.

We can talk about Bill C-3 which is the DNA bill, my Bill C-284 and we can talk about the Young Offenders Act. This theme is pervasive across all the justice issues: the protection of privacy, protection of the criminal and protection of those who have been charged.

When do we ever hear from the other side of the House about the protection of the victim, victims rights, the protection of those who may be harmed or who have been attacked and the protection of law-abiding citizens? That is what is at the heart of justice, law and order and peace in our society. That is what was at the heart of many of the election campaigns we fought only a little over a year ago and why many of us are here.

This particular bill points out a fundamental difference between the members on this side of the House and those on that side of the House. It is a fundamental difference that says they are going to protect criminals over the rights of law-abiding citizens and we are focusing on making sure that Canadians are not put at risk.

The police are the people who are closest to the action, closest to the issue. In so many cases businesses realize that if they want to know where the waste is they go to the front lines. They have implemented empowering people at the front lines because they have had to live with the waste and the issues. But the government is still stuck in a top down way of thinking that says that judges and those who live behind brick walls will decide for those who do not. The police know. They are on the front lines. They hear the stories. They see the broken lives. They have to live with the tragedies. They have to pick up the pieces.

It is interesting that the police tell us “Come on, let us get some things in place so our job has meaning again, so we can actually do the job we are paid to do, protect our communities and do something to serve as a deterrent”.

Mr. Speaker, may I just ask at this point how much time I have left?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member has 14 minutes remaining in his remarks, but I am afraid that the time for the consideration of Government Orders has come to an end for today. When debate resumes on this bill he will be able to carry on at some length.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on April 1, I rose during question period to ask the minister of defence whether he would put an end to the privatization of non-core activities in several Canadian forces bases.

The privatization of CFB Goose Bay has caused considerable hardship. Close to 200 workers were not rehired by SERCO. Wages have been cut dramatically and the low morale of the base employees has plunged to new depths.

The transitional allowance to compensation workers who had their wages slashed will end April 1, 1999, leaving the affected employees with reduced wages. Just like with the pay equity issue, the government chooses to turn its back on its former employees.

Now the new service provider SERCO is eligible to receive a performance bonus for the next five years if it meets certain criteria. This once again demonstrates that this government is more concerned with lining the pockets of foreign companies than protecting the interests of Canadian workers.

If these bonuses are to occur, the wages and benefits that SERCO employees now receive should be one of the evaluation criteria used in determining whether bonuses should be given. Those employees who are now working for SERCO should receive equitable wages and benefits comparable to what they were receiving as public servants.

The government is willing to give SERCO $875,000 for its performance in the period from August 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. These bonuses should not be earned on the backs of hardworking employees.

Furthermore there is still great concern that these privatization efforts will be extended to other bases. Six additional sites have been designated to go through the alternate service delivery process.

The communities of Gagetown, Kingston, Shilo, Suffield, Wainwright and Edmonton have a right to know on what basis they are being evaluated.

It is known that these sites will have an opportunity to reach the status of most efficient organization. If these sites are successful in doing so, the ASD process will stop.

How committed is the government to this process? Would further cutbacks in the department impede the MEO process? What is the percentage in savings each site has to achieve to be considered a most efficient organization?

The workers of these bases have a right to know what their goal is. The financial security of entire families hangs in the balance. The experience of CFB Goose Bay has shown us that privatization hurts workers and their families.

Let us hope that the Minister of National Defence has learned his lesson and will put a stop to any further privatization efforts.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Defence stated in the House previously, the Department of National Defence has an obligation to meet budget reduction targets.

The Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence must deliver the missions defined by the government in the defence policy in the most cost effective way possible within the constraints of the budget available. Achieving cost savings in support activities is something that can be done with the alternative service delivery program.

At the same time, however, this government has had an obligation and the desire to make sure that employees are treated fairly. We have demonstrated that with the way we have gone about downsizing the public service. We will demonstrate it again in terms of how we treat employees affected by the ASD program.

The options being considered include alternate service delivery such as competitive contracting, which includes internal submissions and the taking over of services by government employees, partnership agreements between the government and the private sector and, finally, privatization.

However, the Minister of National Defence has ordered the department to ensure that the six locations chosen in the spring for a study on alternate service delivery have an opportunity to show that savings may be made through internal work restructuring before a decision to award contracts by competition is reached.

The alternate service delivery program provides means for consultation and the fair participation of all stakeholders, including management, employees, unions, industry, local communities and other federal departments.

In the case of initiatives that could lead to staff reductions, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian armed forces will discuss the potential impact of the reductions planned with union leaders and the employees affected.

In such cases, arrangements will be made to ensure that the new employer hires department employees preferentially, and employees not offered jobs will be offered separation packages or a new position within the public service under the workforce adjustment directive.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 26, 1998, here in the House, I asked why the federal government did not put additional money into the transitional jobs fund in order to put more money into the resource regions.

In the three months that followed, that is April, May and June 1998, $100 million less was paid out in employment insurance in the Lower St. Lawrence region than in the same months of 1992.

It was as if a decision had been made to break the agreement that had more or less been in place in Canada, that the resource regions would produce and manage the natural resources and ship them out to the major centres, where industry would process them. The people in the resource regions would get financial compensation, such as employment insurance, to allow them to have a decent standard of living.

Since the employment insurance reforms, that compensation has been taken away from those working in primary sector industries, without giving them the possibility of diversifying their regional economy.

Our question addressed this, and is still pertinent today. Is the government going to decide to put more money into the transitional jobs fund, which is financed from the government's day-to-day funds and not from the employment insurance fund?

That money could be used to implement projects in our regional economies. For example, those who work in seasonal industries such as tourism, logging and agriculture, would then have an opportunity to develop projects and businesses, to promote winter tourism, to process wood or to expand the milk processing industry in their own communities. In other words, they could benefit from the annual surplus collected by the government as a result of the reduction in EI benefits. With revenues totalling some $19 billion and $12 billion being paid in benefits, the government ends up with a $7 billion surplus.

Would it not be possible for the federal government to find some way to put money back into the transitional job creation fund, so as to allow our regions to benefit from that fund, to diversify their regional economies and to reduce their dependency on employment insurance?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as we have stated over and over again, the central pillar of this government's mandate is employment growth. In the last four years, over one million full time jobs have been created in the private sector with more than 370,000 being created in 1997 alone. The unemployment rate is lower than it has been since 1991 and our commitment is not about to change now.

The transitional jobs fund was introduced in 1996 to help individuals and communities of high unemployment areas adjust to EI reform. Projects approved to date are expected to create over 31,000 sustainable jobs. However, a transitional program cannot be extended indefinitely, especially without a thorough evaluation which is currently underway.

In the meantime, through labour market development agreements with the provinces employment insurance continues to offer active measures to help the unemployed re-enter the workforce. Examples include targeted wage subsidies, earning supplements, employment assistance services as well as other benefits and support measures. The 1998 budget also sets aside money to promote employment for young Canadians as well as youth at risk through EI premium holidays and the youth services Canada program.

I take the hon. member's comment and I reiterate that this government is committed to employment growth. The transitional jobs fund is under review. After that review is completed a decision will surely be made.

Since the hon. member talked about the surplus in the EI account, I reiterate that back in 1986 the auditor general required the government of the time to consolidate the EI account into general revenues. So those moneys are going directly into consolidated revenues and are certainly being used for what are Canadian priorities.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.)