Debates of Sept. 21st, 1998

Request For Emergency Debate

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the point I wanted to raise was in anticipation of what you said about the timing not being right. I believe that the timing is crucial because if the Alberta Court of Appeal brings its ruling down—

[The Speaker]

The member's point of order is out of order and I say that in the gentlest way possible.

The hon. member put his case to me and I have made my decision. Therefore my decision will stand at this time, notwithstanding the fact that no doubt the hon. member would have other advice to give me. I would ask him to give it to me perhaps in my chambers a little later on.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11.

Competition Act

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to talk about the fourth grouping on the various motions brought forward this morning and this afternoon.

I cannot support Motion No. 9 or its short form version, Motion No. 10. It would in effect require the director or the commissioner, as proposed in the new Bill C-20, to take a reviewable matter to the competition tribunal in situations where there was a complaint by just one person, without any opportunity to investigate the basis of the complaint or consider its merits. This raises concerns of fairness and could lead to abuse of process and a potential for waste of time, money and needless damage to reputation.

I hasten to note that the director gives serious consideration to all complaints which are made to him and takes action as he deems appropriate in various circumstances. In addition, the Competition Act currently provides for what is known as the six resident complaint which requires the director to open an inquiry.

The six resident complaint process is adequate to do the job of compelling the director to inquire into an alleged breach of the act. It also provides some assurance that there is some seriousness to the complaint about a practice that is distorting what should be a level playing field in the market and that the director's time and resources are not being wasted.

As I mentioned this motion would open up the door to potential abuse of process, raises concern about fairness and could result in time, energy and resources being squandered on groundless complaints.

With respect to Motion No. 11, which is part of the fourth grouping, a private party access to the courts is an important issue that was considered by the bureau. The consultative panel reported that the matter is extremely complex and requires more detailed analysis and meaningful public consultation. The director has already clearly stated that he would consult on this issue in the context of the next round of possible amendments to the Competition Act.

I would like to rebut some of the items the member from Lévis mentioned earlier. The director of the Competition Act, soon to be called the commissioner, reports to parliament although policy and policy changes comes through the Minister of Industry. The amount of discretion the minister has with the director is very little, being able to ask him to review a specific complaint or have another review of it.

I agree with the director and consultative panel that further analysis and consultation is required on Motion No. 11. I thank the member from Lévis for his comments but I cannot support Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address the final grouping of Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11. When looking at Group No. 4 amendments I would like to address the motions independently.

As many members of the House are aware all complaints that fall under the Competition Act are investigated by the commissioner and where deemed appropriate are then placed before the tribunal. Motion Nos. 9 and 10 would allow a single private individual over the age of 18 years to bring a case to the commissioner for investigation. The current procedure, however, is to insist that at least six individuals submit a complaint. This is a mechanism intended to help ensure against frivolous and vexatious submissions to the commissioner.

If a consumer has a complaint that he or she believes involves a violation of the Competition Act, he or she must find five other individuals who share the opinion that a violation of the Competition Act has occurred. This is not an unreasonable demand to place on the Canadian consumer. In fact by insisting that six individuals be part of the application process to the commissioner, we can work to ensure that Canadian businesses are not subject to a barrage of frivolous complaints. For this reason I would recommend that Motions Nos. 9 and 10 of Group No. 4 be opposed.

Motion No. 11 is one that I strongly considered supporting. I think the intent of the motion was to give Canadians direct access to the tribunal, thereby removing a barrier to communicating the needs of consumers. This motion would allow a single individual to bring a matter directly before the tribunal, removing the direct involvement of the commissioner.

While I would normally support an initiative that would allow citizens direct access to this court, this motion unfortunately maintains the insistence that a single individual can bring a case to the tribunal instead of six individuals currently required.

Competition legislation around the world has achieved mixed results. It is needed to ensure competitive practices. However we must not create legislation that entangles honest entrepreneurs in a regulatory mess. Consumers never benefit from creating a regulatory environment. That drives up the cost of business and places those costs on the consumer.

For the same reasons that I oppose Motions Nos. 9 and 10, I must also oppose Motion No. 11.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11. These motions as they pertain to Bill C-20 deal with the director of the competition bureau and what constitutes a reviewable matter.

At present we have a system in Canada whereby any six Canadians can petition the director of the competition bureau to begin an inquiry that he can then forward to the competition tribunal. These motions would effectively change this provision to allow any one Canadian to petition the director and force him to begin an inquiry.

I fail to see how this can in any way be perceived as fair or reasonable. The opportunity for abuse by a corporation with an axe to grind is brazenly apparent. The present provision requiring six signatories is a reasonable approach designed to avoid such abuse. If the potential for abuse does not scare us off, the potential backlog that this would create within the director's office should.

The hon. member seems to be aware of the need to guard against such abuses when she includes the wording “frivolous or vexatious”. If this is the case, then it should be self-evident that the present provisions need not to be tampered with.

As for Motion No. 11, this deals with private access to the tribunal resolution process. In the early rounds of public input on Bill C-20, in fact while it was still known as Bill C-67, it was decided that this issue should be put off until the next round of public consultations.

There are many submissions that lead to this decision and as a result different parties with vested interests in such a move have acted accordingly. To change this now would be the equivalent of the unseemly marketing practice known as bait and switch. As law makers we need to be setting an example here. Toward that end the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting no to these motions.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have already debated the first eight motions of Bill C-20 which were divided into three groups. Finally we are debating Group No. 4. There are three motions in this group, Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 11.

Motions Nos. 9 and 10 ask that a single private individual, an adult over the age of 18, be allowed to bring a case to the commissioner for investigation. The procedure now requires at least six individuals to lodge a complaint before it can be brought forward before the commissioner. This is a mechanism to help to ensure against frivolous and vexatious submissions to the commissioner.

The purpose is to avoid any abuse of the system or abuse of the liberty given to the individual to bring forward the complaint. On the other hand all complaints that fall under the Competition Act are investigated by the commissioner and where deemed appropriate would be placed before the competition tribunal.

Motion No. 11 requests that a single individual be allowed to bring a matter directly before the tribunal, removing any direct involvement of the commissioner. This will have potential for abuse again incurring unnecessary additional costs and creating unnecessary additional math for the small businessman. It is more desirable to have all complaints that fall under the Competition Act investigated first by the commissioner and then where deemed appropriate placed before the tribunal. Let us not put a small business or any business for that matter into an unwanted regulatory mess.

To summarize I remind the House that when the bill was introduced in the House the Reform Party put forward certain amendments to the bill so that we could support it. The government has accepted all those amendments. Therefore we approve of the effort by the government to modernize the Competition Act.

The Reform Party supports vigorous measures to ensure the successful operation of the marketplace. This includes promoting competition and competitive pricing and strengthening and vigorously enforcing competition and anti-combines legislation. We support severe penalties for collusion or price fixing in a competitive marketplace that serves the consumer well. It is reasonable to expect freedom from deception or collusion or any other anti-competitive practice that will inhibit the successful operation of the marketplace.

I am glad to support Bill C-20 on behalf of the citizens of Surrey Central who are citizens of this great country and senior citizens who are more vulnerable to fraud by telemarketers. We will be more than happy to support the bill but not at any cost. At this time we cannot support the amendments in Group No. 4, and as I mentioned earlier in the other three groups as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, as one of the final speakers to Bill C-20 I want to approach this from a different perspective.

I appreciate the intent of the amendment put forward by the hon. member from the Bloc. As I understand it his intent is to make it easier for people to bring their concerns and complaints before the commissioner and the competition bureau. We have to look at this in a larger context to really understand the impact and to see if that is really achieving the goal that we were trying to do in the first place with this bill.

If we look at the thrust of the bill we can see that the key things this bill is trying to do is to make sure that telemarketers give fair and reasonable disclosure of information at the beginning of each call, including the identity of the company, the purpose of the communication, the nature of the product, business or interest, the price, material restrictions and any terms and conditions applicable to delivery. The key thing in summary is that those who are involved in this kind of business are forthright, totally honest, provide all the information to the consumer and that there is no misrepresentation.

That is what the bill is trying to do. It is trying to protect those who have been abused by those who have not followed the rules in the past. If that is what we are trying to do, then maybe it is good that we have it clearly laid out in the legislation. For those who violate those criteria or cross the line, perhaps it is better that we have the tools in place to bring swift conviction and have appropriate penalties to serve as a deterrent.

The goal here is to have people adhere to the principles of honest business. The answer, I propose, is not to make it easier to complain and grow the regulatory quagmire and cost all Canadians more, including the consumers, to deal with all these complaints. Instead, the more cost-effective answer would be to have clear guidelines with a clear process for penalties for those who breach the guidelines and when warranted, significant penalties that serve as a deterrent.

This kind of approach results in less abuses and a lower cost to the consumer and the marketplace in general. I think it is prudent upon all of us here as we face the debt we have and the taxes we have not just to cut taxes and not just to pay down the debt, but even before all that to ask ourselves in every piece of legislation that comes before the House, are we doing it in the most cost-effective manner? Are we approaching it in a way that achieves the results with the minimal regulatory and bureaucratic quagmire that can result? Are we driving it home and achieving the results in the most cost-effective manner?

That is what we have to be asking ourselves today with the state of our national economy and the taxes that Canadians are paying. That is what they are expecting us to be asking here and that is the reflective position the Reform Party is taking on these particular amendments. We do not think it is a move in the right direction. It is not serving the Canadian taxpayer. Let us make sure the rules are clear and that if the rules are broken there is a significant enough penalty to serve as a deterrent.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 9. 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. And more than five members having risen :

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division on this motion will also apply to Motion No. 11.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

At the request of the chief government whip, the votes on the deferred divisions at the report stage of this bill have been deferred until tomorrow at the conclusion of the time provided for Government Orders.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion 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.

Dna Identification Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with true security. This means providing our law enforcement agencies with the latest technological tools to detect and apprehend the perpetrators of violent crime. DNA identification is that type of tool.

If used to its full potential, the DNA databank could be the single most important development in fighting crime since fingerprinting. It is time that we move from early 1900 technology to 21st century tools.

In its current form Bill C-3 is reprehensible and unacceptable because it maintains an unnecessary level of risk to the lives and safety of Canadians. Bill C-3 gives Canadians a false sense of security. The Reform Party cannot support the bill in its current form. We support the creation of a DNA databank, but the current scope of the bill is too limited.

The Liberals have taken what should be a relatively simple issue and have complicated it. This bill will provide lawyers with more business, but will solve very little crime.

The civil libertarians may be concerned, but in reality the databank is to be exclusively restricted to criminal detection and crime solving. Any abuse is subject to criminal penalty.

DNA databanks are currently in use in the United States, Great Britain and New Zealand. DNA forensic analyses have been instrumental in securing convictions in hundreds of cases in Canada and have helped the release of wrongly convicted persons, for instance, Guy Paul Morin to name but one.

The Liberals have been dragging their feet on DNA despite co-operation by the Reform Party going back to 1995 when we assisted the government in passing Bill C-104 which enabled police to obtain a warrant to seize bodily substances for DNA purposes.

As Bill C-3 now reads it would not have assisted in the investigation of Paul Bernardo, as he had never been convicted of a listed offence to tie him to the DNA profiles left at the scene of his criminal activities.

Bill C-3 gives our police the full use of DNA technology, but Bill C-3 does not allow the taking of a DNA sample at the time of charge. It does not allow samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals, other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers.

If the multiple murderer commits the murders on the same night we cannot take a sample from him. The murders must be committed separately. This is totally unacceptable.

Bill C-3 provides a dangerous and unnecessary exemption. It authorizes judges not to issue warrants for the taking of samples if they believe that in doing so the impact on the individual's privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest and the protection of society.

In committee the Reform Party asked for an example of such an instance. Nothing was forthcoming. The government it seems would rather protect the interests of criminals who would commit heinous crimes over those of law-abiding citizens.

The government cites finances as one reason why it is not willing to expand the DNA databank and allow for samples to be taken at the time of charge rather than conviction.

The Reform Party proposed that samples be taken at the time of charge and not be analysed until conviction. This would have satisfied the Canadian police associations and their concerns regarding offenders who are released on bail pending trial and skipping out.

During committee hearings on March 10, 1998, Dr. Ron Fourney, a research scientist in charge of the RCMP's forensic crime laboratory, said that the cost of a DNA case is about $4,500, but the cost of getting one's sample into the database is between $50 and $60.

At that cost it is justifiable to take a DNA sample from all persons charged with indictable offences, just like those who are fingerprinted.

We are told that the total cost of the DNA bank will be between $15 million and $18 million. The conclusive nature of DNA evidence often results in substantial savings for police and the courts since an investigation can be narrowed down and a trial very much simplified.

In the long term this is a cost effective tool and a great protection to society. By analyzing the DNA of all persons charged with violent offences other than common assault we could have 57,000 samples in the databank. Think of the added security that this would mean to all Canadians.

Let us look at the Clifford Robert Olson case and what Inspector Gary Bass, officer in charge of E Division of the British Columbia major crimes section had to say in committee and how essential it is to broaden the terms of Bill C-3.

He said:

I believe for a number of reasons the case of Clifford Robert Olson provides useful insight into various aspects of the currently proposed legislation. Not only is it a case that many Canadians have some knowledge of, but his earlier criminal history is not dissimilar to that of many of our most violent offenders. His criminal convictions date back to July of 1957 for break, entry, and theft.

Under the proposed legislation this would be a secondary designated offence under section 487.04. Pursuant to proposed paragraph 487.05(1)(b), application in theory could have been made at that time to take a sample for DNA analysis and entry into the DNA data bank.

By 1960 Olson had added convictions involving 19 offences of theft, break and entry. Through the 1960s he was convicted of a further 43 offences, which included break and entries, armed robbery, false pretences, and escapes. Through the 1970s he was convicted of another 25 offences involving similar crimes.

Between 1961 and 1982, 16 offences were either stayed or dismissed. One of these was robbery with violence in 1978. In April of 1981 stays were entered on indecent assault, buggery, rape, and gross indecency charges. By this time Olson had already killed his first known victim.

Given this backdrop, it's useful to examine what may have happened in Olson's case had we had DNA technology and the legislation proposed in Bill C-3.

There were several occasions during Olson's criminal career when DNA may have been taken pursuant to a secondary designated offence having been committed. It is unlikely that authorization would have been sought in the first instance. However, many more opportunities presented themselves over the following years.

Until 1980 there had been no primary designated offence for which he had been charged. In November of 1980 he was charged with buggery in relation to a 15-year old male. Olson's first known murder victim died November 19, 1980. Just six weeks later, on January 2, 1981, Olson was charged with rape, buggery, and other sexual offences and weapons offences in relation to an offence that undoubtedly would have ended in murder had the victim not escaped. In April 1981 these charges were all stayed by the crown.

On April 16 Olson's second victim was murdered, and five days later his third. The murders continued into August. Twice through that summer he was arrested and charged for sex-related offences and released again on bail. On July 2, a warrant for Olson's arrest for sexual assault was issued in relation to an offence committed two weeks earlier.

We will never know how many sex-related offences Olson committed before and during the time he was committing the murders. However, there were many; by some accounts in excess of 100. We learned of previously unknown victims as recently as last summer.

Under the currently proposed legislation, Olson's DNA profile would not have made its way into the DNA data bank for the rape, buggery, and indecent assault charges, which were later stayed.

This is very important. This is a policeman telling us what the concerns are for a very serious offender.

He continued before the committee:

There is absolutely no doubt that Olson had committed numerous other sexual offences prior to 1980. There's a strong possibility he had committed murder before 1980. Given today's technology and appropriate legislation, another Clifford Olson could be apprehended much sooner in his criminal career.

In Olson's particular case and with today's technology, he would have been apprehended after the first murder, if his DNA had been banked pursuant to the long history of secondary designated offences or if legislation permitted the taking and banking of DNA upon arrest and charge.

I've used the Olson case as an example because it clearly illustrates the points I'm trying to make. One is that violent sexual offenders progress through a pattern of other criminal activity. Two, once they become involved in sexual offences, there is a predictable pattern of increasing violence and shorter intervals between the offences.

Having said this, I do not want to leave the impression that this case is in any way unique in terms of the value of the DNA data bank to police investigations. Unfortunately, there are all too many criminals with characteristics similar to Olson's. The large number of homicides involved is unique; however, the frequent sexual attacks are not.

It is this category of offenders for which DNA data banking has the greatest potential in terms of gross numbers of criminal offences. The ability to data bank the DNA profiles at the time of the first offence charge provides the best chance to interrupt criminal careers.

It is highly unlikely that a serious sexual offender will be arrested for their first offence. Most first-time offenders will be granted bail, so it is important any previous similar activity be identified at that time. Linkage to other cases at this stage would provide stronger evidence through which bail could be opposed. Submissions of the DNA profile upon charge affords the opportunity to address these concerns.

The gross numbers of DNA profiles, which will be contained in the proposed DNA data bank, will be relatively small compared with our fingerprint files. Searching and cross-referencing, once the infrastructure is in place, will be relatively fast. There is no reason the DNA data bank should not work as well or better than the automated fingerprint identification section.

The value of the proposed DNA bank cannot be overstated, if used to full potential. There is indeed a valid public interest in the early detection, arrest, and conviction of offenders. In the class of offenders that we are discussing, early detection often means the prevention of further serious harm or loss of life—.

The DNA data bank has the potential literally to end an investigation after weeks as opposed to years.

From the police investigator's perspective, in the investigation of serious criminal offences—in particular primary designated offences such as sexual offences and homicides—there would be significant benefit in entering suspect DNA into the data bank at the time the suspect is charged. I believe this would be a reasonable and fair approach that would balance the legitimate privacy concerns of individuals against the public interest in the detection and prevention of serious criminal activity and in effective law enforcement.

If that is not reason enough to broaden Bill C-3, I do not know what is.

We on this side of the House have debated this issue at second reading and at committee. Now we are at third reading. Yet we heard even in question period today the minister talking about listening to what is going on and having commissions.

The police in our land are asking for help. They are telling us how we can save money, how we can process criminals more quickly so they cannot commit crimes again, but they are being ignored. It is really said.

There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides where DNA evidence has been left at the scene. DNA identification now offers unparalleled opportunity to solve many of these cases.

The government has this thing about the rights of the perpetrators. It has a real opportunity to turn the tables on our weak justice system and it refuses to budge. For a moment it can forget about the supreme court and the preoccupation with the charter of rights and freedoms. People's lives are at stake.

I reiterate what I said during the second reading debate on this bill on May 4, on which I spent a lot of time, as did other members of this party. The public wants DNA testing. The public wants protection against these types of criminals and the public deserves this kind of protection from this government. It would save us literally millions of dollars if we could catch some of these people quickly, put them in jail and get them out of society's hands so they can be rehabilitated, if that is possible. In the meantime they are not going to commit more crimes against humanity. We do not understand why the government is not prepared to put in proper DNA testing.

It is interesting to note that the taking of a blood sample in the case of a suspected impaired driver does not raise too much concern. In fact society applauds this. Somebody gets stops and you can take a blood sample. No problem. Why is it different in the case of DNA samples left at the scene of a crime? We take blood samples for the purpose of determining impairment. There is no difference. The invasion of privacy has already taken place in the Criminal Code. It looks after that. Is there any difference at all? I do not see any difference. We take fingerprints. We take blood samples. What is wrong with DNA? It would help the police.

The authority to take samples is already there and overrules the privacy issue in this case. If the fear is over the databank and the keeping of blood samples we just have to look at the thousands of blood samples taken by doctors and nurses each day and kept in some sort of bank. These blood bank files are not being exploited. Why would a DNA bank be any different? Everybody in the House has probably had at least one medical and had some blood taken. Somewhere that blood is in a bank. If somebody wanted for whatever reason they could find it, but it has not been exploited. For some strange reason the government wants to set up a difference between fingerprinting, blood samples and DNA.

Listen to the experts who came to a committee before the House. They all are in favour of this. Why is the government afraid to take the next step? It will do it sooner or later. Do it now. The Canadian Police Association prepared and submitted a legal opinion and concluded there would be no constitutional concern with taking samples at the time of being charged. As we said before, we can take the samples and they can be held until a conviction if that is what we want. Why wait when there is so much that could be done?

I go back to the Clifford Olson case. We could have saved some people from being murdered if this was in process then. It was not but we can stop other crimes from happening in the country.

Why is the government so bent out of shape on this issue and so intransigent? We all want to fight to reduce crime. We all want to solve crimes. My party does not understand why the government is so upset with this.

I have a letter signed by the Canadian Police Association, Neal Jessop, president. He is offering help by saying let us come to help you make the legislation better. That is why we are here as legislators. We want to make better legislation. This piece of legislation is flawed and it needs some improving.

I move, seconded by the member for Medicine Hat:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The debate is on the amendment.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know most of the members from the other side of the House would agree that we want to solve crime. I also know members would want to make sure innocent people are not convicted of a crime for which they are not guilty. I know they have said that on a number of occasions. I have also heard them say on a number of occasions how important it is to get preventive measures into place to better protect Canadians.

If the amendments we proposed and which have been proposed by the Canadian Police Association were adhered to by the government and were adopted by the House, would that make it a very preventive tool?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that if the government had listened to the amendments in committee and instituted them into this bill we would have a bill that would be supported by every party in the House, every police association and, more important, the majority of Canadians who would like to have this protection. It is necessary and parliament is making a big mistake if the bill is passed the way it is.

Associations are writing and faxing us today saying hoist this bill for six months so they have a chance to tell the government to take this extra step. We have to give the police the tools to work with. We know that Canadians want this and we in parliament have to try to make that happen. We hope the government will really listen and hoist it for six months. Let us listen to Canadians, the police association and others and bring in a bill that will be good for all Canadians.