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.