Debates of Sept. 21st, 1998

Dna Identification Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to be that close to debate on the bill, although I have certainly been aware of it. For those who are watching I ask the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast to explain.

As he has articulated today, with the way the bill is structured right now the DNA sample is taken after conviction. It is like shutting the door after the horse is already out of the barn. There is not much point in doing it. Whereas if a DNA sample could be taken at the time of indictment the benefit of this would be greatly increased. The current state of the bill almost makes it ineffective and not that beneficial. The change the hon. member is calling for makes it worthwhile and effective. Is it really even of much benefit the way it is compared to the amendment we have been calling for?

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

Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is what the police testified before the committee. I use the Olson case as an example because it clearly illustrates the points I am trying to make. One is that violent sexual offenders progress to a pattern of other criminal activity. If we can take the sample when people are charged, at least somebody like Olson would have come up on the screen. It would have matched itself right away.

The government talked about a cost of $4,500 to process all this stuff. I quote Dr. Ron Fourney: “When the database gets established, we fully intend to use a control standard by way of collecting. I showed you some bloodstained cards. We can put blood on that card, do a one millimetre punch off the card and process the DNA in about 15 or 20 minutes. Having it ready for CPR and running it through the entire test it is estimated that one sample will cost $50 to $60”. Here is a case of 15 to 20 minutes.

If we could all buy life insurance for that same price would we not all buy it? That is what this is. DNA is life insurance for Canadian citizens.

It is insurance to make sure that one does not get raped or robbed by somebody who is a continuous offender. It allows society to know that the minute they are arrested and charged they can be checked in the databank. If they have committed rapes in Ontario and they are in British Columbia they are not going to escape.

I had an interesting case today about people going through the system. I just received a report a few minutes ago about a man in British Columbia who was charged and convicted for the rape of a young British Columbian woman with cerebral palsy a number of years ago. He was ordered deported with his conviction. He served his time, got one-third off for good behaviour and is on the streets today. The young woman who was raped and her mother are terrified that he is going to come back and go after them.

I phoned the immigration department and was told that he was ordered deported and that the department should find him. The system is failing. I use that as an example to match against the DNA. In this case we have a convicted rapist now wandering the streets of Vancouver. If we do not use DNA we are going to have convicted criminals coming in, getting out and then we go after them later. They know how to disappear very fast. That is why it is so important that we get this bill improved before it gets third reading.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House today on Bill C-3, the purpose of which is to create a national DNA data bank.

This bill will create a tool accessible to all the police forces in Canada. As well, this innovative approach will enable Canada to be one of the first countries to make use of cutting edge technology for the identification of genetic fingerprints in order to create a national DNA bank.

The government proceeded cautiously with this legislation in order to have a full examination and public debate on privacy issues, among others. Because DNA has the potential to reveal much more about the person than the breath sample, fingerprinting or even routine blood tests, we have had to examine individual privacy rights of today and also look beyond to consider how this legislation might affect those rights in the future.

Right from the start, the Solicitor General carried out an in depth examination of the issues involved. The government drafted the bill that was tabled last year after consulting groups and individuals across the country. The bill was subsequently submitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights prior to second reading. The committee, which heard over 30 witnesses, did a remarkable job of examining the bill in record time.

Since its presentation, the bill has been subjected to an open and transparent examination. I must also give tribute to the Solicitor General, who took the necessary steps to focus the process on consultation and to maintain its transparency.

Since the protection of privacy constitutes an important element in this bill, I would like to share with you the government's point of view on these matters and to show you how Bill C-3 is rooted in a solid and balanced approach.

First of all, I would like to address the question of sample retention. Scientists have brought out solid arguments demonstrating that it is essential to retain biological samples for the DNA data bank in order to be able to benefit from future technological progress.

Last March, an RCMP expert in criminalistics told the committee that major progress has been made in recent years in the area of using DNA fingerprints for identification. Now it is possible to examine smaller samples, including ones from decomposed material. This technological progress indicates that DNA analysis is one of the most active and rapidly evolving areas of technology.

As the technology evolves, today's gains from DNA identification could easily become obsolete.

Bill C-3 provides for the storage of samples of bodily substances. This means that Canada's first national DNA data bank will keep pace with the technological progress and will be able to communicate with the other laboratories and data banks in the world. The main concern may have to do with access to these samples and DNA profiles.

Bill C-3 is patterned on a bill passed in July 1995 that dealt with warrants—and members of the opposition should listen to this most important part—authorizing the collection of samples for forensic DNA analysis. Bill C-3 includes similar protective measures and provisions regarding the collection of samples for forensic DNA analysis.

So far, these legislative provisions on warrants have survived all the legal challenges made under the charter, and they have served as a sound basis for the establishment of the DNA data bank.

Therefore, Bill C-3 includes strict rules governing the collection of bodily substances and DNA identification, as well as the storage of DNA profiles, so as to protect people's privacy.

For example, the RCMP will be responsible for the safe storage of all bodily substances. Moreover, under the act, only those responsible for operating and maintaining the data bank will have access to the profiles and samples. To ensure that the information is used properly, the act explicitly provides that only the name indicated in the profile will be transmitted to police authorities in the course of criminal investigations.

The bill also provides a maximum sanction of two years less a day for all those not abiding by these provisions. Offences involving misuse of the data bank will be included in the Criminal Code and in the DNA Identification Act.

To ensure that the data bank respects the right to privacy of all innocent individuals found at the scene of a crime or law abiding citizens who volunteer to provide samples for genetic analysis, the bill contains provisions to permanently deny access to information in a criminal case pertaining to a victim or an individual no longer considered a suspect in a police investigation.

The aim of this important protective measure is to exclude DNA profiles of innocent individuals from the data bank.

Bill C-3 also provides an opportunity for persons required to provide DNA samples to express their preference as to the type of sample they would like to give. The police are then required to take that preference into account but are in no way obligated to take the sample specified by the person. This is because the police must take other considerations into account.

For example, a judge from the Ontario court of justice recently ruled that the taking of hair samples was unconstitutional. In addition, forensic scientists have advised that blood provides the best sample for successful DNA typing.

Bearing all this in mind, Bill C-3 allows the police to make the final decision on the sample to be taken.

In addition to the protective measures and sanctions provided in Bill C-3, other mechanisms exist to ensure that the bill will be applied in such a way as to maintain a balance between the protection of privacy and the protection of the public.

Once the data bank is in operation, the Privacy Commissioner will be able to verify this at any time. The Privacy Act permits him already to oversee the use of personal information in the hands of the federal government.

In addition, Canada's forensic laboratories are currently developing regulatory standards. Once these standards are in effect, the forensic labs may be studied by an independent body to ensure they meet international quality assurance standards.

Provisions already exist, like the one in the Privacy Act, providing that information, including genetic information, may not be transmitted to another country unless an agreement exists with it.

In addition, under the Privacy Act, information may be disclosed to a foreign state only for the purpose of administering or enforcing a law or carrying out an investigation.

Since the RCMP will be responsible for the DNA data bank, all functions must be consistent with that organization's internal standards, which are among the most rigorous in the world.

The RCMP also works closely with a number of international groups and committees in this area, including the technical working group on DNA analysis sponsored by the FBI, which keeps Canada up to date on the most recent technology and helps us ensure that our standards correspond to those in effect internationally.

I would now like to explain why the bill provides for samples to be taken at the time of sentencing, and not when an arrest is made or a charge laid, as certain colleagues are proposing.

Throughout the consultations held on the bill and committee hearings, many individuals and groups told the government that taking samples at the time of arrest would present difficulties. Rarely is someone convicted on the strength of DNA evidence alone.

In fact, DNA evidence is not always available at the crime scene. Various factors, such as alibis, motives, fingerprints, evidence of eyewitnesses, and so forth, are taken into consideration in a criminal proceeding.

There has been considerable discussion to determine whether taking samples when an arrest is made or a charge laid without first obtaining a warrant is consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Three eminent former appeal court judges from Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia examined the issue as part of an independent review. Their findings clearly confirm the government position that taking samples when a charge is laid would be contrary to the provisions of the charter.

Let us be quite clear on this point. The government must continue to act carefully, responsibly and thoughtfully in this respect. We want to take the approach that is in the best interest of Canadians. Therefore, we must ask ourselves the following questions.

First, is it justified to collect bodily substances every time someone is arrested, when DNA data may not even be relevant?

Second, how would the criminal justice system benefit since judicial experts have told us time and time again that the risk of a charter challenge was much too high?

Third and last, why jeopardize the establishment of a DNA data bank designed to better protect all Canadians by going too far?

Taking samples at the time of conviction is the approach that ensures both effective law enforcement and protection of individual rights during the course of a criminal investigation. As the Privacy Commissioner of Canada told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, intelligent privacy protection is compatible with effective law enforcement. Let us give both a chance.

The police know all too well how easy it is for a case to be thrown out on a constitutional basis. In light of this, it is the responsibility of every member of this House to play a constructive role in creating a DNA data bank that will balance public protection with the charter and individual privacy rights.

I think such a balance has been struck by the government in Bill C-3. That is why I support it wholeheartedly and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before allowing questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie-Bathurst, National Defence; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment insurance.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I found two things interesting in my colleague's remarks with respect to Bill C-3 on the DNA data bank. First is the opinions of judges on what is constitutionally or lawfully allowed to be taken in terms of samples by any police force or judicial system.

The last time I checked, this was the building and we were the people who were supposed to be the law makers. The judges who are appointed in this country were supposed to be the group of people who uphold those decisions. I think it is another indication of where this government has gone, putting far more responsibility in allowing the courts, including the supreme court, to make the decisions that need to be made and enforced from within this House.

The question I have for my colleague concerns the innocent person. He talks about protecting the rights of innocent people. I know a lot of police officers in police forces across this country. They do not go around arresting innocent people because they have nothing else to do on a Saturday night. They obviously have some strong evidence in order for them to make that arrest initially.

Under our recommendations, the bill would make it so that it is a guarantee that anybody who was arrested by mistake would be found innocent. It is almost an ironclad guarantee with the use of DNA evidence.

I would ask my colleague that very simple question. If he is so interested in protecting the rights of innocent people, why would he not be in favour of using DNA evidence at the point of arrest? If that person is found innocent, then that DNA evidence or report would not go into the DNA bank. It is very, very simple. To me it makes no sense that we would not be looking at that kind of system.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised frankly that a member would say that we can change the constitution in this House alone when we know full well that the constitution of the country can be amended only with certain provisions having to do with the involvement of provinces, unless we want to refuse to recognize the prerogative of provinces to interfere.

Regarding the question of using DNA at the time of arrest, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that this can be done. The only condition that there must be to fulfil it is to get a warrant.

The protection of civil liberties is guaranteed by the fact that the judge has to order the taking of DNA samples. It can be done but it cannot be done randomly. It cannot be done without any form of protection.

We are a society where we want to balance our fight for civil liberties with the requirements for tools for our justice system to be executed in a most secure way for Canadians. That is a fundamental philosophy.

I would accept that the hon. member does not share this philosophy or that anybody else does. You may also differ with me, Mr. Speaker.

My point is that our fundamental philosophy is preservation of civil liberties at the same time as the absolute fight against crime.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the member respond to the letter from the Canadian Police Association. I know he has received a copy of it as all members have.

Regarding the getting of samples at the time of arrest, the letter states that this issue is paramount to Canadian police officers. By virtue of the CPA they have obtained an independent, and mark that word independent. Unlike the picked judges who wrote decisions supporting the government's position, they have an independent legal decision stating that their position on this issue is constitutionally sound.

The letter states “We attempted to work with the Department of Justice and they were unable to understand the significance of our position, perhaps because they never had to look in the eyes of a sexual assault victim or a grieving family member. We now turn to you our elected representatives to do what is right for Canadians. If you choose not to, we police officers will be forced to explain to that grieving family member that his or her government had the information and the ability to prevent such an act of violence but they chose not to”.

There should be a response for the police officers all over this land who support our stand on this issue.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find that interesting, and I am going to respond in my mother tongue in order to express myself a little more easily.

There is one thing that strikes me, although it ought not to surprise me. Members of the Reform Party attach more importance to the statements made by the Canadian Police Association than to three eminent judges from three different provinces, more than they do to representatives of the Ontario Ministry of Justice, or to representatives of the Quebec Ministry of Justice. None of these comments hold any importance for them, compared to those reported here from the Canadian Police Association.

This, I believe, reveals the fundamental difference in philosophy between wanting to turn up criminals everywhere, at any price and with absolutely no respect for the basic freedoms, and really finding the criminals as part of an organized process that respects people's rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just have one question for my colleague across the way.

We pay attention to the police association because we know the police are out there dealing with criminals every day. I do not believe judges should be making political statements either. They are supposed to be judges and should not be commenting on this type of thing.

Let me ask about the charter of rights because the member talks about that. The charter of rights allows us to fingerprint people. If people get arrested their fingerprints are taken. The charter of rights allows blood to be taken from people if the police think they are impaired.

Why does the member think this would be any different? DNA is as simple as putting some saliva on a piece of card and taking a blood sample. It is a very simple thing to do. It does not affect anyone's rights. We have to be charged and arrested to get it done. It certainly will save a lot more people. We can put protections in there to make sure that if one is acquitted it can be eliminated. There can be a lot of ways to remove this, if there is concern about that.

It is interesting. Our fingerprints are taken for a passport. That is now in the system so if people commit a crime they can be picked up right away. They have done it for a simple reason, to get a visa to go to the United States or somewhere.

We do a lot of things in life. Those of us who are not involved in criminal activity do not mind our blood being taken and do not mind fingerprints being taken for travel documents. I would not mind having my DNA somewhere either.

It seems we are more concerned about protecting criminals than we are about people.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I would like to understand.

These questions raised by my hon. colleague have been answered time and again before the committee that he claimed he attended so assiduously over the deliberations. The answers were given so I am going to repeat them for him in case he missed that point.

When we take fingerprints we take a picture of a finger. It does not reveal anything else but identity based on a picture. DNA is much more revealing than simply a picture.

[An hon. member]

Like what?

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

The likelihood of the occurrence of a genetic sickness, for example. I do not want to get into a debate on that. It is much more revealing. If the member does not know what it is, he should consult scientists and they will tell him how much more revealing a DNA sample is compared to a fingerprint.

My colleague is right. We can at the present time take a blood test for purposes of conduite avec facultés affaiblies par les effets de l'alcool. The reasoning which was given by the courts in this regard is very clear: if we do not do it then the evidence will disappear. That is the basis on which it was allowed, not because it was an infringement upon any right of anybody else but because the evidence would disappear if we did not do it.

This balanced approach and interpretation of the charter must be maintained. That is how our rights will be preserved and criminal activity will be fought against at the same time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the amendment put forward by my hon. friend from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast. I am pleased as well, Mr. Speaker, to see you back in the chair.

Bill C-3 is obviously one of great importance to not only police officers and the judicial system but to all Canadians. Unfortunately, however, the government's reluctance to accept substantial amendments to Bill C-3 will seriously undermine this law's effectiveness. An unfortunate opportunity is being missed here.

I reiterate my thanks and appreciation for the many individuals and organizations that testified before the justice committee on this legislation. The committee stage reviews were truly an exhibition of the legislative process at its best in that a huge diverse range of opinions and suggestions was brought forward by those who testified at committee.

Although the member's amendment and the amendments by other members to this legislation were not accepted, the process has continued along. It did not get mired down in partisan politics. Yet we find ourselves at the brink of this legislation coming into being, I would suggest, in a very flawed and unfortunately damaged fashion.

I do not intend to review the entire substance of the legislation as many of my colleagues and I have spoken to the bill on previous readings. I intend, however, to highlight the sad and unfortunate situation in which members of the opposition find themselves.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting his speech. I wish to designate tomorrow as an opposition day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.

Dna Identification Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time I have been interrupted on this bill. I have no difficulty with that.

I find myself as do other opposition members in the unfortunate situation that we, along with members of the policing community and other Canadians, are anxious to see the legislation come to fruition. We want to see it before the Canadian people and entrenched in our criminal law in a way that the police can use it effectively.

As I indicated before we are in support of the bill in principle. It is fair to see that almost everyone without exception is supportive of the bill, but there are serious problems with the legislation that we in the House have the golden opportunity to fix. Yet the government has chosen to refuse pleas from a non-partisan group as the Canadian Police Association.

If the government proceeds with the legislation in its present form it will lose a significant and real opportunity to put into the hands of the law enforcement community the ability to fight crime, which is ultimately the task with which it has been charged, a tool that would give it the ability to effectively investigate and would assist it in its ability to combat serious crime.

It is not political posturing, I would suggest, by any opposition member who states this is the case. Everyone agrees the Canadian Police Association is an excellent organization that represents the concerns of frontline police officers, those individuals who form the thin line between the criminal element in society which exists, a rust and a cancer in our communities, and those individuals who are day to day out there risking their lives and putting themselves in harm's way to combat crime.

I quote from the Canadian Police Association's most recent publication in the context of the legislation: “Getting this bill straightened out should be the government's priority when parliament returns unless the Liberals yearn for more embarrassment in the criminal justice field”.

This opportunity is being put forward to get it right and to get it right the first time. The Solicitor General and Minister of Justice have talked incessantly about the importance of crime prevention and about it being a priority of government. Yet by refusing to amend the bill to allow the use of DNA at the time of charge, the Liberals are removing a key tool to help law enforcement officers and their communities to prevent crime.

If a DNA sample could be collected at that point in time and used in the same investigation in which the police were involved, it would be a very important way to match a DNA crime scene sample to the DNA crime bank that would be in existence. The evidence of that investigation could be used to see if there was a match with unsolved crime or crime scenes from other unsolved matters.

It goes without saying that this would be very useful in the approach to ongoing or unsolved crimes. Again I would suggest that the emphasis here is on serious serial rapists, murderers, crime at the very high end, at the very top echelon of the Criminal Code.

For example, a DNA sample that was taken from an individual charged with an armed robbery or a break and enter could be cross-referenced with the data in the databank that would be in existence to see if there had been a match and consequently uncover an individual in question who may have left a DNA sample at a previous crime scene. It would be a preventive method, a proactive ability by the police to prevent further crime and in essence hold a person in custody and hold a person later accountable if that match proved consistent with other evidence.

We should consider the high frequency of flight of individuals on bail. A person who is being held on evidence in relation to a particular offence goes through a process of judicial interim release or a bail hearing and is released from custody after an analysis has taken place. Having that DNA sample and the ability to make a match, in a very straightforward and simple process which I hope to address later in my remarks, between the offender being held in custody and the DNA bank that exists for outstanding criminal offences might be the pivotal piece of evidence to prevent the person's release.

I would adamantly reiterate to the House the experience of the courts, police officers and prosecutors throughout the land. If individuals being held in custody for relatively minor offences—and I say relative when we are talking about crimes of violence, invasion of a person's bodily integrity, rape, murder or such offences—were to be released and a DNA sample could be taken at that time to see if they were involved in more serious unsolved or outstanding offences about which there is crime scene analysis evidence available through the DNA bank, if we have the physical ability to make those matches, why would the government not take that opportunity? It seems absolutely asinine that we would pass up this opportunity. This is the position that the CPA and other law enforcement agencies have been seriously and adamantly suggesting to the government.

As I was suggesting, when one considers the frequency of individuals who flee when out on bail, it becomes a penetrating statement of the obvious to say that this is an opportunity to prevent crime and to prevent a person fleeing not only the jurisdiction but possibly the country. Unfortunately in this country there is a very low frequency of jurisdictions that will then return a person to face prosecution in a jurisdiction.

Without the provision in this legislation to collect at the time of charge, Bill C-3 is seriously flawed and will create a databank that fails to meet the full potential in the prevention of crime.

Is that not what it is all about? Is that not something all of us in the Chamber as Canadians should be concerned about in our justice system? Should we not be doing everything in our power to try to prevent crime?

There has been mention by other members, and other members in opposition in particular, of the exculpatory nature of this type of evidence. As other hon. members would agree from a defence perspective exculpatory evidence is that again which has an immense purpose and an immense importance in our justice system.

One only has to conger up the names of Milgaard, Morin and Donald Marshall in my home province of Nova Scotia to recall that if the ability to take a DNA sample and if the ability to use that type of technology existed, perhaps these abominations of justice where individuals were wrongly accused, wrongly convicted and spent a good part of their young lives behind bars for crimes they did not commit could have been avoided.

There are strong arguments to be made on both sides of our justice system which is often very adversarial in nature, but from a defence perspective as well. We are talking about the use of exculpatory evidence.

I would suggest that if a person found himself in the unfortunate position of being charged with an offence that he did not commit that individual would be rushing to come forward and give a sample of his DNA. If the person has nothing to hide, by all means he would want to clear himself of that cloud of doubt and that criminal charge. He would by all means ask to have his blood taken or a sample of his hair or saliva taken because he would want to prove his innocence. Why would we want to discourage that from happening?

Certainly the solicitor general and this Liberal government should be able to recognize that. Certainly the Department of Justice should be able to recognize that in its drafting of this bill. Then again the solicitor general has displayed here today in question period that he does not necessarily recognize the difference between a criminal investigation and a judicial proceeding in relation to the hearings that the RCMP Public Complaints Commission is going through. I realize I digress but there appears to be an apparent contradiction in the approach.

The Liberals as well as my hon. colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP have expressed their concern with the standard for the collecting of DNA samples at the time of charge. They feel, and perhaps fairly, that there needs to be a very high standard applied. I would like to address that momentarily.

As a former crown attorney I would like to echo the assertion of many, including a noted criminal defence lawyer, Tim Danson, that at the time of charge there must be a certain standard. However, that standard must be based on reasonable and probable grounds to hold a person in custody. This is the standard that is applied universally in our justice system. There has to be enough evidence coupled with the appearance of DNA at the scene before a person would be held. Surely that standard is not going to be subverted by the additional use of DNA in any judicial hearing.

I understand the trepidation and perhaps some reluctance on the part of the NDP to have full use of DNA at the time of charge. But I again suggest that it is not only for the use of the state in the prosecution of offences. It would surely be of great significance and assistance in the defence of those who are wrongly accused.

I want to further refer to the comments of Mr. Danson who was solicited by the Canadian Police Association to give an independent opinion with respect to the use of DNA and the fear, and I would even suggest constitutional constipation, that this government has repeatedly displayed when it comes to the use of DNA. Mr. Danson stated that if Bill C-3 were amended to allow for the collection of DNA samples at the time of charge, it would withstand a constitutional challenge under the charter of rights and freedoms.

During justice committee hearings on this bill the government was urged to provide its legal opinions that collecting DNA samples at the time of charge would endanger the legislation, endanger meaning that it might result in the legislation or parts thereof being struck. The Liberal government refused to do that.

The Liberal government chose, after the committee had completed its hearings and deliberations, to then go out and seek a legal opinion from three retired—and to quote the government speaker—eminent jurists in this country, who gave a contrary opinion to Mr. Danson's. I am not going to cast aspersions on that opinion. Suffice it to say that within our justice system time and time again we have seen differences of opinion not only from other lawyers but certainly from the judiciary itself otherwise we would not have a court of appeal, we would not have the Supreme Court of Canada. Time and time again we have seen differences of opinion with respect to this piece of legislation.

I ask rhetorically whether we in this House and the government should be curtailed in our passage of laws that would apparently be of benefit to the law enforcement community in their combating of serious crime and of great benefit to all Canadians. Should we be curtailed, so paranoid as to what the courts might or might not do?

I challenge the government to give us a substantial example of where that abuse of DNA is going to take place. Its drafters of this legislation have within its body included serious ramifications for any sort of misuse or misappropriation of DNA evidence. There are safeguards in place. There are very definite and very serious ramifications for the misuse of this type of DNA technology.

I would emphatically suggest that we have to move forward. We have to move into the 21st century with the technology that is available to us. Why on earth would we hesitate to do so when it comes to such a critical issue as the use of DNA in the combating of serious crime.

Although the timing of the release of the opinion is suspect, that is the contrary opinion to Mr. Danson's, I do not intend to delve into why that contrary opinion came back from the jurists. It would not surprise me if the opinion had come back the other way. A difference of opinion in our justice system, which is an adversarial system, is healthy. It is to be expected. However, juxtaposed positions taken by those involved in our justice system is the way that things currently work. This is part of the process. It is part of a healthy debate and part of the practice of law as you well know, Mr. Speaker.

The government should not hide behind the fears about a potential charter challenge especially in light of the considered opinions submitted by other legal minds, like Mr. Danson. The government should not hide behind legal opinions submitted by retired jurists who, though well-intended no doubt, I would suggest have been given an incomplete and inaccurate term of reference by the Department of Justice. It was also a rather rushed opinion given the amount of debate and the amount of in-depth analysis that took place at the justice committee.

At the risk of being redundant, I repeat that Bill C-3 is a golden opportunity to optimize the use of this new technology. The Liberal government has done a disservice to the law enforcement community and to all Canadians by holding back on the use of this type of legislation. It treads with caution and tables legislation which hampers the ability of law enforcement agencies to effectively do their jobs.

Let us let parliament act in the name of public safety and not out of constant fear of judicial intervention. We have an opportunity to use legislation to the full degree of the law, not treading on the rights of innocent individuals, not crossing the line when it comes to civil liberties. There are safeguards in place within this piece of legislation.

As I said earlier, I am fully in support of this initiative taken by the government. I commend it for its decision to introduce DNA. I do not want to over emphasize it, but in my former life as a crown attorney I was involved in cases that involved DNA evidence. It is extremely useful. It is absolutely vital to furthering the cause of justice in this country.

This legislation in its current form does not go far enough. It is an opportunity that we have now to right a wrong and to make a relatively minor adjustment as to the timing of the taking of the sample and the use thereafter.

I suggest that we in this chamber and we as members of parliament should not be held back. If we pass this legislation with this fear, this somewhat unrealistic and perhaps paranoid fear that the legislation would not survive judicial scrutiny, we are doing a tremendous disservice and we are holding back at a time when we should be moving forward.

This is not a rational fear that exists on the part of government. It is certainly something worth deliberating. It is something worth discussing in this chamber, in this public forum.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, that is why we are supportive of this motion. If it means delaying the passage of this legislation by a relatively short time, by six months as suggested by the hon. member, I am in support of that. I would suggest that all law enforcement officers and all Canadians would want to get it right in the first analysis, in the first instance.

On behalf of our party, we support this amendment. We suggest that the government and this House be provided with another six months to examine this piece of legislation and make sure that we provide a piece of legislation that is going to best serve Canadians and best serve our judicial process.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate that we are having today. I listened with great interest to the intervention made by the member from the Conservative Party. It was a very, very thoughtful approach, one which we would all do well as parliamentarians to listen to.

I would like the member to comment, if at all possible, on one question. It has to do with the process.

Obviously, the committee has heard all of the different witnesses. They have come forward. Undoubtedly they have heard arguments on both sides. It seems to me from what he was saying that the overwhelming amount of evidence in committee was to support the conjecture that the testing should be done at the time of arrest, that it should be strengthened. That is what I have been gathering here. I would like him to clarify that.

Beyond that, I would like to give him the opportunity with this question to respond to the process in this House. I am going to be as judicious as I can because I do not want to be accused of any unparliamentary procedure. I would like him to comment on the level of interest among the members on the government side.

This is a justice issue and it would be wonderful to see the justice minister rise in her seat and ask questions of him to see whether or not there would be a possibility of a change. What he has said has been so utterly reasonable that I do not think even an unreasonable Liberal would want to refuse to listen to the argument.

However the level of interest here is so low that it must be a little frustrating. I think it is time to shake up and wake up this Liberal government to respond to these very, very serious justice issues in the way we on this side of the House are trying to promote.

Perhaps I can have the member respond to those two questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. Perhaps I will respond to the last one first.

As the hon. member is aware and I as a new member of this House was made aware very early on, it is not appropriate to comment specifically with respect to the appearance in the House or absence from the chamber of certain individuals. However I certainly echo his remarks when he suggests that there is an apparent—I would not go so far as to say lack of interest—but an apparent presence with respect to this government on particular justice issues in a public forum.

I have always been of the mind and I would like to make the statement that this of all places is the most public forum I know of to have these types of discussions, to bring forward these important issues, justice issues, health issues and issues of the economy.

I may be wrong in my interpretation of the words of the House leader when he held a press conference last week in anticipation of this opening. There was a suggestion that there was going to be greater emphasis from this government to have members of the government side, particularly ministers, present in the chamber when these discussions were to take place.

We have seen many examples in the last year where important government announcements were made at the press gallery across Wellington Street as opposed to here in the chamber.

We have given the Prime Minister an opportunity to stand today in his place to make a prime ministerial pronouncement clarifying his role in what took place in Vancouver and the RCMP's handling of the security at that time.

I would hope that this government's constant repeating of the mantra of transparency and accountability and openness is something that is going to be demonstrated in this chamber as opposed to simply lip service done through the press.

With respect to the first comment made by my hon. friend regarding the deliberations and the debate that took place at the justice committee, I had the honour of being a member of that committee. I did attend faithfully those committee hearings when this discussion took place.

The hon. member is correct to suggest that a good number of the witnesses who appeared at that time were very supportive of the contention that we should be allowing police officers to take DNA sampling, not necessarily at the time of charge which some police officers suggest, but at the very least at the time that a charge has been laid.

That threshold of reasonable and probable grounds and evidence has then been met. There is sufficient evidence to lay a charge. That is the standard which all peace officers in this country must meet. Having a DNA sample only furthers that. A DNA sample is perhaps the most decisive piece of evidence that can be found at a crime scene.

Again we are seeing this government put the reins and blinders on police officers and not allow them to go far enough in the pursuit of justice.

I again call on this government, I beg it, to permit this debate to continue and let us get this piece of legislation in a form that is going to do the most to ensure justice in Canada.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is almost embarrassing because I think the government should be asking these questions. When it speaks we ask questions to expand on its views and to better understand where it is coming from.

When we on this side speak, if members opposite have any comments or questions, they should be up there speaking. I am publicly here chastising them. Why are they sitting on their duffs? This is an important issue. Let us get with it here. Let us do something about it. Let us make sure this bill is handled correctly.

There is an amendment on the floor right now to slow this thing down. One might ask is that intended to kill it. No, it is just the opposite. It is intended to make sure that when this bill is passed into law that it is a good law instead of a mediocre one as it is in its present form.

The reason for the six month delay in the vote and the reading is to allow time for the public to get involved and for the Liberal government to rethink its position, its position of stubbornness and of saying we have this thing down, this is how we are going to do it and you guys better just accept that.

It is true the Liberals have a majority. It is a small one. It slipped by 20 or thereabouts from 1993 to 1997 because they are being unresponsive to what Canadians are saying, particularly in the areas of economics and justice.

Over and over we hear from Canadians that they want the justice to protect law abiding citizens. Over and over we hear they want the justice system to work correctly in identifying people who are guilty and in exonerating those who are not guilty. They want a smaller level of error in those things.

Here is an opportunity to make a quantum leap in the ability of the government, our justice officials and police departments to work correctly to find those people guilty who in fact are and to prevent crime from happening, something the Liberals over and over say they want to do. Let us prevent the crime. Here is a case where it can be prevented but not in this present form.

I would like my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party to again comment on this and to maybe join me in chastising the government for being so flaccid in this particular case.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I think he has made a very eloquent and pointed plea to the government side and has emphasized quite clearly the need for some interaction, some debate.

It does appear that at this very instance there is a deafening silence that has fallen over the government benches. I am not going to say that definitely indicates a lack of interest. I do not think it does but it is somewhat disappointing. This is an opportunity to engage in debate and exchange of ideas and that is not what is happening.

The other point the hon. member has made which I think is also a very important one is the use of this type of technology. The use of this type of evidence can be used to close the margin of error. To use this type of evidence in an effective way is something we should all be striving for. There is an old legal maxim that the law is an ass if it is administered by an ass.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that many in this House, I am sure, would like to listen to me talk for hours on end, I have decided, unlike many of my colleagues, not to speak for the sake of speaking.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member, has studied Bill C-3 in depth. I was present along with my colleagues from all the other parties, a number of whom have spoken just before me.

During these discussions, the Bloc Quebecois proposed a number of amendments, which, unfortunately, because of the government's hard head syndrome, as I would call it, were rejected.

That said, the Bloc Quebecois remains convinced, and so indicated in votes in the House at previous stages, that the bill should be passed quickly.

In committee, and in this House even, we have listened, discussed, spoken and “parliamented” and it is time now to act. Clearly the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this amendment. It would like the motion defeated, the bill passed as quickly as possible and an end put to this waste of time and these fruitless discussions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the remarks of the member for Elk Island. He suggested that members on this side of the House are not sufficiently concerned about this debate to participate as actively as perhaps we should.

I did intend to make some remarks at a later time but I want members to know that I have difficulties with this question of allowing DNA sampling upon charge or immediately after a person has been charged.

I am afraid it will be an invitation to the police to arrest people and to charge them in order to get this type of DNA sample in order to pursue criminals and to hopefully lead to further convictions.

We have to remember that DNA sampling is an invasive technique and that one superior element with respect to how we treat other human beings is to remember the dignity of the human person and to remember that even in the pursuit of crime and apprehension of criminals, we must remember we are dealing with human beings first.

In my riding which is rural the holstein industry is very active. There is a lot of genetic research, samples taken of various animals, not only cattle, and it is all part of today's modern animal husbandry. I would not want to see a situation where we forget that human beings are human beings. They are not to be treated like cattle even when they are capable of committing the worst possible crimes.

I do support the government's reluctance to move too fast on this issue despite the fact that we are coming under all kinds of pressure from the police associations to agree that crime prevention should be uppermost in our minds.

There is something more than crime prevention here. We must not rush into the new age of technology when human beings are reduced to ciphers in the sense of the communication technology or on the Internet or reduced to animals in the sense of how we pursue issues of justice. To the member opposite I plead with him to give us time to examine the implications of DNA sampling which is an invasive technique. Let us think about it. Let us pass the legislation as it is, see what happens and give time for a meaningful public debate. Let us not be stampeded into doing something because the police are putting pressure on us.

I have serious reservations about the police actually lobbying and threatening politicians with political action in order to get their way on this issue. This is something that I hope to address in my own remarks. We on this side are seriously concerned about this issue. We welcome the debate.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that finally we woke up one Liberal over there. It is good to hear his comments, but I cannot believe that he is saying what he said. DNA is an invasive technique.

We already have the great invasion of poking a person with a needle to draw a blood sample when we suspect him or her of drunken driving. That is a much greater invasion. One can give a DNA sample by very simple means compared to that. It is incredible that he should make that excuse.

I wish the Liberals would stop making excuses in trying to justify their limp attempts at legislation which are going to—

[An hon. member]

Flaccid.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

I thought maybe none of the Liberals understood the word flaccid and that is why I used limp this time, so I could catch more of them in understanding what I am saying.

It is incredible that the hon. member, whom I respect, falls into line to defend what is an inadequacy in the legislation. I would be much more pleased if the member said what the members in opposition, not only the Reform members but also members from the other parties, are saying about the legislation is important. We had better listen to it. Perhaps we ought to pass the amendment to hold the process for another six months so that we can have another look at it.

Instead we have an instant and automatic defence mode. Let us defend what we are doing because it cannot possibly be wrong in even the smallest regard so we will just keep on defending it. As long as that attitude persists we are not going to have proper adjustments and amendments to the bills so that the laws which result from them are truly effective. That is what we are seeking in the DNA act legislation. We want this to fly but we want it to be an effective system.

I also would like to say something regarding the concerns with respect to the invasion of the privacy of the criminal. Maybe we should start abridging their rights. Certainly an accused person has a right to a fair and speedy trial. A person charged has that right. We should as a society not feel hesitant at all to require a person so charged to co-operate fully with the judicial process by providing a DNA sample for not only the case that is the result of the charge but in order to link that individual with other possible crimes both past and future. It would be a valid part of reducing crime. I cannot understand why the government would be opposed to it, especially a government which has absolutely no qualms about trampling on human rights when it comes to confiscating property without compensation. It has no qualms at all marching into every household in the country to confiscate by the coercion of taxation half of their earnings every year. That is major intrusion. No qualms about that.

I beg the government to be a little more consistent in how vigorously it claims to be defending rights of citizens and freedoms of individuals in the country.