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.