Debates of Sept. 29th, 1998

Pharmaceuticals

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to see that the auditor general himself observed that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, has been, as he put it, a constraining influence on the price of patented medicines in Canada. That is a good thing.

As to recommendations for change, the member may know that the board itself is in the middle of public discussions and consultations about changes in its mandate and the way it does business.

We will be happy to look at the auditor general's observations as part of that. I will make sure that the board and its chair take them carefully into account.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I would like to draw to hon. members' attention the presence in the gallery of three distinguished visitors.

First I would like to welcome to our House of Commons the hon. Dr. Peter David Phillips, Minister of Transport and Works of Jamaica.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I would also like to welcome on your behalf the Hon. Trevor Sudama, Minister of Planning and Development for Trinidad and Tobago.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I would like you to welcome to our House of Commons His Excellency Rinchinnyamyn Amarjargal, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mongolia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, we will now begin our tributes to a former member of parliament, Mr. Gilles Rocheleau. I would ask the first speaker to be the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

The Late Gilles Rocheleau

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I met Gilles Rocheleau in 1990. I had heard about him long before that, however, because he had been active in politics for many years.

He was a municipal councillor in Hull from 1967 to 1974, mayor of Hull from 1974 to 1981, an MLA and then a minister in the Quebec government from 1981 to 1988. He served as a Liberal MP in Ottawa from 1988 to 1990, and then as a member of the Bloc Quebecois from 1990 to 1993.

One thing never changed. Gilles Rocheleau was a forthright man who always said what he thought. An admittedly sometimes rough exterior concealed a sensitive man who took a close interest in those around him.

The Maison des Citoyens, of which he was rightly proud, was built while he was mayor of Hull, and its agora today bears his name. Gilles was a man of discipline, who defended his point of view with determination, but knew when to step back into line when his views were not shared. And step back into line he did, but not without good reason, for if his beliefs were questioned, Gilles Rocheleau did not hesitate to set aside his personal interests and take up the challenge. So it was that he joined the Bloc Quebecois in 1990.

This is a path many Quebeckers have taken. Gilles Rocheleau was therefore also, if not primarily, a fighter. Sovereignists were happy to have him on their side, having seen what a strong opponent he could be. The militant federalist Gilles Rocheleau became a staunch sovereignist.

Gilles Rocheleau was also a man of some experience, having worked in many arenas, but he always kept the respect of his friends. He was not afraid to speak his mind, to put it mildly. He would not stand for duplicity and his tongue sometimes got away from him, but never out of spite. He was not politically correct, but he said what he was thinking, whether he was right or wrong.

I offer my condolences to his children, and to Hélène Roy, his wife and partner, who is with us today. I know that all those who knew him will never forget him, especially the people of Hull. On their behalf, I thank him.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, this year, the people of Hull—Aylmer lost a man who had devoted his entire public life to the service of his fellow citizens.

Gilles Rocheleau served the City of Hull for 14 years as alderman and mayor. He then went on to represent his fellow citizens in the Quebec National Assembly for seven years, serving first of all under Claude Ryan and then as a minister under Robert Bourassa.

Finally, in 1988, his fellow citizens elected him to this Parliament to defend their interests on the federal scene. Gilles, as he was fondly referred to by everyone in the Outaouais, was a man with definite ideas and no hesitancy to express them, but he will long be remembered by all, primarily for his love and legendary devotion to his fellow residents of west Quebec.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I offer sincere condolences to his wife and family.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to pay tribute to Gilles Rocheleau, who died on June 27, 1998.

A native of Rigaud, Quebec, Gilles Rocheleau devoted his life to serving the people of the Outaouais region. He was mayor of Hull from 1974 to 1981, and was elected to the House of Commons for the Outaouais region in 1988, where he sat until 1993.

He represented the riding of Hull—Aylmer in the Quebec National Assembly, and was also appointed minister. He was a Liberal member in Ottawa from 1988 to 1990. Then, until 1993, Mr. Rocheleau sat with the Bloc Quebecois and contributed to that party's advancement.

The efforts of Mr. Rocheleau were invaluable, and they did not go unnoticed.

On behalf of the Reform Party, my most sincere sympathies to the Rocheleau family.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I would like to pay tribute to Gilles Rocheleau, who was the member for the riding of Hull—Aylmer in the House of Commons.

I knew him well, because we were both members at the same time. I recall that he was a two career man. He was a business man for many years and then he was in politics for 25 years.

If I am not mistaken, he was a provincial MLA in Quebec City and mayor of the fine city of Hull. He then became a member of the House of Commons for two parties: the Liberal Party and then the Bloc Quebecois, of which he was a founding member, along with Lucien Bouchard and others.

He was a good MP, and I think the Outaouais has lost a great defender. He was widely known. For a number of years, when I came to Ottawa, I lived in Aylmer. He was very popular, widely known and a strong defender of Quebec.

On behalf of my party, I offer my condolences to his family and friends.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I pleased to say a few words about Mr. Rocheleau on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. While I did not have the opportunity to work within the same party with him, I can say he deserved our full respect.

I am not going to review his career, because my colleagues speaking before me have so. What struck me especially about him was his involvement, at a very early age, in the social and economic activities of his region.

At 27 or 28, he was I believe the chairman of the Association des hommes d'affaires. This was an indication of his passion in the defence of the interests of his region.

He then became involved at various levels of government, in Quebec City, among other places, and then in Ottawa. His involvement was marked by the effectiveness of his interventions. People who had dealings with him when we were in government found his work to always be constructive.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I extend my condolences to his family and hope that Mr. Rocheleau will agree to pass on to us from above some of his fine qualities. What struck me most about him, obviously, was his huge disappointment—it was existential—at the failure of the Meech Lake accord. I think all Quebeckers working to bring about national reconciliation at the time were struck by the decision Mr. Rocheleau made. I think we could learn something from it for future use.

[The Speaker]

We lost another of our number recently as well, Paul Tardif. Tributes to him will now follow.

The Late Paul Tardif

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Paul Tardif, who died on August 2 at Ottawa, at the age of 90.

When he was the federal member for Russell, that riding ran from Ottawa to east of the present riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

Paul Tardif was elected four consecutive times to the House of Commons, and sat from 1959 to 1968. In all, he devoted 31 years of his life to politics, first as a school board member, then as a City of Ottawa alderman and councillor, and finally as an MP. He went on from there to become a citizenship court judge.

Mr. Tardif had a charming, colourful and gregarious personality. He was a master of grassroots politics and a master communicator. The media loved him. His constituents adored him. Those who knew Mr. Paul Tardif were always proud to be associated with him.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to honour the memory of Mr. Paul Tardif, a former MP, who died on August 3, 1998.

Born and educated in Ottawa, Mr. Tardif devoted his life to serving the people of his native city. In 1959,, he was elected to the House of Commons for Russell in a byelection, and returned in 1962, 1963 and 1965. He retired undefeated in 1968. From 1968 to 1978, he was a citizenship court judge.

Before entering federal politics, Mr. Tardif sat on the school board from 1937 to 1943, and served in the municipal government as alderman, controller and finally deputy mayor.

Mr. Tardif was known for his lively wit, charm and public-spiritedness. He clearly understood the saying that all politics are local politics. An attentive listener, he could always find time to talk with anyone, anywhere. He was a true man of the people.

Mr. Tardif's efforts have been very much appreciated. On behalf of the Reform Party, my deepest sympathies to his family.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to pay tribute to Paul Tardif, a former member of this House, who died in August at the age of 90.

He sat in this place from 1959 to 1968. Born in 1908, Mr. Tardif was a Quebecker born and bred, his father hailing from Kamouraska in the Lower St. Lawrence region.

Mr. Tardif always liked politics and worked hard to defend the public's interests. At the tender age of 29, he was elected a school board trustee, a position he held from 1937 to 1943. He also served as alderman for Ottawa's Victoria ward from 1942 to 1948, in addition to holding the position of controller in that city from 1949 to 1959.

It was during this period that Mr. Tardif frequently crossed swords with the well-known Charlotte Whitton, former mayor of Ottawa.

With his school board and municipal experience, he decided to go into federal politics. He entered the House of Commons on October 5, 1959, having won a by-election in Russell as a Liberal.

He was re-elected in the general elections of 1962, 1963 and 1965. He therefore served in the government of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.

On June 22, 1967, he was appointed assistant deputy chairman of the House of Commons Committees of the Whole, having distinguished himself by his initiative, energy and integrity. In 1968, he left federal politics and was made a citizenship judge, a position he held until his retirement in 1978.

Throughout his political career, Mr. Tardif was known as someone who listened to what the public had to say and was very much in touch with the grassroots. He was deeply attached to his community.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to his friends and family.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I also want to pay tribute to Paul Tardif, a former member of this House.

Mr. Tardif was not a member of Parliament in 1978, when I was elected, because he did not run in that election, but I clearly remember his good reputation as a member who represented his riding well and he was well respected by everyone here.

He was first elected in a 1959 byelection and re-elected in 1962, 1963 and 1965, while John Diefenbaker was in power. If I am not mistaken, he was deputy speaker of this House for a time.

On behalf of my party, I wish to extend my condolences to his family and to his many friends.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, on August 3 of this year Canada lost a fine example of excellence in citizenship. Paul Tardif held office as a school board trustee and an Ottawa city alderman before serving as a Liberal member of this House for the riding of Russell.

Success in Russell was not to be ours during Paul Tardif's watch. In light of the fact that he was known for his keen mind and jovial wit, I know he would take it as high praise if I referred to him as a thorn in the side of the Progressive Conservative Party.

He was first elected in a 1959 byelection, just one year after the Diefenbaker sweep. He followed that up with three successive election wins, each with an overwhelming majority. The electoral success he enjoyed is only possible when candidates are able to transcend the process and compel people to vote with their hearts. In the hearts of the people of Russell and Ottawa is where Paul Tardif remains.

On behalf of the PC Party caucus I would like to extend our thoughts and prayers to the family of a man who defined the term public servant.

The House resumed 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; and of the amendment.

Dna Identification Act

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, we can hear the jackboots marching. A time allocation measure has been brought in on Bill C-3 and there is absolutely no good reason for it. Indeed, we did not have a situation where the opposition was trying to run up as many members as possible to speak to this bill. This was clearly a matter of the bill being earnestly debated because we saw honest problems with it.

I will tell the House how many times the government has brought in time allocation and I will point out how useless this last measure was. In the 35th Parliament some sort of restriction was brought in, either time allocation or closure, 35 times. In the last Parliament there were 32 time allocation motions and three closure motions, which brings the total to 35, which matches the 35th Parliament.

In the first year of the 36th Parliament there have been seven time allocation motions. That means that this government has brought in either time allocation or closure 42 times since it took office in 1993. There have been 39 time allocation motions and three closure motions. There was absolutely no good reason for it. The government is shutting down honest debate.

When I hear the comments of people with regard to this bill I think of my seatmate. He was a member of the RCMP who has said that the police in this country should be able to effect these tools immediately. He says that they should not have to have a loophole or a restriction with regard to the use of some of this technology.

He brings forward a legitimate complaint, something that I know he has brought forward in committee a number of times. I know that his concerns are absolutely legitimate. I do not question anything he has to say with regard to this because I know that his interests are at the heart of the Canadian public.

The member for Langley—Abbotsford talked about the people in his riding who are suffering as a result of the seven penitentiaries that are within a half hour drive of his riding. He talked about honest, legitimate concerns that he has.

What do people across the way talk about? They talk about what the bar associations and the lawyers want.

The opposition is not running on and on about this. All we wanted to ensure was that there was legitimate debate on this bill. Everything I heard this morning brought forward by all opposition parties were legitimate suggestions to improve this legislation. It is a step in the right direction but it needs to be better. The idea to bring in time allocation on something like this is wrong.

Government members need to hear the questions that are important when we consider things like time allocation, restricting debate, or when we pass any piece of legislation.

What fruit will it bear? What fruit does it bear when there is not a long list of people who want to run on with the debate, when perfectly legitimate points are being made with regard to Bill C-3 and the DNA data bank? What type of fruit does it bear when they try to restrict debate? They bring forward closure. They end debate. How does that serve the Canadian public? How does that improve the legislation?

It is our job as the official opposition to question the government and to try to improve legislation. Forty-two times since the government was elected in 1993 it has brought in time allocation and closure to restrict our freedom of speech, to restrict our ability to constructively criticize government legislation and to make it better.

It fits in with what it did at the APEC conference in Vancouver. It likes to restrict freedom of speech. It is certainly doing it to members of parliament and to the opposition in the House today.

Who wants it? Who wants some of these things with regard to time allocation? Who does it serve? Nobody but the government. It is a public relations exercise to try to quell the debate on an issue, to try to silence it.

In terms of Bill C-3, maybe it serves the bar associations or the odd lawyer or two who happen to feel they are going to get more money or more cases from this. It certainly does not help the average citizen and the victims of crime. They do not want it. The Canadian taxpayers do not want it.

Who will slip through the cracks as a result of some of these things? That is another fundamental question. For example, the people who have been assaulted once, if they have been assaulted by somebody who has committed only one rape or one murder. Those are the types of people who are going to suffer. There are a lot of people out there who are included in that category of victims. By improving the legislation we would be able to address those things.

The government does not want to hear that. It wants to close its ears and stifle the debate. Maybe it feels that it has done its duty, that it has come through with this legislation. Even though there are good and legitimate arguments that the opposition is putting forward to make this legislation better, it wants to ram it through and not take any of those things into consideration.

The victims slip through the cracks. The police officers who want the tools to do the job slip through the cracks. The taxpayers who are being ill-served by this type of thing slip through the cracks. The opposition falls through the cracks as well because our ability to do our job is restricted by these closure and time allocation motions. The press, whose job it is to provide information to the Canadian public, slips through the cracks. Nobody benefits but the government.

Will it solve the problem it intends to address? This legislation is a move in the right direction, but we were trying to make it better than it is. That is our job. All of us in the House have an interest to try to improve the country and make it a better place. Canada is number one in our hearts and concerns and we were trying to make the legislation better than it is. Time allocation and not accepting some of the amendments and suggestions the opposition has made with regard to Bill C-3 does not solve the problem that the legislation can be better. Indeed it brushes it over and tries to rush it through.

Are they attacking a strawman? The government always tosses in a strawman. It says that the opposition, for example, is not addressing real concerns. Real Canadians are victims of crime. They toss a strawman or a red herring into the argument by saying that there may be some potential problem with a constitutional aspect or some sort of suggestion on behalf of a bar association or a group of lawyers that do not happen to like something.

I can guarantee that in a large enough group of lawyers, as a matter of fact two, there will be some disagreements on opinion and if they have enough money to fund it they will continue with the debate for as long as it takes for the money to run dry.

That alone, the whole idea of a red herring or a strawman, is not enough to stifle debate on Bill C-3. I have heard very good arguments on behalf of the opposition side of the House today for why we need further debate and why improvements need to be included in the legislation.

Forty-two times closure and time allocation have been used in the House of Commons since the Liberals took power in 1993. It is a shame that it has happened on something like Bill C-3 because there was absolutely no justification for it. The types of arguments that are being put forward by the opposition were merely to improve the legislation to make it a better piece of work.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill C-3 which, when it comes into force, will permit the creation of a national DNA data bank in Canada.

There has already been much public debate on the need for such legislation. I believe there is consensus in the House and across the country in support of the creation of a national DNA data bank as proposed in Bill C-3.

Canadians know that in 1995 parliament enacted amendments to the Criminal Code which introduced the DNA warrant scheme into our criminal law. This legislation has been successfully used in the three years since in the investigation of serious crimes such as sexual assault and murder. Criminals who might otherwise have gone undetected and unpunished have been brought to justice.

I do not intend to use my time today to add to the reasons we should all agree that Canadian law enforcement should be provided a tool which will allow it to take fuller advantage of forensic DNA science. Rather my comments today will focus on one issue, perhaps the most controversial issue dealt with in this important legislation, the timing of the collection of bodily substances for inclusion in the national DNA data bank.

It is no secret that the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police would have favoured a scheme which permitted police to take DNA samples for the purposes of the DNA data bank from suspects at the time of charge rather than following conviction. This is what the government proposes.

Both organizations have appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Both are sincere in their views and both believe that a DNA data bank would be more effective if it was broader in scope. With respect, both have closed their eyes to the constitutional dangers of what they proposed.

While the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has taken the high road on this issue, the Canadian Police Association has persisted in a questionable campaign against Bill C-3. The CPA claims that if the bill is not amended in keeping with its wishes it will only be a matter of time before the government will be blamed for a murder or a rape or a child sex scandal.

In a letter recently written to all members of parliament the CPA had the nerve to criticize the independent legal opinions concerning this issue which were obtained by the government simply because they were obtained by the government. Or, was it simply because they support the legal advice provided to the standing committee by the justice department experts when they appeared before it and that of their counterparts from the ministry of the attorney general of Ontario and the department of justice of New Brunswick? Or, was it because they cannot bear that the legal opinions completely discredit the ones obtained by the association?

The CPA seems to suggest that the government's outside legal opinions are less independent than the one obtained by the CPA. Is it suggesting some indirect pressure was brought to bear on the legal minds that provided the government with their opinions?

On Friday, May 1, 1998, the Department of Justice released the legal opinions of three of the most respected legal minds in Canada, three former court of appeal justices, regarding the issue of when DNA samples can be collected for the purposes of the national DNA data bank.

Former Justice Martin Taylor of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and former Chief Justices Charles Dubin of the Ontario Court of Appeal and Claude Bisson of the Quebec Court of Appeal each concluded independently that the proposal to permit the police to take DNA samples from persons at the time of charge for the purposes of the national DNA data bank would not survive charter scrutiny.

The CPA has chosen to close its eyes and ears to the advice of legal experts. It continues to urge changes to the bill which would clearly be unconstitutional. It ignores the clear signs which exist for all to see. It is as though it has embarked on a high speed chase on black ice in a school zone and ignored the signs that warn of a school crossing ahead as it hurtled carelessly forward.

The government cannot act dangerously. It has the duty to anticipate the results of the legislation it presents to parliament and to consider that if the legislation is found unconstitutional the results in terms of justice will be tragic.

Let us consider, for example, that any evidence resulting from a match of DNA profiles in the national DNA data bank would likely be thrown out in a criminal case. As well, persons convicted on the basis of such evidence could ask to have their convictions overturned and they might seek compensation for having been wrongly convicted. It is clear that the DNA profiles of these persons would have to be removed from the data bank. Canadians would be shocked by such a disaster, especially when it could have been avoided.

I will close my remarks by saying that Bill C-3 promises the proper blueprint for a national DNA data bank in Canada, one which is respectful of constitutional requirements and effective.

The views of the police in this matter are self-evident. Members of the House must carefully weigh, in deciding how they will vote on the legislation, the likelihood of the government's proposal surviving an obvious constitutional challenge as opposed to the chances of the police scheme meeting the existing constitutional requirements.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to speak about two aspects of what has happened this afternoon and to Bill C-3.

First I will speak about time allocation which the government has used once again. I cannot believe the government would continue a practice that it started in the last parliament. There were 32 time allocations in the 35th parliament, and government members have already done it seven times in this parliament.

It is abhorrent to me and to Canadians that we have a government that is afraid of free speech, afraid of the opportunity for elected parliamentarians to come into the House to debate issues that are important to Canadians. Canadians deserve their elected officials having the opportunity to debate these issues, to debate government legislation, to make sure that the end product is the best that it can be for Canadians. If the government cannot stand criticism and is afraid of being honest and open with Canadians then government members have no business sitting there.

Bill C-3 establishes a DNA data bank. I do not think Canadians have any problem with establishing a DNA data bank. However, I think Canadians including the people in my riding have a problem with a data bank only collecting DNA samples from people who have been convicted. After the fact will not help the police solve the crime. I know people in my constituency would like the police to have everything at their disposal, everything that is available to them by way of modern technology, to find some conclusive evidence to convict people and bring them to court.

The bill falls far short of providing our law enforcement people with the facilities and the analysis they need to bring some of these cases to conclusion. It is hard on families who know that only for DNA samples a suspect may be wandering the streets.

I suggest to the government that DNA is no different from fingerprinting. In the past when the government of the day wanted to institute fingerprinting as a normal investigative tool I am sure there was an outcry that it was an infringement on a person's right to have their fingerprints taken. I am sure a similar debate went on at that time and that it was considered to be the most intrusive measure on an individual's person.

I also suggest that it is now a matter of course, a matter of fact. It is just a natural thing that happens: suspects are charged, fingerprinted and become part of the collective knowledge of our system. We are overreacting to the business of DNA being intrusive. It is not intrusive to take a fingernail clipping. It is not intrusive to prick a finger to get a drop of blood. I mean, come on.

We are not talking about a hospital stay overnight. We are not talking about cutting a finger open. That is not what we are talking about. It is very simple and easy to get the required sample.

I would suggest that the day will come. Perhaps this government will not be the vehicle that will institute it but the day will come when DNA sampling is banked, when it is part of the normal course of investigation once a charge is laid.

Why are we wasting time? Why are we reluctant to take that step? Is it because it may be challenged in the supreme court? So what? Is the government not going to make legislation on behalf of the Canadian public, legislation that is good and beneficial for the future of this country because it is afraid it might end up in the supreme court? The role of this House, the role of the legislators who sit here is to make the law. If we are not going to make the law because we are afraid of the courts, then there is something serious here that we had better address.

If we have a government that is going to refuse to address the issues of the day and be aggressive and forthcoming in solving the problems we face in this country because of fear, then it does not deserve to be here. The government does not deserve to take this country into the 21st century if it is living in the 19th century.

Canadians are looking for a government that has guts, that has some fortitude to challenge things that are wrong in the Canadian system and to do things in a progressive manner, to move into the 21st century and provide our police with a tool that is available from technological advancement. Are we going to be driving horses and buggies, walking around, taking trains rather than flying and going to the moon? Technological advancements such as DNA offer us opportunities. We are remiss if we do not take advantage of them.

People in law enforcement should have this tool available for their use in investigating crime and in laying charges, not just for use i after a person has been convicted. It is a little bit late to wait for that.

I hope the government will consider the arguments. It would be unusual for the Liberals to do so. They have invoked closure so they are obviously not willing to listen to the other side, not willing to listen to a debate and not willing to listen to logic. They have made up their minds. They really do not care what Canadians think. It is typical of the arrogant attitude of the government.

I hope that members on the government side will stop, look at the legislation, realize that it is a missed opportunity, that there is something there, that the timing is such that we can move on and will change their minds and make some adjustments to the bill. It has never happened before to my knowledge. I do not expect this government to be any different from the previous government. It would be nice if Canadians could feel that open, honest debate occurred in this House and that the government really took into account the comments, the positive and creative criticism from the opposition, and would make some attempt to improve legislation.

This is a good idea but it needs to be broadened and expanded. I am remiss in saying that I doubt there will be anyone in the official opposition who will be supporting it, simply because we feel it is not good enough to support. It is bad legislation. We do not get anywhere by supporting something that is not going to meet the needs of the law enforcement community.

If we support this bill and if it is enacted, which it probably will be anyway, then the government will put it aside and leave it alone. It will miss the opportunity of doing something very constructive in allowing our law enforcement people to have another tool to help them in protecting Canadians on a day to day basis.

I think it is negligent on the part of the government to continue this kind of posturing, the attitude that it knows best, that what it decides is good for all Canadians. It is not willing to listen to any kind of critique.

Again, I would urge the government to reconsider, to look at improving this legislation. Make it a piece of legislation that will actually do some good for the Canadian public. It may be a cold day before I see that but I hope this government is listening.

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today on third reading of Bill C-3, which provides for the establishment of Canada's national DNA data bank.

Bill C-3 will make Canada one of only a handful of countries in the world to have a national system of this kind. It is important to recognize that this is ground breaking legislation and a major milestone of the government's safer communities agenda.

Public safety is a priority of this government. To that end, Bill C-3 is an important part of our commitment to Canadians. We know that Canadians want a data bank for better public protection.

The intention of this legislation is to create an effective law enforcement tool, one that stands the test of time. We must be careful in creating this data bank so that it is a tool that balances public safety needs with the privacy rights which are highly valued by Canadians.

The government has heeded the call from those on the front lines who have told us that this new law must help them to do their jobs. We have taken the advice of those who have told us that it must not infringe upon basic rights under the charter. We have listened to those who have told us that we must get on with the business of putting this valuable enforcement tool in place. I believe that we have found the right balance in Bill C-3.

Since the bill was introduced last year, members of this House have proceeded cautiously in their consideration of this proposed legislation. The government has welcomed this debate. Given the scope of the issues surrounding the potential misuse of DNA profiles and samples as well as the legal and ethics concerns, it is vital that a bill of this nature be debated thoroughly, taking all views into account.

This is the very reason why Bill C-3 was referred to the all-party Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights before it proceeded to second reading. The solicitor general did so at the time of introduction because he had the very expectation that we would come out of this exercise with a better bill. He expected that amendments would be made to improve it and in fact encouraged the committee to focus on making the bill better. In my view, this is exactly what has been achieved.

The committee examined this bill thoroughly. The policing community, those on the front lines included, provided their views. This government listened to those views and we acted on them.

Last week we heard from critics in this House who asked the very same questions that were brought and debated before the committee. We have heard those same concerns time and time again. We have addressed them in the amended bill before us today.

We must not lose sight of the benefits of Bill C-3 and of the value it will bring as one of the most powerful investigative police tools to date. To do that, we need only to reflect on the development of Bill C-3 from the time it was introduced one year ago.

From there we can easily see how it has been improved as a result of extensive consultations at every stage along the way. Perhaps more important, it becomes apparent why this bill provides that bodily samples be taken for DNA testing at the time of conviction and not at the time of arrest or charge.

The introduction of the DNA identification act marks the second phase of the government's DNA strategy. The government recognized early in the process that the first important step involved laying out the requirements for when DNA samples could be obtained in order to be used in criminal investigations.

As a result in 1995 amendments to the Criminal Code allowed police to obtain DNA samples from suspects by using a warrant. That first step provided the police with an extremely effective tool that has helped them solve many serious crimes.

It has been effective because it has been used to help eliminate suspects and secure convictions. It has been effective because it has been instrumental in obtaining guilty pleas therefore sparing victims the trauma of testifying. It has been effective because it has helped to reduce overall court costs. It has also withstood constitutional challenges.

With the DNA warrant legislation now firmly in place in Canadian law and in the police investigation process, the government is now in the midst of the next phase of its DNA initiative. We are now creating the framework for storing DNA samples and for using that information in the investigation of serious crimes.

A national DNA data bank will be an important tool to help police link a suspect with evidence left at a crime scene. The ability to store and later retrieve DNA profiles will shorten investigations and help prevent further violence by repeat offenders. This means better public safety for all Canadians.

Bill C-3 will authorize police to collect DNA samples from offenders convicted of designated criminal offences. These include the most serious personal injury crimes such as homicide and sexual offences. They are crimes that are most likely to be associated with DNA evidence found at the crime scene.

Samples will be analysed with the resulting profile entered into the convicted offenders index of the data bank. The data bank will also have a crime scene index containing DNA information retrieved from crime scenes. The purpose of having this structure is to ensure that the DNA profiles in each index can be cross referenced and a match in the system can be identified.

The benefits of using the system like the one we have laid out in Bill C-3 are very clear. Stored DNA information will help the police more quickly identify suspects where they may otherwise not have had any leads. It will allow them to identify repeat offenders no matter what police jurisdiction they are in. It will also have a deterrent effect as criminals will know that because their DNA profiles are already in the data bank they can no longer slip through the cracks.

Throughout the development of Bill C-3 the federal government has sought the advice and expertise of many groups and individuals. I want to make the point that those on the front lines have been consulted from the very beginning and throughout the process.

In addition the standing committee held 15 hearings on the bill and heard from representatives of 17 different organizations. Those 17 organizations, which included police, victims, and officials in our legal communities, represented thousands upon thousands of Canadians.

While it is true that one of the critics of this bill, the Canadian Police Association, may represent 35,000 front line police officers, we have heard from even more who support this bill wholeheartedly.

We have considered all views represented in our country. Our consultations revealed strong support for the creation of a national data bank.

There were also a number of concerns about fundamental values that make Canada unique and are reflected in the rights guaranteed to all Canadians by our charter. These include individual rights to privacy and equality under the law, as well as public protection. To respond to those concerns and to improve the strength of the bill, a number of amendments were made since the legislation was first introduced.

I would like to share some of those concerns and changes. Various interest groups, including the privacy commissioner, the Barreau du Québec and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, have suggested that the bill did not contain sufficient safeguards.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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 Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Railways; the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Davenport, Environment.