Madam Speaker, this bill is very interesting in that it has direct connection to Bill C-68 and section 745, which was to change the whole issue as to when a convicted murder could apply for parole. Bill C-68, section 745 and DNA are all inextricably linked in a pattern. The government has shown us that it is weak-kneed when it comes to making streets safe for law-abiding Canadian citizens and to protecting Canadian citizens and their property.
In my judgment the most contentious part of this bill lies in the comments of the solicitor general when he was before committee. He said:
Taking samples after an offender has been convicted of designated offence balances our concern for the safety of all Canadians with our need to respect the rights protected by Canada's Charter. We cannot ignore that the accused has the right to be presumed innocent and protected from unreasonable search and seizure.
The speakers this morning have been waxing rather eloquent. They have said that taking these samples would “undermine human dignity”. I am not sure what that meant, but that is what they said. Another speaker said that it would not only be unconstitutional but un-Canadian.
Hyperbole or extreme statements are sometimes part of the rhetoric in the debates that happen in the House, but for Liberal members to pretend for a split second that we are making extreme statements and calling this un-Canadian when they should be taking action to create safer streets and protect victims and society at large is a bit thick.
Let us take a look at the connection between Bill C-68, section 745 and DNA. In the Bill C-68 issue I note that Liberals go out of their way to constantly quote the Canadian Police Association. At the time when debate on Bill C-68 was at its peak, the Canadian Police Association, after much internal wrangling, decided that it would come out in favour of and in support of Bill C-68.
It was interesting that at exactly the same time there was also a debate with the former justice minister who is now Canada's Minister of Health. The former justice minister also had on his plate demands from Canadians at large that section 745 of the Criminal Code be repealed. Section 745 permits a judge to say, as a consequence of a first degree murder, that the person has been convicted of first degree murder—we must remember it is premeditated murder—and as a consequence sentenced to 25 years or life.
The public at large assumes that means 25 years. How wrong they are. The judge may even say as a result of a particularly heinous crime that it is with no chance of parole for 25 years. Again wrong. Because of the historic soft-headed approach of the Liberal government going back to the time of Warren Allmand who brought this in during the late sixties, the whole approach has been to say maybe the presiding judge did not know what he was talking about or maybe the person has changed over this last period of time.
Under section 745 the murderer convicted of first degree murder is permitted to apply for parole after 15 years. The justice minister at that time brought forward a half-hearted motion, which unfortunately was passed, where if persons were convicted of more than one first degree murder they could not apply. However, if it was just one first degree murder they could apply.
I believe the leaders of the Canadian Police Association at that time were really upset by this half-hearted measure to take away section 745. I believe they were influenced by the justice minister saying that if the association would give him its unqualified support for Bill C-68 he would see what he could do about section 745.
That is pure speculation on my part because I am sure I do not know what was going on behind closed doors. It strikes me as passing strange that no matter whom I spoke to in the Canadian Police Association, particularly members in the lower levels, they were all saying that the application of Bill C-68 and the cost of the useless registry was a stupid way to spend money. Yet they flipped and said they supported Bill C-68.
Historically the government has said its support for Bill C-68 comes from the Canadian Police Association. The Canadian Police Association knows what it is talking about. Whether the Canadian Police Association was influenced or not by some behind the scenes talk about section 745 we will never know.
It is interesting that the same Canadian Police Association which the government quotes in support of Bill C-68 had this to say about Bill C-3 in a letter dated September 16 to members of parliament. The signatory, Neal Jessop, the president of the Canadian Police Association, wrote:
I am writing to you in relation to Bill C-3 and the creation of a national DNA data bank. As you know, Bill C-3 is awaiting third reading and it is our understanding that it will likely pass such a stage shortly after parliament resumes this fall.
The Canadian Police Association represents approximately 35,000 frontline police officers across Canada. It is because of our practical, hands on experience that the government has come to rely on our advice on issues such as gun control, search warrants and parole reform. It is the same experience that leads us to the conclusion that Bill C-3, as currently drafted, is seriously flawed, and will needlessly allow Canadians to be put at risk.
The CPA has lobbied for the creation of a DNA data bank for many years. Since the beginning, we stressed the important impact a bank could have on public safety, a goal that we worked towards every day whether it be on the streets or on Parliament Hill. We said then, as we say now, that for this initiative to work samples must be taken from suspects when arrested. In doing so, we will maximize the potential crime prevention aspects of the bill which is a goal we all share.
Let us be clear. A properly structured DNA data bank will save billions of dollars, but more importantly it will save lives and significantly reduce victimization. This, in our opinion, should be the goal of any criminal justice legislation the government passes. As an elected official, this should be your main consideration when you are called upon to vote on Bill C-3.
Consider the following scenario. In the Ottawa area, there are currently a number of unsolved outstanding cases of homicide or sexual assault. Assume that a person is arrested for a break and enter and, unknown to the police, is responsible for some of those unsolved crimes. Like 90% of all offenders, this individual is released on bail without DNA samples being taken (if C-3 is enacted). Knowing that he faces detection on the other charges if he returns, the offender flees to B.C. and a warrant for break and enter is issued by the Ottawa court. Two months later he is picked up on other matters by police in B.C. who check CPIC and discover the existing B and E warrant. When they check with Ottawa to see if he should be returned, the answer according to today's practices will be no. Remember that police do not know whom they are dealing with.
Any woman this individual encounters will be at risk. This is unacceptable because it is entirely preventable. While this may be a mere anecdote for some, it is a reality for us.
This issue is paramount to Canadian police officers, and by virtue the CPA. We have obtained an independent (unlike the hand picked judges who wrote decisions supporting the government's position) legal decision that states our position on this issue is constitutionally sound. We attempted to work with the Department of Justice and they were unable to understand the significance of our position, perhaps because they have never had to look into 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 as 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.
Do not underestimate the importance of this issue to the CPA. We are not, and never have been, averse to take every public opportunity to inform the public when the government creates and passes flawed legislation. We will do that again regarding Bill C-3. We will make sure that Canadians understand that their government is risking their lives. We will make sure that if one of your constituents is harmed because of this flawed legislation, they will know who to ask for an explanation.
Please accept our offer to work with you and develop legislation that would enhance public safety and still remain constitutionally valid. Despite contradictory rhetoric from the Department of Justice, it is an achievable goal. As an MP, we urge you to take this opportunity to come to your own conclusion, not that as dictated by the Prime Minister.
This is the same organization that this government chooses to quote in support of its flawed Bill C-68. I ask members very simply, if the CPA is right, and I do not believe it is, but if the CPA is right in its support of Bill C-68 and if the government is going to continue to quote that source, why will the government not quote the source, the CPA, and the CPA's position on Bill C-3?
It is because the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, working under the Prime Minister of Canada, are taking directions from him. He has said that this bill will pass as it presently is. It is a real shame that there is not the ability within our parliamentary process as currently constructed by the Prime Minister for there to be legitimate dissent within his own ranks. It is a real shame that the Liberals are whipped into a position by the party whip to make sure that they vote that this ineffective bill will end up passing.
For someone to say the bill is unconstitutional is an opinion that may be backed up with some fact. But to call the bill un-Canadian when the purpose of the bill, of taking the DNA sample upon charge, is going to give us the opportunity to interdict people and create a situation where we can return them from various jurisdictions as required, is beyond my ability to comprehend.
To show how the spin works, it was interesting that about six weeks ago the spinmeisters for the Liberals were going on about the fact that if we take the sample and we actually conduct the lab tests, it is going to be far too expensive. It is going to cost $5,000 each.
I find this number to be somewhat suspicious. I say that because this is the same government that told us in order to come up with the registry program on Bill C-68 that the cost was only going to be $85 million, whereas now it is actually admitting that it will cost at least a quarter of a billion dollars.
The Liberals got everyone on side with the $85 million. For Liberals a million here, a million there pretty soon adds up, but it was only $85 million. They got a fair number of people on side with that lowball number.
Either the government was incompetent and did not realize how much this useless registry is actually going to cost, or it was not giving Canadians the facts required to know that it will cost at least a quarter of a billion dollars. As a matter of fact, estimates are in the neighbourhood of $1 billion to $1.2 billion for this registry program.
If the government can fudge and exaggerate the figures on the justification for the registry program under Bill C-68, I can imagine what it is doing to scare people off with a high figure on being able to actually conduct the lab work when the sample is taken. We can see there is within Canada, as there should be, a fair lack of trust of the numbers the government chooses to use to justify its actions from time to time.
It is a shame when Canadians who the justice minister herself said are concerned about their safety on the streets. The justice minister herself has said that Canadians are losing confidence in Canada's justice system. As a matter of fact I choose to call it Canada's legal system. We have to get some justice back into it.
Canadians have lost faith. To those who still believe there is some hope the Liberals will come around and actually work to put the protection of law-abiding Canadian citizens, their well-being and their property ahead of the rights of criminals, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to talk to them about.
This bill will be passed today because the Prime Minister has said so. Shame on the Liberals for being whipped into shape to pass this bill as presently constructed.