Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-3.
After listening to my hon. colleague's comments, we certainly understand her concerns and the concerns of others from the government and those civil libertarians who suggest that the taking of DNA is somehow a gross infringement on people's rights and has to be taken in a very narrow definition. This is what Bill C-3 does. That is the part we actually oppose. We believe that the taking of DNA samples as defined in this bill is too restrictive.
Let us look at the larger public good. That is what we are talking about and where a great deal of disagreement concerning this bill exists between our party and the government. The government feels that the taking of DNA should be restricted to very narrow circumstances, such as multiple murderers and people who have committed sexual offences. In these cases DNA samples can only be extracted after the conviction has taken place. This does not help the police. It does not help the victims groups.
We suggest that DNA samples be taken beforehand. Why? It serves two purposes. Number one is very important in that it helps to exonerate the innocent. We have not heard much about this from the other side. It is a double edged sword. One would argue from the other side that this is restricting people's personal freedoms. We would argue that there is a larger public good here.
The larger public good refers to the protection of innocent people and the conviction of the guilty. The only thing Bill C-3 does in its current form is it helps to convict those individuals who have committed the most heinous of crimes.
The way the bill is configured, it can act as a shield behind which the guilty can hide themselves. It does little to protect the innocent. If we were more aggressive with this bill, if we were able to take DNA samples from people before they were convicted, then those DNA samples could be used to exonerate the innocent and convict the guilty. That is what we are trying to do here.
We in this party are trying to put faith back into the justice system. When we speak to Canadians, they have lost a lot of faith. It is not that they have lost faith in the Canadian police departments and the RCMP. They have a lot of faith in the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect us and keep us safe. It is in the process and the management of our justice system and the implementation of the laws of this land that the Canadian people are having less faith in all the time.
Bill C-3 could be a strong bill. Members from my party have put forth constructive suggestions, such as that the DNA be taken right from the word go, right from when a person is picked up and is suspected of having committed a crime, and that the breadth upon which the different types of offences that this can be applied to be extended beyond multiple murderers and multiple sex offenders.
Had we had this bill a few years ago and had it been appropriately applied, Clifford Olson would not have been able to kill the number of people he killed. He committed 80-odd offences before he even murdered one person. If this bill had been in place in the manner in which we would like, Clifford Olson would have been behind bars and a lot of people's lives would have been saved. A lot of families would not be enduring the pain and suffering that they endure to this day.
This bill needs a number of other amendments. The data bank that exists today is far too limited. The data bank should be formed in such a way that the information is kept a long time after the person is convicted. That does not exist in Bill C-3.
The information, if utilized, would enable the police to pick up somebody very quickly if their bodily fluids were found at the site of a crime, in which case again we would be preventing further crimes from occurring. The government somehow fails to see this. Although we understand its concerns in dealing with civil liberties, we would argue that a higher good and the greater good is the protection of innocent civilians, including those who are falsely picked up for a crime they never committed.
There is a positive side to this bill in that it can be used to protect and also release the innocent. We would not get cases such as the Guy-Paul Morin case, which has been such a tragedy for him and the Morin family.
A lot of other aspects with respect to Bill C-3 can be dealt with here. I would ask that the government listen to the police departments who would like to see the DNA data bank go forth, as we would, but in a much stronger and effective fashion.
The government needs to pursue the issue of crime prevention. The Minister of Justice to her credit recently implemented a crime prevention strategy dealing with kids from zero to six, I believe, in Edmonton. This is a head start program. I would strongly urge the government to implement our motion that was passed in May of this year calling for a national head start program.
One of the great things that one can do, and the cabinet ministers can certainly take advantage of this in their position, is to take the leadership role that is desperately needed. Although the rights and responsibilities of various areas are divided up and parcelled off among three levels of government, the federal government has the unique opportunity to call together its provincial counterparts in a number of areas, put their minds together and come to the table to develop a comprehensive plan which people across the country would benefit from.
One of those areas is in the justice area and is associated with Bill C-3. It is the national head start program. The Minister of Justice along with the Ministers of Health and HRD, can take a leadership role. They can call together their provincial counterparts here in Ottawa or anywhere in this country and look at what is already on the table with respect to early detection and crime prevention strategies. Keep what is good, throw out what is bad, use existing resources and deal with crime prevention.
This should not be done when a person is 13, 14 or 15 years of age when they may be suffering from conduct disorders, have run afoul of the law, have endured years of sexual abuse, violence or perhaps have been subjected to alcohol while in utero with resulting fetal alcohol effects. It should be done before that.
In order to have an effective crime prevention strategy, it has to start in the first eight years of life. We know scientifically that in the first eight years of life the building blocks of a normal psyche are developed. Events such as being exposed to sexual abuse, violence at home or improper nutrition damage the building blocks of a normal psyche and at adolescence it is very difficult for that child to engage appropriately with the environment. Unfortunately many run afoul of the law.
Programs such as the Moncton head start program, in which the member for Moncton has taken such a leadership role, the programs in Hawaii and the Perry Preschool Program in Michigan have clearly demonstrated that early intervention programs can be highly cost effective. On balance these programs save about $30,000 per child. They lower dependence on welfare and keep kids in school longer. They have lowered teen pregnancy rates. They can have a dramatic effect at lowering child abuse. The program in Hawaii reduced child abuse by 99% in a cost effective fashion.
With the fragmented nature of social programs in the country, the federal government has an enormous opportunity to work with its provincial counterparts to implement a provincially managed but shared funded national head start program. One message apart from what we have spoken about in Bill C-3 would be to implement the program using existing resources.
The government could do what was done in Hawaii. It could use trained volunteers and the medical community starting before a woman becomes pregnant. Trained volunteers could be used for the child at birth up to age four and the schools could be used when the child is between the ages of four and eight.
If the government did that we would have a dramatic positive effect in decreasing youth crime and in improving the social welfare for the most underprivileged in the country. It would save the taxpayer billions of dollars and provide a more secure and safe environment for all Canadians.