Debates of Sept. 29th, 1998

Division No. 230

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

Mr. Speaker, following that logic, why should the government not take DNA samples of every individual at birth and order DNA samples from every individual that exists so that any time a crime is committed that tattooing mark is available to the authorities? That is too big a power for police to have and that is too big a power even for government to have. I would not support it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty to inform the House that the five hours allotted for 20 minute speeches with 10 minutes for questions and comments has now expired. We are into 10 minute speeches without questions or comments.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, how come the House leader of the official opposition misses out on the 20 minute part?

I think I have heard it all in here today. I want to talk a little about some of the comments in a minute. What a lot of people do not understand here is that the DNA legislation does not apply to some 14,000 prisoners currently sitting in our prisons.

Once again the government feels that it is not quite appropriate to take DNA samples of those people. I will tell members the effects that will have on our country. It does, however, say it will take DNA samples of prisoners currently serving time for multiple murders, multiple sex offences and dangerous offenders. Keep those three categories in mind here.

I have seven federal penitentiaries within half an hour's driving distance of my house in Abbotsford, British Columbia. We have around 100 released prisoners on day parole, UTA and ETA at any given time.

Sumas Centre is a day care facility with no fences, no guards, and the inmates are basically walking our streets. They have a 7 or 8 o'clock curfew at night. I have long talked to the government about increasing security there. In the last 10 months, from April 14, 1997 to February 1998 we have had four sexual attacks in my area by residents of this facility. We have had well over 55 unlawfully at large from that facility and not one of them has had a DNA sample taken from them.

A person who sexually assaulted a lady and robbed her store was from this facility and had 63 prior convictions. There was not one DNA sample taken from this person.

When I stand up here I ask what part of this message do they not understand. Perhaps they do not have enough prisons in their ridings. Perhaps it has not affected them like it has many of us. However, this DNA sample is important. It is important to victims of crime and important to people who will become victims.

I sit here in the House and listen to members across talking about constitutional issues, the Canadian Bar Association and on and on it goes, what if, maybe, could be, but I never once heard a discussion about victims or potential victims.

I guess it does not come as a surprise to anybody why we still have the faint hope clause in this country, section 745, why prisoners now vote, why prisoners are entitled to overtime pay, and why we outlawed pepper spray for the law abiding Canadian citizen yet we use it on university kids if they get in the way.

What is wrong over there with the mentality? Let us look at some of this mentality and some of the quotes I just heard. “This could lead to the atrocities of Nazi Germany”. I cannot believe Liberal members actually believe that. I am telling this government here and now that every day in my community the people walking out of prison are sex offenders, murderers, drug addicts and bank robbers. They are all sitting in there at night and come out in the day but the government does not have the courage to take a DNA sample of these people. In my community we have people who are victims every single week.

I do not know how anybody can compare tattooing with DNA. That is out of the blue. A Liberal member opposite says it is too early in this stage of parliament to make such a decision. When is the time to make a decision? How many people in my riding have to suffer as a result of indecision? When is it, the year 2006, 2010, when enough victims are stacked up in this country so that the public puts on the pressure and then there is change?

Are all these opposition parties here crazy? Are we making these stories up?

I made a presentation after forcing this government to have a review on the Sumas Centre in my riding. At that time in March there were approximately 43 unlawfully at large prisoners. We had all types of robberies committed by these individuals, three sexual assaults, no notice being taken. It fell on deaf ears over there.

I went to the review commission and I asked why not stop here and do something. DNA would be a good idea. Then when these individuals walk out and perpetrate a crime we will know immediately. In fact, many of them do not get caught perpetrating crimes so we would probably find out faster if, when and where these people were. Nothing happened with that.

Since I spoke to them just a few short months ago we have had 13 more unlawfully at large prisoners. Some are sex offenders. We had not taken DNA samples of them. Why? They were not multiple sex offenders. Two qualify and one does not. There is a brilliant concoction of reasoning to me.

James Armbruster has 63 prior convictions, one sex offence relating to his grandmother, and he is not DNA sampled. Why? He did not have two victims. But now he does.

I do not know if it makes much sense trying to convince those in a majority government when they refer to the potential of this leading to the same atrocities of Nazi Germany. How do you argue with that kind of reasoning? It is absolute nonsense.

We are sincerely in trouble in this country with logic such as this from across the way that is so illogical to victims of crime and potential innocent people.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the debate today on this bill to adopt legislation which would create a DNA databank for Canada.

This was a major piece of work for us sitting on the House of Commons justice committee earlier this year. As have all colleagues on the justice committee, I have had an opportunity to look at the legislation from several perspectives and now we have a debate in the House.

It is quite useful to all of us in the House to have an opportunity to look at the different aspects of the bill from a public interest point of view. I think we have done our very best to make this bill as good as we can, as good as it can be, so it will serve the public interest.

The perspectives of the opposition are useful here today. They like the principle of the bill, but they are suggesting the bill could be better. That is the way the opposition is supposed to operate around here, and I urge them to continue. All of us here in government and in opposition are listening and looking for ways to improve the content of our legislation all the time.

What does the bill do? We have heard that it creates a DNA data bank for the first time for Canadians. We have not had one up until now. We do use DNA in criminal investigations and in court prosecutions. We have embarked on that road. We have made amendments to our Criminal Code, and successfully so.

It is important to remember that although we are setting up a DNA data bank for certain classes of DNA samples, we do have outside of that DNA data bank a process for obtaining DNA samples on warrant for criminal investigations. That will continue. Just because the DNA data bank proposed here will not have a DNA sample from a particular class of convicted criminals or some other category, it does not mean that the police are not using DNA in criminal investigations and in the public interest.

I would also point out that the manner in which the DNA data bank is being created here is, from the point of view of government, reasonably cost effective. There are methods of approach here that we could have spent a bundle on, but the minister and the Royal Canadian Mountain Police have made a real attempt to get the data bank up and running in a cost effective way and I think we should take note of that.

Dominating the discussion and leading up to this point in the House has been concern over the charter or civil liberty implications of the data bank. In fact it is true to say that those concerns have shaped the data bank itself, the design of it, and how the DNA will be used.

I can say right away and I think all members accept that the privacy provisions contained in the bill are as good as we can make them. Doubtless there are always privacy concerns, but the protection of the information is as watertight as we can make it in the public interest. The DNA analysis and the samples do have to be used for the purpose intended. That means real people doing real jobs. The police community will have to have access to the sampling and to the analysis, but there are serious penalties attached to the misuse of that information.

I accept, and colleagues all around the House note, that a DNA sample is capable of revealing an awful lot of information about a human being. Its use in the data bank is solely for the purpose of identification, nothing else. The material will have to be monitored and disposed of as quickly as the public interest will allow.

What are the charter concerns? I want to focus on the big one because I think there has been some misunderstanding of what the charter hurdle has been. Why were we not able to construct a DNA data bank that allowed the taking of a sample at the time of charge or at any time for that matter? Why did we insist that it be taken only at the time of conviction?

It is not the privacy concern. We have a privacy concern here no matter who the sample has been taken from. Whether the person is a convicted person or not, we still have a privacy issue. It is not privacy that is our hurdle. I believe the big charter problem, the big hurdle is the current intrusiveness of the sampling process.

At this point in time in order to get a DNA sample something actually has to be physically taken from the human body. It has to be scraped, it has to be gouged, it has to be expressed, a hair has to be yanked out by the root. The physical integrity of the human body has to be intruded upon in order to get that sample.

I am comfortable with the concept that at this point in our history our charter protects our bodily integrity from that type of state intrusion, unless we consent to it or unless the law allows it in some other way. I do not think we have made a case here that will allow under our charter the state to gouge or pull or scrape or express a piece of a person's body simply because a person has been charged on the basis of reasonable grounds. That is the hurdle.

Let us talk about what the future may bring. It may come to pass, it may already be here or we may be very close to it, that technology and science may allow the taking of a DNA sample without that degree of intrusiveness. The simple pressing of a finger or a palm against a plate may allow the taking of a DNA sample. If that is the case, if that is the degree of intrusiveness, then we may indeed have something similar to a fingerprint. We take fingerprints now not on conviction but at charge.

We have to get to the point where the sampling process is simply not intrusive, as non-intrusive as the taking of a fingerprint, and we are not quite there yet. There are half a dozen ways to get a sufficient sample for an analysis here and none of them are quite as simple as the thumbprint. We have not got that yet.

I am told and at committee we seemed to have information which indicated that technology is moving at a pace now where we may be able to extract a sufficient DNA sample from something similar to blowing into a breathalyser or taking a palm print. When we get there, society and the law may accept that we can take DNA samples at charge or at birth or whenever. This is an issue Canadians doubtless are going to have to address in the future.

I will leave the subject matter there. The 10 minutes has run by rather quickly. As a legislator, if I am still around in this place in a few years, one never knows, but the House will doubtless have an opportunity to enhance and upgrade the DNA provisions of the Criminal Code just as we have done for the last five or 10 years. We will get another kick at the cat, and no offence to the cats of Canada. I hope we do get there and I hope the DNA data bank created by the bill gets off and running quickly so the RCMP can do their best to enhance public safety as intended by the bill.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of points I would like to put on the record in this final reading debate of Bill C-3. I would like to follow up on the closing remarks of the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

During the examination of the bill by the justice committee of which we were both members, the record will show that the justice officials who appeared before the committee on two different occasions indicated there was a necessity to go slow on the taking of DNA samples. There must be some degree of reluctance to move into the area we are asking the government to take the bill. At a later date we could do that. I think this was the inference by my hon. colleague who spoke last, let us give this some time and let us advance the bill into these areas after some time has elapsed.

To me the inference of this is that the judges may rule something unconstitutional today that they are going to rule constitutional tomorrow. If that is the case, then I would suggest the three independent legal opinions that were submitted late by the government on this bill are simply redundant and meaningless.

I add as well that I have listened to many of the speakers today. They do not seem to understand that their concerns over the intrusive nature of taking a blood sample, a hair sample or a saliva swab have already passed the constitutional test. It is there in the Criminal Code now for something that is not always tried by indictment, impaired driving. At least one of the former judges who submitted a legal opinion on this bill referred to that fact. If it is not a constitutional violation to take a blood sample in connection with an impaired driving charge which may be tried by indictment or summary conviction, then why would it be unconstitutional now to take a blood sample, the most intrusive of three methods of taking a DNA sample from a human being?

We examined these two very strongly presented arguments against going beyond what the bill does now, which is the intrusive nature of it as well as the privacy of the individual. We heard many times from witnesses as well as from members of the committee. I believe we heard it here today during this final debate that the extensive nature of the information gained from a DNA sample is what causes people to be concerned about allowing this to occur.

We know every day there are blood samples taken and lodged in clinics and in a bank somewhere. The detrimental or negative impact of having those samples somewhere in a data bank has not resulted in the negative aspects which many witnesses and members of the government have put forward would occur if we went beyond where the bill takes us today.

My colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River referred to another point, the rapid advancement of the technology to take DNA samples. There may come a day when we will leave a sample on the barbershop floor that will be suitable for DNA testing. We know that a blood sample is taken when every child is born. The sample is lodged somewhere in a data bank at least for a certain period of time.

When we examine the privacy aspect and the intrusive nature, and I can refer hon. colleagues back to the record of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, there is just not an arguable, sustainable, logical, comprehensive debate on either of these two issues to deny further advancement of the taking of DNA samples at the time of charge. It simply does not exist.

My hon. colleague from the Tory party who sits on the committee has touched upon the real reason we are not going as far as we should be going to satisfy the needs of the Canadian Police Association and other law enforcement spokespersons as well as members in the opposition parties. There is fear and concern and a degree of timidity with regard to what the Supreme Court of Canada will say.

I go back to my opening comments. If we are to go slow or to go into the area we want the bill to cover at a later date because of a fear that if we bring it in too early the supreme court will strike it down, we are really saying that what it declares unconstitutional today it will not declare unconstitutional tomorrow as it gets used to it and as it becomes part of our legal system, the legislation and the process. That is wrong. What is constitutional today must be constitutional tomorrow. How can what is constitutional today be unconstitutional tomorrow?

I do not understand or comprehend that argument. Inasmuch as we have opened the door and entered the room of taking samples from those who are convicted and incarcerated for designated primary offences, we have taken that step and will take samples from certain individuals.

What is the difference in going beyond that? Why is there a reluctance to go beyond that and include all primary designated offences in that category? I do not understand. When we asked that question before the committee the answers were not comprehensible to me and were not justifiable in refusing to move further into that area.

I wrap up my comments by saying we all know the bill is moving in the right direction. However, the role of the opposition is to leave its concern indelibly marked on any document it does not feel is in the best interest of Canadians.

The government is to move this bill forward and it will pass. I hope members of the Senate will take a hard look at what we have been asking for, what the Canadian Police Association has been asking for and what others have been asking for. Some good work comes out of the other place regardless of our feelings about its make-up and constitution. When it gets to the Senate I hope the committee that looks at it will examine our concerns and why opposition members could not endorse the bill.

Perhaps the government is right. Perhaps in time all our requirements will be met. The problem is that it is a matter of safety, of concern and of providing the police with the tools they could have now but will not have on the passage of the bill. This is a shortcoming we cannot accept and must object to. We will do so by the way we vote on the bill in the House.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me today to speak to Bill C-3 which provides for the establishment of a national DNA data bank.

The DNA identification act will make Canada one of only a handful of countries in the world to have a national DNA data bank. I am pleased to inform the House that the ground breaking legislation this measure supports will signify Canada as a mover in the world community on a very special base as one of a handful of countries that has gone forward with this type of legislation.

This new legislation strengthens our commitment to combat crime, especially violent crime in Canada. The plan that was developed early in July 1995 gave provincial judges the power o put together warrants which allowed police, after they collected samples, to identify people who had committed serious offences. We have stepped forward today by adding a law which will usefully put together a framework for DNA samples in a data bank.

This is another concrete step toward protecting Canadians from violent criminals. We should make no mistake. Bill C-3 gives Canadian police access to a powerful tool in its fight against crime. As we all know, forensic DNA analysis has been instrumental in securing convictions. It has also been crucial in helping to exonerate wrongly condemned people, but it also raises potential privacy and charter concerns because it has the ability to reveal much more of a person than what a fingerprint would reveal.

Given the magnitude of these issues surrounded by the use or potential misuse of DNA information, the government has taken steps to ensure that a detailed and careful study of the legislation has taken place.

The legislation was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights before second reading. The government also went to Canadians to hear what they wanted to say. Bill C-3 reflects the views of Canadians across the country. The reflections came from a broad spectrum of Canadians which included police associations, victims groups, legal organizations, provincial attorneys general, academics, privacy experts and medical people. The committee was vigilant in making sure it heard from those with concerns over the charter and from those whose overriding concern was public safety. The goal has always been to protect Canadians from violent criminals.

Some other issues were discussed as well. The data bank will include two indexes: a scene of the crime index containing DNA profiles from actual crime scenes and a convicted offenders index containing profiles of offenders convicted of designated offences. With this structure, stored DNA information can be cross-referenced in order to identify linkages and to help solve serious crimes in any police jurisdiction anywhere in the country.

Sharing information is the key to successful arrests of offenders. Bill C-3 sets out the circumstances where samples can be taken and stored in a data bank. Where a person has been convicted of a primary designated offence the court will, except in most exceptional circumstances, make an order requiring that person to submit bodily substances for data bank purposes. Where a person has been convicted of a secondary designated offence and where the crown makes an application to the court, the bill lets the judge make an order requiring the offender to provide bodily substances for DNA banking purposes. In making that order the court must satisfy that it has the interest of administration and justice in order.

The primary and secondary designated offences listed in the bill were developed on the basis of the serious nature of the offences and the likelihood of finding DNA evidence at the scene of the crime. DNA samples are most likely to be found at crime scenes of primary offences like those of murder and sexual assault. On the other hand, DNA evidence is less likely to be found at the scenes of secondary offence crimes such as those of robbery or arson.

Taking samples after an offender has been convicted balances an overriding concern for the safety of all Canadians. It also takes into account the need to respect the rights protected by Canada's charter. The accused has the right to presume innocence and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. I think members would agree with that statement.

The issue of when DNA samples should be taken has garnered much attention throughout the development of the bill. The vast majority of Canadians we spoke with said that taking samples from convicted persons is the only way to respect the rights of all Canadians under the charter. The majority of those consulted also took the position that taking samples at the time of arrest or charge would pose a very serious risk of being struck down as unconstitutional. Legal experts from the Department of Justice and three of Canada's most eminent justices have told the government that taking samples before a conviction would be unconstitutional. I think we can all agree developing legislation that will be thrown out by the courts is not useful for the justice system and not useful for Canadians who look to parliament to develop appropriate legislation.

Bill C-3 will not only capture serious offenders following conviction. It will also permit DNA samples to be collected from high risk violent offenders under penitentiary sentence who were convicted before the bill comes into law. Samples will be taken retroactively from the designations of dangerous offenders, repeated sex offenders and murderers who have killed more than once. Collection of DNA samples from these offenders will give police valuable information to help them solve outstanding criminal cases.

Young offenders will be treated in the same way as adults with respect to taking DNA samples for the purpose of data banking. The DNA extracted from a sample will be analysed with the resulting profile entered into the convicted offenders index of the data bank.

Bill C-3 authorizes the RCMP to establish and maintain a data bank. It is worth noting that access to DNA profiles contained in the convicted offenders index and the samples themselves will be strictly limited to those directly involved in the operation of the data bank.

There is no question that this law is very appropriate at this time. It will provide a service to Canadian police officers so that they will be able to pursue and follow up in a much more scientific way on actions of violent crime in the country. I recommend that every member of the House support the bill in the name of criminal justice.

Supplementary Report Of The Auditor General Of Canada

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the supplementary report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Volume II, for September 1998.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Humanitarians

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to recognize Heather Bondy and Crystal Smith, two outstanding humanitarians from Chatham—Kent Essex.

Heather is the driving force behind Chatham Outreach for Hunger. She has raised thousands of dollars and collected tonnes of food, hospital and school supplies which have been taken to the Dominican Republic, Zaire and Uganda where she has personally delivered that aid. Heather is presently planning to deliver tens of thousands of dollars in aid to Haiti.

Crystal Smith, a 20 year old student, works in an orphanage in Ukraine that houses many victims of Chernobyl. The orphanage was called “The Place that God Forgot”. Thanks to Crystal, it is now the place that God remembers.

I thank Heather and Crystal for their great work. All the citizens of this country are very supportive of their efforts. I add a thanks to Air Canada, British Airways and the Department of National—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary East.

First Ministers Conference

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the December 1997 first ministers meeting the premiers and the Prime Minister agreed to begin a process which would result in a better, more efficient social union for all Canadians.

Since then the provinces and territories have been hard at work negotiating on issues vital to Canadians such as education, social welfare and health. They have unanimously agreed to an arrangement in the design of social programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In short, the provinces have embarked on a project which seeks to improve their partnership with the federal government.

How has the Prime Minister responded to these overtures? By stating “If the premiers do not want to take what I am offering, they take nothing”. This is Liberal co-operative federalism in action.

The official opposition congratulates the premiers of Canada for working on behalf of all Canadians and we call upon the Prime Minister to begin doing the same.

Arthritis

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, September is arthritis month in Canada.

Arthritis is a painful, debilitating disease that threatens the independence and quality of life of more than four million people in Canada. More than 600,000 Canadians are disabled by it. Direct and indirect costs associated with arthritis and related disorders in Canada are nearly $18 billion a year.

With no cure yet, some symptoms and consequences can be lessened through research, education and healthier lifestyles.

September is the month we recognize the Arthritis Society's efforts and its thousands of volunteers. For 50 years the Arthritis Society has contributed over $100 million for research, striving to find a cure.

I ask the House to join me in wishing the Arthritis Society a very successful month.

Health

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have allowed health care to deteriorate and the lives of Canadians are at risk.

Nowhere is the problem more severe than among the first nations where diseases such as TB, diabetes and HIV are rampant. This problem is aggravated by unacceptable housing conditions in many first nations. Families live in overcrowded houses without modern sewage facilities and are deprived of safe drinking water.

It is reprehensible for the government to allow these third world conditions to persist. The government must honour its obligations to the first nations and take meaningful action to alleviate this crisis.

William Hancox

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite you and my colleagues in this House to pay tribute to the late Detective Constable William Hancox who was killed on duty August 4 of this year.

Billy Hancox was not a man the world would call a hero. He was not a famous general, a superior athlete or a noted statesman. He was our neighbour, a decent man whose wife Kimberley and daughter Sandra will remember his kindness and happy nature. His son Sean, born after his death, will tragically never know him.

Billy Hancox wanted to be a police officer to serve and protect the rest of us in the community and he lost his life doing so. Every time he went to work he knew there were risks but he accepted that responsibility.

We should expand our understanding of the word hero to include Billy Hancox, his wife and his family who represent everything that is honourable in Canadian society.

The Environment

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is the greatest global environmental threat we face. It is imperative that we have an international plan to reduce greenhouse gases and meet the climate change challenge head on.

Last week this government co-hosted with Brazil a ministerial clean development mechanism forum. The purpose of the forum was to listen, ask questions and move toward an international consensus on what needs to be done to implement the CDM.

The CDM is one of the international mechanisms agreed on in the Kyoto protocol which will help parties to achieve their emission reduction obligations.

By working in a global partnership we can successfully reduce our greenhouse gas emissions while continuing to develop our economies in a sustainable manner. The forum is an example of this government's commitment to working co-operatively with all countries seeking to develop a global climate change solution which will work for developed and developing countries and the environment. This can be a win-win-win situation for all.

The Senate

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's arrogance in appointing a senator for Alberta has left a bad taste not only in Alberta but in British Columbia.

This approach, this total disregard for the citizens' desire to elect a senator, does nothing for unity in our country. How can the Prime Minister expect co-operation from any of the provinces when he shows such contempt for the people and their provincial governments?

In B.C. we experienced this contempt during the salmon dispute with the U.S. Atlantic Canada saw this arrogance with the east coast fishery. Manitoba saw it with the Red River flood and the federal election call. Ontario seems to be in constant conflict with the federal government.

This past spring the 10 provincial premiers met to discuss a social union and amazingly came out of this meeting with almost unheard of agreement with all 10 premiers on a social accord. What was the Prime Minister's response? Outright refusal to consider this agreement.

Prime Minister, how can this arrogant, combative approach help Canadian unity?

John Eakins

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated and hardworking former member of provincial parliament from my riding, the late John Eakins.

John Eakins passed away in Hamilton on September 16, 1998 while undergoing cancer therapy treatments where he was staying to be closer to his family.

Mr. Eakins was first elected to the Ontario legislature in the riding of Victoria—Haliburton in 1975 and served five terms until he retired before the 1990 election. From 1985-87 he was Minister of Tourism and Recreation and after that Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Prior to entering politics Mr. Eakins served as a councillor in the town of Lindsay for three years and mayor of the town for six years. He was well respected by his constituents and he was a friend to many he served.

I would like to thank John for his many years of public service and ask that this House offer condolences to his family.

The Late Private Gilles Desmarais

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to inform the House of the death of Gilles Desmarais, a Canadian serviceman who was serving with the NATO peacekeeping force in Bosnia. Private Desmarais died on Friday, September 25, 1998, after being accidentally electrocuted in a Canadian camp.

Private Desmarais was 23 years old. He was born in Noëlville, in my riding, and had been serving in Bosnia since early July. He was scheduled to return to Canada at the end of January 1999.

He was a three year veteran of the regular Canadian Forces, having also previously served as a reservist with the Second Battalion of the Irish Regiment in Sudbury, Ontario.

I wish to extend to the family and friends of Private Desmarais my most sincere condolences. My thoughts and prayers are with them as they go through this difficult time.

I take this opportunity to salute all our Canadian Forces troops serving on peacekeeping missions. These fine women and men put their lives at risk on a daily basis for their country and for—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Lotbiniere.

Scrapie

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 11,000 sheep have been arbitrarily destroyed since January 1997. Who will put an end to this carnage, which imperils the entire sheep industry in Quebec?

No one in the Liberal government opposite can answer this question, as this government has put the management responsibility in the hands of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and this agency lacks transparency on this issue. Information is either diluted or non-available.

Officials of this federal agency—this commando created by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food—are traumatizing sheep farmers by harassing them on the phone, showing up unannounced to inspect their sheep barns, threatening punitive action or providing them with incomplete information.

Enough is enough. The federal government must act and stop putting forward measures that do nothing except show how incompetent and arrogant the minister is.

Victims Of Violence

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday night my wife and I presented our son's memorial scholarship to a young aspiring musician. Our son had similar dreams. His drums are now silent in the basement and we think what if? Young adults leaving the nest, a ritual he was denied.

On Saturday we attended the annual soccer tournament held in his memory. More than 300 boisterous young boys. His goalie gloves were cremated with him. We remember.

On Sunday his mother presented trophies and then attended a bridal shower for one of his friends. Pain only a mother can know. Soon we will mark the sixth anniversary of the evil which cut his young life short.

I am privileged to be able to speak in this place not only for my family but for thousands of other families that endure a similar grief in silent anonymity.

Our laws allow too many excuses for violence, everything from a disadvantaged childhood to drug abuse. Predators forget. Families do not. Our considerations belong with them, the silent ones.

Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, in Orford, a municipality located in Brome—Missisquoi, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien became a lifetime member of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, in the diocese of Sherbrooke.

Like Sir Wilfrid Laurier before him, the Prime Minister reminded us that French Canadians have played a prominent role in the history of our country, as one of the two founding nations.

I would like to mention the hard work of Micheline Dupuis and Marcel Bureau, with the 11,000 members of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste in Sherbrooke, of Gaston Deschamps, with the 33,000 members of the society in the diocese of Valleyfield, and of Léo Gagné, with the 6,000 members of the society in the diocese of Quebec City.

Let us follow in the footsteps of Wilfrid Laurier, the first French Canadian to become Prime Minister of the country.

International Year Of The Ocean

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has declared 1998 International Year of the Ocean, in an effort to raise public awareness of the importance of our oceans and of the vital nature of the marine world.

In the Lower St. Lawrence region, the marine world impacts on our cultural and social reality, and it is an essential component of our economic life, partly because of its fishery resources and its potential for the tourist industry.

The riding of Rimouski—Mitis is known internationally in the field of marine sciences. In addition to the Institut maritime du Québec—the only institution to provide a college education program—we have distinguished professors and researchers at the INRS-Oceanology, UQAR's department of oceanography, the Fisheries and Oceans Research Centre, and the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute.

While respecting and preserving marine resources is definitely a collective responsibility, the government must act as a leader in improving management, at the international level, of the world's oceans.

Maison Parent-Roback

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in reporting that the Maison Parent-Roback was officially opened last Sunday in Montreal.

It groups together 12 provincial women's groups working to improve the conditions of women in such varied areas as the economy, culture, health and the campaign to eradicate violence against women.

It is also worthy of mention that the secretary of state responsible for the status of women has contributed a total of $795,000 since last April to 9 of these 12 provincial women's groups.

The corporation selected the name Parent-Roback for the building in order to pay tribute to the work and friendship of two pioneers in the women's movement, Madeleine Parent and Léa Roback.

We are very proud of this government for its support of this type of project for the women of Quebec and Canada.

Justice

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, seven years ago James Mills was murdered while a prisoner of the federal prison in Renous, New Brunswick. Yes, he was convicted of a crime but he was not condemned to death.

For seven years the Mills family has waited for justice to be served. For seven years the file has been passed from corrections Canada to the RCMP to the New Brunswick crown prosecutor.

I understand that on two previous occasions the RCMP turned the file over to the crown prosecutor and recommended that charges be laid.

Recently the RCMP have reported they have turned over new evidence to the crown prosecutor. Hopefully with the new evidence the crown prosecutor can now take action that will finally give the Mills family some closure.

I sincerely commend the solicitor general for his personal attention to this file and for pressing for further investigation.

Now I ask the solicitor general to do all he can to ensure that the appropriate authorities follow through to once and for all resolve the murder of James Mills.

Land Mines

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the land mines treaty, opened for signature in Ottawa last December and quickly signed by more than 120 states, has now entered into legal force, the 40th ratification having occurred this month in record time.

It may be argued on doctrinal legal authority that the treaty because of the number of state adherents has now become part of the general principles of international law and binding as such even on non-adhering states.

Apart from this a challenge of Canadian diplomacy may be to persuade the holdout states to declare significant parts at least of the new treaty as fully binding upon them in the conduct of their foreign policy.