Sue Barnes

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to join in the debate because it is important for Canadians. It is important for the laws of this land to be constitutional and that governments treat Canadians with the rights they have guaranteed under our Constitution and in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sometimes, whether it is intentional or not, those rights are trampled on and Canadians, whether they are wealthy or average, need a vehicle available to them to go before a court, obtain an explanation of the rights they are allowed, if there has been an infringement, and have an announcement by the court at the end of hearing facts.

We do not have infallible governments. I do not care that this is characterized in a partisan way. It is not a partisan issue. I do not think any government is ever infallible on every aspect in which it engages.

I go to the guide section of the court challenges program. Right off the bat it states:

THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING ITS CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, PROVIDES FOR STRONG PROTECTIONS OF EQUALITY RIGHTS AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS. HOWEVER, RIGHTS IN LAW BOOKS DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO RIGHTS IN REALITY.

I think that is understood. Individuals or groups can find themselves in situations where governments refuse to respect their constitutional rights and in those situations people may have to take their governments to court. Courts have the power to force the government to bring its laws, its practices and its policies into accord with our charter, but we know that court action is expensive. It is often far more costly for those very individuals or groups whose rights are not being respected or they themselves belong to marginalized groups.

The role of the court challenges program is to provide the financial support to people who want to use the courts to have those rights respected but lack the funds to do so on their own and, more specifically, it provides financial support to test cases that help to protect and advance the language and equality rights guaranteed under the Canadian Constitution. Aside from funding these cases, the program also funds activities that increase the awareness of the constitutional equality and language rights which fall under the program's mandate.

There are applications. Not just anybody gets it. There is a process of screening. There are funding criteria for the program. Federal laws, policies or practices could be challenged. It has to ensure that it is a test case and not already one that has been decided.

Some examples of equality cases that have been funded were, first, the first nations people when they opposed a section of the Indian Act that prohibited them from voting in band council elections if they lived off reserve; second, same sex couples seeking the same rights to certain benefits and deductions under the Income Tax Act that are accorded opposite sex couples; third, parents of children with disabilities who sought employment insurance for periods when they must be off work to provide care for their children; and fourth, the legality of the current laws that restrict the courts from admitting evidence of prior sexual activity on the part of sexual assault complainants.

What can the program not fund? It does not fund any case that covers an issue already funded by the program or that is already before the courts. It does not cover challenges to actions taken by provincial governments, complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act, challenges to provincial laws, policies or practices and public education, community development lobbying or political advocacy.

We should be very concerned when a government thinks it is appropriate to cut funding. The words I have heard are, “We just don't want to pay people to sue us,” or comments of that nature.

I could understand that if this minority Conservative government took great care with the constitutionality of the pieces of legislation that have been brought here, but I am very concerned, as I think all opposition members are, that this government has shown a lacklustre concern, shall we say, for constitutional issues. If something is challenged down the road and a few people's rights are trampled on in the meantime, that seems to be good enough for the government.

It is not good enough on this side of the House. Somebody has to take responsibility for protecting people's constitutional rights and protecting their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is true that we are getting a large number of pieces of legislation coming forward, but does that equal a deliverable law and order agenda, for instance? Or does one put questionable pieces of legislation before this House and then take away the very funding that some of the marginalized people under those pieces of legislation perhaps would have access to with the court challenges program, in order to question their government when they feel the government has gone over the line?

These are not new thoughts. This is a program that was established in 1978 to provide access to justice in relation to minority rights. In 1982 Canada received the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it came into force. In 1985 the program included funding for equality rights cases under section 15 of the charter. We know that in large part the historically disadvantaged groups in our society have been the ones to utilize this program. They are not the only players in the system, but in large part we have those people who are being challenged in many other ways being able to bring their cases for a proper determination before the courts.

I will quote the parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, which said, “This program has made a critical difference in bringing constitutional rights within the reach of francophone parents, aboriginal women and persons with disabilities”.

The court challenges program guide tells us that the program is happy to support “test cases that help to protect and advance the language and equality rights guaranteed under the Canadian Constitution”.

We need these funds because this funding is not going to come from any other place. We have to know that the clarification of the linguistic aspects of freedom of expression is an important right where we have official languages in more than one language. We have minority language rights in nearly every province and territory in this great country of ours.

We are not talking about great sums of money here. Far greater than the sums of money involved are the great principles involved. We have been proud of this as a country and when we Liberals were the government we made sure this program continued and was funded.

I have been receiving letters from across the country, as have many of my colleagues. Some of them are copies of letters sent to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, but some come directly to us.

We know that sometimes their words are better than our own words. I will go to one letter from a lady in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. She talked about a resolution of the Canadian Bar Association urging the government to continue funding for the program. She said:

In fact, the CBA placed so much value on the impact of the Court Challenges Program with regard to protecting the rights of marginalized and vulnerable groups, that it saw an urgent need to increase funding--not cancel it.

The CCP clearly plays a fundamental role in upholding our Constitution. It brings Charter protection within the means of all citizens. Groups that currently access the Court Challenges Program play a vital role in ensuring that economic barriers do not deny Canadian citizens their rights.

Clearly, without the Court Challenges Program it will be much easier for governments to violate the Constitution. This program gives a voice to those who otherwise would have no practical means through which to challenge the courts. Without the ability to challenge--constitutional rights can become meaningless.

I guess that is so unless we have enough money to hire our own lawyer each and every time and we are constantly tracking this, but it is for those who are most vulnerable in our society that we need such a program.

Let us go to some of the other letters that I have had, one from members of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa and professors of law. They sent a letter dated September 25 that talks about the court challenges program, “a national non-profit organization...to provide financial assistance for important court cases that advance language and equality rights guaranteed under Canada's Constitution”.

They were concerned because they were hearing news reports that the government was considering cancelling the program. They sent a letter in urging the federal government to continue the important program. They again referred to the Canadian Bar Association's resolution to “increase its funding in order to ensure its long-term...stability”. Certainly the government does not listen to these people who have a lot of experience with the program.

The letter went on to say:

The Court Challenges Program serves a vital function in our constitutional system. The CPP plays a fundamental role in our system of constitutional governance ensuring government accountability, insisting on the rule of law and ensuring equity and access to justice for Canadians.

The Court Challenges Program has made possible some of our most important Charter cases. It has been praised by United Nations bodies. It contributes to Canada's international reputation as a just and democratic society. It is an important mechanism to ensure that constitutional rights set out in our Constitution are meaningful--

The writers mean not just words on paper, but “meaningful”.

--to all Canadians. It deserves strong support.

This was signed by people who are professors of law at the University of Ottawa here in the capital region.

The Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians sent the minister a letter dated September 23 and said to him that it was:

--writing to you to express our grave concerns over press reports that the Court Challenges Program...is being reviewed, and in jeopardy of being de-funded by your government.

That is the new government. The letter continues:

--achieving coverage under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms represented an important milestone for all equality-seeking groups and individuals. Nevertheless, Canadians with a disability still face numerous barriers to the achievement of our goal of full participation and equality in all aspects of Canadian society. Today, people with disabilities remain among the poorest of the poor living in Canada.

Going to court is expensive. It is critical that groups such as ours have the resources to enforce our hard-won rights under the Charter. The Court Challenges Program plays a critical role in providing resources to our community to make needed litigation under the Charter possible. This litigation has also provided our community--

I am talking about the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians there. The letter continues:

--the opportunity to clarify for governments their obligation to protect such rights.

A right which does not include recourse to a legal remedy amounts to no right at all. Having rights without the resources to enforce them will inevitably result in serious setbacks to the progress made by people with disabilities in Canada.

The AEBC strongly recommends the Court Challenges program continue to receive funding from the Government of Canada.

The letter is signed by the president of the association.

The Quebec English School Boards Association sent a letter dated September 22 to the Minister of Justice. The president of that association talks about the rumoured cancellation of the court challenges program by the Conservative government, saying:

As the association representing Quebec's nine English school boards, QESBA speaks on behalf of a universally-elected level of government that answers directly to the members of Canada's English speaking linguistic minority community. In that capacity, we call upon you to confirm publicly that your government will maintain the Court Challenges Program.

We take as a given that your government respects and recognizes its legal and moral commitment to preserving and developing Canada's linguistic minority communities. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the cornerstone of that commitment. The Court Challenges Program is an essential tool allowing our communities access to Canada's Courts to ensure that the rights and protections we are afforded in the Charter are upheld, understood and respected by all elements of Canadian society.

The pertinence of the Court Challenges Program of Canada has been recognized by the Canadian Bar Association. Important decisions on minority-language schooling, access to services, and key issues regarding freedom of expression have been rendered after interventions funded by the Court Challenges Program. Many of those interventions would have been impossible to initiate without the program's support.

Not hard to initiate, says the association, but “impossible to initiate”. The letter continues:

Quebecers are particularly exposed and sensitive to minority-language questions, both those affecting our communities and those affecting francophone communities in the rest of the country. Any move toward the elimination of the Court Challenges Program would surely be greeted with much opposition in my home province.

The president then respectfully asks the Government of Canada “to do the right thing and announce promptly the continued support of the Government of Canada for the Court Challenges Program”. Let us imagine the disappointment of the writers. Let us imagine their surprise.

On this side of the House, we know that the right thing to do is to put those funds back. We know that we had a $13 billion surplus and we know that this is a question of priorities. There are many, many good programs seeking funding from this House. There are very, very few programs that help those who are less advantaged in our society have access to the courts to make sure their voices and those whom they represent can have a say in obtaining rights that are theirs.

We did not say, when we gave this country its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that only wealthy people who could afford lawyers would be able to have access to their rights. We said that this was for one and all. We said that this was for Canadians, that it was something to celebrate. Most of us in this House celebrate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Most of us in this House know that legislation has to meet constitutional tests.

I personally do not understand why this program would have been targeted. I do not want to impugn motives to people on the other side. But the reality is that they have cancelled an important program. The reality is that we have equality issues in this country. The reality is that minority language rights have to be upheld throughout the country. And the reality today is that the Conservative government has limited access to the courts through the cancellation of the funding for this program.

These are facts, indisputable facts. Why has the government done this? Because it got great advice from Canadians saying they hate the program? No, that is not the reason. This is ideological. The government is either saying it is perfect and has it right all the time, or it is saying to heck with constitutional rights. If somebody wants to spend their own money, not government money, not taxpayers' money, not in our value system as a nation together, then they can do it on their own time and their own penny. What does that say about the thinking of the current government? What does that say about how it values the access and equity issues among the most disadvantaged Canadians?

I note your signal, Mr. Speaker. I have other letters here. My colleagues and I have lists of organizations that have contacted us. I must put on the record that I have not had one phone call or received one piece of correspondence saying, “Hurrah for the government. It cancelled the program”. Not one. I have not seen that.

I think that is important. It is not only this area that has been cut off. I see a pattern developing. I see my friends on the other side getting ready to pounce, so I will put it on the record now. I see a pattern developing in which the government is telling Canadians it is protecting law and order in this country just because it is piling up legislation. But as members will know, people are working in this House every day on legislation. Members of the justice committee whom I work with every day are working through legislation. In fact, we just added another weekly meeting to our agenda to be able to work through legislation, and we will make sure that it is constitutional.

[Criminal Code, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in that case, I will compliment you on your discretion on having foggy glasses to allow my colleague to put his concern on the table, and say that in committee we will have noted his concern in this area and will talk about it because there are some provisions about the co-accused in this document.

I also want to clarify the point that summary conviction, where it is a lesser offence, is two years less a day. When there is a dual procedure offence, it could be the same charge, but the more serious would be proceeded with by way of indictment. The sanctions in sentencing would be two years or more.

[Criminal Code, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Law Commission of Canada is a separate entity from the Uniform Law Conference.

The Law Commission of Canada that was just gutted in its financing is a different entity. It was a very valuable entity to helping modernize Canadian law in all fields and not just the criminal law field. The Law Commission of Canada has done superb work.

Actually, there is a matter of privilege before the Speaker because the Law Commission of Canada was established by statute of Parliament. What we just received with the Law Commission of Canada was the cutting of funding for this organization when in fact the Minister of Justice has to respond to the reports of the Law Commission of Canada. The Law Commission of Canada has a statutory authority to report to Parliament. Its reports are tabled in the House and the Minister of Justice has a statutory obligation to respond to those reports.

Over the years, the Law Commission of Canada has done amazing work on everything from immigration issues, to equality issues, and to issues pertaining to all of the workers of the land. If we look at its annual reports, we can see the breadth and knowledge of work being provided to the House.

In fact, I have tabled a motion in the justice committee that deals not only with the current minority government's decision to remove the financing from the Law Commission of Canada but also the court challenges program. These are two incredibly important and short-sighted decisions of the current government.

When the member asked me about the Canadian bar or anyone else, it raises the concept of consultation on government bills. I have no idea who was consulted on this bill. I think the provinces and the territories were consulted because we know of the input of the Uniform Law Conference. Therefore, there would have been wide consultations.

When we have wide consultations of the appropriate players, we generally get a bill that can be dealt with efficiently in the parliamentary process because a lot of the kinks have been worked out. A lot of the obvious problems have been worked through, people have come together to discuss solutions and so the legislation that is properly consulted and not merely ideologically driven comes to us in a better form for us to deal with.

Here we have an example of legislation. Even though it contains 46 different issues, we have an example of where we have had the broad consultation that was necessary. When that is done, our job as parliamentarians is much easier. We are not doing the same initial level of research, looking for the constitutional or other deficiencies that could easily show up in a piece of legislation, whether it is intended or unintended.

I am concerned when we get the other type of legislation which is the ideologically driven legislation and sometimes we get unintended consequences. That is especially true if we are trying to amend pieces of legislation that have deficiencies in them. In past years, we have sent some of the controversial bills before second reading to committee. This allowed the committee to do a better job at looking at the bill in total and making amendments to legislation that work for the betterment of the bill. When we do it the other way after second reading, it makes it much more difficult.

It really does set us up for all or nothing approaches, which is not helpful and not what is intended when parliamentarians from all parties come to this House to work for good policy or good administration, especially in the areas of justice.

This is a bill that has gone through sufficient consultation, the nature of it, but would it have been from the Law Commission of Canada? I am not sure at this point.

I do respond to my colleague, who currently also serves and works hard on the justice committee, by saying that I hope, and it is my wish, that we have good consultation on all bills that come to committee. Otherwise, what we have is just a deceptive practice of stacking numbers of bills high on the order paper with no intention of ever getting them through, doing it for a political agenda instead of a real work agenda. We on this side of the House are concentrating on the real work agenda for Parliament.

[Criminal Code, October 16th, 2006]

Translation is very important in this House.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleague from the Bloc, I will repeat that having a bilingual trial is warranted where it involves co-accused who understand different official languages. That is a very important part of the bill.

Orders of prohibition from driving are being made consecutive. I will talk about that a bit later.

Another area that is substantive is allowing a sentencing delay to enable the offender to receive some treatment. This is a positive development in the bill.

Another change in the bill is proposing that two unsworn jurors decide whether the cause of challenge is true. I asked the parliamentary secretary to provide information but I did not get a clear answer in the House. When the bill gets to committee, I suppose we will get the real information as to why they are unsworn. I heard a partial answer, but this still needs clarifying.

Clauses 23 and 24 of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments) are concerned with changes to direct indictments. I believe we would want to hear more about these changes from criminal defence lawyers at committee. I would also like to hear some expert evidence on the area of the peremptory challenges which are affected by clauses 25 and 26 of the bill. Again, these are not matters that we have to debate at this stage, but I am flagging them so the government will be prepared to make sure these areas are contained.

With respect to subclause 8(3) of the bill which addresses consecutive periods of prohibition for driving, this may allow for extremely long prohibition times. This in turn could upset the balance in sentencing principles in section 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code. The court has an obligation to avoid unduly harsh or long consecutive sentences. We will have to take a look at this area.

I understand clause 37 of Bill C-23 has been proposed to address issues raised by some of the case law in the land. This clause adds a requirement for the court to explain to the offender the mandatory and optional conditions that the offender must meet as part of his probation. Does this mean that the judge should do this personally in court, or will delegation to court officials suffice? I had briefings in this area, but further explanation will be required. This would appear to revert to a former practice in the courtrooms in many years past.

Clause 9 of the bill changes the offence of possession of break-in instruments from an indictable offence to a dual procedure offence. That will obviously allow the prosecutor to make the choice to go with a summary conviction where it is deemed appropriate.

There are many more sections of Bill C-23 which I have not highlighted. The Library of Parliament has put out a very good summary for my colleagues to look at if they are interested in any of the specific sections of the bill. I think it is fair to say that the bill has been out since the summer time and I do not think it has attracted wide attention. I have consulted with some of the people who will have to use these sections in the courtrooms.

The bill quite rightly should go to committee. I encourage those most affected by the operations of these individual clauses to come to the committee as witnesses. We will have to deal with any piece of information or slight adjustment that may be required at that time.

In due course, if the House forwards the bill to the committee, which I believe it will do, we will have the opportunity to work further on sections of the bill. Unlike some of the other justice bills we are faced with in the House, this bill has less of an ideological bent. This is something that has been worked on over time by the provinces, territories and the federal government.

Many of these provisions take years to work through the system. Every once in a while this type of omnibus legislation is required where technical amendments are being made. Criminal law is a living statute. It benefits from being modernized by using our new technologies as has been suggested by some of the other speakers.

At this point, I see no real areas of ideological controversy or any other type of controversy. In due course, I could be corrected by experts who might come forward at committee stage and point out some serious flaws which at this stage of the game we have not seen.

I will be encouraging my caucus to move this bill forward to the committee stage. Each and every stage of a bill is important, but this is the preliminary stage and these changes could serve the justice system well in that administration.

[Criminal Code, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, do you wish me to continue without the translation?

[Criminal Code, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which is comprised of numerous unrelated amendments in relation to criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing, and some other matters.

From time to time this type of legislation is required to do a general cleanup of sections that need changes for either a practical reason, a legal reason or an administrative reason, and sometimes even for substantive modernization of sections of the Criminal Code.

This is a bill that should go to the committee for fine tuning and due consideration of each section. Amendments, where and if required, could be made at the committee.

This bill was read for the first time on June 22, 2006. I must say that in the past, briefings on new bills were provided to the opposition critics either shortly after the bill was introduced or upon request. It was always up to an opposition critic whether he or she wished to accept a departmental briefing. I certainly encourage the government to provide departmental briefings. As justice critic I had asked for a briefing on this bill back in June and again over the summer months. None was provided until the first week the House resumed sitting in mid-September.

I remind the government that it is a minority government supposedly wishing to pass legislation through this House.

When the government finally allowed access to the appropriate individuals who worked on this bill and were knowledgeable, they had been instructed that no paper briefing was required. Remember that there are 46 disparate parts to the bill.

The Minister of Justice in his first meeting at committee agreed that briefings are useful and we would be receiving them.

Briefings that are given to critics months after the request, or without some written information, are not as useful as they could be. I do not wish to leave any impression that those who provided the oral briefing from the Department of Justice were in any way unhelpful; they were not; it was more the timing and the documentation. This issue is more a political decision, certainly not a bureaucratic decision.

Since I have raised this more than once and I have tried to raise it privately, I am now raising it publicly because I believe it should be fixed for future bills. Most of us, and I would hope all of us actually, came here to do good policy work. There is no need to allow a political agenda to override working in the best interests of all Canadians, which does include full and timely briefings on procedures and for the bills that are laid before this House. I trust that this situation will now be corrected and will be rectified for future bills.

Today I pushed to have a briefing on a bill that is on the order paper for later this week and I was advised that it was done.

My point is that as a critic on government bills I should not have to be pushing to have a briefing from the government on a bill. The bureaucracy, the officials, the best known people working on that bill over a long period of time should not have to beg for this type of information. That information should be shared, especially if we are trying to move forward together on some of this implementation.

This bill, as I said before, includes 46 clauses. Not all are substantive amendments to the Criminal Code. For instance, the bill establishes the general rule that in criminal matters the service of any document and proof of service may be made in accordance with provincial law. This seems incredibly straightforward. I do not see problems with this. To reflect this rule, a number of the provisions of the code have been repealed.

Many of the provisions in Bill C-23 are as a result of consultation with the provinces and territories within the context of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. Because many people in our system would not realize who provides input into these types of amendments, I thought I would put forward some of the information that I gleaned about this organization from its website and other places.

The Uniform Law Conference of Canada operates in two sections, one being the criminal section and the other being the civil section.

The criminal section unites prosecutors for federal, provincial and territorial governments with defence counsel and judges to consider proposals to amend criminal laws which are mainly under the federal authority of Canada through the Criminal Code of Canada. Since the administration of criminal justice is undertaken by the territories and provinces, they are the administrators of the systems.

The meetings of the criminal section give the provinces and the territories a chance to ask questions of the federal government and suggest ways to make the system better and reflect the challenges they come across in their day to day operations in performing that administration service. Often they suggest changes based on identified deficiencies or detect gaps in existing law, or it could be problems created by judicial interpretation of existing law. The annual meetings of this conference are not public ones but they are attended by persons designated by their respective governments at the federal, provincial and territorial levels.

The Uniform Law Conference is a volunteer organization. Its work over the years has been extremely useful to the justice system in the land, but it has been relatively unheralded. Like many volunteer organizations in Canada, it is important to recognize and acknowledge its valuable work.

I want to pass now to some of the examples of substantive changes contained in Bill C-23. The first one I will talk about is the default maximum fine for a summary conviction which is being increased from $2,000 to $10,000. Also, we have the realm of having bilingual trials warranted where they involve co-accused who understand different official languages. I also think that this is a good advance.

[Criminal Code, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, whether I get the answer to my question now or at a later stage, I want to flag one thing in this bill, which is that two unsworn jurors will determine whether the cause of a challenge is true in a criminal procedure. I was wondering what the rationale would be for having unsworn jurors as opposed to sworn jurors.

[Criminal Code, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take some time to comment on the work of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. I believe that most the provisions of this bill came from the law conference's work. There are 46 clauses affecting different areas in the Criminal Code and in procedure.

I would like an acknowledgement by the parliamentary secretary that the bulk of the work for the bill was done by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. In my speech, I will be talking about what it does for us in this country.

[An Act to amend Certain Acts in relation to DNA Identification, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have encountered over a number of years situations where DNA testing has actually helped my constituents, people who have come often as refugees fleeing from other countries. I know east Africa was mentioned. I am thinking of one case where a family had a number of children, but because of the refugee situation and civilian strife in their country of origin, they left without any documentation that most people would have to identify their children such as passports and birth certificates.

Some people leave under military situations where they are running away from guns and crossing borders with barely anything other than the clothes on their backs. DNA has been utilized successfully in cases in which I have been involved. Parents were able to identify children who somehow got separated from their families while fleeing. It was one way in which the former government did find a way of reuniting families.

I do understand the point that it is expensive, but it does give certainty and actually helps solve the situation. It is a solution for those families. It brings them together and in a way has helped develop the family reunification objectives of our Immigration Act.

[An Act to amend Certain Acts in relation to DNA Identification, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, although I spent a few years as the vice-chair of the justice committee in 1993 and only chaired the committee in the absence of the existing chair at that time, I did so many times. Unfortunately, we were not dealing with DNA legislation, so I actually look forward as a member of the current committee that we will have a look at this and do the visits that some former members of the committee did at the DNA databank.

When visiting the databank, what is very dry and more difficult to understand about the technical way in which this series of bills operates is that when hearing from the experts and those administering the system, they apparently will show all the technical reasons for privacy that surround the operation of the databank.

This exact question is the one which I posed to the Minister of Justice a couple of minutes ago as the first question on this bill. I can tell the House that in his response he was not giving a lot of information out other than saying his department is currently looking at this.

I know there is a private member's bill which was originally put forward by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who is now a minister of the current government, known as Lindsey's law. We hope that the current government will look at all of the concerns that will be raised around the technical reasons surrounding what the challenges are and whether these can be dealt with through protocols.

I hope I am being clear enough for the member. For instance, if somebody gives a voluntary sample and it matches up with an existing crime scene, there is an incriminating situation that never was intended as it was supposed to be for a match for someone who was missing. There are privacy situations and protocol situations around this.

I do not think any member of the House would be trying to block what is called Lindsey's law because we know the sorrow and non-closure of an issue when a child is missing. The current minister may find out through his technical discussions with the experts who have to deal with it that there may in fact be some challenges to be overcome. I personally hope that these challenges can be overcome because there needs to be some efforts made to assist people with their very real anguish in that situation.

I know it is one of the listed items in the review. It is very important we have this review, but in the meantime the Minister of Justice should work inside his cabinet to push all of the appropriate departments in getting this done so people can have closure.