Sue Barnes

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in hearing my hon. colleague's comments.

I too am a lawyer and when the Nisga'a treaty was before the House, I happened to be the chair of the aboriginal affairs committee. I remember at the end of that process, after going through over 400 amendments in this House, none of them were passed. All of them had been put forward by the party opposite's predecessor.

I have listened to the credentials of the hon. member and I am very hopeful that this is not a futile exercise. I will give the member and his new party the benefit of the doubt and say that they are asking questions for clarification. I would be very happy to clarify things. If they are not clarified in the few minutes that we have been afforded in this chamber, there certainly would be ample time to answer all of these concerns.

He mentioned some of the concerns with international legal obligations. If valid, these would be very important concerns. Canada developed section 7.13 of the Tlicho agreement concerning international legal obligations with the participation of the federal Department of Justice and the federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Each agreement is unique and reflects the interests of the parties at the table. Therefore, the text of the Tlicho agreement would not necessarily be a precedent for any other land claim or self-government agreement. Currently, international legal obligation provisions can be found in other agreements, notably the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement, as well as the agreement currently before the House.

The hon. member has raised concerns about the impact of the Tlicho agreement on international treaties and potential future international treaties to be negotiated by our country.

The Tlicho agreement allows Canada to maintain its ability to negotiate, implement and respect international legal obligations in the interests of all Canadians, including aboriginal Canadians. The federal government is solely responsible for representing Canada in international affairs. The federal government is solely responsible.

The ILO, the international legal obligation provisions negotiated in this agreement provide assurance that the Tlicho government will exercise its powers in ways compatible with Canada's obligations and duties. The negotiated provisions minimize the risk of the exercise of an inherent right of self-government in ways that would conflict with federal law and Canada's international legal obligations.

The international legal obligation provisions of the Tlicho agreement are mutually beneficial solutions where the Tlicho are assured that they will have a meaningful voice with respect to decisions that affect them and their rights will not be undermined. In return--

[Business of supply, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the work underway at Indian and Northern Affairs Canada a number of federal government agencies and departments are working with other levels of government and aboriginal organizations on many initiatives to assist aboriginal women.

These include horizontal initiatives such as the Vancouver agreement which is developing alternative strategies and mechanisms to support urban aboriginal women. In particular, Status of Women Canada is making a commitment to fund national initiatives undertaken by women's organizations and the aboriginal community on the issue of violence against aboriginal women.

Canadian Heritage is focused on addressing violence against aboriginal women in the aboriginal women's program which enables aboriginal women to influence policies, programs, legislation and decision making that affect their well-being.

The Attorney General of Canada has implemented a national strategy on community safety and crime prevention which provides support to projects supporting crime prevention and increasing the personal security of women and girls.

There is considerable effort underway with respect to ensuring that aboriginal women can achieve the quality of life which they so rightly deserve. We will work with our other colleagues across the departments.

I would like to thank the hon. member once again for having given me the opportunity to explain the current situation. That is not to say that we cannot do more and we will do more. We will look for the cooperation of the House so we can do more.

[Business of supply, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this important matter before the House this evening.

The government recognizes the serious nature of the issue of violence against women and in particular, violence against aboriginal women. Violence of any kind in our society serves to negatively impact Canada and such actions remain unacceptable to the government and indeed to all Canadians.

As the minister has told the House with respect to this issue in the past few weeks, he has been meeting with the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, Terri Brown, regarding this matter. In fact in the spirit of partnership, trust and respect there has been and continues to be a great deal of collaboration between this key group and the Government of Canada.

Together we are working with other aboriginal organizations and leaders to reduce the gaps in living conditions that continue to separate first nations, Métis and Inuit from other Canadians. This includes addressing the issues raised in the Amnesty International “Stolen Sisters” report and dealing with similar issues raised by the Native Women's Association of Canada through its “Sisters in Spirit” campaign.

These groups are to be commended for the work they are undertaking in this respect. They are rendering a great service to aboriginal women and indeed to all Canadians.

The Native Women's Association of Canada has been and continues to be a full participant in the work flowing from the Canada-aboriginal peoples round table launched in April of this year. In fact I was at the meeting when it started to talk about these issues.

The representatives of this group are members of the planning committee coordinating the follow-up activities of the round table in the six key areas including aboriginal health. They will be directly participating in each of the two day sectoral follow-up sessions scheduled to occur in the coming weeks.

In short, aboriginal women's issues are on the national policy agenda and efforts to deal with them are underway, working in partnership and collaboration with aboriginal women.

The work of the round table is but part of the efforts of the government to deal with violence in aboriginal communities. We continue to invest in the family violence prevention program. Last year in the federal department approximately $16 million was allocated to three priority areas. Funding was provided for 35 shelters across Canada providing assistance for over 4,500 first nations people on reserve.

Education and outreach programs continue to be provided in order to increase public awareness, provide workshops and offer stress and anger management seminars as well as support groups and community needs assessments.

Contributions were also provided to the National Aboriginal Circle Against Family Violence. This organization provides coordination and builds capacity among first nations shelter directors.

In conclusion, it is important to underscore the multifaceted nature of these important and compelling issues. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I have outlined the concerns and efforts of our department. Work on addressing these needs is also being undertaken by other departments. I look forward to the cooperation of the member on this.

[Research and Development, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, researchers at the University of Western Ontario, and at universities and teaching hospitals across the country are performing groundbreaking health research. This research is more than likely funded by the Government of Canada through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Equally important, it would not have been possible without the efforts of nearly 1,000 women and men who volunteer countless hours as members of CIHR's peer review committees.

Each year thousands of funding applications are sent to the CIHR for consideration. Applications are then sent to peer review and grant committees comprised of expert researchers. Committee experts discuss whether each application meets internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence, ensuring taxpayers' money is spent wisely and that only the best and brightest researchers are funded.

The dedication of CIHR peer reviewers supports innovative health research that strengthens our health system and improves the health of all Canadians.

[Income Tax Act, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes that there must be exceptions to the rule and this is why the Government of Canada initiated discussions with the U.S. to find a solution to this unique issue.

The Deputy Prime Minister will continue to pursue this with her U.S. counterpart, Tom Ridge. In the longer term, the hon. member should be aware that the Government of Canada is pursuing solutions to the broader issue of food products entering and transiting the U.S. under the Bioterrorism Act.

[Income Tax Act, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that this government is well aware of the unique situation for residents on Campobello Island whose meat and food supplies must be processed by U.S. Customs when arriving from the Canadian mainland.

As my colleague is aware, since the events of September 11, both countries have introduced increased inspection processes and security measures at our shared border.

The United States Food and Drug Administration has put in place enhanced import requirements and more vigilant inspection of beef products. As a result of its more vigilant inspection process, the permit system that allowed meat products to move in transit through Maine to Campobello Island with minimum delay was suspended.

However, I am pleased to say that through negotiations with the U.S. FDA and in recognition of the very special circumstances involving Canadians living on Campobello Island, the expedited clearance process for meat products has been reinstated by U.S. authorities.

[Margaret Anna Lawson, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Miggsie Margaret Anna Lawson, honorary president of the Lawson Foundation of London, Ontario. She passed away on May 5.

During her lifetime Miggsie brought her special vitality and dedication to a variety of community activities. She was a driving force behind making the Lawson Foundation what it is today.

Since the foundation's establishment in 1956 by Miggsie's father-in-law, Ray Lawson, it has donated over $43 million to charities across Canada. Today the Lawson Foundation honours the family traditions and focuses on early childhood competencies and the strengthening of communities.

Miggsie truly personified the foundation's values of respect, trust, family, community, faith, prevention, commitment, empathy and a strong work ethic.

I thank Miggsie for being a positive person and a shining example of the commitment to the London community. She will rest in peace.

[Criminal Code, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in proposing a series of changes that come within the existing structure of the DNA data bank legislation, the government is building upon legislation that has been upheld by the courts every time it has been challenged.

I am not an expert but I understand that a particular pattern of DNA will only appear in one out of billions of samples taken. There are few things harder to explain than the presence of an accused's DNA in or on the body of a victim of a sexual assault. The courts are well aware that DNA evidence provides a virtual guarantee against convicting the innocent, and the miscarriages of justice that have been brought to light by the testing of old exhibits for DNA. Convictions that preceded the development of DNA evidence have been overturned and the real perpetrators identified.

The national DNA data bank contributes to the administration of justice and the safety of Canadians by ensuring that those who commit serious crimes are identified more quickly across all police jurisdictions in Canada, while innocent people are eliminated from suspicion. It assists law enforcement agencies in solving crimes by linking crimes together where there are no suspects, helping to identify suspects, eliminating suspects where there is no match between crime scene DNA and a DNA profile on the national DNA data bank, and determining whether a serial offender is involved.

The Criminal Code establishes the process that can lead to a judicial order authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances from certain convicted offenders for analysis and inclusion in the DNA data bank. Where a person has been convicted or discharged of a primary designated offence committed after the DNA Identification Act came into force, the judge is required to make a data bank order except in the most exceptional circumstances. The judge must be satisfied that the impact on the offender's privacy and security of the person would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in the protection of society and the proper administration of justice. The court is also required to give reasons for its decision to make or to deny making a DNA data bank order.

Where a person has been convicted or discharged of a secondary designated offence, the order may be granted if the judge, on application by the Crown, is satisfied that it is in the best interests of justice to do so. In granting or refusing an order with respect to a secondary designated offence, a judge must consider the criminal record of the individual, the nature of the offence, and the circumstances surrounding its commission and the impact such an order would have on the person's privacy and security of the person. Again the court is required to give reasons for its decision to make or to deny making a DNA data bank order.

The legislation contains important protection against the misuse of DNA profiles. It is an offence to use them for any other purpose than the investigation of crimes.

I understand that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which operates the national DNA data bank, has developed a system of separating the DNA profile from the identifying information. The bodily sample that is to be analyzed and the identifying information on the offender, which is based on finger prints, are identified by the identical bar code. The DNA data bank keeps the sample and sends the identifying information to the criminal identification branch. The analysis is tracked by the bar code, and the DNA data bank does not know who the offender is.

When there is a match, it advises the criminal identification branch of the bar code, and the criminal identification branch identifies the convicted offender. Moreover, the DNA data bank only analyzes so-called junk DNA, that is, strands of DNA that do not provide any information regarding the personal characteristics of the offender, such as hair or eye colour. The committee, I am sure, will want to hear from the management of the DNA data bank regarding these privacy protections.

With such strong protections for the offender's privacy and the great value of DNA evidence, the courts have welcomed the legislation. I am advised that there has not been a single trial or appellate court judge who has found a violation of the charter in the existing legislation. In this charter sensitive era, when many claim that judges are activists and are eager to strike down legislation, this unanimous support for the legislation is little short of amazing.

In Briggs, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down in August 2001, the DNA legislation was unanimously endorsed. Its reasoning has since been endorsed by several other provincial courts of appeal. The court dealt with many of the issues that may arise in considering the legislation and held that:

One, whether or not there is evidence at the scene of the crime of which the offender was convicted that would likely yield a DNA profile of the perpetrator is not necessarily a relevant consideration.

Two, the phrase “best interests of the administration of justice” does not import as a prerequisite to making the order that there be reasonable and probable grounds to believe a further offence will be committed.

Three, the state interest in obtaining a DNA profile from an offender is not simply law enforcement by making it possible to detect further crimes committed by the offender. Rather, the provisions have much broader purposes including: deterring potential repeat offenders; promoting the safety of the community; detection when a serial offender is at work; assisting in the solving of cold crimes; streamlining investigations; and most important, assisting the innocent by early exclusion for investigative suspicion or in exonerating those who have been wrongfully convicted.

Four, provisions in the Criminal Code and the DNA Identification Act restricting the use that could be made of the DNA profile and protecting against improper use of the information offer significant protection of the offender's privacy.

Five, the procedures for obtaining bodily substances authorized by the provisions are of short duration and involve none or minimal discomfort. There is a minimal intrusion with no unacceptable affront to human dignity.

Six, a person convicted of a crime has a lesser expectation of privacy.

Seven, the trial judge is entitled to look at the offender's entire record, not just the crimes that may be designated offences.

In Hendry, another decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that has been widely quoted in decisions in other provinces upholding the legislation, the court held that:

In balancing the offender's right to privacy and security of the person against the state interests in obtaining the offender's DNA profile, the court must consider the following. The legislation offers significant protections against misuse of the DNA profile information, thus minimizing an improper intrusion into the offender's privacy. Having been convicted of a designated offence, the offender already has a reduced expectation of privacy. In the ordinary case of an adult offender, the procedures for taking the sample have no, or at worst, a minimal impact on the security of the person. Thus, in the case of an ordinary adult offender, there are important state interests served by the DNA data bank and few reasons based on privacy and security of the person for refusing to make the order.

With no judge dissenting, it seems that this legislation may never make it to the Supreme Court. However, members should be aware that in R. v. S.A.B. decided on October 31, 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the constitutional validity of the DNA warrant scheme. It found that:

Generally, the DNA provisions appropriately balance the public interest in law enforcement and the rights of individuals to dignity, physical integrity, and to control the release of personal information about themselves.

As the DNA data bank scheme is based on the same designated offences as the DNA warrant scheme and has many of the same safeguards, R. v. S.A.B. provides strong support for the constitutionality of the data bank legislation.

I believe we need have no concern about the constitutionality of Bill C-35, although the committee will undoubtedly want to hear from experts on that particular point.

Across Canada judges are deciding every day whether to make an order against an individual offender. Bill C-35, by expanding the number of offences and by clarifying procedures, will make the law even more effective. It will continue to be based on the same protections that have already led to its endorsement by the courts.

I urge all members of the House to support the motion to refer the bill to committee.

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was quoted in the member's speech. The record from Hansard gives my exact quote. It said:

It has been said that the rationale behind the criminal standard is that it is better that 99 people who committed the offence go free than the one innocent person be convicted.

Please go with the exact record, not implied.

[Question No. 60, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.