Paul Forseth

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking at this point about Motion No. 1 in relation to spending in the area of justice. I will try to relate to how much society and government resources are committed to the area of justice and then relate that to our lack of satisfaction.

I did a quick addition of how much we will be spending under the justice and the solicitor general ministries. My addition might be incorrect but I came up with $2,889,701,564 that we are about to vote on. That is a tremendous amount of money. Yet it does not represent the money that may be hidden incidentally in other departments such as defence, foreign affairs, the environment and whatnot.

That justice spending does not reflect all the provincial or municipal budgets for crime prevention and other service programs or all volunteer organizations that do fundraising to provide general justice services. That is a tremendous commitment of the resources of Canadian society to justice, peace and public order. Yet we have tremendous dissatisfaction and discomfort with all the services that are delivered.

I would like the member to respond to this inequity, to respond to how we can have greater value for the dollar and greater accountability for what we commit as a society to the judicial area so that the public can have a renewed sense of confidence that all the resources we spend in this area could not be spent wisely in other areas.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the comments, although they may be commendable, are perhaps off the topic of what we are debating today. Mainly we are talking about judicial activism and the basic concern, now that we have a charter, of who does the deciding is as important as what is being decided.

We have in our party a specific position about the constitution of the supreme court and the appointments to the higher courts of the provinces which states:

A. The Reform Party supports more stringent and more public ratification procedures for Supreme Court Justices in light of the powers our legislators are handing the courts. We believe that an elected Senate should ratify all appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada and all Courts where the judges are appointed by the federal government.

B. The Reform Party supports efforts to secure adequate regional representation on the Supreme Court, and that nominations should be made by provincial legislatures, not provincial governments.

C. The Reform Party supports the appointment of judges at the Supreme Court of Canada level for fixed, non-renewable terms of ten years.

It is a concern about the appropriate role of the court that ultimately parliament must be supreme. If we are to get into those kinds of policy debates which the member opposite seemingly wanted to get into today, that is fine and well, but those issues must be decided by parliament and not by the courts.

Now that we have a charter court, we must look very carefully at who is doing the deciding as well as what is being decided. Hopefully the court will stay appropriately within its bounds and allow parliament to do its work.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, certainly our role in the opposition is to hold the government to account. Our job is also to present constructive alternatives. When we bring the issue of justice to this Chamber, certainly the government should not mischaracterize our points in defence when perhaps in the public view it is found lacking in the operation of the justice system.

When the Liberals say we are extreme, they are just plain wrong. It is the failing system that is extreme. When they say we are simplistic, I think that is somewhat of an admission from the government that these complex issues of justice administration are rather confounding the government and it just does not know what to do.

Today the justice minister talked about the criminal justice system, the mental health system and the social welfare system, especially for young offenders. However, she forgets that it is the criminal justice system which provides the railway track for the train to be able to get to the social welfare system and the mental health system, for it is the police that form the 24 hour social agency in most of Canada, especially in the outlying communities. It is often in that context that the mental health worker or someone from the hospital and the local social welfare agency get together with the local justice system person to deal with problem families and issues. Unless we have the criminal justice system to provide the authority to act, we cannot bring to bear the other social services in the community.

I wanted to talk about what the justice minister said the other day. The justice minister said “justice delayed is justice denied”, but she continues to delay the introduction of the needed amendments to the Young Offenders Act and fails to bring in a victims' bill of rights. When are we going to have some legislation rather than continued reports and press releases?

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have been given just a few moments to comment upon what is happening in the House today. We have a bill on the topic of using DNA samples as a tool to suppress crime, a bill in fact that the Liberals never really wanted. They were brought to the issue by the sweep of international events as other countries were responding to changing enforcement technology.

The Canadian people are far ahead of the government on the will to respond to crime. They want more than the narrow limits of the bill on DNA. The theme I am talking about here is how philosophically weak is the Liberal government. It specifically shows in the comments to the groupings of the amendments before us.

I heard a comment the other day that seemed to fit my point. After some political talk around a table over drinks with some obvious frustration, one interrupted the other and asked “Just what do the Liberals really stand for anyway?” The answer I overheard was telling.

She said something to the effect that “When you get right down to it I suppose I have to admit that Liberals really stand for what will get us elected. When I think about it, it does not seem to matter too much about the long term view of what I think is good for the country. My party keeps changing and I really do not think we stand for anything exclusively. We have the red book now but things always change”.

I know that understanding or admission is a touchy sore point with the Prime Minister. I have heard him on several occasions in the House try to cover the inherent weak nature of his party and deliver his personal prescription of what it means to be a Liberal in the usual puff phrases referring to democracy, compassion, pragmatism and so on. I have heard this from every political stripe, from the diehard socialist to the deluded fascist, every group imaginable.

We say much about democracy and equality in our party also, but we write them down in a blue book after exhaustive voting, grassroots debate and discussion. Then we publish it for the country and we are on the record as accountable for those positions.

Reformers have been doing that for years before the Liberals ever conceived of the idea of a red book. It is because Reformers had a blue book and were killing the Liberals in the polls in the west that they quickly hothoused the production of the 1993 Liberal red book. The country knows that one now very much as the list of broken promises or the red ink book.

In other words, the Prime Minister knows in his heart how weak and without courage Liberals are. His pronouncements in the House about it betray him. The private admission of the lady to whom I referred who said she was a Liberal is not news. Everyone has heard those comments. The sad part of it for our country is that the lady, in spite of her admission, did not seem to feel motivated to do something.

To her it seemed okay that despite how much her party hurt the country or despite how short term expediency left Canada missing opportunities for greatness and raising the human spirit, she seemed content to sit with the insiders Liberal club; no risk, no hint of courage, no concern about leadership, just complacency.

In spite of what the Prime Minister has done on the hepatitis C file, Liberals who know better just shed their tears in private. They unfortunately stay in their Liberal seats instead of joining the people's agenda on our side.

Liberal manoeuvres on the DNA bill are typical of so much of their administration of the people's business. They are weak and this weakness has produced the consequence now that will directly affect the basic safety of our citizens. Liberal weakness to defend the streets of Canada against evil and the perpetrators of crime is a reflection of their inadequate policy. Our country faces challenges and to be a Liberal today is obviously just not good enough to meet those challenges.

The basic economic policies of the government have been timid. Liberals have put the country through needless pain by drawing out the ordering of our national finances in halting steps, while sending shaky mixed messages to the investor community about where we are going. The Liberals are weak and are not up to the job of running the finances of the country.

On Saturday, May 9, a Vancouver Sun headline read “Only weak dollar helps us keep pace with Americans”.

The article shows how Canada has fallen behind the U.S. in productivity, foreign investment and the generation of jobs and income. The finance minister does get some good advice on how to stem the trend, but he is weak. He is afraid of the politics of envy of the NDP. The socialist tendencies in his party hold Canada back. That results in keeping unemployment unnecessarily high.

I will make another point. The minister of trade is so weak that he cannot explain or sell an MAI type of agreement that would protect Canada's economic interests as we try expanding our economy abroad. He is so inadequate that he lets Maude Barlow and others lie baldface to the nation and deceive communities right across this country with their socialist, small minded inferiority complex.

The Liberal trade minister was not up to building a national political mandate within our country or lead internationally to overcome the problems of the MAI, even when Canada has a former cabinet minister in charge of the OECD. No wonder. The record is there. He is just a weak Liberal who is out of his league when he takes Canada to the international table.

I make those observations leading up to the greatest admission of weakness by Liberals that I have seen for some time. It was the press release of May 1 by the solicitor general and the justice minister. I quote in part:

May 1, 1998, Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of Justice and Attorney General Canada released today the conclusions of three eminent jurists asked to review the constitutionality of taking DNA samples without prior judicial authorization at the time a person is charged with a designated offence, such as sexual assault.

Since 1995, DNA samples can be taken for investigative purposes under the authority of a judicial warrant and the federal government now has legislation before parliament, Bill C-3, that would create a DNA databank based on DNA samples collected after conviction.

Responding to a number of individuals and organizations that have continued to press for such amendment, the Department of Justice sought legal opinions from former Justice Martin Taylor of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and from former Chief Justices Charles Dubin of the Ontario Court of Appeal and Claude Bisson of the Quebec Court of Appeal. Each concluded independently that this proposal would not survive charter scrutiny.

If charter scrutiny is the problem, then maybe the charter is wrong or out of date. If we have judges who will not approve a more expansive bill, then maybe we have the wrong kind of judges. After all, the public has had no input into their selection.

It comes down to courage and confidence of the government, courage and skill to act for the people. Make the supreme court reflective of Canadian society. Change the charter if we have to, the people are behind it. Pass legislation in this House that meets the challenges of the job. If the judges are not up to speed and strike it down, then use the notwithstanding clause. Under this Liberal administration parliament no longer seems supreme.

We are attempting to amend this bill through these various report stage motions. It is good as far as it goes, but I call on the government to show some resolve and strength of leadership. The DNA bill should be parallel to taking fingerprints. Liberals hiding and running because of legal technicalities is not a government of the 21st century. Opinions will continue to vary. We do not need this weak government. We need a government to positively decide and lead with courage.

[Justice, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the countdown to see young offenders legislation by this justice minister totals a disgusting 335 days.

Can the minister state today that her young offenders strategy response will become substantive legislative change? Will she deal with age, secrecy, consequences and victims for true young offenders rather than just youthful adult criminals under the Young Offenders Act?

[Justice, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the public is tired of having this wait and see game for the Young Offenders Act. National consultations were completed five years ago, yet this government only plans now to respond with a strategy to a committee and then talk some more.

When is the minister going to introduce legislation? Will it deliver the people's agenda of real change or will the minister just rename the act?

[Justice, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the days of the justice minister's failure to act on victims rights are numbered. It has been 738 days since the victims bill of rights motion went to committee. The clock is ticking, or should I say the calendar is flipping.

The other day the minister talked about a national forum and writing to the committee but victims do not want a professor's lecture about “timely” or “maybe soon”. How many more days do Canadians have to wait before the justice minister takes real action for victims of crime?

[Justice, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after that staged fluff question permitted from the government backbench I have a real accountability question.

It has been 736 days since the victims bill of rights disappeared into the black hole of a committee. It has been 329 days since the justice minister promised to reform the Young Offenders Act. A timely fashion is not 736 days for victims and 329 for young offenders.

When will the justice minister exercise some leadership in cabinet and actually do something instead of lecturing us about how complicated these things are?

[The Family, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the law concerning dissolving families when separation and divorce occurs is under much needed review.

In the last parliament legal changes were made to ensure more reliable child maintenance payments. The overly narrow focus of those changes resulted in a rekindling of the gender wars.

Women's groups make their case of being victims without appropriately acknowledging their abuse. Men's groups make their case of being victims of both the system and women without providing sufficient leadership for culpability and remediation.

Fortunately the government relented to permit a joint Senate-House of Commons committee review the Divorce Act. Last week we heard witnesses in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina and Winnipeg. Last Monday in my city of New Westminster I sponsored a well attended open forum giving the public a voice.

It is essential that we fashion a framework that emphasizes parental responsibilities over rights and meets our children's needs over parental wants. To say it simply, we must put our children first.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my community to add my comments concerning Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts.

To be clear, what are we talking about? In specificity, it concerns an enactment to provide for the establishment of a national DNA databank to be maintained by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to be used to assist law enforcement agencies in solving crimes.

The databank will consist of a crime scene index containing DNA profiles derived from bodily substances found in places associated with the commission of certain types of serious offences and a convicted offenders index containing DNA profiles obtained from persons convicted of or discharged from those types of offences.

The enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide for orders authorizing the collection of bodily substances from which DNA profiles can be derived for inclusion in the DNA databank. It also amends the Criminal Code to authorize the collection of bodily substances from offenders who meet clearly defined criteria and who are currently serving sentences.

The enactment contains specific provisions regulating the use of the bodily substances collected and the DNA profiles derived from them, and the use and communication of and access to information contained in the databank.

Specifically, we are at the report stage debate of this bill and the Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring the confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with a true sense of security. Today's debate is broken down into various sections concerning amendments about which I will speak later.

Canadians really do not have a lot of confidence in our justice system, and no wonder, for essentially it is a liberal justice system. Reformers want to strengthen our law enforcement agencies by providing them with the latest technological tools so they can quickly detect and apprehend the perpetrators of the most violent crimes in society.

DNA identification is that kind of tool. But it can also vindicate possible suspects, protect the innocent and save money for more appropriately focused resources for investigation efforts.

If used to its potential the DNA databank could be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprints. To deny the prosecution the full use of this technology in the fight against crime, as Bill C-3 does in its present form, is unacceptable because it maintains an unnecessary level of risk to the lives and safety of our citizens. Again, from my point of view, it is the usual Liberal half-step in the right direction and further evidence of a weak government.

Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification, if passed unamended will provide Canadians with a false sense of security. It is just not good enough to meet our higher standards.

Members of the Reform Party fully support the creation of DNA databanks. However, we do not support the timid and weak style of Bill C-3. It does not grant our police forces full use of the DNA technology which is readily at their disposal, a tool that would help close hundreds of unsolved violent crimes and a tool that would have the enormous potential of saving lives by removing predators from our streets.

Let me refer directly to the motions in this section of the report stage debate.

I notice at page V of the Order Paper and Notice Paper for Monday, May 4, 1998 that there are 14 report stage amendments. I will speak briefly to the ones in the section concerning our present debate.

Motion No. 1 is brought forward by the Bloc. I believe that the bill already contains adequate provisions covering these areas and that the amendment is not necessary to support them.

Motion No. 2 is brought forward by the NDP. I think it has merit. This amendment precludes private agencies and labs from taking samples and it creates public standards and better accuracy for testing quality. I support the motion.

Motion No. 3 is brought forward by the Bloc. It also has merit. It safeguards against the wrong persons accessing the DNA databank. I support this improvement.

Motion No. 5 is brought forward by the Bloc. I really do not think it is particularly helpful. It is really a make-work amendment and there is no reason for us to have a three year review. It really does not help the general goals of the bill.

Further, Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of a DNA sample at the time of formal charge. It does not permit samples to be taken from incarcerated individuals, other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers.

There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides where DNA evidence has been left at the scene by the perpetrator. DNA identification now offers an unparalleled opportunity to solve many of these cases and bring the perpetrators to justice. However, because of the government's fear of violating the privacy rights of those responsible for heinous crimes, it is restricting the use of this very important technology by law enforcement. It is a typical approach of a weak government.

Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to express a willingness to place the lives and the safety of Canadians in jeopardy. Whether by paroling violent offenders who go on to murder again, or by freeing convicted violent offenders through conditional sentencing, or by tying our police officers' hands through Bill C-3, it appears the safety of society is a secondary issue for the Liberal government.