Peter Mancini

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak to this particular piece of legislation which has come before the House. I am not the New Democratic Party's critic in this area but I do come from an island that has not one but two national parks located within its boundaries. This is of particular importance to the people of Cape Breton.

The Cape Breton Highlands National Park is contained in my riding. It contains some of the most spectacular scenery in the country and some of the most important plant growth and ecological—

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 10 and Motion No. 11 in Group No. 6.

I begin with Motion No. 11 because it is the less complex of the two. I indicate that I would speak in favour of Motion No. 11. It broadens and expands the provisions for the taking of DNA. The current legislation provides that a “provincial court judge may on an ex parte application take from a person who has been convicted of murder”. The motion broadens that and I would support it.

I now turn to Motion No. 10 which as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General has indicated is a more complex and difficult piece to analyse. I commend the hon. member for Crowfoot for bringing the amendment forward. From sitting on the justice committee with him, I know it is one which he struggled with. He has attempted to meet the criteria as set out in the objections that were raised to it. That being said, let us ask exactly what this motion does. I think the hon. member has two concerns.

The motion provides for the police to take a DNA sample at the time of charging an individual who has a prior conviction. To take that DNA sample, two things have to happen. There has to be a charge laid against the person and the person has to have a prior conviction for one of the designated offences.

In order to charge an individual, the police have to have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the individual has committed the offence for which he or she is charged. That is a safeguard in our system to stop the police who have tremendous power in this country from charging anyone willy-nilly. The law is clear. The common law as it has evolved says that in order to arrest and charge an individual, there has to be reasonable and probable grounds.

The bill that allows the police to take a DNA sample with a warrant says that there has to be reasonable and probable grounds to take the warrant. They have to go to a judge and ask the judge if they can take a sample of any individual's DNA and to take that sample there has to be reasonable and probable grounds.

If we look at the purpose of this amendment, if the person has already been charged, then presumably the police already have done the necessary groundwork to take a DNA sample. With great respect to my colleague from Crowfoot, I think the purpose is to say what happens when the offender is charged with an offence and he may escape bail. That was mentioned by one of my colleagues in the House.

Clearly the Criminal Code bail provisions under section 515(10) provide for a bail hearing. Most people should know this. When someone is charged with an offence, they are to be released pending their trial unless the court has reasonable grounds to believe that the offender will escape so that they will not be dealt with according to law. There is a built-in protection to stop someone from leaving the jurisdiction under section 515 of the code to ensure that they do not escape.

In the scenario contemplated by my friend from Crowfoot in good faith, if the crown prosecutor has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual will escape custody so that his DNA sample will not be taken, then the prosecutor can raise that at the bail hearing to ensure that the judge remands that individual pending the trial. There is a mechanism to ensure that the individual does not escape.

There are some other aspects of this piece of legislation and some other comments on this amendment which need to be addressed. The member for Crowfoot asked what the difference is in terms of taking a blood sample, in that we allow that intrusion to happen so why can we not do it with DNA. There is an answer to that.

The taking of a blood sample at the time someone is charged is a crucial piece of evidence because the blood sample will change as time goes on. A person who is impaired at six o'clock in the evening and is charged with impaired driving may not be impaired at 12 o'clock the next day. The taking of the sample for a blood alcohol reading is crucial at that point in time.

The DNA sample does not change. If we wait six hours to take someone's DNA sample, the reading of that sample is not going to change. The reading of a blood alcohol level will change. When people ask what the difference is between taking blood at a particular time and taking the DNA sample, it is because the nature of the evidence is different.

We have been provided with four decisions which have been referred to by members in this House. One was solicited by the Canadian Police Association and three were solicited by the Minister of Justice.

Some of my colleagues have said that they know the three obtained by the solicitor general or the Minister of Justice reflect the government's concern and they question whether or not they come totally unbiased. To be fair, we have to say that the opinion solicited by the Canadian Police Association was also directed and purchased by a particular organization to reflect its point of view and its argument.

It is similar to two parties going into court. One lawyer will put forward the argument for the client he represents and the other lawyer will put forward the argument for the client she represents. We can always ask whether the arguments are tilted one way or the other. Our job is to sift through those arguments and come to the truth.

This is not an easy motion to sift through. Every member in this House has struggled with this, in part because of the lobbying of the police association. I spoke with Mr. Newark just before addressing this motion today.

We have to look at those opinions for what they are. Three of them say that this motion, the taking of DNA at the time of arrest or charge will not withstand the charter. What does that mean? It means that the taking of the DNA sample at that point in time violates the freedoms of the individuals of this country. It means that the state is operating in a most intrusive manner. The courts have said, and it is our job as parliamentarians to say, that the individual cannot be impeded upon by the state all the time without reasonable limits.

Some colleagues in this House have taken umbrage at the fact that the supreme court is dictating to parliament. The supreme court has an important role and that is to interpret legislation that is passed in this House.

Let us be absolutely realistic about the way things happen in this parliament. I accept some of the arguments that say the supreme court is perhaps intrusive and perhaps invades some of the responsibilities of this House, but the supreme court is one of the very necessary checks in a checks and balance system for the Parliament of Canada.

Without substantial reforms to this House of Commons, and I say this without fear of contradiction in this House, the supreme court is the only check in this country on the power not of the government, but of the cabinet. If we look at the way law is made in this country, the cabinet introduces legislation to a majority party in this House of Commons and it passes it. We have seen that happen in the hepatitis C issue.

The Senate is supposed to be a check. We know what the Senate is. The governor general is an archaic check. The only check to the supreme power of the cabinet is the supreme court of this country. Until we reform this House, that check has to stay to protect the privacy of individuals.

Some members have referred to Paul Bernardo. If Mr. Bernardo were arrested and charged, the police would have the power needed to collect his DNA.

I have great respect for the mover of this motion. I understand why he wishes it to pass. We have to look at the best interests of Canadians and stop the state from interfering in their individual rights.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill C-3 proposed by the hon. member for Charlesbourg. I stand in the House today on behalf of the New Democratic Party indicating our support for the amendment put forward.

For those who will read Hansard or who may be listening to the debate today and who sometimes think of this House as one where there is no serious debate and no cohesion and no understanding of the principles of legislation, it is interesting to note that on both this amendment and the prior amendment, members of the New Democratic Party are supporting a motion put forward by the Bloc, supported by members of the Reform Party and by members of the Progressive Conservative Party.

In a most serious bill such as this Bill C-3, it is important that we be open to changes to the legislation that will make it better. The motion put forward by my justice committee colleague, the Bloc Quebecois member, indicates that any regulations that make significant changes to this bill be brought before the House for debate and for review and be referred, and I think this is particularly important, to the appropriate standing committee for review.

The public should know that at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and other standing committees of this House we examine pieces of legislation. We call witnesses before the committee to understand the impact and the implications of changes.

The scope of this legislation is so far reaching. The methodology of obtaining DNA samples and the whole area of DNA are so new that there are provisions within the legislation itself to bring it back before the House for review. That is something which is telling because this is complex legislation. I think all members of this House are dealing with it in an intense way and in the best way they can, however there are provisions to bring this legislation back to the House for review to make sure that we can correct any defects.

The motion proposes to bring back before this House important regulations so we can continue to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation as we move forward.

I stand in support of it and indicate to the House that the NDP will be supporting it.

[Justice, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it has been over 21 years since Leonard Peltier was extradited to the United States on the basis of alleged false information.

In 1994 the then justice minister authorized a full review of the case and in February 1997 indicated the findings would be made public prior to the June 2 election. They were not.

Will the current Minister of Justice tell the House why the review has not been made public and if and when she intends to do so?

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

It is our obligation to rise above that cynicism and give an honest debate on the issues before this House. Statements made without facts to back them up, statements made to inflame debate, do little to convince those people that we are seriously considering the needs and the laws that have to be in place for all the people of this country.

We take the recommendation of the Canadian Police Association seriously. We take the recommendation of the privacy commissioner, who is at the other end of the spectrum, seriously. We take the recommendations of the Canadian Bar Association seriously.

As parliamentarians it is our job to weigh each of those arguments, to balance them in the needs and interests of Canadians, after a thorough, informed, intellectual exercise. We have to be very careful when we stand up and say that the rights of criminals take precedence over the rights of victims when we are talking about accused persons. This country was founded on the rule of law. The rule of law has one tenant, that you are innocent until proven guilty. That is the purpose of this legislation, to allow the police the tools to help in determining whether someone is guilty. Once that determination is made then the rights of the criminal ought not to exceed those of the victim. I make those points for the people listening tonight.

I thank the House and I ask for support for my motion.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-3, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 9 with the following:

“exceeding five years; or”

Madam Speaker, I am the only member with a motion in Group No. 3, so I suppose that makes it somewhat exclusive on my part.

I would like to make some general comments first. Some members of the Reform Party have commented on the importance of ensuring that police have an investigative tool. The NDP supports this wholeheartedly.

The average police officer on the street today needs every bit of assistance he or she can have to investigate the commission of a crime and do their job properly. The NDP certainly supports them in the work they do and we hope this bill with its flaws will provide police officers with some of the investigate tools they require to properly bring to justice those who have committed crimes.

I make the distinction between the accused and the criminals purposely because a couple of my colleagues in this House, the hon. members for Calgary and Calgary West, said at different times when speaking about the NDP that we wanted to put the rights of the criminals ahead of the rights of the victims. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We want to ensure that the rights of the accused are balanced in the justice system. Certain members forget that one is not a criminal when one is accused. Certain members forget that anyone in this House, including the members who have used the terminology, can be accused of the most heinous crimes. They are not criminals at that point and indeed the reason we have safeguards in the system is that many people over the years have been wrongly convicted.

As a responsible and just parliament and as a society that takes its responsibilities seriously, we ensure there is a balance, that police have the necessary investigative tools to do their job and the courts have the proper rules to ensure innocent people go free and criminals are punished.

I move to my motion which increases the penalty for someone who violates the law. The current legislation provided by the government states in section 11:

Every person who contravenes subsection 6(6) or (7), section 8 or subsection 10(3) or (5)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.

Because we recognize how important DNA information is and how private it has to be, the act provides that no person who receives a DNA profile for entry into the databank shall use it or allow it to be used other than for the purposes set out in the administration of this act.

Anyone working in the laboratory who receives the DNA analysis must keep that information confidential and can use it only in the way parliament deems it should be used. Subsection (7) goes on to say:

(7) No person shall, except in accordance with this section, communicate or allow to be communicated a DNA profile that is contained in the DNA data bank or information that is referred to in subsection (1).

What I am saying in a capsule form is that the act makes it a crime to communicate improperly any information on any person's DNA. The maximum penalty for committing that crime is two years imprisonment. My motion says we should increase that penalty to a maximum of five years. We still have a minimum penalty that can be imposed. The courts have some discretion in determining how much of a penalty could be imposed.

The reason I suggest we do that is that, once again, the taking of the DNA and the index has to be kept regulated government and properly administered by the government. Anyone who breaches that should be considered breaking the law of this House and should pay a serious penalty. This would bring home to individuals how important it is to keep that privacy.

We live in a scandalous age in some ways. We have people selling love letters of the Princess of Wales for millions of dollars. We know that a taped interview of someone speaking to a political person can fetch thousands of dollars on the open market from the tabloids. We have to recognize that this most personal information, be it mine, be it anyone's watching the House debate tonight, be it anyone's on the government side or the opposition side, is so personal and so private that any attempt to communicate it other than provided by law ought to be punishable with a severe sentence. By increasing the sentence we would be sending out that message.

It is an important issue of law and order. Let me be very clear. The New Democratic Party is concerned about the safety of people in the communities of this country, those who are concerned about crime.

We also have a concern about misinformation that gets sent out to people. It was said in debate tonight that we know, we can take as a fact, that someone in our families will at some point be assaulted or be the victim of crime. That statement was said willy-nilly without a single statistic to back it up. Many people sitting in their living rooms watching this debate because we are parliamentarians accept with some respect what we say.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise for a number of reasons.

First I rise in support of the Group No. 2 motions to amend Bill C-3, an act to establish a DNA databank. In speaking to those motions some things have to be clarified for those who will be listening to and reading this debate. I refer to some of the comments made earlier in the House.

There is a question everyone is interested in when we deal with this subject. It was raised at the committee on numerous occasions. My hon. colleague from Crowfoot and I had discussions about this matter. The question is what is the difference between the DNA samples and fingerprinting? We have heard various scenarios around that. It was the subject of reasoned debate and questions to many of the witnesses who came before the justice committee during the many weeks we took to examine this piece of legislation.

I have heard comments in the House today that there is no real difference, that this is the new fingerprinting technology as we move into the next millennium. But there is a clear difference and it has to be enunciated and understood. Although I have still not received the written decisions of the supreme court justices that were referred to earlier on a point of order, it is my understanding that they concur with my interpretation of the difference between fingerprinting and DNA analysis.

To put this into the simplest terms, I questioned different members of the justice department. Let me explain it this way. The taking of a DNA sample is a taking of the self. It is a taking of a piece of the person, whereas a fingerprint is an image of the person.

Perhaps even a simpler way to put it would be to say that if one thinks a crime was committed at 1313 Mockingbird Lane, one might take a photograph of that home. That is like a fingerprint. But to give the authorities the right to walk into the home and take the furniture is a completely different thing.

It is a misnomer to say, as we move with this new technology into the next millennium, that it is the same as fingerprinting. It is not. It is an intrusion into the very sense of the person, into the very being of an individual. When my colleague, the hon. member for Charlesbourg, talks about the necessity of making sure that we have safeguards, it is to protect the individual self from any intrusion by the state, by the government into a person's most fundamental being.

I think that point needed to be clarified. It is an interesting debate. It is an interesting question. As we enact this legislation and as it takes shape over the next three or four years before it comes back to this House for review, it will be interesting to see exactly how both the authorities and the courts deal with that question.

If I can move to the issue before the House, that is, the questions put by my hon. friend from the Bloc, I support them in part. I submitted myself a very similar amendment which I believe the government looked at carefully.

It was my contention that the DNA ought to be destroyed absolutely. My colleague has indicated in his amendment that the index should be destroyed without delay.

The interesting thing is that there was considerable concern among the committee members when we were told that the DNA index of an innocent person could not be destroyed absolutely. That was the question put to them. “Why do we not say that the index will be destroyed if the person is innocent?” There was a pause and then we were told “On the computer screen we cannot destroy, absolutely, that index. Fragments of it will remain, but they can't be used for anything. It is impossible for anybody to detect what it means”.

We have heard over and over again in this debate that technology is moving at a rapid pace, that we can barely keep up with the advances in science. Who is to say that if an innocent person's DNA is taken and analysed and put into the databank and traces of it remain that the technology in 10 years will not be there to take those traces and piece them together to determine what the genetic code of an individual is, whether they have a predisposition to certain illnesses, whether they ought to be insured and whether they ought to be hired for particular jobs?

I think the motion put forward by the member for Charlesbourg has some real merit. For that reason I would support Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13, all of which provide safeguards for the destruction of the DNA profiles and bodily samples.

Why should we keep those samples? My colleague asks a good question. We live in an age of media celebrity. One can only imagine how much some hair samples from the scene of the accident where the Princess of Wales was killed might fetch on the open market if they were stored in some databank in some DNA laboratory for the next 20 years. Why not destroy them? Why not ensure that privacy is protected and that people are safeguarded?

There have been some comments that the bill does not go far enough in terms of giving the police what they want. That goes to the merit and the substance of the bill and I will speak to that later on.

Today I should point out that we are only at this point debating the amendments to the bill, so I do not want to use up any more time than I have to. With regard to the amendments in Group No. 2, I can indicate my support.

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development talks about post-TAGS and I am glad because the current TAGS program is an exercise in confused objectives, poor management and unrealized goals.

Four years after its implementation, what assurance can this minister give east coast fishermen, plant workers and their families that the successor program will not be starved of cash by the Minister of Finance? Can he also indicate when it might be announced?

[Canadian Association Of Elizabeth Fry Societies, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise and acknowledge the extremely important work of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies as it celebrates Elizabeth Fry week from May 4 to 10.

The theme of this year's E. Fry week is alternatives to incarceration. The society hopes to raise awareness and education regarding women involved in the criminal justice system.

The E. Fry society has a history of hard work and dedicated service in communities across this country. It provides much needed services in support for women who have come into contact with the justice system.

By focusing on alternatives to incarceration the society hopes to encourage the public to examine productive community responses to the criminal justice system. It is its hope and mine that this type of proactive focus will encourage the development of and support for community based alternatives to incarceration, particularly for non-violent offenders.

Please join me in supporting the very important work of Elizabeth Fry societies across Canada.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

We will do all we can to build appropriate walls to keep a Conservative government from taking power.

I put forward the amendment because it would be a clear indication that only the Government of Canada through a public agency ought to store the very personal information referred to by my colleague from Charlesbourg. The reason I proposed the motion was to ensure that only the government and not private agencies, which at some point in the future may profit from the sale of such information, keep that information, keep it secure and keep it confidential for the people of Canada.