Peter Mancini

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, this grouping of amendments are intended to strengthen the safeguards against misuse and abuse of DNA profiles stored in the databank.

My amendment is Motion No. 2, the (a) portion of which appears to already be accepted as it is provided in the act. I will move on to the other section. I would propose that we amend the principles of the act by placing in the following, which would be an addition to section 4:

(c) because of the personal information that can be gathered through the use of DNA profiles, it is the role of the government through public agencies, to perform the tasks set out in this act.

I proposed the amendment because we have seen in the last eight or nine years tremendous privatization by both this government and the government prior to it. Crown corporations or government agencies which were normally perceived to be within the realm of government because they performed important public functions were given to the private sector in a fiscally conservative move.

My concern is that we are setting up an agency under the RCMP that can take these DNA samples and record them. None of us has a crystal ball. None of us can be sure whether in the future either this government or another government might think the cost of maintaining a DNA databank—not the taking of the sample but the keeping of the information—is too expensive. We do not know when another fiscal conservative wave will sweep over the House—

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, my question to you is that if this is a portion of that grouping, it seems to me, and I am looking for some direction here, that I ought to speak to that motion before the other members of this House can respond.

Am I being invited to address the House on this motion?

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For clarification, Motion No. 2 in Group No. 1 is my amendment. It was not clear to me whether in fact that had been removed from this grouping or whether it was part of this grouping. If it remains a portion of this group, it would seem to me that, like my colleague from Charlesbourg, I ought to have an opportunity to speak to this prior to the debate resuming.

I am looking for some clarification.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended

(a) by replacing line 12 on page 2 with the following: “use of DNA profiles,”

(b) by replacing line 23 on page 2 with the following: “Act; and

(c) because of the personal information that can be gathered through the use of DNA profiles, it is the role of the government through public agencies, to perform the tasks set out in this Act.”

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to comment on this point of privilege.

The hon. member for Crowfoot is in fact a step ahead of me. I have not yet seen the decisions that were rendered which form an integral part of the amendments to the legislation that certain parties wish to introduce.

I can anticipate what the justices might have said. They might have agreed with my reasoning, but I do not know that and I would like to see their opinions. I think they are fairly important.

I did not know they were available until I received a phone call from my colleague, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I thank him for making that call to me today. I did place a call to the chair of the committee to see if we might get copies.

Those decisions are important. As indicated, one does not take lightly and read quickly the decisions of justices on a particular point of law. We must make an effective and proper decision on this piece of legislation. Indeed my colleagues in the House have questioned me about these particular issues. I am sure members of the Bloc Quebecois, members of the Reform Party, members of the Conservative Party and perhaps even members of the government want to know this important piece of information.

I too would support the question of privilege raised by my colleague.

[National Security, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

I welcome the minister's statement on national security. I think he will recognize and agree with me that this is of importance to every single Canadian in every community of this country.

Sometimes we are left with the impression that terrorism and organized crime are problems that affect only the major urban centres in this country, and particularly those on the coasts where the importation of narcotics by certain groups is of real concern. In Montreal the existence of biker gangs that engage in warfare are of concern.

Many of the root causes of crime and the issues that cause people to be concerned about safety in their communities can be traced back to the influence of organized crime. It is something that every Canadian, whether they live in Ingonish, a rural community in my riding, or Winnipeg where there are concerns about gangs, or Vancouver where there are concerns about the ports, ought to take an interest in. I am sure they will watch the movements of the minister on the issue of organized crime.

It is an issue that requires national attention. In the last year, as I have indicated, we have realized the biker gangs and the organized crime which is present at Canada's ports. I have raised these issues in the House on many occasions. There are allegations of infiltration and involvement in the ports.

We know that Canada has been placed on the United States list of nations about which they are most concerned in terms of money laundering. This is something that this country ought to take seriously. I welcome the solicitor general looking into that because it is something that we have to be very careful of.

The increased globalization, the increased freedom of capital to flow from one nation to another, with limited checks and balances, has opened the door for organized crime to infiltrate this country. The opening of the ports, the reduction of tariffs and the cutbacks of police agencies that can properly monitor what happens in this country and what goods come in have given more power to organized crime.

I welcome the initiative. We need to allow our police agencies to become technologically advanced and ensure that they have the proper and the necessary tools to fight organized crime which is becoming increasingly technologically advanced in this country.

I welcome the comment that the Minister of Justice will bring in laws on extradition. I will not hold my breath, but I look forward to hearing them.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party I welcome the initiative. We are concerned about organized crime in this country, as are most citizens. We look forward to the dialogue.

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to this bill. I am encouraged that the hon. member has brought forward this legislation. It is an interesting reflection of what he has experienced in his own constituency. I commend him for that.

I am glad to hear him recognize how busy the justice committee is. In fact, I came here tonight from the justice committee where we have been meeting for most of the day. We had the opportunity to question the commissioner of correctional services, a timely witness given the bill that is currently before the House.

As the government member pointed out, the bill would seek to replace a section of the Criminal Code and provide judges with the power to provide a probationary period for an individual who is convicted and sentenced to more than two years less a day. For those who are not familiar with the reason for that distinction, it should be made clear that offenders who are sentenced to two years less a day serve their time in a provincial correctional facility, while those who are sentenced to two years or more serve their time in a federal penitentiary. There is a difference. There is a distinction.

Having been a legal aid lawyer for some time I am aware of the many different programs available in the different jurisdictions to assist offenders in reintegrating into society. Those are all calculations which any defence counsel will make in discussions with the crown. They are all calculations made in the sentencing process.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice talked about the potential conflict between different programs. I appreciate that, yet I fail to see reasons for not supporting this legislation which is a common sense approach.

The member for Kootenay—Columbia said he is not a lawyer. He is, in fact, a lawmaker. I understand how confusing it can sometimes be to read through these sections for those who are not schooled in the law. Those of us who practise law on a regular basis are familiar with them. I will not refer to the Criminal Code too much, but I think there are some provisions worth noting in addition to those noted by the parliamentary secretary.

Part of the reason people argue against this kind of bill is that the court cannot foresee what will happen to an offender in two years. The reason the court has the power to place the probationary conditions referred to on an offender of two years less a day is because the court still maintains some control over that offender. Realistically, if the offender is sentenced to four or five years, the court cannot gauge what kind of progress that individual will make in an effort to rehabilitate himself or herself to re-enter society.

I think that while that is a compelling argument, it is not one that necessarily stands in the way of this proposed change because the code also provides at subsection 732.2(3):

A court that makes a probation order may at any time, on application by the offender, the probation officer or the prosecutor, require the offender to appear before it and, after hearing the offender and one or both of the probation officer and the prosecutor,

(a) make any changes to the optional conditions that in the opinion of the court are rendered desirable by a change in the circumstances since those conditions were prescribed,

(b) relieve the offender, either absolutely or on such terms or for such period as the court deems desirable, of compliance with any optional condition.

I think that is in favour of the legislation proposed.

There are those who would say we do not know where the offender is going to be in three years. If an offender is sentenced to a period of time, accepts the help offered in a facility to rehabilitate himself or herself, they can come back to court and ask that the conditions in the probation order be lifted. If in the opinion of the court they are no longer a threat to the public, the court has the power to lift the order.

I find myself commending this piece of proposed legislation because I think it provides the court more remedies to try to rehabilitate an offender.

I find it heartening that the hon. member sees value in providing offenders with a period of probation. It is heartening to see that the hon. member recognizes that greater options for probation and parole are mechanisms to reintegrate the offender into the community. The system is not simply restricted to sentencing him to time.

This bill will give the judge the option. Instead of having to say that the offence is serious, but there are compelling circumstances for the offender and, therefore, he does not want to sentence him to five years, he can sentence him to three years with a period of probation for two years.

It will allow the judge to have more flexibility in sentencing the offender to less time with a probationary period. I must say that it comes as a surprise to me that this would come forward to allow the court to do that, but I see some merit in it.

There are some problems with it. It is too bad it is not being referred to the justice committee, but our plate is full right now with a number of pieces of legislation that have been referred to us. It is an interesting piece of legislation which would provide the court some flexibility and I thank the member for presenting it to the House.

[Labelling Of Toys, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the time constraints I will attempt to be brief, although once I am on my feet in the Chamber I sometimes find that a hard task.

Because I am speaking in support of this piece of legislation I do not think it is necessary for me to go over all the reasons why we should support it. Some of those have been enumerated by my colleague from the Bloc and my colleague from the Reform Party. Instead I will take the few moments I have to review perhaps the reasons why members of the government and members of the Conservative Party are not supporting this legislation and I think I can effectively raise some rebuttal to that.

We heard the parliamentary secretary say that at this point he cannot support labelling, and that is what we are talking about doing. We are not talking about pulling toys off shelves. We are not talking about banning them. We are talking about labelling them so that consumers who are parents buying for their children know what they are buying for those children and they can make the choice.

Members of the government have said that to date there is no conclusive evidence that it threatens the health of children, no specific cases having come forward, but that Health Canada is currently studying the situation. I think his exact words at one point were research is being done that will show the extent of the problem, not whether there is a problem but the extent of the problem. My colleague from the Conservative Party spoke against this bill because he says his party is also waiting to see if there is a significant risk.

We know in Europe these products have been taken off the shelves. We know there are studies in Denmark that indicate there is a risk. This debate is all too familiar. We have had this debate during question period every day for the last number of days the House has been sitting and I refer to the hepatitis C issue the Minister of Health has been grilled on. My hon. colleague from the Conservative Party arranged a press conference for those people who will not be compensated.

Why are some people not being compensated? The Minister of Health has said they were not testing at a particular point in time although we know and there is some evidence to suggest—and I am not going to get into that debate today, but the parallel is interesting—that Health Canada was aware that there was testing available for blood products before it was implemented in this country.

Today we have members of the Conservative Party, the Reform Party, the Bloc party and the New Democratic Party grilling the Minister of Health as to why people who became infected before that test was available or accepted by Health Canada were not compensated.

We know there is evidence in other countries that this product can be harmful to children but the government and Conservative Party want to wait until Health Canada does its own testing. Are members going to be in this House in 15 years grilling the Minister of Health about young children who today may become sick because we have not accepted the testing?

I will not use up all of the time because there are other points to be made. I encourage anyone watching this debate tonight, especially from Ontario since that is where many of the government members are from, to phone or write their member of parliament to indicate their concerns, especially parents of young children.

[Hepatitis C, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we also learned today that the hepatitis C victims in Ireland were forced to fight a long and hard battle for compensation. Tragically, it took the death of a prominent Irish activist and victim to convince that government to compensate all victims.

What will it take for this government to finally do what is fair and just? Is there anything these people can do to convince this government to reconsider?

[Hepatitis C, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. We heard today that there is no clear figure to determine how many victims fall outside the government's hepatitis C compensation package.

Can the minister tell this House what that figure is and how it was determined?