Judi Longfield

[Bombardier Inc., October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bombardier Inc. for its recent success in landing a $1.5 billion contract to build 20 50-seat regional jets and 30 70-seat planes for Comair Inc. based in Cincinnati, Ohio.

This contract is the largest in Bombardier's history. It is reflective of this Canadian company's high level of quality, innovation and professionalism.

When this government invested in Bombardier, it knew what it was doing. The results are in for all to see.

A market leader in a very competitive industry, Bombardier's success is a shining example of how Canadian companies and in particular our high technology companies, are successfully competing in today's global economy.

This announcement means jobs. This is good news for Canada and good news for Canadians. I believe that we will see many more examples like Bombardier in the years ahead as Canadian high tech firms take their place at the forefront of industry.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, when I asked how long I had and you said 11 minutes, I assumed you thought I was taking 20 minutes. I have 10 minutes left in the 20-minute allotment, the other 10 to go to my colleague. If it requires unanimous consent, then I would ask for unanimous consent.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will not be using all of the 11 minutes remaining.

The results of DNA testing could bring some very difficult questions forward. If as a result of DNA testing it was discovered that someone had AIDS or another communicable disease, what is the liability of police enforcement agencies or those taking the samples to then get that information out? This raises some questions that need to be dealt with.

There have been some very critical issues raised. I am a strong supporter of giving police the tools they need to protect us because that is the role of law enforcement agencies. However, I would remind members that as legislators it is important that we also protect the rights of the innocent. One of the pillars of our justice system is that everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty. We have to remember that.

This is something that we need to continue to monitor. I think it is worthy of continued debate as we go along. I would like to congratulate the members of the committee. I hope that all members of Canadian society realize that we on the government side are very concerned and want to see things progress in a fair and logical way.

I will now turn over the remainder of my time to my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga West.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts. I would also like to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Guelph—Wellington, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour. I agree with almost all the comments she made during her presentation this morning.

This bill represents the second phase of the government's DNA strategy. The first phase, Bill C-104, was put in place two and a half years ago when amendments were made to the Criminal Code to create a DNA warrant system. That system provides for a provincial court judge to issue a warrant allowing police to collect samples of bodily substances when a person is suspected of committing a designated offence.

We heard from those on the front lines who tell us that the use of DNA evidence has been a very powerful investigative tool. It is already proven to be one of the most accurate methods of obtaining solid identification in criminal investigations.

The warrant system is working well. I remind members opposite that it can be obtained on arrest and charge. With reasonable and probable grounds warrants will be issued.

The second phase of the DNA initiative further demonstrates that the government is committed to fighting crime, especially violent crime, as described in our safer communities agenda. For the benefit of those who may not be familiar with this bill I would like to take the opportunity to outline some of its major components.

This bill provides the legal authority for the RCMP to set up and maintain a national DNA bank. I know that all members of this House support the maintenance of a DNA bank.

This DNA databank will consist of two indices or databases. The first database is called the crime scene index and will contain DNA profiles from bodily substances found at the scene of a crime.

The second database which is known as the convicted offenders index will contain the DNA profiles obtained from persons convicted of certain crimes. Police will be able to cross reference information in one index and help one another to solve the unsolved crimes. Hundreds of victims and their families who thought they would never see justice done will find the justice they seek through this legislation.

I am supporting this legislation because it is preventive in nature. At the committee hearings Chief Brian Ford, chair of the law amendments committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said:

Madam Chair, members of the committee, we support Bill C-3. This is important legislation and we encourage you to favourably recommend its passage to parliament. Bill C-3 is unlike other criminal legislation because it is fundamentally preventative in nature. This makes Bill C-3 very special.

The theory of prevention in Bill C-3 is that when a person actually knows that his or her DNA has been recorded this person is unlikely to reoffend, knowing that the prospects of detection and conviction are so high. This deterrent is pure prevention.

So in passing this bill, parliament should know that it is preventing crime, not just giving police more tools to investigate.

I agree with Chief Ford. Should the prevention of crime not be our first responsibility as law makers? Our police forces need this bill. I am an ardent supporter of the police and I am supporting this legislation because it gives them the tools necessary to fight crime and keep Canadian communities safe. I know, and as I have said before, all Canadians agree that we need a DNA databank in Canada.

I quoted Chief Ford and I would not want to mislead members of the Canadian public. While Chief Ford indicated that this bill was worthy of support, he also was very forceful in indicating that the police associations feel it does not go far enough. I have felt this also. I believe there is some merit to what they are saying but as the member for Guelph—Wellington pointed out earlier, have to be very mindful of our Canadian Constitution. I am not willing to put the excellent aspects of this bill in jeopardy through a constitutional challenge. I think that is something we need to work out.

The main disagreements that have been articulated by Chief Ford, Scott Newark, Neal Jessop, members of the Canadian police associations arise when we are talking about when DNA samples are collected. I think there is a certain amount of merit in being able to say that when there is probable cause, whether the person has been convicted or not, the collection of DNA samples may be proper.

I remind members of the House that currently as a result of the first part of legislation talking about DNA, this is available to police. It is not automatic as they would wish but if they could show probable cause, then the police are able under the current warrant system to collect the DNA samples they feel they need. They can be run with the inclusion of this new bill through a DNA bank.

Currently police will tell us that the warrant system is working very well but it lacks one major component and that is the actual creation of a database. Bill C-3 creates this database that will allow police to take what has already been working well, the warrant system of collection, one step further.

Members of the police association and others, most particularly members of the Reform Party, argue that the scope of offences for automatic DNA data banking should be expanded. I think they have valid concerns. I would like to see the scope of those offences for which automatic DNA testing is done expanded.

While I have a great deal of sympathy, I do not feel that the concerns raised are enough to provide opposition to the bill. The creation of the data bank is vital and this bill brings it to fruition. We need to support it and, as legislators, we need to work with the police and other law enforcement agencies to strengthen the bill in the future. However, I think we have to do it one step at a time. I would hate to see the bill thrown out simply because it does not go as far as some people would hope.

I would like to examine the proposal that DNA sampling is no different than collecting fingerprints. I would argue very fundamentally that while the actual process may not seem intrusive, the data collected is very different from that of a fingerprint. A fingerprint is one form of identification and it is very narrow in its scope. Once we have collected a DNA sample, then a person's entire genetic make-up is available for one and all.

This also raises other concerns. I have reviewed much of the testimony that went on at the committee meetings. I would remind members that this debate is not one day in the House of Commons. This has been going on for a long period of time. The scope of the committee has made it possible for all members from all parties to talk to the minister and to cross-examine witnesses.

They have raised some very valid points, but I continue to say that as much as I support many of the points and would like to see this bill go a lot further, that is not sufficient to delay passage of a very important tool in the hands of police authorities.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

[Swissair Flight 111, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are still mourning the tragic death of the victims of Swissair Flight 111. We all want answers.

Could the Minister of National Defence tell us what Canadian forces are doing to help with the recovery and the investigative process?

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to offer my strong support to my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga East.

This is the third time my colleague has brought the present system of concurrent sentencing forward to the House dealing with serial predators and their sentencing. She should be congratulated for her perseverance and dedication to this issue. It is time for us to deal with this issue now and to delay no longer.

My colleague was successful because of the efforts of 166 members of this parliament, from all parties, who signed this bill and made it a votable item. They should be congratulated for taking such a very strong stand.

Bill C-251, entitled “An act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences)”, provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences where a person commits multiple serial offences.

This bill is about making our streets safer for all Canadians. This bill is about punishing serious offenders in such a way that their sentence accurately reflects the gravity of their offence.

This bill is about restoring public confidence in our criminal justice system. There is a very popular saying that goes something like this “In order for justice to be done, it must be seen to be done”. When a serial murderer or rapist is sentenced as though only one crime was committed, justice has not been seen to have been done and therefore it has not been done.

When a system that is designed to protect the public falls into such disrepute and loses the respect and confidence of the public, action must be taken. This bill is about showing the proper respect to victims and showing the proper respect to their families, whose suffering is so often underestimated.

I believe that the primary function of our criminal justice system is the prevention of crime and the protection of society. Unfortunately the system cannot protect everyone all the time. People do get hurt. They are wronged. They are victimized. But once an offender is apprehended and convicted, sentencing is required.

There are different views with respect to the purpose of a criminal sentence. The prevailing opinion among justice and correctional officials is, in my view, appropriately focused on rehabilitating the offender and ensuring that he or she does not commit another offence upon their release from prison. We cannot lock up everyone and throw away the key. However, I believe the focus is so single-minded that it neglects other critical aspects. Very seldom do we hear the word punish.

In the case of repeat murderers and rapists I would think most Canadians are not interested in rehabilitation. They do not want to see these people on the streets again. I agree with them.

Canadians must be permitted to express their outrage at and condemnation of such brutal acts of violence. Our current system of sentencing repeat offenders does not serve this need.

Concurrent sentencing provides one sentence for multiple crimes. What is left to deter criminals from committing further atrocities once they have committed their first?

To put the current situation bluntly, we offer volume discounts for rapists and murderers in Canada. The current sentencing regime cheapens life. Virtually no regard is given to the lives of the individual victims.

Much of what I am saying has been said before in this House, but it needs repeating. The pain and suffering and the death of a second, third or eleventh victim is of no consequence to the court. The minimum penalty always applies, even for the most prolific killers.

The majority of murderers and serial sex offenders are returned to neighbourhoods, often without publicity or warning. Trials and convictions attract public attention and the public is usually lulled into the hoax that a life sentence means life. They have read it in the morning paper.

But a life sentence is not a life sentence. Ten years later they actually hear the truth. The parole board has short-changed justice, written off the victims as if yesterday's news, just to free up a bunk for the next serial killer.

But Canadians are gradually catching on to this deception of life imprisonment. Half of those convicted of second degree murder are sentenced to life and are released in less than 12 years. For first degree murder the median has historically been 14 years. Life only means life for the murder victim who is not there to protest his or her sentence and is never eligible for parole.

My own family knows too well about the loss of a loved one, knowing that the perpetrator of the crime, the fellow who took the life of a young officer in the prime of his life, who left a wife and three children, is eligible for parole within the next year. Kitty and her children will never have Vernon back. Life was life for Vernon.

The predator has dealt a life sentence to the victim's family. For them the comforting illusion of safety in our streets has been shattered. They have to live with the stark truth that the only law that protects them is the law of averages, the chance that none of the predators roaming our communities will get around to them again.

The sad truth is that judges already have the power to sentence consecutively but they simply are not doing it. I say this is very sad because although judges are charged with applying the law in a fair and impartial manner they should also reflect community interests and values in doing so. Judges claim to be doing this when dealing with issues of public nudity and obscenity. Why when it comes to sentencing serial rapists and murderers do they not apply the same?

It is up to parliamentarians and lawmakers to send a message that the courts are not. It is that predators will be punished and punished severely. There are no mitigating circumstances for a predator. There is no need to rehabilitate a predator. No predator is a safe addition to any neighbourhood, no matter what therapists say. Predators belong in prison permanently.

Some will argue that consecutive sentencing serves no purpose other than revenge. If a predator knows that he is going to jail for the rest of his life, that he will never have a chance at parole, that he will die in prison, he may think twice. If the prospect of consecutive sentence does not act as a deterrent in a specific case, it will serve to express more genuinely the revulsion, horror and outrage of the Canadian people. It will also serve to show the family and friends of the victim that their government cares about them.

These two reasons together or individually are sufficient to justify consecutive sentencing. Our institutions are very responsive to lawyers, lobbyists, inmates and advocates. Criminals can rely on the system that orphaned the victims. The murder victim has no representative, has no lobbyist, has no lawyer because the victim is dead. The only argument we will hear about the victim's lost rights will come from the family and from people who recognize the injustice and the obscenity of the current system.

Why are we offering a Wal-Mart two for one sale for criminals committing serial crimes? Commit one, get another one free, a third one, a fourth one. This has to stop. Each life is valuable. Sentencing must reflect the value of each individual life. Currently the second victim means nothing. Very simply, we are offering a bulk rate deal to murderers and rapists. One 25 year so-called life sentence is a penalty for premeditated murder no matter how many victims. A mere seven years in prison is the maximum parole ineligibility for a rapist no matter how many victims.

I am proud to support Bill C-251 and I urge other members of the Liberal caucus and members from the other side to support it.

[National Defence, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, over the past two days national defence headquarters has been celebrating the 75th anniversary of the department and the 30th anniversary of headquarters.

As a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, I am delighted that the public has had this opportunity to learn more about the department and the men and women who serve there.

Over the summer I had the distinct pleasure of being a guest speaker at the annual meeting of the Ontario Regiment Veterans. I was presented with a poem written by Charles Province that I would like to share as a reminder of the supreme sacrifice made by so many:

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.

[Pay Equity, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

The government has recently appealed the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal regarding pay equity for federal public servants. This has caused a great deal of frustration for our employees and has raised many questions.

Does the government still believe in equal pay for work of equal value? If so, can the minister tell us what actions are being taken to achieve pay equity?

[Ajax Home Week, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the town of Ajax in my riding has a special asset, the volunteers. Where once there were hundreds, today there are thousands.

After starting in 1971, Ajax now celebrates its 28th annual home week through the efforts of volunteers and service and community minded organizations. The theme of this year's home week is “celebrate being a kid”. Events include athletes in action, beach volleyball, lakeside kiddy carnival, the optimists family picnic and fun fair, culminating in a giant fireworks display.

The original goals of Ajax home week are still very much in place. They are to say thank you to the wonderful people Ajax, to provide activities for everyone regardless of gender, religion, race, age or personal means, to promote the town of Ajax which so many call home and to encourage former Ajax residents to return to Ajax for a visit.

[Brooklin Spring Fair, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Brooklin Spring Fair, initiated in 1911 and held the first weekend in June, holds very special significance for the historic village of Brooklin in my riding.

Traditional events that are held over four days form the backbone of the fair. On Thursday exhibits are placed in the arena to be judged in the home craft section. Main events include a children's pony show, opening ceremonies and the ambassador of the fair competition. Friday unleashes the excitement of the midway for children's day, followed by the roar of the truck and tractor pull. Saturday features a parade, horse shows, livestock competitions and an action packed demolition derby. The final day of the fair incorporates the sheep show, car show and harness horse racing.

The remarkable success and longevity of the Brooklin Spring Fair can be attributed to the effort and dedication of many individuals. The variety of the events displayed at the fair ensures a bright future for one of Canada's oldest fairs.