Jacques Saada

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member opposite to be a little more cautious when making allegations which may seem good to get media coverage, but which are not based on reality and concrete facts.

The Government of Canada, in co-operation with the Quebec government, the industry, unions and local communities is striving to maintain access to foreign markets for chrysotile products. While some may claim nothing has been done, we should take a look at the facts.

In September 1997, the Government of Canada organized, in co-operation with the Quebec government, an international conference on the safe and responsible use of chrysotile fibers. Some 300 delegates from 45 countries attended the event. In March, April and May 1998, the Government of Canada organized visits for Belgian, British and Moroccan journalists, who toured Canada's asbestos industries.

We have never missed an opportunity to make representations at the highest levels, whether in the United Kingdom, France, the European Union, or elsewhere in the world. The Government of Canada has always indicated that it was fully prepared to take the issue to the WTO, at the appropriate time. We would have preferred to settle this dispute on a bilateral basis. Since this was not possible, we took the next step, which is to ask for the setting up of a WTO panel.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, and as my colleague can also see, this is simply a matter of good faith. The Government of Canada and its partners are working together in a co-ordinated fashion on all fronts, and they intend to continue to do so.

[Petitions, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by thousands of Canadians who want to draw attention to the major problems faced by Indonesia's Chinese community, a minority which is subjected to various forms of abuse and whose physical safety and economic security suffer as a result.

[Justice, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look at what is happening regarding this issue and to report to the hon. member at the first opportunity.

[Charitable Contributions, October 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I should repeat the mandate of this board, for the benefit of Canadians. It would appear that my colleague across the way has great difficulty grasping it, so I am going to read it word for word from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. I will read from the English text.

The Commission has, in relation to the complaint before it, the powers conferred on a board of inquiry, in relation to the matter before it, by paragraphs 24.1(3)(a), (b) and (c).

What do paragraphs 24.1(3)( a ), ( b ) and ( c ) say? First of all:

—A board of inquiry has, in relation to the matter before it, power

(a) to summon any person before the board and to require that person to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce such documents and things under that person's control as the board deems requisite to the full investigation and consideration of that matter;

(b) to administer oaths;

(c) to receive and accept on oath or by affidavit such evidence and other information as the board sees fit—

Despite his protestations to the contrary, my colleague across the floor is casting doubt on the very credibility of the organization. The specific purpose of creating this board was for it to hear citizen complaints against the RCMP.

This board was informed of the complaint on the initiative of the students themselves. I find it regrettable that an attempt is being made to use this as a pretext to discredit that body.

[Criminal Code, September 24th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, given what little time is left, it will be extremely hard for me to get into the details of the presentation I have prepared. However, I still want to speak briefly of Bill C-251.

Before addressing the issue, I want to mention all the respect I have for the work my hon. colleague has done on this bill. She gave a lot of thought to this issue and the results of her work deserve a lot of respect.

Obviously, for both my colleague and I, the safety of the people is always foremost in our minds. Canadians feel safe at home and that is the most important factor to take into consideration.

I would like to briefly point out some statistics the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime included in its latest report. It said that, asked to choose among several factors those that best described what it is to be Canadian, 88% of respondents ranked the feeling of belonging to a safe society among the nine most significant factors.

I cannot support this bill for reasons I had hoped to have more time to explain in detail, but which I will get into briefly.

First of all, I think there is in Canada a myth about what is called a life sentence.

What does it mean? In the case of first degree murder or repeat second degree murder, the mandatory sentence is life without parole eligibility for 25 years. What does it mean? It means that the offender will be subject to the control and supervision of correctional authorities for the rest of his life. It means that a multiple murderer is ineligible for judicial review for the reduction of parole ineligibility. It means that that eligibility for parole after 25 years does not mean automatic release from a penitentiary.

I understand time has run out. I hope I have an opportunity to elaborate.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

The likelihood of the occurrence of a genetic sickness, for example. I do not want to get into a debate on that. It is much more revealing. If the member does not know what it is, he should consult scientists and they will tell him how much more revealing a DNA sample is compared to a fingerprint.

My colleague is right. We can at the present time take a blood test for purposes of conduite avec facultés affaiblies par les effets de l'alcool. The reasoning which was given by the courts in this regard is very clear: if we do not do it then the evidence will disappear. That is the basis on which it was allowed, not because it was an infringement upon any right of anybody else but because the evidence would disappear if we did not do it.

This balanced approach and interpretation of the charter must be maintained. That is how our rights will be preserved and criminal activity will be fought against at the same time.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I would like to understand.

These questions raised by my hon. colleague have been answered time and again before the committee that he claimed he attended so assiduously over the deliberations. The answers were given so I am going to repeat them for him in case he missed that point.

When we take fingerprints we take a picture of a finger. It does not reveal anything else but identity based on a picture. DNA is much more revealing than simply a picture.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I find that interesting, and I am going to respond in my mother tongue in order to express myself a little more easily.

There is one thing that strikes me, although it ought not to surprise me. Members of the Reform Party attach more importance to the statements made by the Canadian Police Association than to three eminent judges from three different provinces, more than they do to representatives of the Ontario Ministry of Justice, or to representatives of the Quebec Ministry of Justice. None of these comments hold any importance for them, compared to those reported here from the Canadian Police Association.

This, I believe, reveals the fundamental difference in philosophy between wanting to turn up criminals everywhere, at any price and with absolutely no respect for the basic freedoms, and really finding the criminals as part of an organized process that respects people's rights.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised frankly that a member would say that we can change the constitution in this House alone when we know full well that the constitution of the country can be amended only with certain provisions having to do with the involvement of provinces, unless we want to refuse to recognize the prerogative of provinces to interfere.

Regarding the question of using DNA at the time of arrest, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that this can be done. The only condition that there must be to fulfil it is to get a warrant.

The protection of civil liberties is guaranteed by the fact that the judge has to order the taking of DNA samples. It can be done but it cannot be done randomly. It cannot be done without any form of protection.

We are a society where we want to balance our fight for civil liberties with the requirements for tools for our justice system to be executed in a most secure way for Canadians. That is a fundamental philosophy.

I would accept that the hon. member does not share this philosophy or that anybody else does. You may also differ with me, Mr. Speaker.

My point is that our fundamental philosophy is preservation of civil liberties at the same time as the absolute fight against crime.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House today on Bill C-3, the purpose of which is to create a national DNA data bank.

This bill will create a tool accessible to all the police forces in Canada. As well, this innovative approach will enable Canada to be one of the first countries to make use of cutting edge technology for the identification of genetic fingerprints in order to create a national DNA bank.

The government proceeded cautiously with this legislation in order to have a full examination and public debate on privacy issues, among others. Because DNA has the potential to reveal much more about the person than the breath sample, fingerprinting or even routine blood tests, we have had to examine individual privacy rights of today and also look beyond to consider how this legislation might affect those rights in the future.

Right from the start, the Solicitor General carried out an in depth examination of the issues involved. The government drafted the bill that was tabled last year after consulting groups and individuals across the country. The bill was subsequently submitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights prior to second reading. The committee, which heard over 30 witnesses, did a remarkable job of examining the bill in record time.

Since its presentation, the bill has been subjected to an open and transparent examination. I must also give tribute to the Solicitor General, who took the necessary steps to focus the process on consultation and to maintain its transparency.

Since the protection of privacy constitutes an important element in this bill, I would like to share with you the government's point of view on these matters and to show you how Bill C-3 is rooted in a solid and balanced approach.

First of all, I would like to address the question of sample retention. Scientists have brought out solid arguments demonstrating that it is essential to retain biological samples for the DNA data bank in order to be able to benefit from future technological progress.

Last March, an RCMP expert in criminalistics told the committee that major progress has been made in recent years in the area of using DNA fingerprints for identification. Now it is possible to examine smaller samples, including ones from decomposed material. This technological progress indicates that DNA analysis is one of the most active and rapidly evolving areas of technology.

As the technology evolves, today's gains from DNA identification could easily become obsolete.

Bill C-3 provides for the storage of samples of bodily substances. This means that Canada's first national DNA data bank will keep pace with the technological progress and will be able to communicate with the other laboratories and data banks in the world. The main concern may have to do with access to these samples and DNA profiles.

Bill C-3 is patterned on a bill passed in July 1995 that dealt with warrants—and members of the opposition should listen to this most important part—authorizing the collection of samples for forensic DNA analysis. Bill C-3 includes similar protective measures and provisions regarding the collection of samples for forensic DNA analysis.

So far, these legislative provisions on warrants have survived all the legal challenges made under the charter, and they have served as a sound basis for the establishment of the DNA data bank.

Therefore, Bill C-3 includes strict rules governing the collection of bodily substances and DNA identification, as well as the storage of DNA profiles, so as to protect people's privacy.

For example, the RCMP will be responsible for the safe storage of all bodily substances. Moreover, under the act, only those responsible for operating and maintaining the data bank will have access to the profiles and samples. To ensure that the information is used properly, the act explicitly provides that only the name indicated in the profile will be transmitted to police authorities in the course of criminal investigations.

The bill also provides a maximum sanction of two years less a day for all those not abiding by these provisions. Offences involving misuse of the data bank will be included in the Criminal Code and in the DNA Identification Act.

To ensure that the data bank respects the right to privacy of all innocent individuals found at the scene of a crime or law abiding citizens who volunteer to provide samples for genetic analysis, the bill contains provisions to permanently deny access to information in a criminal case pertaining to a victim or an individual no longer considered a suspect in a police investigation.

The aim of this important protective measure is to exclude DNA profiles of innocent individuals from the data bank.

Bill C-3 also provides an opportunity for persons required to provide DNA samples to express their preference as to the type of sample they would like to give. The police are then required to take that preference into account but are in no way obligated to take the sample specified by the person. This is because the police must take other considerations into account.

For example, a judge from the Ontario court of justice recently ruled that the taking of hair samples was unconstitutional. In addition, forensic scientists have advised that blood provides the best sample for successful DNA typing.

Bearing all this in mind, Bill C-3 allows the police to make the final decision on the sample to be taken.

In addition to the protective measures and sanctions provided in Bill C-3, other mechanisms exist to ensure that the bill will be applied in such a way as to maintain a balance between the protection of privacy and the protection of the public.

Once the data bank is in operation, the Privacy Commissioner will be able to verify this at any time. The Privacy Act permits him already to oversee the use of personal information in the hands of the federal government.

In addition, Canada's forensic laboratories are currently developing regulatory standards. Once these standards are in effect, the forensic labs may be studied by an independent body to ensure they meet international quality assurance standards.

Provisions already exist, like the one in the Privacy Act, providing that information, including genetic information, may not be transmitted to another country unless an agreement exists with it.

In addition, under the Privacy Act, information may be disclosed to a foreign state only for the purpose of administering or enforcing a law or carrying out an investigation.

Since the RCMP will be responsible for the DNA data bank, all functions must be consistent with that organization's internal standards, which are among the most rigorous in the world.

The RCMP also works closely with a number of international groups and committees in this area, including the technical working group on DNA analysis sponsored by the FBI, which keeps Canada up to date on the most recent technology and helps us ensure that our standards correspond to those in effect internationally.

I would now like to explain why the bill provides for samples to be taken at the time of sentencing, and not when an arrest is made or a charge laid, as certain colleagues are proposing.

Throughout the consultations held on the bill and committee hearings, many individuals and groups told the government that taking samples at the time of arrest would present difficulties. Rarely is someone convicted on the strength of DNA evidence alone.

In fact, DNA evidence is not always available at the crime scene. Various factors, such as alibis, motives, fingerprints, evidence of eyewitnesses, and so forth, are taken into consideration in a criminal proceeding.

There has been considerable discussion to determine whether taking samples when an arrest is made or a charge laid without first obtaining a warrant is consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Three eminent former appeal court judges from Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia examined the issue as part of an independent review. Their findings clearly confirm the government position that taking samples when a charge is laid would be contrary to the provisions of the charter.

Let us be quite clear on this point. The government must continue to act carefully, responsibly and thoughtfully in this respect. We want to take the approach that is in the best interest of Canadians. Therefore, we must ask ourselves the following questions.

First, is it justified to collect bodily substances every time someone is arrested, when DNA data may not even be relevant?

Second, how would the criminal justice system benefit since judicial experts have told us time and time again that the risk of a charter challenge was much too high?

Third and last, why jeopardize the establishment of a DNA data bank designed to better protect all Canadians by going too far?

Taking samples at the time of conviction is the approach that ensures both effective law enforcement and protection of individual rights during the course of a criminal investigation. As the Privacy Commissioner of Canada told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, intelligent privacy protection is compatible with effective law enforcement. Let us give both a chance.

The police know all too well how easy it is for a case to be thrown out on a constitutional basis. In light of this, it is the responsibility of every member of this House to play a constructive role in creating a DNA data bank that will balance public protection with the charter and individual privacy rights.

I think such a balance has been struck by the government in Bill C-3. That is why I support it wholeheartedly and urge all my colleagues to do the same.