John Reynolds

[Apec Summit, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government says “Let the Public Complaints Commission work. We will get out the truth”. Let me tell members—

[Apec Summit, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister.

We, like all Canadians, want to know the truth. We know there is a commission. We know the commission cannot investigate the government. We want assurances from this government that unlike Somalia, unlike the Krever commission, documents will not be shredded so that this commission gets everything that is available from this government.

Anybody who did anything from the PMO, the solicitor general's office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be before that commission. That is what Canadians demand. We want the assurance from this government that they will do that.

[Apec Summit, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Forty boxes of evidence were turned over to commission counsel and virtually nothing in those boxes had any evidence from the Prime Minister's office or the PMO.

What assurance can the Prime Minister give Canadians that, unlike the Somalia affair, documents of the APEC affair will not be shredded?

[Apec Summit, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister.

We know from documents on November 14 that the RCMP were unhappy with the political role they were asked to play in the APEC affair. Like the Prime Minister, we want the inquiry to work.

Can the Prime Minister guarantee the House and Canadians that the inquiry will be allowed to investigate the office of the Prime Minister and not just look into the issue of the RCMP? Can it guarantee us that it will be able to look into the political role that was played in the Prime Minister's office?

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I just have one question for my colleague across the way.

We pay attention to the police association because we know the police are out there dealing with criminals every day. I do not believe judges should be making political statements either. They are supposed to be judges and should not be commenting on this type of thing.

Let me ask about the charter of rights because the member talks about that. The charter of rights allows us to fingerprint people. If people get arrested their fingerprints are taken. The charter of rights allows blood to be taken from people if the police think they are impaired.

Why does the member think this would be any different? DNA is as simple as putting some saliva on a piece of card and taking a blood sample. It is a very simple thing to do. It does not affect anyone's rights. We have to be charged and arrested to get it done. It certainly will save a lot more people. We can put protections in there to make sure that if one is acquitted it can be eliminated. There can be a lot of ways to remove this, if there is concern about that.

It is interesting. Our fingerprints are taken for a passport. That is now in the system so if people commit a crime they can be picked up right away. They have done it for a simple reason, to get a visa to go to the United States or somewhere.

We do a lot of things in life. Those of us who are not involved in criminal activity do not mind our blood being taken and do not mind fingerprints being taken for travel documents. I would not mind having my DNA somewhere either.

It seems we are more concerned about protecting criminals than we are about people.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is what the police testified before the committee. I use the Olson case as an example because it clearly illustrates the points I am trying to make. One is that violent sexual offenders progress to a pattern of other criminal activity. If we can take the sample when people are charged, at least somebody like Olson would have come up on the screen. It would have matched itself right away.

The government talked about a cost of $4,500 to process all this stuff. I quote Dr. Ron Fourney: “When the database gets established, we fully intend to use a control standard by way of collecting. I showed you some bloodstained cards. We can put blood on that card, do a one millimetre punch off the card and process the DNA in about 15 or 20 minutes. Having it ready for CPR and running it through the entire test it is estimated that one sample will cost $50 to $60”. Here is a case of 15 to 20 minutes.

If we could all buy life insurance for that same price would we not all buy it? That is what this is. DNA is life insurance for Canadian citizens.

It is insurance to make sure that one does not get raped or robbed by somebody who is a continuous offender. It allows society to know that the minute they are arrested and charged they can be checked in the databank. If they have committed rapes in Ontario and they are in British Columbia they are not going to escape.

I had an interesting case today about people going through the system. I just received a report a few minutes ago about a man in British Columbia who was charged and convicted for the rape of a young British Columbian woman with cerebral palsy a number of years ago. He was ordered deported with his conviction. He served his time, got one-third off for good behaviour and is on the streets today. The young woman who was raped and her mother are terrified that he is going to come back and go after them.

I phoned the immigration department and was told that he was ordered deported and that the department should find him. The system is failing. I use that as an example to match against the DNA. In this case we have a convicted rapist now wandering the streets of Vancouver. If we do not use DNA we are going to have convicted criminals coming in, getting out and then we go after them later. They know how to disappear very fast. That is why it is so important that we get this bill improved before it gets third reading.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that if the government had listened to the amendments in committee and instituted them into this bill we would have a bill that would be supported by every party in the House, every police association and, more important, the majority of Canadians who would like to have this protection. It is necessary and parliament is making a big mistake if the bill is passed the way it is.

Associations are writing and faxing us today saying hoist this bill for six months so they have a chance to tell the government to take this extra step. We have to give the police the tools to work with. We know that Canadians want this and we in parliament have to try to make that happen. We hope the government will really listen and hoist it for six months. Let us listen to Canadians, the police association and others and bring in a bill that will be good for all Canadians.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with true security. This means providing our law enforcement agencies with the latest technological tools to detect and apprehend the perpetrators of violent crime. DNA identification is that type of tool.

If used to its full potential, the DNA databank could be the single most important development in fighting crime since fingerprinting. It is time that we move from early 1900 technology to 21st century tools.

In its current form Bill C-3 is reprehensible and unacceptable because it maintains an unnecessary level of risk to the lives and safety of Canadians. Bill C-3 gives Canadians a false sense of security. The Reform Party cannot support the bill in its current form. We support the creation of a DNA databank, but the current scope of the bill is too limited.

The Liberals have taken what should be a relatively simple issue and have complicated it. This bill will provide lawyers with more business, but will solve very little crime.

The civil libertarians may be concerned, but in reality the databank is to be exclusively restricted to criminal detection and crime solving. Any abuse is subject to criminal penalty.

DNA databanks are currently in use in the United States, Great Britain and New Zealand. DNA forensic analyses have been instrumental in securing convictions in hundreds of cases in Canada and have helped the release of wrongly convicted persons, for instance, Guy Paul Morin to name but one.

The Liberals have been dragging their feet on DNA despite co-operation by the Reform Party going back to 1995 when we assisted the government in passing Bill C-104 which enabled police to obtain a warrant to seize bodily substances for DNA purposes.

As Bill C-3 now reads it would not have assisted in the investigation of Paul Bernardo, as he had never been convicted of a listed offence to tie him to the DNA profiles left at the scene of his criminal activities.

Bill C-3 gives our police the full use of DNA technology, but Bill C-3 does not allow the taking of a DNA sample at the time of charge. It does not allow samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals, other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers.

If the multiple murderer commits the murders on the same night we cannot take a sample from him. The murders must be committed separately. This is totally unacceptable.

Bill C-3 provides a dangerous and unnecessary exemption. It authorizes judges not to issue warrants for the taking of samples if they believe that in doing so the impact on the individual's privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest and the protection of society.

In committee the Reform Party asked for an example of such an instance. Nothing was forthcoming. The government it seems would rather protect the interests of criminals who would commit heinous crimes over those of law-abiding citizens.

The government cites finances as one reason why it is not willing to expand the DNA databank and allow for samples to be taken at the time of charge rather than conviction.

The Reform Party proposed that samples be taken at the time of charge and not be analysed until conviction. This would have satisfied the Canadian police associations and their concerns regarding offenders who are released on bail pending trial and skipping out.

During committee hearings on March 10, 1998, Dr. Ron Fourney, a research scientist in charge of the RCMP's forensic crime laboratory, said that the cost of a DNA case is about $4,500, but the cost of getting one's sample into the database is between $50 and $60.

At that cost it is justifiable to take a DNA sample from all persons charged with indictable offences, just like those who are fingerprinted.

We are told that the total cost of the DNA bank will be between $15 million and $18 million. The conclusive nature of DNA evidence often results in substantial savings for police and the courts since an investigation can be narrowed down and a trial very much simplified.

In the long term this is a cost effective tool and a great protection to society. By analyzing the DNA of all persons charged with violent offences other than common assault we could have 57,000 samples in the databank. Think of the added security that this would mean to all Canadians.

Let us look at the Clifford Robert Olson case and what Inspector Gary Bass, officer in charge of E Division of the British Columbia major crimes section had to say in committee and how essential it is to broaden the terms of Bill C-3.

He said:

I believe for a number of reasons the case of Clifford Robert Olson provides useful insight into various aspects of the currently proposed legislation. Not only is it a case that many Canadians have some knowledge of, but his earlier criminal history is not dissimilar to that of many of our most violent offenders. His criminal convictions date back to July of 1957 for break, entry, and theft.

Under the proposed legislation this would be a secondary designated offence under section 487.04. Pursuant to proposed paragraph 487.05(1)(b), application in theory could have been made at that time to take a sample for DNA analysis and entry into the DNA data bank.

By 1960 Olson had added convictions involving 19 offences of theft, break and entry. Through the 1960s he was convicted of a further 43 offences, which included break and entries, armed robbery, false pretences, and escapes. Through the 1970s he was convicted of another 25 offences involving similar crimes.

Between 1961 and 1982, 16 offences were either stayed or dismissed. One of these was robbery with violence in 1978. In April of 1981 stays were entered on indecent assault, buggery, rape, and gross indecency charges. By this time Olson had already killed his first known victim.

Given this backdrop, it's useful to examine what may have happened in Olson's case had we had DNA technology and the legislation proposed in Bill C-3.

There were several occasions during Olson's criminal career when DNA may have been taken pursuant to a secondary designated offence having been committed. It is unlikely that authorization would have been sought in the first instance. However, many more opportunities presented themselves over the following years.

Until 1980 there had been no primary designated offence for which he had been charged. In November of 1980 he was charged with buggery in relation to a 15-year old male. Olson's first known murder victim died November 19, 1980. Just six weeks later, on January 2, 1981, Olson was charged with rape, buggery, and other sexual offences and weapons offences in relation to an offence that undoubtedly would have ended in murder had the victim not escaped. In April 1981 these charges were all stayed by the crown.

On April 16 Olson's second victim was murdered, and five days later his third. The murders continued into August. Twice through that summer he was arrested and charged for sex-related offences and released again on bail. On July 2, a warrant for Olson's arrest for sexual assault was issued in relation to an offence committed two weeks earlier.

We will never know how many sex-related offences Olson committed before and during the time he was committing the murders. However, there were many; by some accounts in excess of 100. We learned of previously unknown victims as recently as last summer.

Under the currently proposed legislation, Olson's DNA profile would not have made its way into the DNA data bank for the rape, buggery, and indecent assault charges, which were later stayed.

This is very important. This is a policeman telling us what the concerns are for a very serious offender.

He continued before the committee:

There is absolutely no doubt that Olson had committed numerous other sexual offences prior to 1980. There's a strong possibility he had committed murder before 1980. Given today's technology and appropriate legislation, another Clifford Olson could be apprehended much sooner in his criminal career.

In Olson's particular case and with today's technology, he would have been apprehended after the first murder, if his DNA had been banked pursuant to the long history of secondary designated offences or if legislation permitted the taking and banking of DNA upon arrest and charge.

I've used the Olson case as an example because it clearly illustrates the points I'm trying to make. One is that violent sexual offenders progress through a pattern of other criminal activity. Two, once they become involved in sexual offences, there is a predictable pattern of increasing violence and shorter intervals between the offences.

Having said this, I do not want to leave the impression that this case is in any way unique in terms of the value of the DNA data bank to police investigations. Unfortunately, there are all too many criminals with characteristics similar to Olson's. The large number of homicides involved is unique; however, the frequent sexual attacks are not.

It is this category of offenders for which DNA data banking has the greatest potential in terms of gross numbers of criminal offences. The ability to data bank the DNA profiles at the time of the first offence charge provides the best chance to interrupt criminal careers.

It is highly unlikely that a serious sexual offender will be arrested for their first offence. Most first-time offenders will be granted bail, so it is important any previous similar activity be identified at that time. Linkage to other cases at this stage would provide stronger evidence through which bail could be opposed. Submissions of the DNA profile upon charge affords the opportunity to address these concerns.

The gross numbers of DNA profiles, which will be contained in the proposed DNA data bank, will be relatively small compared with our fingerprint files. Searching and cross-referencing, once the infrastructure is in place, will be relatively fast. There is no reason the DNA data bank should not work as well or better than the automated fingerprint identification section.

The value of the proposed DNA bank cannot be overstated, if used to full potential. There is indeed a valid public interest in the early detection, arrest, and conviction of offenders. In the class of offenders that we are discussing, early detection often means the prevention of further serious harm or loss of life—.

The DNA data bank has the potential literally to end an investigation after weeks as opposed to years.

From the police investigator's perspective, in the investigation of serious criminal offences—in particular primary designated offences such as sexual offences and homicides—there would be significant benefit in entering suspect DNA into the data bank at the time the suspect is charged. I believe this would be a reasonable and fair approach that would balance the legitimate privacy concerns of individuals against the public interest in the detection and prevention of serious criminal activity and in effective law enforcement.

If that is not reason enough to broaden Bill C-3, I do not know what is.

We on this side of the House have debated this issue at second reading and at committee. Now we are at third reading. Yet we heard even in question period today the minister talking about listening to what is going on and having commissions.

The police in our land are asking for help. They are telling us how we can save money, how we can process criminals more quickly so they cannot commit crimes again, but they are being ignored. It is really said.

There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides where DNA evidence has been left at the scene. DNA identification now offers unparalleled opportunity to solve many of these cases.

The government has this thing about the rights of the perpetrators. It has a real opportunity to turn the tables on our weak justice system and it refuses to budge. For a moment it can forget about the supreme court and the preoccupation with the charter of rights and freedoms. People's lives are at stake.

I reiterate what I said during the second reading debate on this bill on May 4, on which I spent a lot of time, as did other members of this party. The public wants DNA testing. The public wants protection against these types of criminals and the public deserves this kind of protection from this government. It would save us literally millions of dollars if we could catch some of these people quickly, put them in jail and get them out of society's hands so they can be rehabilitated, if that is possible. In the meantime they are not going to commit more crimes against humanity. We do not understand why the government is not prepared to put in proper DNA testing.

It is interesting to note that the taking of a blood sample in the case of a suspected impaired driver does not raise too much concern. In fact society applauds this. Somebody gets stops and you can take a blood sample. No problem. Why is it different in the case of DNA samples left at the scene of a crime? We take blood samples for the purpose of determining impairment. There is no difference. The invasion of privacy has already taken place in the Criminal Code. It looks after that. Is there any difference at all? I do not see any difference. We take fingerprints. We take blood samples. What is wrong with DNA? It would help the police.

The authority to take samples is already there and overrules the privacy issue in this case. If the fear is over the databank and the keeping of blood samples we just have to look at the thousands of blood samples taken by doctors and nurses each day and kept in some sort of bank. These blood bank files are not being exploited. Why would a DNA bank be any different? Everybody in the House has probably had at least one medical and had some blood taken. Somewhere that blood is in a bank. If somebody wanted for whatever reason they could find it, but it has not been exploited. For some strange reason the government wants to set up a difference between fingerprinting, blood samples and DNA.

Listen to the experts who came to a committee before the House. They all are in favour of this. Why is the government afraid to take the next step? It will do it sooner or later. Do it now. The Canadian Police Association prepared and submitted a legal opinion and concluded there would be no constitutional concern with taking samples at the time of being charged. As we said before, we can take the samples and they can be held until a conviction if that is what we want. Why wait when there is so much that could be done?

I go back to the Clifford Olson case. We could have saved some people from being murdered if this was in process then. It was not but we can stop other crimes from happening in the country.

Why is the government so bent out of shape on this issue and so intransigent? We all want to fight to reduce crime. We all want to solve crimes. My party does not understand why the government is so upset with this.

I have a letter signed by the Canadian Police Association, Neal Jessop, president. He is offering help by saying let us come to help you make the legislation better. That is why we are here as legislators. We want to make better legislation. This piece of legislation is flawed and it needs some improving.

I move, seconded by the member for Medicine Hat:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence”.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, September 21st, 1998]

Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please provide a costing of every one, of the 172 recommendations, contained in the Legislative Review Advisory Group Report and any other pertinent documentation or analysis?

Return tabled.

Question No. 98—

[Apec Summit, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, parliament does not need to wait for a Liberal appointed commission to tell us that people's free rights, that their freedom of speech is violated.

On November 21 at the APEC conference the RCMP told Karen Pearlston that if she did not remove a sign from her home, she would be arrested. When she asked why, they told her that the Prime Minister did not want to embarrass our visitors.

This is a violation of her human rights, of her freedom of speech. We do not need to wait for anybody to tell us that this is wrong. Will this minister, the Prime Minister or this government not apologize to those British Columbians whose human rights and freedom of speech were violated?