Paul Devillers

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time. I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-3 which proposes the creation of a national DNA databank which will be maintained by the RCMP.

There has been some discussion recently about the timing of the taking of bodily samples in order to supplement the databank. In my view this is an area which clearly demonstrates the great care that has been taken to ensure that the national DNA databank meets all constitutional requirements.

The focus of my remarks today will be on that one aspect of the bill, the timing of the collection of the DNA samples for the purpose of the national DNA databank.

Nowadays, law enforcement officials, both in Canada and throughout the world, are turning increasingly to DNA identification in the fight against crime.

But as the Ontario Court of Appeal recently observed in Terceira, it is important to remember that matching DNA profiles in the context of a criminal proceeding does not resolve the ultimate question of the accused's guilt.

It does, however, make it possible to establish important circumstantial evidence that can be considered along with other evidence in support of the crown's contention that the accused was at the scene of the crime and committed the offence.

DNA sampling is an important and powerful investigative tool. However, its intrusive nature has been clearly recognized by the highest courts in the land. As such, Bill C-3 must reflect the state of our constitutional law. In other words, the taking of bodily substances must be done in accordance with constitutional principles.

As originally introduced in the House, Bill C-3 stipulated that bodily substances would be taken after the person is convicted, discharged under section 730 or, in the case of a young person, found guilty under the Young Offenders Act of a designated offence. Some organizations came before the committee to urge that the bill be amended to provide the police the authority in legislation to take DNA samples on arrest or at the time charges are laid similar to the authority they have to take fingerprints without prior judicial authorization under the Identification of Criminals Act. In their view there should not be the intervention of a judge to decide whether it is appropriate to seize the bodily samples.

The proponents of this proposal believe that if the police could take DNA profiles from persons charged with designated offences, the databank would be more effective simply because it would hold more DNA profiles. They question why it was necessary to wait for a conviction to take the DNA samples for inclusion in a national DNA databank when this was not the case in the United Kingdom. They also contended that the collection of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis is no more intrusive on a suspect's privacy than is the collection of fingerprints.

At the same time, other parties came before the committee seriously questioning the constitutionality of this proposal and they presented firm views that the taking of bodily samples without prior judicial authorization constitutes a seizure that is likely to be unconstitutional.

On March 11, 1998 the committee heard from officials of the Department of Justice who had carefully reviewed the legal issues relating to this proposal and they stated that the taking of bodily samples from an accused constitutes a search.

Department of Justice officials also stressed that the supreme court has established a clear distinction between fingerprinting and the taking of physical evidence for DNA analysis. They argued that the court had assigned great importance to the invasiveness of the second type of procedure and had expressed its great respect for physical integrity and the individual's right to retain control over his or her bodily substances. in Borden, 1994, and Stillman, 1997.

Fingerprinting and taking bodily samples for the purpose of DNA testing are simply not the same and they cannot be equated. In other words, one should not contend that the taking of bodily substances upon arrest is constitutional on the basis that the taking of fingerprints in those circumstances has been ruled constitutional.

To permit the taking of such bodily samples simply on the basis of a police officer's belief that the person has committed a designated offence without complying with the requirements that there be prior judicial authorization would constitute a classic example of a warrantless search or seizure which would prima facie be unconstitutional.

Justice officials were not the only ones raising the point that there was a very strong possibility sampling at the time a suspect was arrested would be considered unconstitutional. The same reservations were expressed by the criminal section of the Canadian Bar Association, and representatives of the solicitors general of Ontario and New Brunswick, among others.

The opponents of the proposal were clear that it would have been inconsistent with existing constitutional authorities and would have jeopardized the viability of the national DNA databank. In the end on this issue the committee approved the bill as it had been originally drafted. The taking of samples would occur only following conviction.

However, that did not end the matter. The proponents of the collection at charge option continued to press for amendments to the bill at report stage to provide for the collection of DNA samples at the time of charge. In an attempt to make this more palatable it was suggested that the samples would not be analyzed until a person was convicted or unless that person failed to appear at trial.

Unfortunate statements were made suggesting that if the bill was not amended the legislation would be useless. Similarly it was stated that without these changes long unsolved crimes would never be solved. These arguments were intended to scare Canadians and could of course lead to the worst excesses all the way to the end justifies the means.

Not only was this wrong, it seemed to miss the point. Bill C-3 is not meant to allow warrantless searches for the purposes of supplementing the databank. Bill C-3 is meant to create a databank through appropriate, legitimate and constitutional means. It is a databank which can produce leads which the police can pursue in order to solve serious crimes without fearing any evidence resulting from such information would be found inadmissible at trial because it had originated from an unconstitutional search.

I said that these kinds of statements were exaggerated because they imply that the large number DNA profiles from dangerous criminals would be lost to the databank if they were not taken at the time of charge. There is a considerable difference between being charged with an offence and being convicted of an offence. Moreover, the very same DNA samples could be taken later in the criminal justice process under Bill C-3 from those persons convicted of a designated offence. The only advantage, therefore, considering that under Bill C-3 or the new proposal the bodily samples would not be analyzed until after the person was convicted, would be administrative convenience. This would not be sufficient justification to permit the violation of one's privacy and of a seizure of one's genetic material.

The truth is that under the scheme set out in Bill C-3 the police will be equally able to solve long unsolved crimes because the DNA analysis would occur only following the conviction in either case.

[Calgary Declaration, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I had a number of reasons for wanting to take part in this debate on the motion by the hon. member for Calgary West This motion calls upon the government to lay before the House copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings and memos relating to the Calgary Declaration.

Although this steals somewhat from the thunder of the hon. member's speech, the government agrees to follow up on this Reform initiative and I am delighted with his interest in the Calgary Declaration.

Moreover, I recall that on November 25, 1997 the members of the official opposition were the ones calling for a debate on the Calgary Declaration, and the motion making such debate necessary at that time had come from another Alberta MP, the one from Edmonton—Strathcona.

This government has nothing to hide. The Calgary Declaration grew out of the desire of nine provincial premiers and two territorial leaders to define a framework of discussion with Canadians to strengthen federation. Our government has always supported that initiative and today's motion gives it the opportunity to reiterate that support and to emphasize its merit.

The consultation process surrounding the Calgary Declaration was a transparent one. Canadians were invited to take part. The legislatures of those provinces where consultations were held adopted the declaration, and the reason behind the support it obtained throughout the country is that our fellow citizens identified with the values on which it is based.

The Calgary declaration is based on seven principles that are completely in line with our government's national unity policy. It highlights our country's diversity. It calls on Canadians' tolerance and generosity and reflects what we are, not only in our own eyes but in the eyes of the world.

The Calgary declaration is not a proposal for constitutional reform but a statement of principles that are shared by Canadians. It highlights not only the things that differentiate us from one another but also the things that unite us and make us collectively stronger.

Our government supports this message of unity, not because it is intended as a miracle solution to all the challenges facing our country, but because it clearly defines the values of the Canadian community.

We did not wait to be urged by anyone to make unity the top priority of our government. I would invite anyone who has forgotten this to reread the throne speech of September 23, 1997, with its clear illustration of the path the Canadian government intends to take to lead its citizens toward the new millennium. In a word, our government has showed leadership.

Leadership can take many forms. Let us not lose sight of the fact that unity is not merely a constitutional matter. It must be reflected in all spheres of our life as a nation. Our approach is one based on efficiency emphasizing co-operation from the provinces.

Our leadership and actions have created a climate favourable to Canadian unity. This does not mean, of course, that there is no room for improvement, but I think I can safely say that the conditions in this country are better today than they were when we came to office in the fall of 1993.

Indeed I would invite those who are skeptical to look at the figures that testify to our success in the financial and economic fields. In only a few years we have managed to balance a budget that was running a huge deficit of $42 billion only five years ago. That was a challenge that many people thought could not be overcome. However, we took on the task with determination and the efforts made by all Canadians have been crowned with success.

My reason for bringing up our economic and financial success in this debate is simple. The Calgary Declaration carries a message of unity, but our government does not believe the unity of this country to be separate from other spheres of human activity. Instead, it pervades each of these spheres. It reminds Canadians of the levels of excellence they can aspire to achieve when there is a collective will behind their actions.

Canadians may not fully realize this. However, there are many examples of our success at the international level, which show what can be achieved by working together toward a common goal.

I would like to illustrate this with figures. Let us look at the economy. Between 1994 and 1997 Canada's GDP grew by 2.9% a year on average, the strongest performance of the G-7, putting us in 14th place of the OECD countries. Average annual employment growth was 1.8%, the best performance, on a par with the United States, of the G-7 countries and in ninth place among the OECD countries.

The OECD forecast that we will have the strongest economic growth of the G-7 countries for 1998 and 1999. Canada's inflation rate has averaged 1.5% over the past five years, one of the lowest in the world.

That is not bad for a country which some claim does not work. As I said, the unity of a country as diversified as Canada does not rest solely in the hands of governments and institutions; it calls on the efforts and energy of everyone who believe in the future of Canada.

Canada's worth is not tied solely to its economic successes or its social safety net. It is more than a mere accounting operation. If that were the case, a downturn in monthly statistics would be enough to propel those advocating secession into action.

Canada is much more than that. It is a country where men and women from all corners of the community of nations come together to achieve a shared ideal. This ideal springs from values shared by Canadians in the various regions across the country and by Quebeckers. The merit of the Calgary Declaration is that it draws these values out and reminds us that what joins us together is far greater than what separates us.

In this regard, I remind the sceptics of the results of a poll released in May 1998. According to it, a substantial majority of the people in Quebec—67%—including a majority of those on the yes side—60%—supported the Calgary Declaration. In addition, 82% supported equality among Canadians, 57% favoured equality among the provinces and 61% stated that Canada offers diversity, tolerance, compassion and equal opportunity, among other things.

The Calgary Declaration is not the solution to all of Canada's challenges, but it does point out that it would be easier for us to meet our challenges as a united front. It also underscores the heritage of values and principles we share in Canada.

It was on this heritage that we built the successes we have enjoyed throughout our history, and, as the Calgary Declaration points out, we must continue to build on it in the future.

In conclusion I simply say that the government intends to comply. Inasmuch as we appreciated the opportunity to discuss the Calgary declaration once again in the House, we find it is a bit of a waste of the House's time.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if we could get back to the business at hand, I have a comment and a question for the hon. member.

The comment is to state that one of the primary reasons I supported Bill C-68 and continue to support it is due to the request of the Canadian Police Association. As the front line officers dealing with law enforcement in this country, the Canadian Police Association supported Bill C-68.

I know there is a lot of controversy over their position. I would like to read from a letter dated February 19, 1996 from Scott Newark, the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association, to myself, where he indicates:

The issue of gun control is one on which we have expressed opinions over the years. Indeed, we approached the current government on enforcement aspects as early as December 1993. We were alerted to the fact that the government was considering changes along the lines of Bill C-68 and thus, at our Annual General Meeting in August of 1994 we struck a National Panel to examine the issues in the specific areas contemplated.

This group met and presented its report to our Executive Board Meeting in March of 1995. Following this, our delegates, assembled from every jurisdiction in Canada—

And I emphasize “every jurisdiction in Canada”—

—(Ontario being the largest), voted. Unlike when the Bill was presented in the House, our delegates were afforded the opportunity of voting on each item separately. Most passed unanimously and registration was passed by an approximate two to one margin, and, as you recall, subject to two very precise conditions which the government met.

[Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation And Safety Board Act, June 12th, 1998]

Madam Chairman, I move the following amendment to clause 17:

That the following words be removed from paragraph 28(a)(i): “or a control facility for aviation operations”;

And that the following words be removed at line 17 from paragraph 28(1)(b): “or a control facility for aviation operations”.

And the French version reads as follows:

—l'article 28(1), à la ligne 5, en enlevant les mots «par une installation de contrôle des opérations aériennes», et à la ligne 12 en enlevant les mots «installation de contrôle des opérations aériennes».

These were amendments that were made when this bill was at the Senate. There has been concern about the amendments. The amendments raise serious concerns for Transport Canada and the new NavCan corporation. Both are very worried that they will lose access to information which is essential to carry out their respective safety roles. The CATCA president, after discussion with the union's executive, stated that the CATCA would not oppose the removal of Senate amendments and NavCan requested the opportunity to explain its concerns in more detail to the Standing Committee on Transport only if the amendments in question were not removed. Therefore, I have moved that they be removed.

[The Reform Party, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will savour the irony of the Reform Party's efforts to form an alliance with the only federal political party that seeks to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada, and this coming from the party that attempted to make it a point of honour to defend the Canadian flag in the House of Commons.

Canadians deplore the politically motivated efforts at rapprochement initiated by the Reform Party. This rapprochement will fool no one. Canadians will see it for what it is, a disguised attempt by Reform to increase its political base outside of western Canada.

Similarly, Canadians will not be fooled by the purely political manoeuvres of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois in .

These parties know very well that they cannot hope to sell the idea of a separate Quebec without promising political and economic partnership with the rest of Canada.

[Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation And Safety Board Act, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill S-2, which amends the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and makes consequential amendments to another Act.

In 1989 parliament passed the CTAISB act and the act was proclaimed in March 1990. Following a review that was required by the statute and on the basis of the operating experience of the Transport Safety Board, the TSB, over the past eight years some legislative changes have been proposed to fine tune the TSB's already good legislation.

Many of the proposed changes are relatively minor, or are administrative in nature. It is also proposed to improve the Board's operating practices and its independence.

Thanks to the administrative changes proposed, a number of the definitions used in the act will be improved, application of the act as it applies to pipeline accidents and incidents will be clarified, and it will be made clearer that departments may continue to perform their duties while the Board is investigating an accident.

As well, the TSB will be more readily able to respond to provincial requests to carry out investigations for them, on a cost recovery basis.

There are several proposed changes to put increased emphasis on the identification of safety deficiencies through TSB investigations.

In order to encourage people to provide the TSB with information on safety, it is proposed that information provided to investigators, by witnesses for instance, be better protected. Civil proceedings may be taken against persons refusing to provide information to TSB investigators.

A proposal will provide protection to representations made to the board on its confidential draft reports by persons with a direct interest who are asked to review them. Such protection would be similar to that provided to witness statements.

The bill contains a number of provisions as well concerning on board recorders, equipment known as black boxes, which can be very useful in a complex investigation. The on board recordings, which are already protected, will include the video recordings of crew activities.

However, sounds heard in on board recordings that are not voice recordings, such as motor noise, will no longer be protected.

Currently, on board recordings cannot be used in criminal or disciplinary proceedings. One provision will apply the same privilege to the recordings to limit their use in civil proceedings.

The bill was considered in detail by the Senate and three amendments were made. The first was to provide assurance that there would be a minimum number of full time board members. The second was to accommodate the orderly administration of judicial and other proceedings started before these amendments become law. We believe that both of those amendments improve the bill.

A third amendment was made to widen the meaning of on-board recordings. That amendment leads to some serious problems for the Department of Transport in its safety oversight role and we requested that it be defeated. It has the unintended effect of denying the employer and the regulator access to the information necessary to ensuring the quality and safety of some elements of air traffic service. Further, it makes it difficult to take remedial measures when procedures require amendments. I point out that the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association does not object to the removal of this amendment.

Bill S-2 would help improve Canada's already exceptional reputation in transport accident investigation. I ask all members of the House to give the bill speedy passage.

[Petitions, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present petitions originating from the Women's Institute in Washago in my riding of Simcoe North.

These petitions contain 197 signatures and call upon parliament to request the government, through the Medical Research Council, to increase and adequately fund the remaining years of the Canadian multi-centre osteoporosis study.

[Calgary Declaration, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with Monday's report describing the results of Ontario's consultation process on the Calgary declaration.

Ontarians clearly support this declaration. This has been demonstrated by the responses received during the public consultation process. The poll released at the same time shows that 87% of Ontarians support the Calgary declaration and 73% of Ontarians recognize the unique character of Quebec society.

In the light of the results of this vigorous poll and the many other positive results of polls across the country, the figures the Bloc keeps repeating on the Calgary declaration have lost a lot of meaning.

Clearly Canadians support the values of compassion, equality, tolerance and diversity expressed in the Calgary declaration. Canadians should be proud of this demonstration of support for one another.

[Victor Koby, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to pay tribute Victor Koby, a constituent of my riding of Simcoe North, for his work as a volunteer with the Canadian Executive Services Organization. CESO is a non-profit, volunteer based organization which transfers Canadian expertise to businesses, communities and organizations in Canada and abroad.

As a volunteer with CESO International Services, Mr. Koby provided business consultation advice to a Polish company involved in the manufacture of water heating systems.

Mr. Koby assisted the company to develop a business plan encompassing marketing and professional development. He also organized a three-day management conference to involve senior employees in the planning and decision making process.

On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to congratulate Mr. Koby for his outstanding and selfless efforts to assist a company in coping with the new economic realities of the Polish economy.

[Negotiation Of Terms Of Separation Act, April 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to Bill C-237.

In the 1997 Speech from the Throne the Government of Canada committed itself to modernizing our federation and to ensuring that as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum on secession exists debate is conducted with all of the facts on the table.

The federal government has acted accordingly since then. This approach will allow all Canadians to face together the challenges of the 21st century. With this objective in sight the Canadian government needs a responsible government to ensure there is a clear understanding of what is at stake in the type of unilateral secession that has been advocated by the current Government of Quebec. Such a unilateral declaration would be a deeply irresponsible and impractical act. It would pose serious risk of economic and social disorder particularly within Quebec and would have serious consequences for the rest of Canada.

In any democratic society clarity surrounding the key issues of the day is vital. The very core of democracy is the respect of the rule of law and within that the ability of citizens to make informed decisions about their future.

Much confusion surrounds the legal status of a possible unilateral declaration of independence. In order to clarify the legal aspects involved, the Government of Canada referred three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada, and we are committed to respect the court's opinion.

Thus the reference was an appropriate and responsible course of action by the Government of Canada. It is appropriate and responsible for members of the House not to deliberate about the appropriate process for secession until the supreme court has rendered its opinion on the question before it.

Support for sovereignty has dropped; this drop was probably brought about in part to the efforts made by the Government of Canada to clarify what is really at stake with the secessionist option. As the premier of Quebec once said “The conditions required to win a referendum have vanished”.

Recently, a poll conducted for the Council for Canadian Unity showed that 61% of Quebeckers would voted no to the referendum question in the 1995 referendum and 38% of those who voted yes would have voted differently if an economic union could not have been concluded with the rest of Canada.

In addition, an Ekos Research Associates Inc. poll conducted in March shows that only 11% of Quebeckers are in favour of outright independence. A SOM poll released in March shows that more than 62% of Quebeckers are opposed to Premier Bouchard holding another referendum. Finally, the poll sponsored by the Council on Canadian Unity shows that 50% of Quebeckers agree, while 36% disagree, that a region should be allowed to remain a part of Canada if that were the wish of a large percentage of its population.

All these figures go to show that Quebeckers want to remain Canadians and do not want to have to choose between their two identities. This is why the sovereignist leaders have no choice but to foster confusion and ambiguity. And they were quite successful at it, since polls consistently show that more than a third of Quebeckers still believe that, should sovereignty be achieved in Quebec, they would continue to be represented by members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

That is why this government has decided to counter the sovereignists' propaganda with clarity and use every means at its disposal to ensure that Quebeckers and Canadians in general are well aware of the irreparable consequences of secession.

Our primary duty and our responsibility as a government is to ensure that our federation keeps responding better and better to the needs of all Canadians. Our government has established mechanisms to strengthen our economic and social union. This union is based on our bonds of solidarity, compassion and openness, which, beyond our linguistic and cultural differences, unite us from coast to coast. This is the very basis of our federation.

Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Government of Canada has undertaken initiatives to make the federation work better for all Canadians.

Let me give a few examples of the numerous steps we have taken in this respect. Thanks to the Constitution Act, 1982, we were able to effect two constitutional amendments bilaterally to modernize Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador's education system.

There has been inclusion of public sector procurement, excluding health and social services, under the agreement of international trade. The federal government has now signed job training agreements with nine provinces and two territories. Intergovernmental negotiations are under way to develop a more concerted and co-operative approach to social policy reform. There is also the harmonization of existing federal legislation with Quebec civil law and the development of the national child benefit system.

These are the sorts of initiatives that demonstrate to all Canadians, including Quebeckers, that the federation can and does evolve to meet changing needs.

Our efforts have been productive. The deficit has been beaten, and we can afford to make some choices and to invest in the future. Quebec is also overcoming its own deficit, which is something to rejoice about. Last week, the New York credit agency Standard & Poor's raised Quebec's credit rating. It pointed out that the decreased popularity of sovereignty had something to do with this adjustment, since it had reduced political and economic uncertainty. One hopes the Government of Quebec takes careful note of this.

Canada has much to offer. Its economic foundations are solid and it is an exceptional place to live, invest and do business. Canada is a success from all points of view, and we are the envy of the entire world. We must make an effort to continue the progress that has begun and to make this country an even more remarkable place in which to live.

Canada was not created by magic; it is the result of a joint desire to live together. Our country has been built by generation after generation of Canadians, and it deserves to remain united so that future generations may continue to benefit from the efforts and visions of the builders of this country.

We must focus our energies on building Canada, not on dividing it. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recently told students at the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa:

Canada is not a perpetual constitutional dispute; it is a principle of caring, one of the greatest that humanity has invented—.We must remain together and improve further this—generous federation that is our common achievement.

As we stated in the Speech from the Throne, the single most important commitment of the government is to keep Canada united. It is what we are committed to accomplishing through our initiatives to clarify what would be at stake in the unilateral secession and to modernize our federation.

For all these reasons I cannot support Bill C-237.