Paul Bonwick

[Veterans, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian, as a father of three young children and as a duly elected member of parliament I want to say thank you to all veterans of the Great War, World War II and the Korean War, to those who paid the ultimate price and to those who came back from these wars and built out great country.

The very fact that we are able to stand in this House, democratically debate and decide the policy and direction of this great country is wholly a credit to the sacrifice of our veterans paid in order to defend our way of life.

My children have grown up in a society that did not have to experience war. Ours and future generations have the privilege of living in a free and democratic country. Over 68,000 lives were lost in defence of these principles. For all these facts and many more I say thank you, thank you to the veterans of Simcoe—Grey and thank you to the veterans of Canada.

Veterans, I pledge to you this. The results of your sacrifice will not be forgotten.

[Theatre Collingwood, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Theatre Collingwood is a non-profit organization dedicated to the performing arts.

Since its incorporation in 1984, Theatre Collingwood has been a major contributor to the arts community in my riding of Simcoe—Grey. The performing arts have long been recognized as an important industry in Canada.

As a non-profit organization Theatre Collingwood relies on the revenue from ticket sales, fundraising and corporate support to reach its financial and artistic goals. One of its fundraising efforts is scheduled for tomorrow evening as it will be hosting a masquerade ball. The evening is going to be filled with fun and revelry.

Theatre Collingwood is thriving. Over 4,000 seats were filled by enthusiastic patrons during the 21 performances produced this summer. Next summer's productions will be even more successful.

On behalf of the participants I would like to invite the Prime Minister, my colleagues and you, Mr. Speaker, to attend a great evening in Collingwood either tomorrow night or next year.

[Dna Identification Act, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in the last 10 days I think I have heard it all.

I truly wonder if there is no depth to the rhetoric, the repetitive redundancy of the Reform Party members. They told us on the one hand last week that it is not okay to ask people to register deadly firearms. Today they tell us it is okay to take bodily fluids from a potentially innocent person. This is from one end of the spectrum to the other. I am absolutely amazed. They cite time and time again examples from the U.S. I cannot be any clearer on this. This is not the United States. It is Canada. We do things differently here.

Today I am extremely proud to stand up and show my support for Bill C-3. This is a good bill. As we have heard in the House time and time again, DNA analysis cannot be compared to a fingerprint which involves only a minor intrusion on privacy or the removal of bodily fluid. An argument that equates fingerprints with DNA is simply a flawed argument. Fingerprints only reveal an impression of a person's extremities and allow that person's identity to be confirmed.

DNA samples reveal far more. A DNA sample is a part of a person and it contains that person's genetic blueprint. Because of that important distinction, Bill C-3 ensures that DNA information is safeguarded and used only for the purposes of forensic DNA analysis. In doing so it sets out very limited and controlled access to the data bank. It prohibits any improper use of information and limits access to only those directly involved in operation and maintenance.

The opposition in the House seems to think the police have automatic rights to search and seizure. That has never been the case in Canada because Canadians place a high priority on a reasonable expectation of privacy, on security and dignity of the person, and on the right to be free from unnecessary state interference in those rights. Taking samples automatically when a suspect is charged would be constitutionally indefensible.

Not only has the government taken the advice of those who have said that the legislation to create a national DNA data bank must not infringe upon our charter of rights. We have also listened to those who have said that it is important that this legislation be put in place as soon as possible.

The bill has seen introduction and reintroduction. It has been the subject of thorough review by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, yet I hear my Reform colleagues talk about closure and time allocation. They talk about limiting their right to offer constructive criticism to the bill, yet they spend 70% of their speeches talking about time allocation rather than actually talking about Bill C-3. If they have something positive to add, why do they not add it?

The bill has been reviewed by some of Canada's most respected judges. The opposition seems to be dismissing the validity of the intense scrutiny under which Bill C-3 has been developed. We cannot lose sight of the fact of the benefits of Bill C-3 and the value it will bring as one of the most powerful investigative police tools known to date.

The Liberal government and the police community have the same objective: to provide Canadian law enforcement officials with practical and effective access to DNA technology to solve crimes and to protect the public.

A national DNA bank will be an important tool to help police link a suspect with evidence left at a crime scene. The ability to store and later retrieve DNA profiles will shorten investigations and help prevent further violence by repeat offenders. This means better public safety for Canadians, something that quite obviously Reform is prepared to compromise.

The DNA data bank will let police quickly identify suspects where they have been unable to do so in the past. They will be able to match profiles in the system to find repeat offenders no matter what jurisdiction they are in. Other suspects could be eliminated more quickly and the information will be stored so that police have access to it when it is needed.

Clearly the government is satisfied that Bill C-3 has been carefully drafted and on the basis of extensive consultation with various interest groups. Contrary to what we have heard in the House, taking samples for the data bank at the time of conviction will not prevent police from doing their job. Instead it will give police an effective investigative tool that will comply with our constitutional requirements as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I believe Bill C-3 is a much stronger bill as a result of the extensive consultation and debate that has taken place. As it currently stands it is the government's view that Bill C-3 is fundamentally sound. There is no question that the use of DNA evidence has been a significant breakthrough in the criminal justice system. We must not forget that we are dealing with a powerful tool and one that must be safeguarded against potential abuse.

The creation of a data bank that can be upheld in the courts will go a very long way toward protecting Canadians from violent and repeat offenders, and that is what we are here to do.

There is also no question that Bill C-3 has been and will continue to be an important priority for the government. Public safety is one of the government's top priorities. We will stand behind that commitment 100%, unlike our Reform colleagues.

I believe all parties are motivated by the same goals: to establish a national DNA data bank system that helps our law enforcement personnel protect the public. The question is how do we get there?

The government's position is prudent, responsible and ultimately the best one for Canadians. It is a position that balances the need of law enforcement to protect the public safety, the interests of human rights and the democratic values of all Canadians, something time and time again my Reform colleagues seem to lose sight of.

The legal opinion of three former justices from three different provinces are entirely consistent with the opinion of the Department of Justice and legal opinions, including legal counsel for several provinces who testified before the standing committee. The legal opinions underline the danger of including provisions in Bill C-3 which would not withstand a charter challenge. To effectively implement a DNA data bank, we need to do it right, and that is what the government is doing.

It is better to have a law that works than one that is certain to be struck down by the courts, which the Reform seems to have no regard for. I am confident that Bill C-3 finds the appropriate balance and I support it. I urge the members of the House to support Bill C-3.

Enough of party propaganda, enough of arm twisting and using special interest groups. Support it. It is a good bill. We can proceed and create one of our nation's most valuable policing investigative tools to date. This is a good bill and I am proud to stand here today to speak to it.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake in what the hon. member had to say. Very clearly he does not support government sponsored small business loans. Yet he clearly identifies access to capital as one of the greatest deterrents to expansion and creation of small business. If that is not an obstacle against small business, then I do not know what is. Small business loans work.

As a government we encourage schedule A banks to get involved and create a higher level of loans to small and medium size business, but we also appreciate the fact that when starting out some businesses in fact do require extra support. We do not pretend that we would be setting the exact guidelines on how schedule A banks will extend funds. We see ourselves as a partner. My hon. colleague very clearly outlined that 96% of these do work, 96% of these small businesses that are securing loans work.

I would like to give the hon. member a scenario and I would be curious what his response is. I would also ask him to take some time out and actually visit some of the people, some of the small businesses, the mom and pop stores, the mom and pop businesses around this country that have qualified and succeeded. Tell them that the government should not have been involved, that the government should not have been partnering with the banks and with the small business community to allow that job growth and job creation to take place.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments on this scenario. An average Canadian has a great idea for a business, an idea which both I and the person think is very viable. The person has the management expertise and ability to carry forward that idea but he or she is missing one small thing. He or she is missing equity and therefore does not meet the basic lending guidelines set in place by schedule A banks.

The banker sees an opportunity. Understanding of course that there is some onus and some responsibility on the banker as well and a certain amount of prudence in regard to lending, the banker sees there is an opportunity to extend funds, and this is typically not the only source of funds I might add, to this small business, to this great idea, to this Canadian to succeed if in fact there is partnering.

If that does not take place, that small business will not get off the ground because traditional lenders require some equity. They require a capacity with respect to 25% or 30% equity. When government partners with schedule A banks and with small business people, it allows some latitude in this area for these small business people to create a business or to expand.

This has been a very effective tool for small and medium size business all across the country. Bankers and branch managers who are very active in the community will tell us that. Small independent business people will tell us that. I am also saying that. I have business people in my riding who have qualified for it and have been successful simply because it would not have taken place if they had to qualify under the strictest of traditional lending guidelines.

When the hon. member was talking about accessing taxpayer dollars for small business, does he not consider small business an integral part of our national economy? If great Canadians with great ideas have small business opportunities, does the member not see a role for the government to play if traditional lending guidelines are not being met?

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as you can see I was not fully prepared for a 10 minute address.

I would like to thank my hon. colleagues for the opportunity to address this issue. As was noticed earlier on it is something that is very near and dear to my heart. I carry a certain passion for it.

I should first clarify my position on this. As the member of parliament for Simcoe—Grey and dealing with a private members' bill I am a very significant proponent for repealing section 745. I do so for a couple of reasons. Those two reasons are justice and victims rights. I encourage the members of this House to give consideration to the elimination of section 745 for those two reasons.

I will not repeat what some of my colleagues have commented on with respect to justice and the amount of time served for first degree murder. In a just society, I believe there should not be an opportunity to have a reduction in sentence when in fact a premeditated murder has taken place. Perhaps even more important are the victims that are left behind to deal with this over and over again. I would like to provide a short example. I think it might impact on some of the hon. members of this House.

I too have a constituent in my riding that has had to experience the loss of a loved one. In turn the murderer had the opportunity to go through the section 745 process. It was not the spouse that had to relive that tragedy, that travesty which took place, but the children. She had a very easy explanation to understand and certainly it is why I am a proponent to have this section eliminated.

The children dealt with it as children some 17 or 18 years ago. They were able to put it behind them and get on with their lives. She was able to address it accordingly and raise her children in a very good way. Some 15 years later, the children were forced to deal with it again but this time as adults. That had a very negative consequence on their lives. It has had a dramatic effect on that.

I believe if we are to give true consideration, if we are truly to be supportive of victims rights, then we have no option but to eliminate section 745.

On behalf of the constituents of Simcoe—Grey, I voice my comments here on this private members' bill and wholeheartedly endorse the removal and elimination of section 745.

[Criminal Code, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was going to request the unanimous consent of this House to allow me an additional three or four minutes simply to convey some remarks on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe—Grey and myself.

[Gun Control, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my questions is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.

It appears obvious the Reform caucus is prepared to sacrifice the safety of some women to move forward the agenda of the National Rifle Association.

I therefore ask the secretary of state to tell the House how the government's gun control measures have taken us forward in our goal of ending violence against women.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for quieting them down. They get to be quite a violent lot some times. My point was simply to suggest that the Liberal government is trying to create a police state is absolutely false.

The hon. member mentioned that he was a past police officer and did not see any benefit in the legislation. Let me give him an example. What would he think if he were attending a domestic violence call in a municipality of 15,000 people where he did not know everybody? I am sure the hon. member accepts the fact that domestic violence knows no bounds, not just urban but rural. If he had to attend a domestic violence call and there was no criminal record of the people living at that address, does he not think it might be good use of information, that it might assist him in that call if he knew there were guns there? Does he not think that maybe that information might be pertinent as to how the officer is to conduct himself or herself? I ask that question.

The hon. member should also keep in mind if he walks in and assumes that there are guns there—I am talking about long guns—and quells this domestic situation and says: “Turn over your guns. We are here to take your guns”. Should he take the person's word that there is only one or two guns, or should he not have access to knowing? Is it not fair to say that police officers should have access to knowing there are long arms in there? Perhaps, if the member would take off his blinders, he could help officers to eliminate some domestic violence situations that turn into tragedies.

Would it be useful information to an officer responding to a call if he were provided in advance with the fact that there were long arms in there which could potentially be used in a domestic violence situation?

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite amazed to listen to the member's comments. I was wondering if some of the people in the House and some of the people watching today were actually listened to what he is doing.

The hon. member is fearmongering. He is promoting fear in Canada. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself. He is suggesting that the Liberal government is trying to create a police state. Perhaps the hon. member should visit a police state. He should be absolute ashamed of himself. Enough of the fearmongering and enough of the false statistics. He should simply makes some calculated comments without—

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Once again speaking on my behalf.