Nick Discepola

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in order to facilitate debate, I would like to read the motion, with its five points, two of which are of greater concern to us.

The motion reads in part as follows:

12.(2) The Solicitor General of Canada shall have each proposed regulation laid before each House of Parliament.

(3) Each proposed regulation that is laid before a House of Parliament shall, on the day it is laid, be referred by that House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct enquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.

I will stop there. For a political party such as the Bloc Quebecois which, for four or five years now, has constantly complained about duplication and overlap, I find this amendment somewhat strange.

The member for North Vancouver himself mentioned that the House already has well established procedures requiring all departments to publish proposed regulations ahead of time.

Any interested party may comment on a proposed regulation before it takes effect.

It is well established. As the member for North Vancouver alluded to in a non-partisan way and to quote his words, there is a process already in place which provides for the prepublication and consultation of any regulations implemented.

As a result, the government considers this amendment unnecessary. I ask all hon. members to vote against the amendment since it is not needed.

[National Police Week, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Sunday, May 10, will mark the beginning of police week in Canada.

This year, this special week is devoted to bringing the police and the community closer together. It provides an opportunity to tell the public about the vital work done by the police.

It also provides an opportunity for all Canadians to pay tribute to the devoted men and women who spare no effort to ensure that we may live in a peaceful and just society.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, I have come to know and appreciate the work carried out by Canadian police and peace officers.

I know also that Canadians have great confidence in their police and great respect for them. National police week provides us all with the opportunity to show our support and appreciation for our police and I invite all Canadians to join me in saluting those men and women who have chosen to dedicate their lives to the protection of our homes and our communities. Thanks to them all.

[Volunteers, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today the Government of Canada is paying particular tribute to the volunteers who worked so hard during the ice storm. I offer greetings to all those who are here today in the House.

Thousands of persons took action at the beginning of the year to help Quebeckers who were in the grip of one of Quebec's worst storms.

This tribute coincides with Emergency Preparedness Week, which reminds us of the importance of preparing people and public bodies for this sort of catastrophe, which can arrive at any moment.

Today, however, these words suffice to express our thoughts on all those people, organizations and associations that worked together during the ice storm: thank you, thank you, thank you.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that many witnesses were heard. Also, as has been pointed out, we heard a lot of testimony.

I may have missed one of the meetings. Unless I stand to be corrected, I do not recall any of those witnesses asking to increase the penalty for the misuse of any information from two to five years. As I said, we heard a lot on privacy issue concerns that were generally raised, but not once did I hear any testimony from any witness asking what this motion calls for.

As a government we have been very concerned about any potential misuse. That is why from the onset we entrusted the administration, the establishment and the co-ordination of the DNA databank with one of the world's most respected police agencies, the RCMP through its commissioner. They will be entrusted with the administration and the set up of the databank. We have tried to find the proper balance between making sure that there would be no potential misuse of any information provided and to show Canadians that we are serious about DNA.

As has been pointed out, the profile can disclose much more than a fingerprint. As the member for Sydney—Victoria pointed out during committee hearings, we have a tendency to compare DNA profiles with fingerprinting. As he so aptly put it, a fingerprint is an impression of me whereas DNA is a part of me. There is a substantial fundamental difference between the two yet we often confuse the two.

I would like to caution hon. members. This amendment refers to subsections 6(6) and (7). These subsections refer to the misuse or disclosure of the contents of a profile. We are not talking about the identification of the individual to whom the profile may belong. It is similar for samples.

We are saying that if it is misused it is a very serious offence. We have tried to strike a balance. We did not consult the supreme court on everything as the critic from the Reform Party might lead us to believe. We simply said that there here is a crime. Here is the message we want to get across to Canadians, that it is serious to misuse any of this information. We simply tried to be consistent with similar offences that are established already in the criminal code.

We believe that if the government were to extend the penalty from two years to five years it would be inconsistent with similar offences in the criminal code and very excessive. To that end I ask that the hon. members vote against it for those reasons.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13 deal either with the destruction of DNA samples or information relative to the DNA databank.

Motion No. 4 introduced by the member for Charlesbourg is more or less the same motion introduced, albeit in another form perhaps, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected it on technical grounds, as several members have already pointed out.

The motion poses problems, particularly from a technical point of view because of the limits of the technology that was and will be used, because data concerning a particular offender cannot be destroyed. We have already explained the technical reason for this. The link between identifying information and the actual profile is severed. It would be like removing all the telephone numbers from a telephone book, leaving a random list of telephone numbers and people's names, with nothing to connect them. The link would be severed like that.

The second part of the same motion deals with the communication of DNA information. Once again, it is felt to be unnecessary, because clause 6 of the bill stipulates that the RCMP commissioner may communicate information in the databank only to a Canadian law enforcement agency or laboratory that the commissioner considers appropriate. This is already covered in the bill.

Motion No. 6 deals primarily with the distribution of DNA samples.

Again we have a problem. The whole basis of DNA legislation is to establish a databank. A databank cannot be established if we do not have the samples, if we destroy the samples immediately upon taking the profile and the analysis at this stage. Our committee heard numerous testimonies that the technology and the analysis advance on almost a daily if not weekly basis.

As a result, if we were to destroy the samples right after the establishment of this one databank we would be defeating the purpose of the legislation which is to establish a DNA databank that will be useful not just now but in the future.

As a consequence we would like to keep the samples. It is important to keep the samples because as technology evolves, we would have requirements at times to retest the samples. The administrative costs associated with resampling everybody would be enormous. DNA samples should be kept.

Regarding Motion No. 13, the government supports this amendment. I am of the opinion, having spoken to some of the other members, that the Reform Party and the Conservative Party do not support this amendment.

We do because Motion No. 13 would amend paragraph 47.09(1)(b) of the Criminal Code to ensure consistency with equivalent provisions as outlined in the bill currently.

Bill C-3 proposes the destruction of bodily substances of acquitted persons. Unfortunately it does not make any distinction regarding the Criminal Code between substances obtained for acquitted mentally disordered and non-mentally disordered offenders.

This motion will therefore ensure that bodily substances taken from any acquitted person are destroyed. That is why we are calling on members to support this motion.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but we did group these amendments by groupings. I understand the hon. member does have concerns over some of the amendments. I would ask him to address the grouping we are now studying, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. I believe right now he is speaking on Motion No. 10. Perhaps if he could group his thoughts around our groupings we might be able to get the debate under way a lot faster.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, we feel that, generally speaking, the motions in Group No. 1 that were moved by the hon. member for Charlesbourg are unnecessary, because they do not add to the detailed context of the bill before us.

In general the motions presented by my hon. colleagues are actually considered unnecessary because the bill itself addresses a lot of the concerns raised.

For example the bill's purpose and principles already emphasize that the national databank is intended to help law enforcement agencies identify persons and that safeguards must be placed on the use and communication of and access to information in the databank. This is already in the bill. It is there to protect the privacy of information.

I would also like to point out to the hon. member that the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will have the jurisdiction for the administration and establishment of the databank. This will ensure that the DNA information does not fall into the wrong hands.

Also, once the bank itself is implemented it will be subject to audit by the privacy commissioner, as we discussed, who may audit it at any time rather than the three year time interval that is proposed by the hon. member.

I would now like to comment on Motion No. 1. I believe it has already been pointed out that the purpose of the national DNA databank is to help agencies, in enforcing the law, to identify, as the member indicated, only persons, and that protective measures must be taken with regard to the use and distribution of DNA data, and access to the databank, in order to protect privacy.

Current provisions in the act already deal with the problems raised by this motion. I therefore invite my colleagues to reject this motion.

I am also opposed to Motion No. 3. Although the government is in agreement with the principle that a record of every person who accesses the bank must be maintained, as the member is suggesting, I think that the point of the legislation is the identification the bank contains. The only access allowed is to an individual's identification.

Given that there are already certain safeguards in place, I can ensure the member that, in our view, the request contained in Motion No. 3 deals primarily with an administrative matter, and that the government will duly address this in the related regulations. We feel it is unnecessary to amend the bill, and this is why we are also rejecting this motion.

The final motion in this group is Motion No. 5. This motion suggests establishing a fixed time frame for examination by the privacy commissioner, but does not broaden the commissioner's authority to conduct investigations. Section 37 of the Privacy Act already authorizes the privacy commissioner to carry out investigations in respect of personal information under the control of government institutions in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of the legislation in question.

Once the national DNA data bank is in place, it will be subject to investigation by the privacy commissioner, who may, as I have pointed out, conduct an investigation at any time, rather than every three years, as called for by the member.

For these reasons, in my opinion, Group No. 1, that is Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, does not really add anything to the bill. The problems raised in these motions are already addressed in the bill as written. I therefore urge members to vote against these motions.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has defeated his own argument in claiming a question of privilege when he quotes Beauchesne.

In that citation, he indicates very clearly that there is no obligation on the part of the minister to have to advise members of parliament prior to the public.

I would like to assure the Speaker and hon. members that the Minister of Justice did render the opinions on May 1. It was a Friday. The House adjourns relatively early, at 2 o'clock on Fridays. Some members may not have been present in their offices.

The opinions were given to the public and to members of parliament. Every single member of the justice committee received these opinions. The member has claimed also that the government may have used the slowest possible means of communicating these opinions to members of parliament whereas we used courier services to get them to some of the public.

We used the traditional means, the internal courier service. In talking to some of my colleagues, they have not yet seen the opinions either because some of them have just come back today.

I do not think there is an obligation on the part of government to make sure members are in their offices to receive their correspondence. That is up to members and their staff. I beg to differ, that there is no question of privilege here.

We are still at report stage and we still have ample time to put forth any modifications members of the opposition would want to put forth. As I said, the copies were sent through the normal distribution channels we have always used traditionally in this House.

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-251.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Mississauga East on her tenacity and dedication to an issue that concerns us all.

It would seem that, for the rest of this session, the criminal justice system will be a major focus in this House. The Minister of Justice is continuing consultations on the subject and proposing changes on various criminal justice issues, including legislation regarding young offenders, the difficult situation we are all aware of concerning victims and recommendations made as a result of recent investigations.

As for the solicitor general, he is presiding over the review of legislation including the Criminal Records Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act. He is also involved in reviewing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This review is a major initiative of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Essentially, the government is open to suggestions to bring about positive change and is fulfilling its responsibility, which is to provide Canadians with a more efficient criminal justice system.

I would certainly not give the impression that our legislation, even the most comprehensive and recent, is perfect. Lawmakers have the duty to keep an eye out for changes that may require a reform of existing legislation and for legislative inconsistencies and anomalies that may create inequalities.

Private members' bills are a tool to put forward corrective measures, which are sometimes adopted. I firmly believe in the value of debating issues raised in private members' bills.

Nevertheless, I am concerned that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, may take away flexibility and discretionary power from our courts and add to the already heavy burden of correctional bodies, when it comes to administering sentences.

The proposed changes would introduce new elements to the legislation adopted by parliament not so long ago. They would amend existing legislation in ways not foreseen by those who drafted it, who took part in discussions, and who made the amendments that give them their present form. If adopted, these amendments could well lead to serious challenges under our charter of rights and freedoms.

The amendments proposed by the hon. member for Mississauga East seem to be the solution that has always been called for by any groups calling for heavier penalties for law-breakers.

As other hon. members have said, Bill C-251, in its present form, and the prior forms of these proposed amendments are aimed at responding to the demands of a group which is attempting to convince us that longer sentences and later releases will enhance public safety. This admirable group is made up of police officers and victims, that is well-intentioned people who deserve our respect.

I would, however, like to respectfully submit that law enforcement agencies are sworn to enforce the law, while lawmakers are the ones responsible for drafting it. Moreover, it is an underlying principle of our justice system that the state guarantees the objectivity of the criminal justice system by prescribing penalties, and thus eliminating any element of personal vengeance.

The impressive list of legislative measures drafted by previous hard-line governments, as well as the improvements introduced in recent years, have had an impact on a large number of criminal justice issues.

In some cases, the new legislative provisions were the direct consequence of suggestions from police and victim assistance organizations. They were consulted in all cases. Most of the time, the measures that were adopted lengthened sentences and made the system more stringent.

I know that sometimes unusual and tragic events put considerable pressure on hon. members in the House to find solutions to problems in the area of criminal justice. The public reaction to recent deplorable and senseless crimes is also quite understandable. The efforts of individual Canadians and groups to exert positive influence are for the most part very commendable.

The proposed amendments, however, invoke punitive measures that far exceed the restrictions now set out in the Criminal Code and Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as threaten freedoms defended by the charter, as I mentioned.

Nevertheless, Bill C-251 is before us today and as described by its subtitle proposes cumulative sentences that could in some cases double or triple current levels of sentences.

Although I do not doubt the motives or intentions of the hon. member for Mississauga East, I must point out that support for the bill will come from those who believe that life should mean life.

There is a certain element here that has been addressed in past sessions when similar attempts were made to achieve the same objectives. The thrust of these proposals applies to those who might otherwise anticipate earlier eligibility to be considered for conditional release under current rules of sentence calculation.

I will attempt therefore to provide some details of how the government has come to address corrections and conditional release issues. In so doing I submit that it will become clear to my hon. colleagues that the proposals now before us do not at this time reflect the best interests of the Canadian public.

We are living in times of tremendous change, as hon. colleagues are well aware. Change is experienced no less by the criminal justice system than by any other institution in our society.

For the criminal justice system the past decade has been a period of difficult and sometimes painful questioning. Is our justice system working? Is it protecting our most vulnerable citizens? Can we assure Canadians that their safety is of paramount concern to the Government of Canada? These are all valid questions.

The 1988 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General was entitled: “Taking Responsibility”. In that report, the committee recognized the need to make certain improvements to sentencing, conditional release and the correctional system, and included detailed recommendations to that effect.

The work of that committee is greatly appreciated, and its members know that their concerns were instrumental in the reforms proposed by our government. These reforms seek to improve public security and to restore public confidence in the system.

In the second half of the 1980s, the country had been shaken by a series of unusual and tragic events that made our criminal justice system look rather bad.

Moreover, because of an increase in the crime rate, the public was urging the government to change the system and to adopt harsher measures that would reflect the new limits of tolerance for certain types of crimes. The 1988 report, along with other basic reviews of the correctional system, led to the adoption, in 1992, of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

This radical reform of legislative measures pertaining to correctional matters and parole responded to public pressure by making the system more open, more just and more accessible and recognized the need for significant change to bring it into line with public opinion and values. The current government considered it appropriate on two occasions to change the law, after consulting with interested Canadians and with its criminal justice system partners.

Throughout the process, the first priority was to re-establish public confidence. We must continue to respond to public fears about crime and concerns about criminal justice.

We must, however, take account of the change in the landscape. The number of violent crimes has consistently and considerably dropped in recent years.

For us to properly respond to public concerns, we must work to improve understanding of the nature of crimes currently committed and of our criminal justice system, which has changed appreciably in recent times.

As I mentioned, the government now intends to keep the criminal justice flexible in part through a review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The Solicitor General of Canada will be addressing the House justice committee on Monday in introducing its review of the CCRA. I encourage the hon. member to put forth her recommendations under that exhaustive review. I will work with her on that committee.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to inform the House and the member, who refuses to accept this, that businesses interested in contributing are holding fund-raising activities throughout Canada, and that thousands of volunteers are raising money in their community to celebrate an event that is very important for Canada and for Quebec.