Jack Ramsay

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my hon. colleague across the way, it seems that he spent most of his time simply criticizing a party that has never held power in this House. It never had the power to do one thing either good or bad as far as the military is concerned and yet he spent all his time criticizing that party.

We should be looking ahead as to what we could be doing, which is what I think this debate is for. The hon. member from the Liberal side had the opportunity to place before the House and the people of Canada their vision and their goal for the role our military should be playing but we did not hear anything from that member. Why?

We can only assume it is because they have no vision, certainly not a vision they want to share with the House or with the Canadian people. We saw what happened. We saw their actions. We can judge what their vision is, as secretive as it might be, and their goal for the military.

We saw what happened in the Somalia inquiry when something very bad occurred that reached into the upper echelons of our military command. After less than two years they shut it down. We will never know the full truth. We can only speculate at the truth. Justice was never done.

I spend much of my time thinking about and working in justice. In order for justice to occur we must have the truth. Upon truth is built justice and from a sense of justice that we have in the minds and hearts of all of us there is a peace of mind that flows. From that peace flows the prosperity that we all seek in our lives and in our nation.

When we deny the truth, turn it aside, hide it or shut down inquiries set up to find and reveal the truth so that justice can be done, so that a sense of justice prevails across our land in the minds and hearts of our people, what is left? Is it justice based on half truths or no truths? What did they do in the Somalia inquiry to our country and to the morale of those members who worked so diligently during the ice storm and the Manitoba flood and who stand ready today to respond to any emergency that they will be called on? They see that justice has not been done because the truth has been withheld.

We heard from the government side that this had gone on long enough and enough money was spent. Yet we have had inquiries that have lasted four and five years. We spent as high as $50 million on some inquiries.

The Liberal Party now has the opportunity because it has the power to express and put into action its vision for the military. What do we see is happening? We see the hon. member stand there minute after minute and not reveal his vision for the future and not tell the men and women in the military what is in store for them. He attacks a party that has never held the reins of power but does have a vision for the military, a vision for the unity of this country and a vision for the people of our land.

That hon. member spent almost 90% of his time simply attacking the Reform Party of Canada that has that vision. So what do we say about the military? What is our vision for the military?

The role of our military should be clearly defined. What should the role of the military be? We are saying that parliament should define that and then equip it to perform those duties thus defined. If it is peacekeeping or peacemaking or simply the defence of the sovereign nature of our country, if it is simply to fulfil those roles, let us decide as a nation and equip our military to do that job.

That is just the beginning of the vision we hold for the military based on the truth, based on fact, based on consultation with not only the military commanders but their grassroots as well as the Canadian public. That is our vision.

Our vision for this place is to allow our elected representatives to be a conduit for the thoughts and feelings and concerns of the people we are supposed to be representing and not have a form of government that will squash the rights of individual backbenchers to stand up and represent the people of their constituencies, whether it has to do with the hepatitis C issue or the military or what other issue placed before the elected representatives of the people who are supposed to have a vision of this country for all of us.

That is the vision of the Reform Party and that is what is being attacked here today. Why? They do not have anything they wish to share with the Canadian people, with the members of the House of Commons or with the members of the military. They do not have anything to share. I listened intently, waiting for that vision to be revealed and it is not forthcoming.

Why is it not forthcoming? They have no vision and they stumble from pillar to post, from one emergency to another.

When war raised its ugly head again with the Middle East situation and we had to send our people, as our duty and responsibility, into that potential conflict, what did we hear? We heard that the military had to go around scraping up equipment, clothing, helmets to send our people into a potential conflict. That is the vision, or lack of it, the Liberal Party legacy has left the military, this House and the people of Canada.

It is amazing to me that government members do not grasp this opportunity put forward by our Tory colleagues to tell the people of Canada what vision they have and what they see in the future for the military. What is it? Why would they not take that opportunity? It is there for us all to express what we believe should be done.

We have not heard that but we certainly have heard an awful lot of abuse and criticism of a different vision put forward in this country for the past 10 years at least in terms of the steps that should be taken to put our military on a proper footing.

If we are going to have a military we should know what we want it to do. Does that not make common sense? Once we decide what we want our military to do, let us equip it to do the job. It is that simple.

We did not hear any expression at all of consulting with people, the military or members of parliament as to really what the role of the military ought to be and then equipping our people to get on with the job. We have had the debacle of ordering helicopters and then cancelling helicopters, ordering submarines, cancelling submarines and then ordering submarines again.

The people of Canada would like to know if we are going to equip our people what do we want them to do? Should that not flow from determining what we want to do with the helicopters and the submarines and what we want to do by reducing the strength of our military? What is the purpose of that? Or if we want to increase it, why? What is the role we want our military to play? Depending on every action that the government takes that touches on our military we have not heard a thing.

The hon. member who just spoke left me with feelings of shame because we honour and respect one another in the House, particularly their thoughts and ideas. We may oppose them but all we heard was a response to a very important subject attacking a party that puts forward a vision and plans. They criticize and attempt to lay blame for what has happened to our military on a party that has never had the levers of power. One day I promise we will have the power because there is no vision on that side. There is a vision on this side, certainly within this caucus.

I commend the Tories for this supply day motion because it is an important subject and it is time for an accounting. It is time to say to the government what do you have in mind, why did you do this, what are you planning to do to correct it, what do you have in mind for our young men and women in the military living below the poverty line, how can you justify this.

We are asking for an explanation and all we get is the kind of rhetoric we heard. It fills time and space on the agenda but it certainly does not answer any question for any Canadian tuning in to this debate. It certainly does not inform them.

To be informed about what is in store for our military you cannot go to the opposition. You have to go to the government. Why the member was attempting to focus the responsibility on the Reform Party and put the blame for all the things that have gone wrong is beyond me and I think beyond the common sense of anyone watching the debate.

We need a military. The military should be trained. It should have the best possible leadership we have, those who have volunteered to serve in this manner. It should be properly equipped and above all it should know exactly what its duty is.

I would like to hear that from my hon. colleagues in the Liberal Party who have formed the government for this term and who have the sole power, control and responsibility to do those things. Let us hear something constructive from the government side rather than the belly aching we have heard and the blame laying that has occurred particularly against the party that has never hurt the military, never had the opportunity to help, never had the opportunity to place in position our vision of what our military ought to be doing.

[Rcmp, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister's suggested changes to the YOA were all over the newspapers this morning hours before the official release.

Will the solicitor general ask the RCMP to investigate that leak as well?

[Rcmp, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the RCMP has been called in by the government to investigate leaks to the Globe and Mail about the new TAGS program.

Why are the Liberal spin doctors so upset by this? Is it because the new TAGS program was leaked before they had a chance to do it?

Why is the RCMP investigating leaks to the media, something the government does every other day?

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the government had the courage of its convictions it would grant the police the power to take a sample at the time of charge if the individual has shown by his or her actions that he or she has been in this type of difficulty before and if necessary protect that right by way of the notwithstanding clause.

As one of my colleagues indicated, it is time to tell the Supreme Court of Canada that we want the will of the people expressed through legislation created by elected representatives of this country and not be afraid every time we attempt to do it that nine unelected individuals are going to strike down the will of the majority of the people in this country.

We support this motion. We think this is a good motion. It does not hurt anyone. It causes no undue problems. It is of a voluntary nature. The provision for this type of activity was originally left out the bill. This motion would place it in the bill and recognize the right of individuals to volunteer samples for whatever purpose, but certainly for the purpose of exonerating them from offences they have not committed. How many times have people volunteered for breathalyser tests? How many have given samples of their blood, their scalp hair, their pubic hair in order to have that compared with samples found at the scene and to exonerate them? Other evidence has caused their arrest and charge.

We have looked at the cases that have come forward, the Milgaard case, the Donald Marshall Jr. case, the Wilson Nepoose case and so on. Those are only the ones we know about. Yet we probably have 50 section 690 applications a year going to the justice minister asking for a new trial or asking for mercy based on the conviction these people are innocent. This provides the means in this area whereby identification by way of DNA is allowed. It provides a statutory provision for that.

We support it and we congratulate the member for bringing it forward.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have 10 minutes to cover two very important areas of Group No. 6 which have a direct bearing upon the workability of the new DNA databank and the authority of the police to take DNA samples from individuals suspected or charged with a primary designated offence.

The bill does not provide authority for the police to take a DNA sample from anyone who is under arrest or from anyone who has been charged. We understand the procedure for taking a sample granted under Bill C-104 which has been operative for some time now. However that requires evidence of a DNA sample at the scene, reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an individual is responsible for leaving that DNA at the scene, and then a judge's warrant authorizing the taking of a sample from the individual.

This is very cumbersome. The witnesses who appeared before our standing committee, particularly the crown prosecutors and witnesses representing the Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police, stated very clearly that if the bill were amended to allow them to take DNA samples at the time a person is charged it could save lives. It could identify individuals who have left their DNA at the scenes of rapes, murders, assaults and other primary offence scenes.

We also heard that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of unsolved crimes of murders, rapes, serious assaults, manslaughter cases or so on where DNA samples have been left at the scene. Individuals who have committed those offences have been undetected. The police want a mechanism whereby when a person commits one of the primary designated offences the police can take a sample of DNA from the individual. This was rejected at clause by clause consideration of the bill.

We have introduced in Motion No. 10 a somewhat watered down version but still a very important part of the bill that would allow police to take a DNA sample from anyone charged with a primary designated offence who has been convicted of a previous primary designated offence. They could take the sample, hold it and not have it analysed until after conviction or after the individual has failed to appear in court.

If the individual runs and does not appear in court, an analysis can be conducted to determine whether or not the person is responsible or at least left any of his or her DNA at the scene of unsolved crimes. This is extremely important because on a yearly basis I understand from the testimony we heard before the committee some 60,000 individuals do not respond to reconnaissance or to bail. They simply skip and do not appear.

The concern is that if we have to wait until after conviction before the sample is taken it means for the individual on bail, knowing full well if he is convicted of the offence for which he is charged, that the DNA sample taken from him may link him to a more serious offence or at least another offence where he has left his DNA at the scene. The individual simply may disappear and never honour the reconnaissance or honour the bail he has been granted. Therefore it will be a frustration for police. We have been told by police witnesses that this bill of all bills could begin to save lives immediately. That is why it is so important.

We have heard from the government side that this would not be constitutional. It would not survive a constitutional challenge based upon privacy and based upon the intrusivity of taking a DNA sample at the time of a charge without the authority of a warrant. The Canadian Police Association provided us with a legal opinion that refuted that.

A testimony submitted by Mr. Scott Newark, director of the Canadian Police Association, stated very clearly that they were willing to pay the cost of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada before this bill goes forward any further to determine whether the government's hesitancy and timidity in this area is grounded, to determine whether the legal opinion submitted before the court would be acceptable and that these tests could be taken at the time of arrest or at the time of charge.

The government has refused this. After the fact it obtained three legal opinions. I suspect the government went shopping for legal opinions. It has now submitted legal opinions to members of the committee and members of the House in support of its viewpoint.

Now members can look at four legal opinions, three saying it would not be constitutional and one saying it would be constitutional. We never had an opportunity to question the retired justices on their deliberations, considerations, recommendations and conclusions. We never had an opportunity to have constitutional experts testify before the committee as to the veracity of the conclusions that are now part of the record. This is very unfortunate.

These legal opinions should have been placed before the committee at the time the bill entered committee. We would have been able to examine them carefully. We would have had the time to look at the opinions and perhaps obtain other legal opinions from those with a different viewpoint on the constitutionality of taking samples from the accused at the time of arrest or charge.

The police have the authority to take breath samples. They have the authority to take blood samples in cases of suspected impaired driving. What is the difference? If they can take one bodily sample already and the authority exists under the Criminal Code to do so, what in the world is wrong with doing it under the auspices of this bill? Why not allow the police to take a DNA sample from an individual who has been charged with a designated offence and who has one previous conviction to show that person is a repeat offender in this area? What is wrong with taking a sample and holding that sample until the individual has been convicted or fails to appear in court before it is analysed and placed in the bank? Once it is in the bank it can be compared with the samples and the profiles of other DNA left at the scenes of rapes, murders, serious assaults and manslaughters.

I urge all hon. members to carefully examine this motion. We think it is a balanced motion that draws a healthy balance between the concerns expressed by the justice officials and the requests and demands of police officers across this country and others in law enforcement. I urge all hon. members to give this motion their support when the vote comes.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-3, in Clause 17, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 15 the following:

“(4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, if a person is charged with a designated offence and at the time of being charged has a previous conviction for a designated offence, a qualified peace officer is authorized to take samples of one or more bodily substances by means of the investigative procedures described in section 487.06.

(5) Samples taken pursuant to subsection (4) shall be retained in accordance with the regulations made under subsection (6) and not sent for analysis until either,

(a) the person is convicted of the offence charged, or

(b) the person fails to appear as requested by law in relation to the charge whereupon analysis shall be completed and, subject to section 9 of the DNA Identification Act, the results entered into the offender index.

(6) The Governor in Council shall make regulations respecting the retention of samples taken pursuant to subsection (4).”

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we support this group of amendments, Motion Nos. 9 and 14. It is an oversight and the government has corrected it. I wish it would correct some of the major oversights that are coming up.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General will take a serious look at the motions in Group No. 6 and perhaps have a change of heart. We consider them to be the crux of the debate on the bill. It is a very important grouping. The debate will determine whether or not some members of the House, including the Reform caucus, will be able to support the bill at final reading.

[Justice, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been 335 days since the justice minister was sworn in. It has been almost one year since the minister claimed amending the Young Offenders Act was a priority.

The minister has been promising for months to introduce those amendments in a timely fashion. What changes has the minister made to the Young Offenders Act after almost a year of claims and promises? Absolutely nothing.

We have had nothing concrete from the federal justice minister despite the justice committee's recommendations tabled over a year ago. We have had nothing in spite of the urging of the provincial attorneys general and we have had nothing in spite of the demands of Canadians from all across the country for a toughening of the Young Offenders Act.

Spring is here. The tulips are in bloom. It is time the gopher got its head out of the hole.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I too urge and recommend support for this motion. I put forward a recommendation in committee that we strike the summary conviction portion of this section and leave it at a two year indictable maximum penalty. Of course that was struck down but we will see what happens when we come to the vote on this increasing of the penalty.

What are we doing here? We are safeguarding privacy, yet we are expressing a fear and an apprehension that is inconsistent in many ways. When I give my doctor a blood sample, he can do whatever he wants with it. I can volunteer a blood sample to a police officer and he can put my sample into the DNA bank together with the profile. According to the bill, if he misuses it, he can be charged and sentenced to jail for a maximum of five years, but not my doctor. He can use my blood sample in any way he wants. He will not face a charge let alone a five year jail sentence. There is an inconsistency in what we are doing, yet we are doing it. Why are we doing it? Because of the apprehension. By way of examination that apprehension is mythical.

We looked at all of the privacy concerns and the misuse of the profile and the samples. I saw no basis for the concern. Yet we have this here. This kind of apprehension is real. We saw it in the justice officials who appeared before our committee. They were so apprehensive of what the supreme court could do if we went all the way with DNA and allowed the taking of samples at the time of arrest or at least at the time of being charged for one of the primary designated offences. There is an enormous apprehension so I suppose the House will recognize that apprehension whether it has a basis or not and we will proceed cautiously in the shadow of the Supreme Court of Canada.

That is why we are saying if anyone dares to do what anyone else in charge of databanks, blood banks or whatever can do with immunity, we are going to sentence them to a possible maximum penalty of five years. The underlying motivation for it is that apprehension which we recognize as members of parliament, and we have to. Yet at the same time the law enforcement agencies tell us what they need to solve the unsolved crimes.

I will touch on something mentioned by my NDP colleague about the rights of the accused, and he is right. This bill deals with more than just the accused. It also deals with those who have been convicted of one of the designated offences and who is in custody as a result. It will allow for the taking of DNA samples from some of those individuals. It goes beyond just the recognition of the rights of the accused to defend themselves and to not self incriminate.

When we examine what this bill will do, there is no justification for our not going all the way. The reason is that if we examine even what the three former judges have said, we already have the means and the right to take a blood sample if a police officer believes a person is impaired by way of alcohol or drugs while operating a motor vehicle or a vessel. I think it is under section 254. We have that authority now.

When I rushed through the three constitutional legal opinions on this bill, I found only one to be a realistic examination of the inconsistencies that arise. What did Mr. Taylor say about it? He said that it was allowed because it was an offence in progress and that the evidence can dissipate from the system of the individual over a period of time.

Nevertheless, I think it is a very weak argument to suggest that to take a blood sample from that individual under those conditions is constitutional but that it is not constitutional to take a sample from someone who is under arrest and charged with a designated offence, whether it is murder, rape, manslaughter, aggravated assault or one of the other designated offences. I see an enormous inconsistency which is based on apprehension.

The real testimony we should be adhering to and listening to is the testimony that comes from the forensic scientists themselves. They know whether or not there is a privacy danger. They know whether or not there is a possibility of misuse and whether we should guard against that. They know all of these things.

When we listened to the witnesses who appeared before the committee, with the greatest respect to them, we were hearing an apprehension and in most cases a baseless apprehension. We will guard this right of the police to take samples. We will set up hoops for them to jump through. I predict at the end of the day we will deny them the right to take a sample from an individual under charge who has a previous conviction for a designated offence. Perhaps I am speaking ahead of my time but that motion is coming up and we will see how members vote on it.

I simply say that the apprehension contained within this motion where we are going to make it a possible five year jail term for someone who improperly uses a DNA sample is enacted within this legislation. Other databanks do not have that kind of legislation governing the use or misuse of the samples that are taken from babies and individuals every day and which are certainly lodged with their names attached.

I support the motion. I understand the reason for it very clearly. It is simply an expression of the apprehension that surrounds this whole area. Apprehension of what? It is the apprehension of the Supreme Court of Canada. Individuals on that court will examine this from their viewpoint and say either yes or no, that we have gone too far or that it is okay. So far they say it is okay. We can take samples now under certain conditions. All they are really saying is that we can take samples not by statutory authority but by judicial authority. We need judicial authority. A judge must issue a warrant in order to take a sample under bill 104.

It seems that statutory authority is not sufficient. Reasonable and probable grounds to believe someone has committed a designated offence is not enough. Even charging them and having them appear before a judicial official and swearing out an information based upon reasonable and probable grounds is insufficient. Judicial authority is needed through the issuance of a warrant. That is the way it seems to be.

Perhaps we need to move in this slow and cautious way and open it up as years go on until we see that the apprehension and fear is simply a myth and does not really exist.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the motions in Group No. 2. There are three of them and they were all put forward by the Bloc member. I appreciate his participation on the committee, as well as our hon. colleague from the NDP. They were very concerned about this particular area of the bill, that is, the privacy and the potential improper use of DNA samplings.

The question is whether these amendments are needed in order to maintain the safeguard over not only the DNA samples, but the analysis, the profile.

Motion No. 6 has to do with clause 10, paragraph (7). The beginning of it reads: “The Commissioner shall nevertheless destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay”, and then the bill gives the conditions: (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). The hon. member's motion would come in after (e) and read this way: “The Commission shall destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay after a forensic DNA analysis of these substances is first performed under this section”. It says exactly that at the beginning: “The Commissioner shall nevertheless destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay”. Why do we need the second notation to say the very same thing?

Unless I have read this wrong, or unless there is a problem in interpretation, I do not see the purpose of this particular amendment. Maybe my hon. colleagues who support the motion and who moved it can explain the rationale for this, but that provision is already there under 10(7). I do not understand the amendment and I am puzzled over it. It is the same thing with the other two amendments. I think the provisions are already there to deal with the privacy aspect.

My hon. colleague from the NDP who just spoke is concerned about privacy. It is a legitimate concern, but when we examined it in committee the expert witnesses provided very conclusive evidence that the profile of a DNA sample is useless for any other purpose. The sample itself can be used for other purposes, but the profile cannot be. It is the profile that goes into the index. If it is difficult or impossible to remove the profile from the index, what is the concern? What harm can it do? They cannot go further with the profile or do anything more than simply compare it with another profile. If there is an identification of that profile then, of course, they can identify where that sample came from.

I struggle to understand why we are so concerned about a matter when the evidence before the committee indicated a lack of concern.

There is the idea that the taking of a DNA sample is intrusive. However, we now hear that DNA can be picked up off a glass that someone drank from. It can be picked up from a Kleenex used for blowing one's nose. It can be picked up from a swab or a band-aid that might have been put on a finger. I have a band-aid on my finger because I cut myself. If I discarded this, there is my DNA sample.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of samples taken every year. For every child who is born a blood sample is taken. There are blood banks. Every time we go to the doctor to have a medical and a blood sample is taken it is stored. We have not seen any evidence of the abuse of the blood in blood banks now in existence and growing at a fantastic rate, probably faster than the DNA bank will ever grow because for every child who is born a sample is taken and every time we go to the doctor and give a blood sample it goes into a bank somewhere.

If this were a legitimate concern, that someone might have a vested interest in getting hold of these samples to do some kind of insurance check or whatever, I am sure there would be evidence of that now, and there is none.

When we talk about the threat to our privacy with regard to this bill and the powers it will give I think we should balance it with reality. The reality is that there is a huge databank now in the blood banks. We do not see abuse emerging from them that my hon. colleagues have suggested could emerge from a databank controlled by the RCMP.

There is no provision for the misuse of the samples which are now in society's databanks. In this bill we have a two-year penalty for any misuse of those samples, or the profiles. I think that the privacy of the individual who is compelled to submit a DNA sample is well guarded, certainly more so than when I went for my last physical and gave a blood sample. I do not know where that went and I have no reason to be concerned about it at this particular time.

Therefore, if I am not concerned about my sample sitting in some databank in some clinic, why should I be concerned if my sample is sitting in the RCMP databank protected by law, protected by the privacy commissioner who has the right to audit the operation of that bank at any time? Why should I be concerned when these other banks do not have those measures to protect my privacy? I have no concern that those samples I have given over my lifetime are being used improperly.

I think we are raising an issue, the justification for which does not exist. Although I respect the concerns that have been raised by my hon. colleagues and witnesses who appeared before the committee, I say show me where there is justification for this alarm or concern and certainly I will take it under consideration. But I have not seen anything to indicate that. The fact of the matter is that nothing can be drawn from a profile other than the identification factor. From the sample, yes, it can be done.

I will conclude by saying that I believe the samples should not be destroyed inasmuch as the new technology may be able to develop a better form of identification and a higher level of identification. If we can protect the samples or if we can protect the profiles surely we can provide the same protection for the samples under the act given the provisions within the act.