Philip Mayfield

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary make the comment that no committee witness had advocated this kind of penalty. I would ask him to note that while it may not have happened in committee there have been at least four witnesses in the House of Commons who are advocating that.

I encourage the member not to base his judgments on the legislation simply on the committee and on the witnesses. I encourage him to remember that the members of the House come here with a point of view that represents many other people as well as their own. We represent positions to the House and to the government so that they may be aware that in this instance people are very concerned about the inadequacy of the justice system in apprehending serious violent offenders who are doing great harm and great damage to individuals, to our communities and to the structure of our communities.

There is no question that the issue of the DNA testing is a very serious one. The parliamentary secretary is quite correct when he says that these profiles provide an enormous amount of very personal information.

It is extremely important that everyone realizes that within the legislation it is necessary that this information be used only for what it was intended, that is for the identification of people who have been apprehended and to help in the determination of their innocence or guilt by the evidence provided there.

There are some interesting paradoxes in the government's point of view. As I consider this issue I see how important privacy is. I would not want to diminish that importance in any way. I could also point out other instances where the importance of privacy is not nearly so important.

For example, I received a letter from a constituent who is a financial counsellor. He is concerned about information he has received from StatsCan. Now StatsCan is promoting a purchase of information from individual tax returns, about the financial situation of communities, districts and right down to the individual.

This is all based upon postal code. How could a profile be developed from a postal code? In one instance a postal code might be a large apartment building. It would not be too difficult to determine to which individuals, from the profile that StatsCan provides, it would apply in a very personal way. As members are aware, the information that comes out of a person's income tax return is pretty personal.

I want to tell of another instance of a profile based upon a postal code. When my family and I lived in Calgary we had a house on a corner of a block in that city where we had an individual postal code for that house in that city.

I did not realize at the time that by postal code profiles StatsCan could open my income tax return to financial institutions, financial advisers and anyone who cared to pay them money for the information.

My point is that there are some instances where personal privacy is very important to the government. In other instances it is not nearly so important.

I believe that Motion No. 7 is drawing attention to the importance of the private nature of this information. If it must be used for a specific purpose only and beyond that there is a heavy penalty, it draws attention to the importance of this personal information. It must be used in an appropriate way. If it is not used in an appropriate way then there are serious consequences.

I congratulate the member for Sydney—Victoria for presenting the motion. I think it is timely. I think it draws attention to a very important aspect of the bill. I notice my colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned that he is a defence attorney. Now that we have had both the prosecution and the defence speak on this issue, as well as a number of lay people like myself, we have our bases covered.

Strengthening this section to make it a more serious offence by increasing the maximum sentence for indictable offences may serve as more of a deterrent for those who may entertain some thoughts of misusing this information.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-3. The Group No. 2 amendments deal with the disposition of DNA evidence which I will talk about.

First, I will tell a little story. A couple of years ago my constituency office was broken into at night. No one was there and no one was hurt. The next morning the police came and discovered that the television set was all that was missing. It is too bad because it was a new television set. The police dusted the place for fingerprints. They talked to us for a while and then went away. That evening a police officer came to my home with my television set in his arms. I asked him how he got it back so quickly. He replied that there had been a fresh snowfall the night before. They simply followed the footprints of the fellow to a vacant garage where he had put the television set, waited for him to return and they picked him up. I tell this story a bit facetiously.

The act states that DNA profiles are uniquely private and personal information that may be used only for purposes of identification. It strikes me that that is basically what fingerprints are about. I am really glad that fingerprints are already included in the legislation. I would hate to think what would happen if we tried to legislate and categorize footprints in the snow. I can see the problems that would exist for some of our Liberal colleagues. It might be discrimination against a person on the basis of his weight because the impression was deep in the snow. It may have been a man, a woman or a crippled person and we could tell by the way they walked. We would be discriminating against these people by using such evidence.

My concern is that in looking at the DNA issue we are looking at a means of identifying someone who has done something really bad. We need to know who that person is and call that person quite appropriately to account for what they have done. The only reason the DNA evidence is needed is for identification. It should be kept on file until that purpose is accomplished. The only reason is for identification. It is not to talk about the genetic type of the person or to talk about latent genetic defects that may exist in future generations, it is only for identification. All of these other issues are protected.

This is an important issue for Reform members. In fact in the last parliament an almost identical bill, Bill C-94, was introduced toward the end of the second session. Even though the bill was seriously flawed, our party was willing to walk with the government, to fast track it through parliament. We felt that this DNA tool was just too important for our law enforcement agencies to be without.

The amendments in Group No. 2, all proposed by the Bloc member for Charlesbourg, relate to the destruction of DNA evidence. Why would it be important to destroy DNA evidence that has been appropriately collected?

I am concerned about Motion No. 6 which states: “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”. Why would we destroy this evidence without delay?

The concern that comes to mind when looking at this motion may be cost. We are aware of the concern over the cost of establishing and maintaining this databank.

However, this amendment could actually increase the costs of the databank, not only the costs involved in the destruction of the evidence, but the costs of re-establishing the evidence, regaining the evidence or seeking the evidence from someone who is no longer around. What happens then?

As we are well aware, technology is expanding at a tremendous rate. As technology develops, tests and analysis change and improve. Although the DNA analysis is far more accurate than other technologies we have seen to date, in a couple of years this analysis may prove dramatically better than it is today.

In some sense, then, it seems like a waste of time and money to destroy evidence now which may be required at a later date for re-analysis.

As I think of the premature destruction of DNA materials I am concerned about the possible inaccuracies, the mistakes that could be made by a technician in analyzing the DNA evidence at hand. If the evidence is misanalyzed and then immediately destroyed, how do we recover the loss? I alluded to this earlier. This is still a relatively new technology. The tests and the analysis are not totally foolproof yet.

What happens if a technician who runs the initial tests did something wrong and, as a result, the analysis is off? What happens if the person whose sample is falsely analyzed is not in custody, is not available, cannot be found and the law enforcement agencies cannot obtain another sample?

I think it is much more cost effective and safer to keep these DNA substances in storage for a specified period of time rather than to prematurely destroy this valuable evidence.

This raises the question of why we destroy evidence that is legally, properly, appropriately gathered and is stored and maintained only for the purposes of identification. Why can this not be kept on record simply as fingerprints are today?

I cannot understand why there would need to be a move to destroy this evidence. It seems to me that it would be of benefit in two ways. First, if someone has committed a crime the evidence is there on file and can be used for identification purposes at a later date if that person reoffends. Second, if someone is apprehended this evidence could well turn out to be what is required to free an innocent person. The issue cuts both ways.

It is not only the apprehension of those who are guilty who we are concerned about, but the correct application of justice so that those who do not offend and who are apprehended and mistakenly charged may be cleared and the charges dropped.

Those people may then go about having normal lives with their families without further disruption and harm.

These are the concerns that I have. I hope to be able to speak to the other groups as they come up. I find this issue one that is interesting. It is extremely important for the maintenance of justice. We have seen time and again how people who have been incorrectly convicted and sent away to jail for long periods of time have had their names cleared with the proper use of DNA evidence.

We cannot forget this. It is too important. It is a valuable tool. We must use it as vigorously as necessary within properly prescribed limits and we must quit the nonsense of how we can avoid using it when it is needed.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for that point. However, I intend to use the latitude I need to discuss these issues.

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

As it stands, Bill C-3 now is a hindrance to more effective law enforcement and a safer society. Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to express a willingness to place the lives and the safety of innocent people in jeopardy.

Whether by paroling violent offenders who go on to rape and murder again or by freeing convicted violent offenders through conditional sentencing or by tying our police officers hands through Bill C-3, the safety of society it would seem is a secondary issue for the Liberal government.

I know the government is a little apprehensive about the invasion of privacy and to a certain degree I am as well. Privacy is an issue I have studied. It is an issue that concerns me greatly. However, it seems there is a point when we must also take into consideration first of all the protection of society.

I feel this tool if it is to be used effectively can do this. We want to do more good than harm in getting violent offenders off the street. There has to be a balance between respecting the rights of innocent individuals and the protection of society from violent and repeat offenders.

We have to be certain that the rights of innocent individuals are not trampled on. Innocents have a right too. This must be clearly taken into consideration.

And so we see there is a fine line between infringing on the rights of the individual and one who has committed a crime, especially serious violent crimes. When someone commits a crime they have violated the societal laws and therefore should not be subject to the same rights and privileges as others in society. By their actions they have in a sense lost the right to those privileges.

I feel the government has forgotten this and that those criminals should not still enjoy the same rights and privileges as those of us who have not committed crimes, in some cases jeopardizing the safety of the rest of society as a result.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-3 at report stage as we discuss the amendments. Bill C-3 is an act respecting DNA identification.

As some of my colleagues have already mentioned, the Reform Party is fully supportive of the creation of a DNA databank and the use of that information in detecting and prosecuting those who committed crimes. However the bill has a scope that is so limited we would be unable to support it as it is. Therefore the amendments here are of some importance.

As almost anyone who is aware of this issue and the debate taking place on it will know, the official opposition is firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with a true sense of security. This is something Canadians lack. Canadians do not feel secure. They do not feel secure from those who would attack them, rob them and harm them. Nor do they feel secure in the apprehension of those who do this. They do not feel secure with regard to the prosecution and punishment of criminals.

My constituents in Cariboo—Chilcotin are greatly alarmed when they see instances of heinous and bloody crimes being committed and the evidence being thrown out on a technicality, a technicality that rests mostly on the latest thought a judge may have.

As we talk about DNA, my constituents see this as a very important tool in the detection of crime and in its prosecution.

Bill C-3, as it now stands, will provide Canadians with some sense of security but in my opinion a false sense of security. Neither my colleagues nor I can support this legislation as it now stands.

Our constituents need to be assured that those who protect us are given real tools, not imaginary tools, tools that are available to them to fight against violent offenders in society. Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces, the officials who maintain the law, the full use of DNA technology which has now become fairly readily available even though it is an expensive tool.

One wonders, when we consider the expense of using faulty or less effective means of apprehending and prosecuting criminals, whether this is a false sense of economy when we talk about the costs of using this DNA technology.

There is another point that also needs to be considered and that is the use of this technology not only for prosecution but for the defence and the freeing of those who are innocent. We have recent examples of this in Canada. There are very sad stories of people who have been in the wrong place or the right place at the wrong time and have been apprehended, charged, tried and convicted. Yet when all the evidence is on the table, these people turn out to be totally innocent. They and their families end up going through not weeks and months but years and years of a sense of betrayal by a justice system that is more interested in convicting someone in these instances than in convicting the correct person.

We are not only interested in correctly solving violent crimes but also in seeing that justice is appropriately applied to the right person.

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

However, because of the government's irrational fear of violating the privacy rights of those responsible for these heinous crimes, it is intending to restrict the use of a very important technology by law enforcement officials.

Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of a DNA sample at the time of charge. It does not permit samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals other than those designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers. Bill C-3 does, however, provide a dangerous and unnecessary exemption authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a sample if they believe that in doing so the impact on the individual's privacy and security—

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, tonight's vote is about real people like Ronald Thiel of Saanichton, B.C. who was infected with hepatitis C through tainted blood when he had a heart valve replaced in 1983.

His liver is badly damaged. He had to stop working at age 53. He has suffered many medical complications which have made his life a misery. He writes “I know that I am dying before my time but I have no intention of going to my grave without fighting this injustice as long as I can”.

Mr. Thiel speaks for all excluded hepatitis C victims when he paraphrases Shakespeare. “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? If you wrong us, do we not revenge?”

The government cannot escape its responsibility. The victims of the tainted blood scandal and the people of Canada will one day require justice. But how much more honourable, how much more noble it would be for this parliament to offer compassion to the suffering today, rather than be forced to do so by the heavy hand of the law tomorrow.

[Petitions, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from citizens of the Cariboo—Chilcotin constituency who reside in Williams Lake and 150 Mile House, British Columbia.

The petitioners request that parliament impose a moratorium on Canadian participation in the MAI negotiation until full public debate in the proposed treaty has taken place across the country, so that all Canadians may have an opportunity to express their opinions and decide on the advisability of proceeding with the MAI.

[Hepatitis C, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, is there no limit to which this government will sink into the stinking swamp of political degradation?

How can an opposition motion ever cause a vote of confidence in the government? Only when the government is determined to strong arm its members into holding their noses and voting against what is right.

Hepatitis C victims are further victimized by this government's unwillingness to provide just compensation for the government's irresponsibility. Why is the government putting its politics before the needs of these victims?

Only a thorough reform of this parliament will allow it to be the democratic institution that represents the Canadian people and not a political machine. Call your MP, call the health minister and call the Prime Minister to let them know what you think, not only about their hepatitis C compensation package, but also about their refusal to listen to Canadians and the need for parliamentary reform.

[Petitions, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second two petitions are also from the citizens of Quesnel. There are 50 signatures on each petition. The petitioners request that parliament deny the right of any board or group to remove or confiscate natural herbal supplements until public hearings are held across the country.

[Petitions, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions from the citizens of Quesnel in the constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin.

The first petition has 50 signatures. The petitioners request that parliament impose a moratorium on ratification of the MAI until full public hearings on the proposed treaty are held across the country so that all Canadians can have an opportunity to express their opinions on it.

[Committees Of The House, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, all of the opposition parties, the Reform, the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party, have unanimously agreed to present a dissenting opinion to this report.

The fact that all four opposition parties agreed to this dissenting opinion says a lot about the difference of opinion on this issue existing between the opposition and government members of the committee. We are all concerned with the government's failure to follow what are standard accounting procedures. We also feel that the government should take every step possible to avoid receiving another qualified opinion from Parliament's watchdog, the auditor general, on its latest budget.