Michel Bellehumeur

[Parenting Arrangements, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the debate we are having this afternoon is a very interesting one.

The hon. member has just said that the federal big brother may be there to protect his province in the event that there is not enough money available to set up family mediation.

He says that there might be financial assistance to set up mediation. Should the federal government once again decide to stick its big nose into this, we in Quebec already have a mediation service, one that costs several million dollars a year. Would he be in favour of a bill that would have the federal government compensate Quebec 100% for its mediation service?

[Parenting Arrangements, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does agree with my point about Quebec's being at the forefront in this area. However, he concluded by saying that the federal government ought not to withdraw completely, because it has a role to play, as leader.

I would like to know exactly what he means by “role to play, as leader” in the area of child custody, alimony, education in terms of level of studies and access. I would like him to tell me not in terms of the Constitution we want, but in terms of the Constitution of 1982. There is something we must not forget. There is a Constitution where Quebec's hand was forced. Perhaps not the hand. I should say it was jammed down our throat, because we did not sign it.

I would like the hon. member to tell me what leadership role, under the Canadian Constitution, the federal government could play in the area of family rights?

[Parenting Arrangements, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands a press release issued by the Government of Quebec. I will read the first paragraph only, after which I will have a question for the hon. member.

September 2, 1997

In Montreal this morning, Quebec's Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Serge Ménard, unveiled the new family mediation program. As of yesterday, there is a new way to approach separation or divorce in Quebec and it is free. Bill 65, an act adding family premediation to the Code of Civil Procedure and amending other provisions in this Code, which was passed by the National Assembly on June 13, came into effect on September 1. For the first time in Quebec, it will now be possible for couples with children to reach agreement on custody, visiting rights, outings, support payments and even the division of property, at no cost.

That is pretty clear, as press releases go. I also think it is pretty clear as to the approach taken by the National Assembly.

My question for the member who has just spoken is this: Does he think that the other provinces should follow Quebec's example in the treatment of families when they separate, and under the new bill, when they divorce as well, with respect to mediation? Does he not think the federal government should withdraw entirely from the family law sector and leave this completely up to the provinces?

[Parenting Arrangements, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would ever so politely say to the hon. member that he ought to have remained a political adviser, because as a politician, at least as an MP representing a Quebec riding—unless I am mistaken—he ought to know that the remarks he has made are totally inaccurate, totally coloured by very negative stereotypes on Quebeckers, who have passed family legislation that is superior to what there is in many other provinces.

There are many MPs who speak in this House but are rarely seen in committee. I invite the hon. member to the justice committee, among others, where subjects like this will be discussed. I hope that the hon. member will, at the very least, be appointed to the joint committee which will examine this matter and which will hear qualified witnesses in this area, from Quebec and elsewhere. Very often, people from outside Quebec are the ones who quote Quebec legislation. I often heard, during the 35th Parliament, people from Vancouver, from Alberta, from the maritimes, quoting legislation, citing Quebec's various social measures as examples. I think that the hon. member across the way is completely unaware of this.

For that reason, I repeat that he might have been better off remaining a politicial adviser. I can understand that perhaps giving opinions like that to the MP he worked for before may be what put an end to his career as a political adviser.

As for the rest, I do not understand the hon. member's question on how divorces in Ontario, in Quebec, in some other province, can be handled if it is not the same law that applies. What happens with separations? The same law does not apply, it depends on whether it is in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia or the maritimes. But do some people end up worse off as a result? No. Because the provinces have passed legislation which reflects what they are.

We in Quebec do things differently than they can in Ontario, for example, or in western Canada. The men of the 1990s in Quebec are not the same as those of the 1970s. Nor are the women involved in cases of divorce and separation in the 1990s the same as the women of the 1970s.

Our experience in Quebec is not necessarily the same as that of Ontario or western Canada. This is why it is absolutely essential that the government opposite understand that it must not interfere in the family law sector, that it must back off and leave the provinces to deal with parenting, support payments, separation and divorce. It must understand that, for the well-being of the public and in the best interests of Quebec families, among others—I will argue for my parish and for Quebec—it must cease to meddle in matters that do not concern it.

[Parenting Arrangements, November 5th, 1997]

Yes, they are supposed to be, as one of my colleagues said. But, perhaps we should look at the background to this motion.

We have to go back to the 35th Parliament, where little deals were made here in the House, not with the duly elected members sitting here, but with the two or three senators who were not sleeping in the other place. Deals were made with the federal government and they were told “Let Bill C-41 on child support pass, and we will find you a little something to do. We will arrange it so you can look at the issues of custody and access after divorce”. That was the deal made at the time to get C-41 through.

What is this motion about? It concerns both divorce and separation. It is much broader. However, the many members opposite who support the minister's motion should open their ears to what a member of the Bloc Quebecois has to say on the matter rather than watching what is happening above. Our comments are important, and perhaps if they paid a little more attention to Quebec's historical demands, we would not be here discussing the distribution of powers or anything else. The problem between Canada and Quebec would have been settled 35 years ago.

That having been said, I understand that the topic, which has to do with child custody from a financial or parenting point of view after separation, is a serious one. We are not saying that it is not serious or important. On the contrary, it is very much so, but it is up to the provinces, not the federal government, to legislate in this area.

As far as Quebec is concerned, I am well placed to address this issue, first because I am an MP from Quebec, and second because I am a lawyer. I argued matrimonial cases before I was elected to office. Since that time, things have even improved in Quebec with the recent reforms introduced by the PQ government, some of which took effect on May 1, 1997, and others of which took effect recently on September 1, 1997.

We in Quebec have a model for setting support payments that reflects the importance Quebec places on its children. This model takes into account the income of both parents and the length of custody. In addition, a form and a guide for determining amounts are made available to parents, mediators, counsel and judges. The model is so good that the federal government has agreed to apply it in cases of divorce, while we naturally applied it in cases of separation, since separation comes under provincial jurisdiction. And all this has been in effect since May 1, 1997.

They are talking about family mediation as though it were the discovery of the century. Family mediation was already around in Quebec when I was practising law, between 1986 and 1995, but since September 1, we have improved our approach, making it much more structured. This family mediation, which we have Minister Serge Ménard to thank for, is free for the first six sessions and may be conducted by lawyers, notaries, guidance counsellors, psychologists, social workers and so on. In 1996, there were 459 mediators in Quebec; today there are 735. There is therefore a market, and this service is used in Quebec.

The legislation provides for a process of registering decisions with a special clerk in order to speed matters up, because there is also an important issue at stake: there is no stalling around when it comes to children's rights, parents' visiting rights, salary, family income; decisions must be taken quickly. A follow-up committee will submit a report on the process to the Minister of Justice, in the fall of 1998. Serious work is being done; measures are being applied and a follow-up will take place.

As you can see, whether it is child support setting, mediation, children's rights, the right to attend school, alimony, etc., Quebec has already adopted major legislation on all these issues. Today, if the federal government really wanted to show its good will in this regard, it could withdraw without any problem from family law and even divorce matters.

It could immediately decide to get out of these areas. A whole section of the Quebec civil code has been passed but is not being applied, because it is beyond our jurisdiction. The National Assembly could immediately and without any problems start dealing with divorces, which would improve harmonization and better reflect what really goes on in Quebec, with a very comprehensive civil code. Our code deals with the appropriate issues and truly meets the needs of Quebec families.

We can dream, but we know the federal government will not do it. In the last 30 years, it has been increasingly interfering in areas under provincial jurisdiction, including those of Quebec.

The motion shows that, when it comes to parenting, the federal government does not hesitate to get involved in this area, which comes under provincial jurisdiction. As I said earlier about the federal government interfering in people's lives, I think that too is not its jurisdiction.

All this to say that my initial reaction to this motion was to say “We in the Bloc Quebecois must not take any part in this charade. We in the Bloc Quebecois must not be a party to this centralizing approach, an approach that does not in any way reflect Quebec's demands”.

However, after talking the matter over with the hon. member for Longueuil in particular—she is very sensitive to the needs of women's groups in Quebec and has met with many groups involved in this matter—I realized that these groups also agree that the federal government is stepping in areas that are none of its concern. They nevertheless wanted us to be involved. They wanted us to be there to voice our opposition to this extremely centralizing bill. And that is what we shall do.

The hon. member for Longueuil, whose professionalism is well known, will take part in this committee to represent Quebec's point of view. She will also make the point that, in Quebec, we are at the forefront in several areas, and family issues in particular.

If at all possible, because I am a perpetual optimist, we in the Bloc Quebecois will try to bring the government and those senators who are not asleep round to our opinion. We will try to convince them that they should not interfere in this area but rather give it over to each province's legislative assembly.

But if we are unable to change their minds on a matter as important as this one, I am confident that the hon. member for Longueuil will let our caucus know and, if the government does not yield to the Bloc's arguments, in her wisdom, she will table a minority report.

That having been said, you will understand that, yes, we will take part in the work of this committee if it is struck. We will pay close attention and very strongly insist that Quebec's demands in this area of jurisdiction be met.

I have been hearing all sorts of comments coming from the other side since I rose to take part in this debate. There is one thing I would like to say: if it is true that the members opposite are so committed to the interests of children, why then have they not yet endorsed the Quebec-France agreement on child support? This agreement directly concerns the children of Quebec, and yet the government opposite is wrangling over procedures, scrutinizing every comma and preventing thousands of Quebec families from receiving child support from overseas.

If the government is truly committed to the interests of children, it should endorse the agreement that has been signed between Quebec and France, and maybe then we will be able to believe them when they say they are committed to families, to sound management in this area of responsibility that does not belong to them.

We will be showing openness by attending the hearings to be held by this committee, although we find it useless and a waste of time, and I hope that the government opposite will at least be smart enough to listen to our demands and to take them into account in any future legislation.

[Parenting Arrangements, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is a rather odd motion we have before us today. When I first looked at it, I was not all that surprised at the government's approach, because as justice critic I have had to look at a number of bills and am becoming increasingly aware that the federal government is, under the guise of the preponderance it claims to have under the Constitution, under the guise of peace, order and good government, or under the guise of criminal law, encroaching more and more on areas under provincial jurisdiction.

This week we had another striking example, Bill C-14 on drinking water. Is there any area more provincial than water? No, yet the federal government is interfering.

Things are getting more and more complicated with the government over there. A while ago, we found it somewhat amusing to watch the matter of which jurisdiction the St. Lawrence River came under. You will see that there is a parallel in this. What they said was “The bottom of the St. Lawrence is federal. The water is provincial. The fish swimming in the St. Lawrence are provincial. As soon as they are caught, taken out of the water, and put into the boat, they are provincial fish in a federally registered boat, constructed under provincial regulations, and governed by federal safety regulations”. So there you are, what a fine great country Canada is.

Finally, we address a subject similar to this motion. When a couple separates in Canada—this is referred to directly in the motion—this is provincial legislation. But when they divorce, this is federal legislation. And if that were not sufficiently complex, the federal government has decided in its wisdom as a centralizer, of course, to table a motion and mandate some of the dear senators. I hope they will find enough of them awake to fill the positions. There will be 7 senators and 16 MPs with the two co-chairs, making up a nice little committee to examine child custody, visiting rights, parenting and so on.

This motion is worded so broadly that it encompasses large areas directly under provincial jurisdiction. I will give you a few examples of this. In Quebec, the mechanisms for implementing custody and visiting rights when there is a separation come under the Civil Code. The federal government has nothing to do with it. Parenting of children comes under parental authority, a jurisdiction of the Quebec National Assembly. The federal government has nothing to do with this. As regards the school system, which is under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government has no business intervening.

Then there is the federal government's unwarranted intrusion in the lives of individuals. The motion talks about “practices that would emphasize joint parental responsibilities and child-focused parenting arrangements based on children's needs and best interests”. What is the federal government doing in this area? Tell me. It is provocation, pure and simple. It has no business in this area of jurisdiction.

I wondered how the people opposite, who are supposed to be intelligent, can be guilty of such provocation?

[Euthanasia, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with an extremely serious matter that must be analyzed in the greatest possible detail. This is an issue that has been discussed for a long time.

I recall very clearly that during the 35th Parliament, this issue was raised several times by the member who tabled this motion and also by Michel Daviault, the Bloc Quebecois member for Ahuntsic. That member went over the issue in great detail, made observations and addressed questions to the government on several occasions on this matter.

Just to remind you once again that it is not the first time that we are dealing with this issue in this House, on June 8, 1995, in a press release, he stated: “It is important that members examine these issues that concern all Quebeckers and Canadians and make recommendations before the House of Commons is called upon to vote on such sensitive matters”.

At one time or another, the government will have to examine carefully this whole matter. With medical advances and given what is acceptable today, which may not have been acceptable yesterday and evolves over time, a responsible government, a government that wants to reflect the evolution of society, will have to get its act together and deal with this area of responsibility, this admittedly difficult issue.

I wish to take the opportunity to congratulate the member who tabled this motion. I know that it is an issue that he has been closely involved with. If there is a member in this House that can speak from experience, it is the member from Burnaby—Douglas. I believe also, however, that this issue must be considered as objectively as possible.

What I find interesting in his motion is the fact that it gives parliamentarians an opportunity to study this matter in a non-partisan manner, with the help of scientists, doctors and families who have lived through such situations, and also in the light of our respective convictions. This is an issue that has social, economic, religious and moral implications.

All sorts of factors come into play, but this motion gives the government an opportunity to examine the issue and to take a real look at what could be done to arrive at a situation acceptable to the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers.

The present context is not an easy one. Some will say that respect for life is being used as an excuse to outlaw killing. I think they are right; that the dignity of human beings is not diminished by suffering. Others, however, will say that the respect for life and the right to die with dignity are personal values and that only the individual who is ill may decide. Legislating euthanasia and assisted suicide therefore poses many ethical problems. I think a committee could give very serious consideration to these ethical and medical factors.

Some news stories have advanced our understanding of this new problem. There was the case of Nancy B., Sue Rodriguez, and the most recent, which is still in the headlines, the case of Robert Latimer, a father accused of ending his daughter's life for reasons everyone has heard about. As we heard on the news, the decision is now under appeal.

There have been different interpretations in the media. However, some extremely important issues have been raised. Yes, the subject must be looked at, but I think it is so important that a very exhaustive study will be required before a bill can be introduced. The issue must be submitted to the House, studied and reported on even before those who will sit on the committee can draft a bill.

It is a complex task for a committee to study a bill. I participated in the review of the Young Offenders Act; the issue was not a heart-wrenching one but I can tell you that after six months, we had not completed the study and we were still pondering many questions.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are related issues. We can easily predict that studying these matters will take a long time. I would not want the committee to be burdened with the task of drafting a bill.

That is why, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will table an amendment to motion M-123. I would like to see a committee struck, a committee to examine the matter, to report to the House, and subsequently, after the public pressure and the societal debate that it will have triggered in a still more structured way—because this will be referred to the justice committee of the House of Commons, with the assistance of the hon. member who will be able to attend—there will be a report that the House will examine and study. I believe that the government across the way, giving it the benefit of the doubt as far as its responsibility is concerned, will be able to respond favourably to the report which would be tabled by the House committee.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the word “64(4)( b )” and by substituting the word “105”, by deleting the words “to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(5)”, and by adding after the words “and that the Committee be instructed”, the words “to report to the House”.

All in all, this amendment is very legalistic, very much in lawyer's jargon, if I can put it that way, but it is aimed at striking a committee. The committee could examine the entire question in a very clear way, report back to the House, and then the government could follow up on it by bringing in a bill, which would be along the lines of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, November 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise to speak to this bill, which, I see, is of particular interest to the government opposite. I would like to commend the member for Huron—Bruce, who seems to have put considerable weight on the government's shoulders this afternoon in the debate of an essentially simple bill, it is true, but one that warrants some comment in order to set out the position of the Bloc Quebecois.

I realize I have 40 minutes, Madam Speaker, but I can tell you right now that I will not use all my time, because we have just found a consensus in the House in support of this bill, which is an excellent bill, because it remedies something that is unfair to the members of the RCMP who took part in peacekeeping missions around the world.

In certain countries, for example Haiti, Bosnia and Uganda, the RCMP were actively involved in peacekeeping missions. This role was all the more important because in some of these countries the RCMP helped local governments set up police forces similar to those found in democratic countries such as Canada or Quebec.

Yes, there must be encouragement for this kind of mission. Yes, there must be support for RCMP members who volunteered their services, who agreed to travel to foreign countries and share their experience by giving courses and training to the inhabitants of these countries so that they could have a good police force. They must be encouraged in various ways.

It is all very fine and well to rise in the House from time to time and make ministerial statements in support of these people as they set out for other countries, but I think it would also be good if RCMP members who are leaving Canada for a short period but an important one nonetheless also felt supported economically. Bill C-12 addresses this.

It was realized that there was a certain difference between members of the RCMP who went on a peacekeeping mission and members of the armed forces who went as peacekeepers or as part of other international organizations on similar missions.

It was realized that the men and women of the RCMP were at a disadvantage on their return with respect to their pensions. This bill is very straightforward in that it corrects this particular inequality between the two groups. The bill amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act by finally giving peacekeeping missions by RCMP officers the same recognition as that given those by members of the Canadian armed forces.

I would like to take this opportunity to echo the sentiments expressed by all members who have already spoken and thank RCMP members for the excellent work they are doing and for their representation of our system outside Canada and Quebec. I think they should be paid tribute and be encouraged to continue.

One way to encourage them open to us is Bill C-12, which we are studying today and which shows without a doubt the esteem in which they are held by the House of Commons.

However, as an opposition party, we are going to do our work properly. I still have a few questions on this bill. These people deserve special consideration. They should be put in the same situation as members of the RCMP who did not leave the country, but we must not, conversely, penalize those who do not leave.

As I read this bill at the moment, I do not see this. Has anyone checked? Did anyone do the calculations required to find out whether we penalize those who stay in the country when we give this advantage to those who leave Canada to work outside the country for a time? Do those who remain have to pay more for those who leave? Is the government investing more? Where exactly are they going to get the budget surplus to meet the requirements of this bill?

The answer is not obvious from reading Bill C-12. We need a clear answer. Will those members of the RCMP who, for personal or family reasons, choose not to participate in peacekeeping missions end up losing? We do indeed have to provide some advantage to those who leave, but we must also think of those who stay behind. I will be looking for answers to this question, for my own reassurance and to reassure those involved in the situation.

I have another question as well. Will officers who remain in Canada have to pay twice for officers on peacekeeping missions who are injured while abroad, because this does happen? We need to know how premiums are affected, as well as what happens in the event of injuries, so that we can determine whether, in the end, they receive the same treatment.

Another question must be answered. How much does the Government of Canada pay when it must send these people to other countries? As you know, when people such as RCMP members travel abroad on duty, they are paid by the UN. Does the UN contribute proportionately to this pension fund? This is another thing we do not know. That will have to be looked into when the bill goes to committee.

At the beginning of my first term of office, in the 35th Parliament, I was the critic for the solicitor general and I had many opportunities to work with members of the RCMP. I know that those officers—I am not talking about senior officers—who do such things as going to Haïti or other countries to give training and assistance are very professional people and believe strongly in what they are doing. They are also very proud of their position.

I think that Bill C-12 meets many of these requirements and that is why, knowing these people as I do, I am pleased to say that we support Bill C-12 and will vote in favour.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this bill, and we are going to try, when it is referred to committee, to verify certain things with RCMP officials, as well as with the Department of National Revenue or other government departments, so as to be sure that the money invested will go to the right place, and that all RCMP members, whether they travel to other countries or stay in Canada, are treated fairly.

[Dna Identification Act, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us this morning truly combines science and new techniques, permitting a fairer society in which as many crimes as possible will be solved.

Why do I say it is a bill that really reflects improvements in science? It is because deoxyribonucleic acid existed all along, but either we were not aware of it or we did not know how much it could contribute to clearing up cases. It is better known as DNA.

For our viewers, DNA, to describe it very simply, involves the chromosomes found in the living cells of the human body and are like a sort of fingerprint. Everyone has their own unique DNA, and as the member who spoke before me said, even identical twins, triplets or quadruplets will have different DNAs, because of their chromosomes, just as in the case of fingerprints. In all the years they have been fingerprinting criminals, no two individuals have been found to have the same prints. According to science, it would never—or at least so it appears—be possible to find two individuals with the same DNA.

At first glance, this bill has an important function: to modernize police techniques and use this discovery to benefit justice.

At the outset, the Bloc supports this action. As it did in the 35th Parliament, it will co-operate in the 36th Parliament with the aim of producing a bill that is as effective and wide-ranging as possible while at the same time respecting the fundamental rights of Canadians and Quebeckers, who would have it no other way even in the case of DNA legislation.

The important thing in a bill such as this one is to achieve a balance between the fight against crime and the respect of individual rights and freedoms, particularly with procedures involving the collection of bodily substances. In terms of the principle underlying the legislation, it goes without saying that the crime rate and the number of unsolved crimes can never be too low. The work performed by the police deserves our attention and support, so we can help the police be increasingly more successful in their work.

However, there is something that absolutely must be said. The public hears all kinds of things. DNA testing is an extremely useful tool. However, given its serious nature—it is basically genetic fingerprinting—and given that it is a very specific procedure, it must not lead to abuse, and police officers must not be allowed to collect genetic samples for just about any offence.

In this respect, the bill has the merit of providing a list of designated offences for which ordinary people would agree that police officers and the judicial system should be allowed to use DNA testing and to collect samples of blood, saliva or other bodily substances from an individual.

I will just mention a few of these offences, but there is a whole list of them. They are all similar and have one thing in common: they are serious offences. They include the use of explosives, sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, murder, homicide, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, torture, rape and arson. With this very specific list of designated offences drafted by the lawmakers, police officers will know precisely when they can collect DNA samples. They will not be allowed to do so for just any offence or reason, but only under very specific circumstances.

That having been said, while continuing to support this kind of bill as we did in the past, we do have some concerns and hope that, in committee, witnesses or the government will be able to reassure us on a number of issues. Playing with the physical integrity of individuals and their genetic identity may lead—and I am not saying it will necessarily happen—to the possible misuse of this new technology.

In terms of confidentiality, this is very important. We do have concerns about the bill as it stands right now. For instance, a question comes to mind about the storage of bodily substances collected under the provisions of clause 10: Why keep samples after the DNA information has been obtained? The police will not be working from the sample afterwards, but from the information provided through analysis of the bodily substances.

Nevertheless, the DNA profile will be stored in one of the two data banks: one for things found at the scene of a crime or of a designated offence—saliva, a strand of hair, blood or whatever is found there goes into a specific index—and another one, the offenders index, for the DNA profiles of individuals convicted of a designated offence under the Criminal Code.

So, why in either case, and particularly in that of the offenders index, keep bodily substances when the DNA profile has been found and is in the computer? I wonder what this sample will be used for? This is not to say I am dead against it. I just want the minister or anyone who will come before the justice and human rights committee to answer this question, which I feel is extremely important, given how serious this bill is, as I mentioned earlier.

Another concern is the taking of samples. We should consider whether any police officer can take such samples. There is no problem in the case of fingerprints. Any officer with the proper training can fingerprint anyone. However, not all police officers can take samples of blood or saliva. I have at least three friends who are police officers and I would never allow them to take a blood sample from me. They are better with a gun than with a needle.

Perhaps it is in that area that the bill should be improved. It is a bit like the people using breathalyzers at police stations. These people have received special training. Perhaps we should specify that only specially trained officers can take samples.

Interestingly, section 17 of the bill stipulates that the person required to provide a sample can choose between blood, hair or any other bodily substance.

I have another concern for which I hope to receive a reply from the government, and it is the communication of a DNA profile to other countries. Of course, we can make regulations in Canada. However, in the case of DNA information concerning a Canadian or a Quebecker that we provide to the United States, to a European country or to any other country, I would like to know and especially to be reassured by the minister that the country who will be receiving this information will treat it in the same manner that it is treated in Canada or, in other words, that it will not be possible to do indirectly what the law in Canada prohibits. For instance, if a sample or a DNA profile is to be destroyed in Canada because the person was found not guilty or for any other reason as outlined in the bill, will the United States, for example, agree to Canada's request to also destroy that information at the same time so that it will not come back to Canada through a friendly country or any other country? I think the government should also provide greater clarification in this regard.

My last point concerns the power of the RCMP commissioner to decide how this information should be used and whether it should be made available to other police forces throughout Canada and Quebec. The bill should include a section requiring the commissioner to publish the name of all those who use this information, so that everything is clear.

That being said, and since my time has run out, I wish to add that I offer my complete cooperation to the government and to the opposition parties so that we can work on making this bill the most practical and the best possible for society.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should not steer away from the motion we are examining. But at this stage, everything is possible. If we really want to consider seriously this issue, we must absolutely not exclude anything.

Are the judges the ones who need education? Is it the procedure by which judges are appointed that can solve the problem? Is it stiffer penalties? Is it education? Is it allowing provincial legislation to deal more adequately with such or such an area? Personally, at this stage, I exclude nothing.

It will be up to the committee to carry out its work in a very independent and professional manner, and the Committee on Justice and Human Rights has shown on several occasions that it can do just that. When all the parties worked together and set politics aside, we have done wonders. I think we will be able once again to go over this issue very effectively and to table a very relevant report in this House.

But in reply to the member, yes, we must maintain a clear objective, which is to deal with the Criminal Code, if anything in it has to be dealt with, to achieve the ultimate objective which is to put an end to the problem of impaired driving. If we have to deal with the judges, we will do that. If we have to deal with something else, we will do that also. The committee will report to you, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you will agree with us.