Pierrette Venne

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as we now know criminal gangs of all kinds are expanding and do not hesitate to impose their law wherever they can and wherever it is profitable.

In Quebec a criminal gang like the Hell's Angels does a lot more than simply manage some trafficking. These people do not hesitate to use all means at their disposal, including of course illegal ones, to eliminate all those who put themselves in their way. Not long ago, I was against the adoption of an anti-gang legislation.

At the time I was convinced that police forces and the judicial system had all the tools they needed to stop the activities of all criminal organizations in Canada without exception and put all their members behind bars.

With passage of Bill C-95 in April of 1997, I believe like many others, that some provisions of the new act, namely those on search and seizure, penalties for gang members, electronic surveillance, explosives and crime proceeds, could actually stop the illegal activities of most of these criminal organizations. Unfortunately I now have to change my mind since I see no real improvement in the fight against the activities of these criminal gangs.

I therefore urge members of the House to seriously consider any new reasonable measure that could help to put a stop to this high level criminality. Under the present circumstances, it seems almost impossible to put these offenders behind bars because they use the current legislation to thwart the very provisions that are supposed to put them out of business.

How is it that we cannot connect certain shifty individuals with organizations like biker gangs or well-known mafia groups? And how is it that it is almost impossible to connect many criminals with violent crimes or some other offence like drug trafficking?

Obviously I would not want to see the Canadian authorities go on a purposeless witch hunt across the country. I am quite capable of seeing the difference between ordinary people and notorious criminals. I also know, however, that there are many dangerous individuals out there who are members of the 35 biker gangs known in Canada who are ready to do anything and who brag about having committed criminal acts without being bothered by the authorities.

I therefore think it is important for us to adopt new anti-gang legislation that would give us the tools to separate the good citizens from the bad criminals, members of all kinds of organizations whose ultimate aim is to commit offences that will give them enormous financial benefits and even more power.

In other countries such as the United States, France, Italy and Russia there are laws that try to improve the tools the police and judiciary have at their disposal to help them fight organized crime.

For example, our neighbours to the south have the RICO Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which targets four violations related to infiltration of businesses by gangsters. About fifty offences are clearly mentioned in that legislation and offenders are liable to a life sentence or twenty years in prison.

Contrary to what some parts of our Bill C-95 provide for, in the U.S. a person charged with an offence does not have to be convicted of the criminal activities mentioned in the RICO Act. The prosecution just has to prove that some crimes, such as extortion, theft, arson, abduction, fraud or the printing of counterfeit money, were committed.

Furthermore, with the RICO Act, contrary to what happens in Canada, there is a procedure called the reverse burden of proof. Under this procedure, once certain criminal activities have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, the accused has to demonstrate to the court that the source of his assets is legitimate.

In Quebec as everywhere else in Canada, if members of the House were to promptly pass some new anti-gang legislation, we could, from then on, require any member of a criminal gang to explain before the court where he got luxury items, such as residences, cars, jewels and so on, when his income tax return shows a very modest annual income.

Another good example is section 265 of the French criminal code, passed in February 1981. It is the only one to explicitly forbid membership in a criminal organization. It says, and I quote:

Anyone found guilty of membership in an association or involvement in an agreement designed to take one or several measures in preparation for one or several crimes against persons or property offences shall be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of five to ten years and may be denied entry.

As people say in France, it is a well-known fact that membership in a crime syndicate is illegal.

Unlike what we see in Quebec and in Canada, criminals in France do not operate openly. If they were still in existence, the Bonnot gang would not be allowed to have a bunker or use calling cards. Some of its members would not be using complimentary tickets to attend a boxing gala.

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois recently reminded us that organized crime is responsible for over 150 violent deaths. He also added that we now have a consensus in Quebec to act quickly to fight organized crime.

The Bloc Quebecois, the Quebec government, the Quebec Press Council and the Montreal Urban Community Police Department are among the groups urging the federal government to introduce harsher legislation against organized crime.

In our view, a partial suspension of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not to be excluded if it could help to achieve the desired effects, namely to quickly quash any increase in violence and the feeling that these criminals are untouchable, as they would like the population to believe.

Believe me when I say that I am not trying to score political points when I stand here in the House to demand changes to the criminal code. In fact, because the illegal sale of all kinds of drugs brings every year some $10 billion to drug traffickers, we have to deal swiftly and firmly with such criminal activities. Are members aware that some young prostitutes hit the streets as soon as 6 a.m. because they need a fix?

The work of the House sub-committee on organized crime will surely continue for some time, I hope, in spite of the remarks made a little earlier by our Liberal colleague. However, we feel it is urgent to act in order to deal swiftly and effectively with those who treat the laws with contempt.

Personally, I think it is urgent to act to quickly better equip ourselves to effectively counter organized crime because the situation is catching up with us.

In conclusion, I urge members of the House as well as government members to act as quickly as possible in order to repress more effectively all criminal gangs at work in Quebec as well as across Canada.

I feel that the shortcomings of several of our laws are major assets for organized crime and its supporters. I would even add that the strength of organized crime lies in the weakness of our actions.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the escalation of violence is a sign of the powerlessness of the police to do anything about organized crime, which is growing faster than our efforts to come up with a means of stamping it out. This is why, for years now, the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for real anti-gang legislation which would give the police the tools they need to combat this form of crime.

On September 14, the Bloc Quebecois accordingly gave notice of a motion calling on the federal government to introduce anti-gang legislation before October 6, 2000.

We believe that the House must make it very clear that it does not intend to yield to criminal groups' attempts at intimidation. Members of the House must join forces, stand firm against the actions of members of organized crime and demand that the federal government amend the legislation immediately.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will also speak on Bill C-18, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving causing death and other matters).

Bill C-18 amends the criminal code by increasing the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death, which is presently of 14 years of imprisonment, to life imprisonment.

This bill will allow a justice to issue a warrant authorizing the taking of a blood sample in order to establish the presence of drugs in the blood of an individual involved in an accident causing bodily harm to himself or to another person or the death of the latter. Formerly, blood analysis was only authorized to determine the presence of alcohol in the blood.

The Bloc Quebecois strenuously objects to increasing the maximum penalty for impaired driving from 14 years to life imprisonment. The Bloc Quebecois believes that this bill would deny the characteristics of this offense and create a serious imbalance in our criminal justice system.

I will now explain the reasons for our opposition to this bill.

The courts, which are presently the most competent to analyze the characteristics of each offender, have not exhausted the resources of the criminal code, which presently sets at 14 years the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death.

As a matter of fact, so far the heaviest sentence handed down by a court for impaired driving causing death was 10 years of imprisonment. The percentage of individuals sentenced to imprisonment for impaired driving dropped from 22% in 1994-95 to 19% in and 1997-98. Prison sentences given in those cases were mainly less than two years.

Despite the rather serious nature of impaired driving causing death, it is false to claim that we are presently facing a rash of crimes of this type. In 1998, 103 persons were charged with impaired driving causing death, the lowest number of charges since 1989.

Canada has become a leader in incarceration. Its rates of incarceration are right behind those of the United States.

Canada imprisons twice as often as most European countries. In this regard, Justices Cory and Iacobucci of the Supreme Court of Canada recently criticized, in Gladue , the considerable ease with which the federal legislator has recourse to imprisonment in dealing with delinquency problems. Here is what they said:

Canada is a world leader in many fields, particularly in the areas of progressive social policy and human rights. Unfortunately, our country is also distinguished as being a world leader in putting people in prison.

Although the United States has by far the highest rate of incarceration among industrialized democracies, at over 600 inmates per 100,000 population, Canada's rate of approximately 130 inmates per 100,000 population places it second or third highest. Moreover, the rate at which Canadian courts have been imprisoning offenders has risen sharply in recent years, although there has been a slight decline of late.

A careful reading of the criminal code reveals the legislator's clear preference for imprisonment, because the sentences indicated for most offences are maximum sentences.

Representatives of the community have noted that imprisonment is not only extremely expensive but does not have the desired dissuasive and rehabilitative effects. The comments made by the Canadian Sentencing Commission are along that line. In a report entitled “Sentencing Reform in Canada: A Canadian Approach”, the commission says the following:

Canada does not imprison as high a portion of its population as does the United States. However, we do imprison more people than most other western democracies. The Criminal Code displays an apparent bias toward the use of incarceration, since for most offences the penalty indicated is expressed in terms of a maximum term of imprisonment.

A number of difficulties arise if imprisonment is perceived to be the preferred sanction for most offences. Perhaps most significant is that although we regularly impose this most onerous and expensive sanction, it accomplishes very little apart from separating offenders from society for a period of time.

In the past few decades, many groups and federally appointed committees and commissions given the responsibility of studying various aspects of the criminal justice system have argued that imprisonment should be used only as a last resort and(or) that it should be reserved for those convicted of only the most serious offences.

However, although much has been said, little has been done to move us in this direction.

Given these extremely convincing comments by qualified people, one wonders what the minister hopes to achieve by increasing the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death from 14 years to life imprisonment. We think this government is trying to please voters it is afraid to lose to the Canadian Alliance.

In an article published on June 3, 1999 in La Presse , editorial writer Pierre Gravel clearly explained what is happening with the Liberals when it comes to criminal issues. Mr. Gravel wrote:

But when the government, as it is currently the case, faces an ultra-conservative and populist opposition such as the Reform Party, which always advocates harsher sentences to ensure law and order everywhere, there is inevitably the risk of having the most radical solutions, which do not always reflect the reality and whose greatest value is to calm down an exasperated population whose desire for retaliation is constantly exacerbated by demagogues.

When, in addition to that, the party in office feels the imperious need to become more popular with a group of citizens who applaud the uncompromising attitude of the opposition, we find ourselves with an unacceptable bill such as the one that triggered the out-and-out and, in this case, fully justified opposition of the Bloc Quebecois.

By introducing Bill C-18, the Minister of Justice is showing her inability to manage complex problems without resorting to dangerously repressive measures. There is no justification for this attitude, because crime has been on the decline in Canada for many years. Furthermore, there are no studies showing the effectiveness of such an approach.

The Bloc Quebecois views impaired driving causing death as a very serious offence. We believe that the gravity of this offence is correctly reflected in the maximum sentence possible, which right now is 14 years in prison.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that prison is the worst tool for raising people's awareness, and that is why we are opposed to Bill C-18, which unjustifiably increases the sentence for impaired driving.

As members know, penitentiary is seen as the ideal school for crime and a person who does not start out with the profile of a hardened criminal could show severe behavioural problems after a prolonged stay behind bars. Prison must be the last solution for dealing with the problem of crime.

With this legislation, a drunk driver, whose negligence is not in any doubt, could be given a heavier sentence than a hired killer who, having deliberately set out to assassinate someone, gets a reduced sentence for being an informer. Should someone who has gone overboard on New Year's Day be treated in the same way as a member of organized crime? Both individuals have admittedly committed very reprehensible deeds. However, their profiles are very different and Bill C-18 does not address this.

If Bill C-18 is passed, the penalty for dangerous driving causing death will not be as heavy as for impaired driving causing death. In the case of dangerous driving causing death, the criminal code provides for 14 years in prison and, since 1995, Canadian courts of appeal have handed out jail sentences averaging 19 months for this type of offence.

How can the minister justify a shorter sentence for someone who cold-bloodedly and in full possession of his faculties kills someone while driving recklessly than for someone driving under the influence of alcohol? Logic would call for a life sentence for the offence of dangerous driving causing death.

Let me give more examples of serious crimes committed by people who are fully aware of what they are doing, and who would be less severely punished than drunk drivers if Bill C-18 were passed.

Take murder, for example. Attempted murder would be less severely punished than impaired driving causing death, which, under section 463( a ) of the criminal code, carries a sentence of up to 14 years in prison.

My second example is that of an individual who is an accessory after the fact by helping a murderer escape. Our justice system would be more lenient with this individual than with one charged with impaired driving causing death, for which the criminal code provides a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.

Criminals involved in gang activities and organized crime are subject to a maximum sentence of 14 years in a penal institution. What utter nonsense. An individual who commits aggravated assault, by wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering the life of another person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, under section 268 of the criminal code.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will staunchly oppose Bill C-18. It is jeopardizing our justice system through a more repressive attitude in sentencing. This is both useless and futile, and the Bloc Quebecois is against this.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to make the government realize that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-18. This bill will increase the maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death from 14 years to life imprisonment.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the 14 year sentence currently provided under the Criminal Code is adequate and reflects the seriousness of the offence. We are simply proposing to delete clause 2 of this bill, which changes the penalty for that crime.

Bill C-18 gives us an opportunity to reflect on the appropriateness of a jail sentence. In doing so, we must first ask ourselves about the needs of the victim, of the offender and of the community once a crime has been committed.

Victims need to express what they went through and to receive compensation for the harm caused to them. They also need to have their rights upheld.

Offenders, on the other hand, need to understand their actions and to take responsibility for them. They should be given the opportunity to explain their action to the victim and also to change their behaviour.

The community also has needs that must be met. Those needs are more abstract, but they are just as important. The community wants to be protected from crimes. Sometimes, a token bid of restitution is necessary to repair the harm caused to the community. Doing community work is a good example of a measure that makes up for the prejudice caused by the offender to the community.

Are these needs met by imposing a jail sentence? I am tempted to say that they are not entirely met under the existing system and that they are sometimes not met at all.

The main reason for this situation is that the system pays more attention to the fact that a criminal act is perceived as a violation of a law, rather than as an action that causes a prejudice to the victim and to the community. Within this view of criminal justice we are seeking to punish the offender instead of trying to remedy the harm he has done to the victim.

The preferred way of punishing criminals these days seems to be imprisonment. We are stuck in our present approach for determining sentences and the reason we are is that we have no other means for responding to the needs of the community, the victim and the perpetrator.

The Bloc Quebecois does not see any way in which increasing to life imprisonment the 14 year sentence for impaired driving causing death can meet the needs of the community, the victim and the perpetrator.

The message the Bloc Quebecois is attempting to deliver here is not that imprisonment must never be used. We know that, under certain circumstances, there is no other solution but imprisonment to meet the needs of victims and the community.

The criminal code provides a maximum sentence of 14 years for impaired driving causing death, and we do not feel that increasing this to a life sentence will do anything more than punish for the sake of punishment.

As we have said on a number of occasions, the rate of imprisonment in Canada is the highest of all democratic countries in the west, with the exception of the United States. It has, moreover, been proven that not only do incarceration rates and sentence lengths do nothing to improve the rate of recidivism and the crime rate in general, but they sometimes have the opposite effect, and make it worse.

Nevertheless, we continue to incarcerate people and the federal prison population is increasing at a rate that points to a 50% rise within the next 10 years.

The adult correctional system cost some $2 billion in 1992.

It cost about $52,000 a year to keep one offender in prison, whereas it would have cost $10,000 to supervise an offender in the community. Where are we going with Bill C-18?

The minister is not addressing the problems coherently and is proposing a simplistic solution to the scourge of impaired driving.

I would like to conclude with an example to illustrate my remarks. I refer to the case of Kevin Hollinsky of Windsor, Ontario. The events of which date back to 1994.

This young man went with friends, as many adolescents will do, to a bar in downtown Windsor. On his way back, at the wheel of his 1985 Firebird, he and his friends tried to catch the attention of a group of girls in another car. Kevin Hollinsky was driving too fast and lost control of his car in a dangerous curve.

The consequences of these acrobatics were disastrous. Two of Kevin's friends died in the accident, two others were injured. Kevin himself was not hurt.

He pleaded guilty to two counts of dangerous driving causing death. For dissuasion purposes, the crown prosecutor sought a sentence of 8 to 14 months imprisonment, in order to teach a lesson to other young drivers.

Local police who worked on the case felt that a very clear message needed to be sent that impaired driving causing death would carry a jail sentence.

Kevin did not go to jail. This was because of the extraordinary actions of the parents of the two boys who were killed and a courageous and innovative judge, who dared to hand down a community service sentence instead.

Here is what was decided. With the co-operation of the Windsor police, a program was set up whereby Kevin would visit schools with what remained of his car to speak to students about the events of that tragic evening.

Kevin Hollinsky was sentenced to 750 hours of community service and met with 8,300 students in the course of this innovative program.

For anyone doubtful about the effectiveness of this sentence, I should mention that, during the summer following Kevin's presentations, no secondary school students were involved in any serious or fatal car collisions in the counties of Windsor or Essex.

A secondary school principal told the police that he was sure that this initiative would save lives. During his 30-year career as a teacher, he had never heard a talk that had such a powerful impact on students.

Admittedly the dissuasive effect would not have been the same if young Kevin had been given a jail sentence.

This case was appealed by the crown prosecutor. Let us not forget that the appeal courts have established that a jail sentence is appropriate in almost all cases of death resulting from a highway accident caused by gross negligence. In November 1995, after deliberating half an hour, three appeal court judges confirmed the initial sentence.

There are many people who have committed a serious crime for which jail is not necessary and could even be ineffective for the offender and for the real needs of the community. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is vigorously opposed to Bill C-18 and is proposing that clause 2 simply be dropped from the bill.

I urge all members of the House to reflect on the consequences of tougher sentences for impaired driving offences. I hope that the example I have given will convince them to support the Bloc Quebecois amendment.

[Petitions, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House today a petition from constituents of my riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

The petitioners call on parliament to allocate sufficient funds to research into alternative energy sources so that, in the near future, Canadians would no longer be forced to turn to oil as a main energy source.

[National Defence Act, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-10, which amends mainly the National Defence Act.

This bill will authorize military judges to issue DNA warrants to take bodily substances for the purpose of deriving the DNA profile of the military suspected or convicted of designated offences.

Bill S-10 is an addition to the existing legislation providing similar authorities to be exercised by a provincial court judge under the Criminal Code to allow the taking of bodily substances for DNA analysis.

Under this bill, a military judge will be able to order the taking of bodily substances in cases of offences under the Criminal Code and specific military offences like striking a superior officer or striking a subordinate.

DNA profiles of the military will be included in the DNA bank just as those of civilians. This bank will also include the profiles of human cells found at the scene of a crime, and they will be compared to the profile of suspected or convicted offenders. Thus, it will be possible to find the criminal as quickly as possible and with great accuracy. The Canadian DNA bank should be operational by the end of June, as mentioned a moment ago by the parliamentary secretary.

Canada is not the first country enacting legislation to take bodily substances for DNA analysis and create a bank of DNA profiles. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium already have legislation authorizing the taking and storing of DNA data.

Some American States have also enacted such legislation. The French are presently studying legislation to authorize the taking and storing of such data.

Let me describe briefly the overriding legislation in these countries and compare it with the legislation that will soon come into force in Canada.

The United Kingdom pioneered in this regard when it passed legislation to authorize the taking of bodily substances and the storing of the DNA profiles derived from them. The United Kingdom DNA data bank has been operational since April 1995 and it is operated by the Forensic Science Service.

Contrary to the Canadian legislation, where a police officer must obtain a warrant from a judge for the taking of bodily substances, the British legislation empowers police officers to make the decision as to whether to take a sample from suspects. The police officer must obtain the consent of the person before taking an “intimate” sample of substances. “Intimate” refers to a sample of blood, sperm or urine, a dental impression or a sample from a bodily orifice other than the mouth.

The police officer does not have to obtain the consent of the person before taking a “non intimate” sample. Such a sample could be a fingernail clipping, a sample from the mouth or from any other part of the body, or a foot impression.

These samples are taken from anyone suspected of having committed a criminal act. Under the British legislation, a criminal act includes all crimes, with violence or not, which are punishable by a term of imprisonment.

The Canadian legislation is very different. In Canada, a judge will be able to order offenders suspected of a designated offence to provide samples of bodily substances. Whenever someone is convicted of an offence, the Canadian parliament has decided that giving samples of bodily substances will be mandatory but only in the case of the most severe crimes, such as sexual assault, murder and other such crimes.

However, in the case of summary convictions for lesser offences, a Canadian judge will have the authority to order the taking of samples of bodily substances if he is convinced that the infringement on the offender's privacy is not excessive compared to public interest.

In the United Kingdom, bodily substances are used to prove or disprove the involvement of a person in a specific offence. It is possible to keep the data in a data bank when the person is convicted of the offence. The data are destroyed whenever the suspect is acquitted or dies.

The United Kingdom goes further than Canada and other countries where there is a legislation on the taking of bodily substances. A British policeman can collect a non intimate specimen on a person accused of an offence even if that specimen is not related to the crime committed.

In that case, the specimen is not collected to prove or disprove the involvement of the person in the offence but simply because the person is accused and that it may be possible to link that individual to other offences.

Before the British law regulating the taking of DNA samples was passed, the United Kingdom systematically conducted DNA analyses among the population in order to find the authors of crimes. Indeed, in the Pitchford case, in order to solve the rape and murder of two teenage girls, the police had taken over 3,600 DNA samples from men in the area where the crimes had been committed. After the case was solved, the police used the 3,600 samples to establish cross-references with other crimes.

It is obvious that the British justice system gives more power to the police and puts less emphasis on civil liberties. Canadian law is less permissive and states clearly under which circumstances the police can take a sample. I believe our DNA legislation strikes the right balance between the need to find and punish the guilty party and individual freedoms.

Following the Dutroux tragedy, Belgium passed legislation dealing with tidentification through DNA analysis within its criminal justice system. This legislation is similar to ours.

First of all, the Belgian penal code was adapted to allow the analysis of human cells found at a crime scene and to allow the taking of DNA samples from individuals suspected of being involved in a crime.

And then, two databanks were set up. The first one consists of a crime scene index containing DNA profiles derived from bodily substances found on the crime scenes. The other one is the convicted offenders index containing DNA profiles obtained from convicted offenders.

The Belgian national institute of forensic sciences and criminology manages the genetic index. This state institution also has the mandate to carry out expert analyses on samples collected at the scene, to do research and development in the DNA field and to oversee the training and regulation of technical and scientific police services. It also deals with the laboratory for the technical and scientific police services and the reference laboratory for forensic sciences.

I have also found some information about the legislation in force in the Netherlands. It stipulates that suspects in a serious crime have to provide samples of bodily substances for forensic purposes. That country is the only one to allow the accused to request an independent second assessment by a laboratory other than the national criminal justice laboratory.

Although the United States have carried out DNA analyses in more than 24,000 cases since 1986, they still do not have a DNA databank. In fact, most of the American States have legislation providing for the collection and analysis of samples of bodily substances. Pursuant to these acts, samples are taken from persons convicted of serious crimes like sexual assaults.

DNA samples are sent to the state forensic laboratory where they are entered in a registry and stored in the state DNA databank. Various DNA data are stored in different databanks across the country.

The FBI recently initiated a movement to create a national DNA data bank which would group together all the data recorded in each state. Studies are being implemented to check the feasibility of the project.

On April 4, 2000, France introduced a piece of legislation to create a national data bank of gene prints and imprints. This national automated data bank would centralize the gene prints found on the scene of a crime as well as the gene imprints of inmates. A judge at trial will be able to order a comparison between the gene prints in the national data bank and the DNA profile of an individual under investigation for an offence punishable by imprisonment. In principle, that national automated data bank of gene imprints should be operational by the end of May of this year.

Science today makes it possible to determine, from a tiny amount of bodily substances, an individual's DNA profile. This has allowed many police agencies around the world to resolve vicious crimes for which no culprit had yet been found.

In spite of the sure benefits of genetics for criminal justice, I feel continued caution is in order with regard to potential manipulation of genetic information. That is why passing legislation entails, in my opinion, many benefits both for fighting efficiently against crime and for protecting justiciables against potential abuses from the state.

First of all, the passing of an act provides a framework for the power of seizure exercised by police officers. Then, its passage permits conservation of genetic information in a single location, thus making the search for the perpetrator more effective.

Finally, passage of a law makes it possible to sanction individuals who would use the law for purposes other than those it was intended for. Despite all these advantages, few countries have complete legislation governing the sampling, conservation and use of bodily substances obtained for forensic analyses.

Canada, like the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands, will have proper legislation permitting the collection and conservation of genetic information. As we have seen, there are significant differences between Canada's legislation and the others'. Bill S-10, at issue here, improves a number of measures passed by the House of Commons in this area and will give the law its own particular cachet.

First, let us mention that Bill S-10 gives military judges the same powers as provincial court justices in the collection of bodily substances. It appears that Canada will be the only country to subject the military to the same regime as civilians. The Bloc Quebecois sees no reason to exclude the military from the application of this legislation.

Bill S-10 provides that DNA profiles and substances taken must be used only to apply the law, to the exclusion of all other unauthorized uses. Offences and sentences are provided in the law for those who fail to comply with it.

According to my information, Canada is the only country, besides Belgium, to provide for protection against the abuse of genetic information. These provisions are very important and the Bloc Quebecois fully supports them. They meet the concerns expressed by Canada's privacy commissioner.

Indeed, the privacy commissioner had reservations about the creation of a DNA data bank and the way that information might be used. While recognizing the usefulness of that technique, the commissioner was opposed to letting the state develop a DNA public registry. The information contained in the DNA data bank should not, according to the commissioner, be used to determine other characteristics that can be genetically related, such as one's personality, or be used for medical research. Bill S-10 provides protection against such practices.

The RCMP will administer the DNA data bank, which should be in operation by the end of June of this year. The Solicitor General of Canada announced that the RCMP will receive $18 million to operate this data bank. If properly administered by the RCMP, this tool will allow the police to quickly and accurately solve many crimes. By using DNA profiles during their investigations, police officers will save time and money, which can be reallocated.

The newspapers recently revealed that the RCMP was not properly managed by its senior officers. Moreover, in his report released last April, the auditor general reported that the RCMP had a major backlog with regard to the DNA analyses that are currently authorized. According to the auditor general's report, the RCMP laboratories take an average of 82 days to do a preliminary DNA analysis.

That work should only take two days. The average time for a complete analysis is 101 days. These timeframes far exceed the recommendation made by Justice Campbell, who conducted the investigation in the Bernardo case and who recommended a 30 day turnaround time for DNA analysis. The RCMP takes a total of 183 days to do a DNA analysis.

The RCMP will have to establish its priorities, because the success of the national DNA data bank depends on it. Given this disturbing information concerning the management of the RCMP, the Bloc Quebecois will carefully scrutinize its activities.

The annual report to be submitted to parliament by the commissioner of the RCMP responsible for administrating the DNA data bank will allow to determine whether the functioning and the administration of the DNA data bank respond to people's expectations.

This obligation on the part of the commissioner to submit an annual report is an addition in Bill S-10, since the current legislation provides for a Senate or a House committee, or a joint committee, to examine the implementation of the legislation in the five years following its coming into effect.

I did not believe this change was essential. However, in the light of huge management problems within the RCMP, I think an annual report is not too much to ask, to allow parliamentarians to examine the work of the RCMP in this field. I believe a five year period is too long and might have jeopardized the functioning of the DNA data bank.

Available data concerning the performance of the British DNA data bank can be used to assess the performance of the RCMP. In fact, in 1995, during the implementation of the DNA databank in the United Kingdom, the 43 police services of that country provided over 94,000 samples taken from people and over 2,500 samples gathered at crime scenes. Almost 1,000 samples were used to provide sufficient DNA evidence.

In 196 cases, police officers were able to cross-reference the samples with the DNA profiles stored in the national DNA databank. The United Kingdom authorities found these preliminary results very encouraging, since the DNA databank had just been set up. With these 1,000 samples gathered at the crime scenes, the identification rate was 19.2%, a lot better than with the fingerprints.

As of April 10, 2000, the British databank had been in existence for five years. Since its creation, it has gathered some 750,000 profiles of suspects and over 73,000 samples of substances found at the crime scenes. In five years, the United Kingdom has linked 68,000 suspects to crimes thanks to the DNA databank.

The Bloc Quebecois supports Bill S-10 and the creation of a DNA databank, but given the RCMP's current problems, we will want to ensure that the money for this project is spent appropriately.

[Privacy, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the privacy commissioner, Bruce Phillips, said yesterday that nothing prevents the Minister of Revenue from releasing personal information to anyone, as he did with Human Resources Development Canada and that it is a myth to believe that information given to Revenue Canada is totally private.

Will the Minister of Justice finally realize this and get it across to her colleagues in the government that the only way to resolve the problem is quite simply to review the Privacy Act?

[Human Resources Development, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of concern following the discovery of a unique file of citizen profiles at Human Resources Development Canada.

Could the Solicitor General tell this House if CSIS or the RCMP or one of their agents has not had access to this file at Human Resources Development Canada?

[Rcmp Investigations, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, two of my colleagues have asked the solicitor gneral to investigate the files of Placeteco and Option Canada.

Could the solicitor general report to this House on the status of the files, tell us what point the investigations have reached and confirm that he intends to get results before the next general election?

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 5th, 2000]

For the fiscal years from 1995-96 to 1998-99, can the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, indicate whether one or more employees of the House of Commons or the Senate of Canada and/or federal member(s) of parliament, cabinet minister(s) or senator(s) received money from CSIS, and if so, can CSIS produce the documentation and the names of the individuals in question?