Derek Lee

[Bishop Franjo Komarica, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call on members of the House to join me in welcoming Monsignor Franjo Komarica, Bishop of Banja Luka, Bosnia-Hercegovina.

During the war which engulfed Bosnia-Hercegovina, most of those in Bishop Komarica's diocese were subjected to ethnic cleansing and their homes open to systematic destruction.

Monsignor Komarica has long been an outspoken advocate of a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in Bosnia and a harmonious co-existence between all of its peoples.

Despite the threat to his personal safety, the bishop worked courageously to intervene and prevent the outbreak and escalation of large scale conflicts and oversaw the distribution of desperately needed humanitarian aid to all citizens in need.

I applaud Bishop Komarica for his defence and assistance of all victims of war in Bosnia-Hercegovina and I welcome him to Canada.

[Conditional Sentencing, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with my eye on the clock I thought it would be useful and at least it would make me feel a little better if I spoke to some of the issues raised in this motion today.

The hon. member has properly focused on a relatively new section of the Criminal Code that deals with sentencing, specifically conditional sentencing. This sentencing mechanism was introduced into Canadian law quite recently. I recall being in the House when it was introduced. I recall sitting on the committee when it was reviewed. The member and others who have spoken are quite correct when they suggest that the parameters or restrictions or the guidelines for its use were on the light side as opposed to the complex side.

I recall at the time, and I certainly was not alone as a member of parliament in looking at this, that we found it quite difficult to attempt to draw a line as to when conditional sentencing might be used and when it should not be used. Every time we bundled up and grouped certain types of offences generically there were always one or two situations or scenarios where one might suggest that conditional sentencing would be appropriate. There is always an exception to the rule in other words.

We felt that the judicial community, the judges of this country, would be well up to the task in deciding when to use these rules. It turns out that in 99% of the cases they were. There are certainly cases now where it appears that judges need guidance from the appeal courts. If the appeal courts find that the problem is more widespread, if the judicial community is not able to handle it and draw the line themselves as we had hoped they would, then it is an area for statutory amendment.

The member's motion certainly points down that road and may in fact lead in that direction. I sense the possibility for change. I commend the member for his motion. I look forward to seeing what the House will do in this area.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

The member points out that it could be used for both. I accept that the amendment is proposing that it be used for both. However, I am not so sure the amendment is drafted in a way that I would accept is suited to both.

In any event, I wanted to take note of the reasons that some members of the House, including myself, view this amendment as having some potential difficulty.

I agree with the member for Scarborough East and other members that if I were king I would implement a measure which would allow a sample to be taken at the time of charge, such as is proposed by this amendment. However, there are several areas of difficulty. I want to put them on the record because I never want it to be said that the reason the House did not adopt this, and the reason the committee that studied the bill did not adopt a similar type of amendment, was because we knew it would not be legally acceptable. I would not want that to be taken from the procedure here today, or previously, or from what may evolve in the House.

I believe that in the next while there will be a procedure which will allow DNA data to be taken at the time of charge in appropriate circumstances and not just when one is investigating the particular case at hand.

The reasons the government is sensitive to this are based on a series of charter decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In each case we have a snapshot, a photograph, a freeze frame decision by the supreme court about a particular aspect of our civil rights, about a particular perspective on our charter rights. When we add up all the snapshots the court, as it is supposed to do, cautioned the state about certain aspects of the freedoms of Canadians. By the time they are all added up, which is what the justice department did, we have a significant body of caution directed at actions of the state which would remove a sample from an individual's body. In order to do that in our society the state has to have justification. That is a search and seizure. There must be a reasonable ground to do it. There has to be a reasonable basis even to do it under a warrant. One may be able to construct a reasonable justification for doing it at charge.

One threshold, one snapshot provided us by the supreme court of which we take note is the view that taking something from the human body is actually quite an intrusive act. In the case of DNA data sampling now it can be a rough of some of the skin, a swab from the inside of the mouth or a hair taken from the head. In each case it involves the taking from the body of something that is a part of the body. The court has defined and construed that as quite intrusive, and I accept that at this point in time.

It is true that under warrant or under reasonable circumstances in other parts of the Criminal Code peace officers or other authorized persons can take breath samples, blood samples with a warrant, and DNA samples with a warrant. We must remember that this amendment deals with taking a DNA sample for profile at the time a person is innocent of the charge because he or she has not yet been convicted. At that point in time is when this amendment would cause the sample to be taken.

It is pretty clear to most of us who sat on the justice committee that within a few months or a few years the obtaining of a sample of DNA will be obtainable technologically by much less than taking something from the body. Technology involving a scan, a brush by, something very much less intrusive than the taking of a piece of the body however minute it might be such as a hair follicle or hair root, does not exist right now.

That snapshot of the intrusiveness of DNA sampling was a caution light which has caused, at least in part, justice officials, the government and some of us in the House to accept that it is an area of caution. In my view it is an area of caution that we will be able to dispense with in the future because the intrusiveness of the sample taking will be much less than it is now.

Members have mentioned the Bernardo case. That is either an easy case or a difficult case depending on how we look at it. If we had had good effective DNA sampling at that time history might well have turned out differently. I wish we could have done it. Maybe in the future with the new technology we will be able to make these kinds of changes and come out with better outcomes in the criminal justice system.

The flip side of the Bernardo scenario, because if the Bernardo case is easy there is another case that is harder, is simply the case where a Canadian who is innocent of the offence charged has a criminal record and is under this amendment asked or required to give up a small piece of his or her body so that the state may analyse and put it in a databank for public safety purposes.

At this point because of the relative intrusiveness of it I believe there was a developing consensus in the Department of Justice that we would be reasonably well served by proceeding to construct a databank, a process, get the thing up and running, have it begin to work for Canadians, get the bugs out of it, ensure it is charter safe and make it work for Canadians.

I would be disappointed as a parliamentarian if within the next two to four years we were unable to increase the frequency or amount of data sampling available under the Criminal Code perhaps in a manner that is suggested by this amendment today. Were we able to do that I think it would enhance the safety of all Canadians in the future.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this particular amendment. It is one of a number of amendments that have been proposed to this bill governing the establishment of a DNA databank.

It is important to note that the amendment that is proposed at this point is directed at a mechanism which would take a DNA sample, analyze it for a DNA profile and put it into a DNA databank where it would, for practical purposes, be stored and kept indefinitely.

There are other ways in which the state can obtain a DNA sample and do an analysis. It can do it by warrant.

With respect to this particular motion, it is the desire of the mover and those supporting it to see a DNA sample taken when an individual is charged with a serious offence, the individual having been previously convicted of a serious offence, perhaps even a related offence.

It is important to keep that in mind. Just because one would not be able to take a sample at the point of charge does not mean the state could not move by warrant to obtain a sample from the individual at the time of charge for the purposes of investigating the offence at hand.

In this case the sample being taken, as proposed under this amendment, is not for the purpose of investigating the offence at hand, it is for the purpose of obtaining a DNA profile of the individual and putting it into the DNA databank for future reference and for the protection of society that would come from that.

[Organized Crime, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is national police week. Canadians say thank you to the police officers who work in our communities and on the front lines against crime.

More and more, Canadian society is being victimized by organized crime where the front lines are not so clear and the criminals themselves may operate from other countries.

My question is for the solicitor general. What is the Government of Canada doing to protect Canadians from this growing international threat?

[Privilege, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this matter.

I was surprised to hear the statement involving this news story. I always regret it as a parliamentarian when matters are brought to my attention through the media as opposed to the usual procedures here in this House.

I want to say two things. First, if it is a fact that a minister or a ministry acted in a way that would pre-empt a decision of this House, prejudge what the House would wish to do, prejudge what our parliamentary associations would wish to do, then that would be wrong and it would be a matter for concern here.

As a member, I cannot tell for sure all of the precise facts. However I want to make it clear, and I hope all members feel the same way, that it is simply not the place of a ministry or a minister to pre-empt and prejudge this House. Not only is it disrespectful of the House but many members in this House are active in the trade and international relations envelope. I for one have an interest in the Pacific Rim as do many members in this House.

One runs the risk of embarrassing colleagues when things like this happen. If some of us happen to be out in the field and we hear that a ministry is doing something purporting to act for the House, this would be wrong if it has occurred in that way.

The second thing I would leave with you, Mr. Speaker, is that if the minister's or ministry's announcement in China was more to the effect that it was the intention of parliamentarians here to set up and create an association or group such as that noted in the article, that would not be quite so bad as announcing that in fact the thing was to be done or that it was already done.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear at the closing of the hon. member's remarks that he decided to get back to the bill at hand.

He was speaking to childhood nutrition and crime prevention which are of course very important issues. I always have time for my hon. friend in debates here in the House, though he may stray from the point of debate. He and I attended high school together in Scarborough just a few years ago.

Some of his colleagues have not provided me with so many things to listen to. His colleagues have chided the government for not having a list of priorities by placing this bill ahead of other bills they believe should be at the top. One of the members mentioned two items they felt were of priority. One was amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code and the other was amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

I was here in the last Parliament but I am not certain the other hon. member was. I have to remind the House that the government did amend both those items in the last Parliament. The government chose to amend section 745. The government chose and Parliament adopted legislation amending Young Offenders Act. This increased the penalties for murder and provided for the transfer of violent young offenders to adult court. Those were government priorities.

To the speech at hand, I could not help but note the references to the salaries of U.S. judges. I think they were in $90,000, $110,000, $115,000, $120,000 range. The member suggested they were one third less than the salaries proposed for our Canadian judges.

In fairness, did he forget to take into account the exchange rate between the U.S. and Canadian dollars? If he did, it is unfair to use those numbers. Would the hon. member like to recalculate judges' salaries either in Canada or the U.S. to incorporate the exchange rate? A member on this side did a quick calculation and if we take the U.S. numbers, apply a 40% exchange rate, we would have the U.S. judges being 7% ahead.

However, would my colleague like to correct this for the record? Having not applied the exchange rate, the discrepancy between the judicial salaries is not as great as he suggested and it would help to put that on the record.

[Committees Of The House, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations concerning sections 56 and 57 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations, 1988.

It is the view of the joint committee that these regulations do not conform to our scrutiny criteria, Nos. 2, 9 and 12. Our concerns relate to the constitutionality of these regulatory provisions.

[House Of Commons, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate I want to address an aspect of the procedure that we are dealing with here. Some members have referred to this as being a matter where we should be voting in favour of the motion to support the ruling of the Speaker.

I bring to members' attention my understanding of the rules here, that we are not voting to support or not support the Speaker. What we are doing is voting on a motion moved by our colleague, and that motion is on the floor because the Speaker has ruled that there is a prima facie breach of that privilege of the House.

This does not mean that there has been with certainty—agreed to by all members—a breach of those privileges.

The ruling of the Speaker allows this motion to come to the floor and to be debated on and adopted or not, as we see fit. So the whole issue of whether or not there has been a breach of privilege still remains in the hands of members and the Speaker did not, and I say this respectfully, wish to become one of the voters or movers of the motion.

Whether we vote for or against in this particular instance, we are not voting for or against the Speaker. We are already here in the House with the Speaker who has our support. That is not at issue.

All of the issues surrounding whether or not there has been a breach of the privileges of the House will be taken up by a committee of this House which we set up for that purpose and that committee will report back to the House with the report. At that point in time every member of this House will have an opportunity, dependent on the rules of the House. to debate the report and the House may or may not adopt the report.

That report may make recommendations as to how we should deal with this issue if all the facts are shown to be correct, how we should deal with it among ourselves as members of Parliament given the issues involved. It involves a number of our colleagues.

I wanted to make that point in the hope that the debate this afternoon would not get too much into the flag issue and too much into support or non-support of the Speaker—we always support the Speaker—but whether or not the matter should be taken up by all members through the committee we have designated for that purpose.

[Privilege, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the issue we are discussing here now, and I know we all want to get back to the work we have come here to do this afternoon, is not what we are calling the flag issue. That matter has been taken under advisement by Mr. Speaker and by the House leaders. I am fairly sure we will end up with a resolution on that. For those members who want to push the flag issue or whatever, perhaps while our leadership in the House is dealing with this, this is not the most appropriate time to push the envelope.

I do not really want to talk about the flag here in the way it has been spoken of by some members. What I want to address is the point of privilege that has been raised by the House leader for the Progressive Conservative Party and it is a very important point of privilege.

At this point it is important for us all to realize that what has happened by this particular publication is that the office of the Speaker in which we place our trust, all of us as members, has been taken out of this place and taken out into the street. The office of the Speaker has been dealt with in a manner and in a way that the Speaker is unable by himself to deal with because of the nature of his office and the impartiality which he is called on to use and to exhibit as he works in this House.

Some of our colleagues have caused this to happen. Maybe they have been induced by aggressive journalists to make it happen. I will leave to colleagues the decision as to whether or not it should have happened, whether it was good or bad or right or wrong. But right now the member raising this matter of privilege has asked the Speaker to find that it is a matter of the privileges of this House, prima facie, and that he should take it under consideration and have the matter disposed of at the committee designated for that purpose.

Although all of us here will not be fully familiar with all the bits and pieces of the parliamentary privilege that goes in to making up the rules and the regime that I have tried to articulate here, I know that Mr. Speaker will have the full benefit of that in looking at this issue.

I submit that all you have to do today, and perhaps I make it sound like a simple question, is determine whether what has been alleged here today, which is generally not disputed, is sufficiently egregious vis-à-vis the privileges of the House to cause you to find that it is a prima facie breach of the privileges and to ask members to dispose of it.

I am not able to add my voice to whether it is or is not because the evidence is contained in a newspaper report and some of comments of members here.

I submit that is what we should be dealing with now. We should not be dealing with the broader matter of the so-called flag issue here.

The other minor comments that have come up that have caused members to react on both sides of the House I would hope could be dealt with very quickly so that we can allow Mr. Speaker to move on to the business of the House for the day.