Jason Kenney

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know how unanimous consent can be denied without a quorum.

[Ontario Budget, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Mike Harris government is creating growth, opportunity and more and better jobs through tax relief. Having already reduced income taxes by 30%, yesterday's budget delivered a plan for 36 new tax cuts for families and businesses.

The Harris tax cuts are proof that it is possible to reduce the size of government while spending more on key priority programs such as education and health care.

Bravo, Ontario. By letting families and businesses keep more of their hard earned income, consumer spending is higher, confidence is up and economic growth is racing ahead of the national average. What a contrast to the tax and spend status quo at the federal level.

The Liberal government's $10 billion CPP tax hike, combined with huge personal income and capital gains taxes is undermining the economy, stifling the entrepreneurial spirit and hurting families.

But Ontario should take heart. Its efforts are not falling on deaf ears here in Ottawa. The official opposition is fighting for real tax relief at the federal level and we are going to give Canadians a chance at the next election to vote for Ontario style hope, growth and opportunity.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification, and Motions 4, 6 and 13.

As I indicated during my earlier remarks, we do support the principle of this bill but think it is too filled with exceptions, loopholes and red tape to provide our peace officers with the kind of latitude they need to make this important public safety legislation actually work for victims and potential victims.

Our first and final consideration should be to give our police officers, our prosecutors, our courts and our entire justice system the kind of evidence they need to convict people guilty of serious crimes and to ensure that they do not get around conviction because of legislative loopholes which allow the destruction of important DNA evidence or prevent its collection in the first place.

I would like to make specific reference to Motion No. 4 proposed by one of my hon. colleagues from the third party. It would amend clause 9:

(a) by replacing lines 21 and 23 with the following:

“the convicted offenders index shall be destroyed without delay after”

(b) by adding after line 34 on page 6 the following:

“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) also apply to information communicated under this Act that is in the possession of any Canadian laboratory or federal or provincial law enforcement agency”.

It appears to us that this amendment would eliminate the entire index. It would be destroyed. Perhaps this is a problem in the English translation. We cannot understand why our colleagues in the third party, or any other party, would be in favour of such a sweeping amendment that would undermine one of the central purposes of the act, which is to develop an index that can be used for future reference after convictions have been established against criminals.

The current legislation makes provision for the destruction of certain parts of the evidence. It narrowly defines which elements of the index can be destroyed. Motion No. 4 makes no such distinction. Instead it opens the door to the wholesale destruction of the convicted offenders index. This is something we cannot support. It occurs to us that this motion, as the bill on a whole, tends to place too great an emphasis on the rights of the criminals as opposed to the rights of the victims, a tendency we see all too often in criminal justice legislation of this nature.

I move to Motion No. 6 in Group No. 2. The motion was made by one of our colleagues in the third party. It would amend clause 10 after line 34 to read:

“(7.1) The commission shall destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay after a forensic DNA analysis of these substances is first performed under this section”.

For forensic science purposes it is important that substances be kept as new testing techniques are developed. We cannot project what kind of advancements forensic science will make in the years to come. Fifteen, twenty or thirty years ago legislatures in this place could not reasonably expect to have ever had the kind of sophisticated DNA testing science that is now available to us, our police officers and our prosecutors. Let us not hamstring future courts, future prosecutors, future police officers and investigators from using new technology as it becomes available. Let us keep this evidence on file. Let us keep it in the index. Let us not destroy it unnecessarily.

I do not understand what leads to these kinds of amendments. Why should the objective of this legislation not be to build up as comprehensive an index of DNA evidence as we possibly can while at the same time respecting the privacy rights of individuals who are not convicted?

Let us not fill the legislation with all sorts of loopholes and measures like this one. Evidence could be destroyed given this amendment which could later be necessary to use in the conviction of a violent offender. We cannot take such a risk. One piece of evidence in this databank could be enough to save future potential victims from violent offenders. We should err on the side of a comprehensive databank which does not destroy evidence for no particularly good reason.

I will move on to the third and final motion in the Group No. 2 amendments to Bill C-3, Motion No. 13 as proposed by the same hon. member from the third party. We find this motion difficult to understand. I am not sure the hon. member understands it. Perhaps he could enlighten us further. Apparently it would seek to amend paragraph 487.091(b) of the act and replace it with the following:

“(b) the person is finally acquitted of the designated offence and any other offence in respect of the same transaction; or”

We do not see the purpose of this amendment. It seems to be a dilatory and frivolous amendment with no useful purpose. It does not strengthen the bill in terms of its ambit or coverage or the size or extent of the DNA databank. We see no reason to support this amendment and will be opposing it.

In closing I want to summarize the importance of not turning the legislation into Swiss cheese for criminal defence attorneys to allow their clients to get through the loopholes and to tie up the courts, our police officers and prosecutors in legal red tape designed by and for people who are more concerned about the rights of criminals than they are about the rights of victims.

We oppose all three of these amendments and will continue to call on our colleagues in all parties to support the kinds of amendments which would make the legislation meaningful in terms of providing a comprehensive collection of a DNA databank of convicted criminals.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I gather that is not taken as a point of order. I did not make any remark about members opposite but since the point has been raised I will say that normally one finds more members in the opposition benches than on the government benches.

I was remarking on the heckle of a member opposite who said what a waste of time to have a quorum call. They believe it is a waste of time participating here in the highest chamber of democratic deliberation in the country.

That reflects the sterling commitment to democracy and conscientious representation we saw from members opposite on the hepatitis C vote. It is shameful.

It is interesting that members opposite are not willing to sit here and discuss this important bill to provide amendments to Bill C-3 on DNA identification.

The Reform Party supports the principle of the bill which is to provide access to our police forces and agencies to use the new biological technology available to them to develop evidence for the prosecution of criminals accused of serious crimes.

This kind of DNA identification is something the Reform Party has been pressing for over several years. It is well known one of the raisons d'être of our party is to promote a justice system where the rights of victims are placed in greater balance contra the rights of criminals.

In all these bills dealing with the Criminal Code and evidentiary matters, sentencing matters, we must as members of this place strike a balance, an equilibrium between the civil liberties of citizens to not be convicted except in accordance with due process of law and in accordance with principles of fundamental justice on the one hand and on the other hand to ensure that we have a justice system that functions and throws away the bad guys.

I think all too often we end up with the wrong balance. All too often we become too concerned about the civil liberties of the Karla Homolkas of the world and not sufficiently concerned with empowering our peace officers and our police to enforce the criminal law.

It is a good thing from our perspective that the government finally has come forward with some step in the right direction of DNA identification in Bill C-3 but we do find the bill falls short on a number of points.

Motion No. 1 from a member of the Bloc Quebecois is with regard to respect for privacy rights. This proposed amendment goes on through six clauses giving detail of safeguards that should be in the legislation with respect to privacy. Quite frankly, this motion is redundant in so far as the bill already contains adequate safeguards to protect privacy of people vis-à-vis DNA identification.

Section 487.07(1) on the respect of privacy and sections 487.08(1) and (2) on the use of bodily substances already recognize the potential damage if DNA information is improperly used. Also there are penalties included in section 487.08(4) which provide penalties for the contravention of these areas protecting privacy. As a result we find Motion No. 1 redundant and therefore we will be opposing it.

Motion No. 2 comes from an hon. member of the New Democratic caucus. It precludes private agencies and labs from taking samples. It essentially limits the collection of DNA samples to the government through public agencies. This seems like a sensible enough safeguard and we will therefore support Motion No. 2.

Motion No. 3 in this group of amendments deals with safeguards against the wrong kinds of people accessing information stored in the DNA databank and proposes a registry of those who would be accessing the information.

Again we find this redundant in so far as provisions are already included in the act to protect against unauthorized personnel from accessing the personal DNA information included in the databank.

Finally, Motion No. 5 deals with a review for the privacy commissioner to ensure that the act is not contravening the privacy rights of Canadians. This seems like a completely unnecessary amendment in so far as Bill C-3 already empowers the privacy commissioner to review violations of people's privacy rights as enumerated in the privacy laws. We will be opposing Motion No. 5 for that reason.

We really need to ensure with respect to all the amendments in Bill C-3 that our police agents, our peace officers, are able to enforce the law without undue red tape, burdens and hurdles. We want to ensure that the civil liberties of Canadians and their rights to privacy are protected, but not at the expense of hamstringing the people who have the difficult job of investigating serious crimes and who need the evidence to convict and effectively prosecute the worst criminals in society.

I look forward to speaking to future amendments on Bill C-3 as we proceed through the debate.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I note that some of my colleagues opposite regard sitting in the House of Commons to debate as a waste of time. I hope the record reflects that. It is an interesting remark on how they regard democracy and its functioning, a fine example of which we saw the other night during the vote on hepatitis C.

I am rising today to speak to Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification. We are dealing with the Group No. 1 amendments to this bill.

[The Senate, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on lectures on democracy from a government that just ran roughshod over its own backbenches, if the government is unwilling to respect the wishes of its own members, how will it respect the wishes of millions of Alberta voters?

They will go to those ballots on October 19. Hundreds of thousands of Alberta voters will choose their next senator. Will the government appoint those elected senators or will it not?

[The Senate, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, an Environics poll taken in Alberta this year indicated that 91% of Albertans would prefer to elect their next senator as opposed to having a senator appointed through the patronage system. Ninety-one per cent of Albertans means that people of all political stripes want an elected senator.

Premier Klein has called a Senate election for this fall. Will the Prime Minister and the government appoint these elected senators, or do they hold Alberta voters in too much contempt?

[Ottawa Senators, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, hard work, discipline and perfect attendance, these are the characteristics of Ottawa's pride and joy, the Senators. Of course I am talking about the NHL Senators, not the red chamber senators.

On Saturday the Senators defeated the New Jersey Devils four games to two, eliminating the Devils from the Stanley Cup finals. The Senators will now go on to play the Washington Capitals and we wish them all the best.

We can only hope that these hockey heroes will set a new standard for their parliamentary namesakes. We also hope that the Ottawa Senators inspire the Prime Minister and that he will seize the opportunity to restore public confidence in the upper chamber by allowing Canadians to elect their senators.

Let us restore the principles of hard work, accountability and good attendance in the Senate. This October the Prime Minister should recognize Alberta's democratically elected senators.

It is time to allow Canadians to cheer for and elect their favourite senators.

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, maybe he missed the fourth volume because that was the one with the recommendation that every victim should be compensated. That seems to be a section of the report the minister seems to be completely unaware of. The province are not now. The same government which has accused the provinces of being cheap is the government that cut health transfers by billions of dollars, which has offloaded the medicare costs for hepatitis C victims on to the provinces.

How dare this minister and government take shots at the provinces which are doing their best to solve this problem. Why do they not exercise co-operative federalism instead of attacking their provincial partners?

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this health minister who has done so much research into the hepatitis C issue just advised us that there were four volumes of the Krever report. The last time we checked there were three volumes. I wonder if he has actually read them, because the provinces certainly have.

This health minister told his caucus members, implied, to allow themselves to be run roughshod over in the vote the other night, he would open up this file again. Then he said it is closed. Now the provinces have opened it up again.

This minister does not have a clue what is going on. Instead of calling the provinces names, why does he not work with them to—