Peter MacKay

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this bill which has been introduced by the Reform member for Langley—Abbotsford and my counterpart as House leader in the Reform Party.

As mentioned by previous speakers, Bill C-211 would amend the Criminal Code as it applies to the arresting and detaining of individuals who breach their conditions of parole or statutory or temporary release. In principle I want to state at the outset that I agree with the bill. In my view it provides our law enforcement officers an additional tool in their fight against crime.

Giving the police increased power always is a contentious issue. I believe in this instance it talks of increased discretion to be exercised on the part of the police in their ability to fight crime and to do their job as peace officers. I fully endorse this.

The changes that are talked of here in section 495(1)(a) of the Criminal Code which would allow peace officers to arrest individuals who breach their conditions of parole or release, in particular, deserve support by this Chamber and its hon. members. I say so with some experience myself.

I listened very carefully to the comments of the hon. member from the Reform Party who had from the sounds of it consulted extensively with a peace officer in his riding. I have spoken personally to a number of police officers as well.

I have spoken to Constable Kevin Scott, Constable Dwayne Rutledge and other police officers from my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I have sensed the frustration that many of our police officers sense when dealing with criminals who have gone through the process.

Criminals have been convicted after due process. They have gone through appeal processes and are serving time as their debt to society and upon being convicted and placed in an institution, having appeared potentially before a parole board, have been granted early release often with good reason. The principle to recall here is the fact that those individuals are paying a debt to society. If released early, essentially they are being given a break, a second chance, and while in society and taking advantage of the break that has been afforded them, they run afoul of conditions which for good reason have been placed upon them.

I listened again with great interest to the comments with respect in particular to pedophiles or individuals who have been told to abstain from alcohol. I would suggest that it is extremely important for police officers, who observe individuals who have these conditions placed upon them, to have the ability to act and to act quickly and decisively.

I listened as well again with great interest to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. I agree that in its present form the Criminal Code does have provisions for police officers to act in a decisive way to get authorization to place an individual under arrest. The difficulty is in the timing. Officers do not always have the time to get the necessary authorization. They do not always have the time to get to a justice of the peace who will give them the go ahead, or to contact the parole officer involved, particularly in rural parts of the country.

In rural Canada detachments often have one or two officers. Often the justice of the peace is responsible for a vast territory. Human nature being what it is, that justice of the peace may be over at his neighbour's playing cards. He may simply be out in the barn. Unfortunately, justices of the peace are not always on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

This is a very timely debate. Another bill is presently before the House which is the so-called Feeney bill, Bill C-16. It touches on much of the same subject matter that is being discussed today.

I want to discuss another component of the amendment to section 497 of the Criminal Code. It would give the National Parole Board the opportunity to apply to keep a person, who is in breach of his conditions, in custody until the board can issue a warrant of apprehension. This is not an arbitrary detention. We are discussing the rights of an individual who has had the benefit of due process and has been convicted of a criminal offence. There is an important distinction to be made.

I do not favour voting rights for criminals, nor do I favour, in this particular instance, any sort of special treatment or special allotment or second chance. The individual is paying his debt to society. He has been afforded early release and has now run afoul of those conditions.

I generally support the change, with some reservations. Any form of arbitrary detention has to be carefully scrutinized. The key word is arbitrary. The provisions put forward by the hon. member of the Reform Party, I would suggest, are not arbitrary in any way, shape or form. The direction provided in this bill for detention may be vague and may eventually undergo the scrutiny of the charter of rights and freedoms.

I would suggest that this is true of any amendment made to the Criminal Code. That is part of the process of which we partake. It is part of the responsibility which is incumbent upon us in this Chamber. Defence lawyers, I am sure, will be ready to pounce on any detention of their clients which would later be proved unjustified. This is merely a caution that I raise.

Perhaps we could clarify the language in the bill. I am sure the hon. member of the Reform Party would embrace that, as long as it did not change significantly the principle which he is trying to bring forward.

The intent of this bill is positive. I am pleased to say that we in the Conservative Party support it.

I would also embrace another theme touched on by the hon. member, and it is that we should strive toward making the law not only more efficient but simpler. It should be more understandable, not only for police officers who have legal training, but for the public at large. I believe that the public at large is becoming alienated and, to some degree, very disgusted with our criminal justice system.

Overall there are changes that can be made to the Criminal Code. I believe this is the forum and the place for elected officials to partake of that process.

Another reason I support this bill is that it would open a window of opportunity for the National Parole Board to collect additional information on offenders when possible. It would be a responsible thing for them to do.

The offenders who break their terms of parole or conditions of release are once again breaking society's trust in their ability to respect the law. The National Parole Board consents to returning offenders to the mainstream of society on certain conditions. If those conditions are breached, then the board, in turn, must act responsibly and re-evaluate the risk to society posed by the offender. A convicted person forfeits the rights which are afforded to all Canadians.

The bill gives the National Parole Board additional authority to exercise that responsibility, and there is a larger question at play here. The question concerns the effectiveness of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, especially as it relates to the National Parole Board.

The National Parole Board is operating as effectively as possible, but is it doing so to its full ability and is it doing so to the extent where it completely protects Canadians? I suggest there are examples, but I am not going to recite them at this time, that suggest that the National Parole Board has to re-examine its own effectiveness.

The mandate of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is established by an internal board of investigation on incidents. These incidents should be brought forward and examined at length to see if the National Parole Board is living up to the standard.

I want to mention one further positive element of this bill that requires parliamentary study, the ability to exercise the arrests that these police officers are charged with. I think we have to look most specifically at whether this bill will improve the present law. Will it allow police officers to more effectively carry out the very onerous task that is imposed on them to protect society? If this will further the cause of justice, then it is something we have to work together in a non-partisan way to see carried through to fruition.

[Remembrance Day, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to pay tribute to the many Canadians who risked their lives, and for those who fell in the cause of peace and freedom that we enjoy today in Canada.

This Remembrance Week commemorates those who sacrificed their lives so that we might enjoy the ways of freedom and the many who gave their lives at an early age. Myself and many Canadians at the age of 18 or 19 were finishing school, heading off to university or starting a career. Although we share the same age, the lives of those who served may have ended. Clearly the ultimate sacrifice made by earlier generations in our country has helped to ensure peace, security and the opportunity for subsequent generations.

Historians often note that Canada is one of the few countries in the world that came about peacefully, without bloodshed. While Confederation did not directly result from military battles on our soil, Remembrance Week reminds us that today Canada was forged by yesterday's battles beyond our borders.

The muddy fields of the Somme, the dark skies over the Rhineland, the cold, murky deeps of the North Atlantic, Hong Kong at Christmas; these are the many places where our soldiers, sailors, airmen, merchant marines, nurses and doctors put their lives on the line. They fought for their families, their communities and their country. They defended Canada against aggression as members of the army, navy, air force and the fourth arm of our fighting services, the merchant navy. Many never returned from battle.

The central structure of these Parliament Buildings, the Peace Tower, houses the memorial chamber. In that chamber are the books of remembrance which hold the names of every Canadian who died for our freedom. Each day a new page is turned.

The altars hold the books for the Boer war, the first great war, the second world war, the Newfoundland memorial, Korea and the merchant marine. Some of the names on those pages today include William Locke, flying officer; Edmund Masters, able seaman; Alphonse Roy, soldier; William Worden, private; James Daniel, second engineer; Germain Houle, private.

We remember them and honour them not just today, not just this week and not on November 11 but here in Parliament each and every day. Alexander Yorkton, corporal; William Zorn, sergeant; Richard Nankervis, lance corporal; Pierre Joquet, chief engineer; Francis Holland, private; Joseph Jackman, able ordinary seaman.

These names, along with the more than 100,000 names that appear on these tear stained pages are the many reasons that we remember our war dead, our veterans and their families, not just November 11, but 365 days of each year.

[Taxation, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, during last Parliament's debate on Bill C-92 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said that the old system of deduction inclusion was not working for the benefit of Canadian children. As a result, the Income Tax Act was amended so that child support payments would no longer be deductible for the payee nor be included in the recipient's income.

In theory, these changes seem equitable but in practice it translates into smaller amounts awarded by judges. Monetary awards for children are now smaller than what used to be left in the hands of recipients. Could the minister of revenue explain to the House why taking money from poor families affected by divorce is of any benefit to Canadian children?

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to speak to a bill introduced in the House to amend the Criminal Code and the Interpretation Act, specifically referring to the powers of arrest to enter into a dwelling house.

A key objective of Bill C-16 is to provide police across the country with the power to enter a home and effect an arrest of an individual. This came about as a result of The Queen v. Feeney case in the Supreme Court of Canada on May 22, 1997. In the delivery of the decision in The Queen v. Feeney the court ruled that as a general rule police require a warrant to enter a private dwelling to effect an arrest.

This decision overturned a longstanding existing string of case law that did not require police to obtain a warrant to enter a home in arresting an individual if that police officer had reasonable and probable grounds to effect that arrest or, prior to entering the home, indicated in the presence of the accused that the authority and reason for entry was part of the normal process.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that in this situation the privacy of Canadians under the charter was not adequately protected.

The charter has been given broad interpretation by our courts and in this instance the police have been curtailed in their ability to carry out their duties as it refers to arrest. No doubt this ruling causes great concern among the police community and victims' organizations that public safety may be put at risk in certain circumstances as a consequence of the delay required to obtain a warrant.

Many members have spoken concerning this bill. I listened with great interest to the comments of the opposition parties as well as the government. There are various perspectives that have significant bearing on the issue.

One of the concerns I have is the issue of hot pursuit in a situation where a person suspected of a serious criminal offence is being pursued into a residence or business and the ability of police officers to carry out their duties by effecting an arrest. There are also concerns that tie into that with respect to the preservation of evidence and the overall issue of protection of the public through preventive measures that police officers are charged with in their daily duties.

The attorney general of British Columbia joined with other provinces and the federal government and successfully applied to the Supreme Court of Canada to suspend the judgment that was issued in Feeney for a period of six months to give Parliament the time needed to address the effects of this ruling and to fill the void left by The Queen v. Feeney.

In the meantime, police feel they are in limbo on this issue and are anxiously awaiting definitive direction and action to be taken by the government.

Today we are looking at the government's response to the supreme court decision. I acknowledge in essence—and I want to put this clearly on the record—that it is a positive position the government has taken on this decision. It is the government's attempt to fill the gap left by The Queen v. Feeney case. However I want to put comments forward with respect to the bill and I say again that I support it in principle.

The Feeney decision could not be left to stand, lest effective law enforcement, including the arresting of individuals committing crimes would be jeopardized with the existing situation were it left as it is.

Before going into the substantive effect of the bill, I would point out to the House and to the government, with the greatest respect, one of my concerns. The government's response was somewhat slow to the situation and the timeframe that was allotted by the supreme court. Six months is certainly sufficient time to respond. Obviously the country went through a federal election in that time but the business of the day has to be carried out regardless of the fact that the country is going through an election. I would suggest that a matter that is certainly of significant importance to the law enforcement community could be addressed within that time period.

In a press release dated October 30, 1997, the Minister of Justice is quoted as saying that the bill “strikes a reasonable balance between the powers available to the police to protect their safety and the privacy rights of Canadians”.

I am pleased to hear this pronouncement and this assessment by the minister regarding the legislation. However considering the fundamental implications of Bill C-16, and those implications on the rights of individual Canadians, I hope that the minister will take into account the need for the justice committee to properly and openly discuss the impact of the bill. All indications are that this will be moving to the justice committee this week. I am encouraged by that.

To be quite frank, I am unsure that this House has enough time left, with 11 sitting days, both to pass the legislation and fulfil the commitment to Canadians to act thoughtfully and responsibly with their best interests in mind. However, we are used to working under pressure in trying to respond quickly and I am pleased to say that we are going to endeavour to do this with the time allotment we have.

It is my position that this bill should be carefully studied at the committee level. That is why I raise the issue of delay. I know that the minister and her officials are prepared to hear the response of the opposition parties as well as witnesses at the justice committee level.

Those witnesses I would suggest will include the Canadian Police Association, bar associations throughout the country and crown prosecutors who will be given an opportunity to testify and give their very important and insightful views on the bill and their suggestions on how this bill might be further tightened up.

This is the time and the place to fix this bill and draft legislation that is going to effectively fill the gap left by Feeney and we should try to get it right the first time.

In order for the standing committee on justice to do all of this, the time issue is a factor and I hope we will be successful in our efforts to respond before the deadline of November 22.

By having tabled the bill today and with the debate on second reading, it would be easy to demonstrate to the supreme court that Parliament has already started serious study with respect to the work that has to be done. A suspension could be requested if required and there is precedent for this. It has happened in the past. We may have to make this request should the justice committee have insufficient time or the witnesses not be permitted sufficient time to speak to this issue.

I want to turn briefly to the bill and its objectives. What does this bill do and what should it do? Without any doubt, and I think it is common ground, the first objective should be to help to protect and serve the community. We also have to recognize that the police officers, the rank and file, the individuals with the badges that are on the beat, have to be given assistance when it comes to effecting arrest and carrying out their duties.

Does Bill C-16 do all this? Does it accomplish this and can it be improved? Again, these are questions that members of the justice committee and hopefully those bringing forward testimony are going to help us answer.

I had an opportunity to be involved in a number of cases that included search warrants and individual rights, and the balance that must be struck between the protection of the public and those individual rights was always at issue. Certainly any piece of legislation that addresses issues of arrest where police officers are entering into private dwellings or places of business to effect arrest has to be viewed in a very, very serious light.

Businesses of course enjoy a different degree of privacy than a private dwelling. Certainly the police, as in many of the situations they face on a daily basis, have to be entrusted with the greatest of discretion. We can never ever ignore the fact that police officers are looking for direction from the Criminal Code of Canada and those legislators who have input into the process.

The specific concerns I raised at the outset surrounding hot pursuit are issues which I hope will be the subject of lively discussion at the committee level.

Domestic violence and the need for all police agencies to address this will be better served when the issue is completely ironed out. Police officers are called upon daily to intervene in issues of domestic violence. They must be given the utmost support and assistance if they are to effectively combat this very, very serious problem in our country.

Drug searches are another area where the bill will have an impact. Police officers are facing an epidemic of rampant drug use throughout the country. They must be given the discretion to enter into a dwelling house or areas where drugs are suspected to be housed.

Police are always working in a pressure filled environment and there is more and more attention drawn to police and the job they are entrusted with. In my experience I have seen police exercise very good judgment and act responsibly and lawfully in the majority of instances.

Having said that, the principles that underscore the bill are sound. At present, police officers throughout the country are working under a system which is somewhat cumbersome and ineffective without a substantive position being put forward in the Criminal Code. Some of the proposals in this bill would certainly clarify it and would help the police do their job more expeditiously and would give them the knowledge that they are acting on solid ground.

I would suggest however that the bill needs to be amended or at least tinkered with in some areas. This would include when police officers are seeking an arrest warrant and the authorization to enter into a dwelling house and their ability to tell a judge about a specific residence they want to enter to effect an arrest. This information is not always available. Again it ties into the immediacy of the situation where they may be in pursuit or they may be faced with an emergency situation where they have to act immediately to prevent further injury, to prevent hiding or disposing of evidence. This is something the bill does not address effectively.

True, I certainly acknowledge that it is possible at times to speculate where a suspect may be, but this information is not always predictable. Surely in the public interest the apprehension of a suspected criminal where the police have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed outweighs the concerns about entering a hideout or a safe house where the criminal may be harbouring the proceeds of crime, drugs or weapons that may have been involved in the offence of which he is accused.

Another concern I have is with respect to the resources available to police officers when it comes to effecting a search warrant. There is really no mention whatsoever in the bill about the availability of justices of the peace or judges with respect to the issuance of such warrants. This I would suggest is a glaring omission. Without the resources it is really nothing more than lip service. If we have a very specific procedure in place as to how a search warrant can be obtained but we do not have the justices or the judges available to sign those warrants and allow the police officers to carry them out, then all is for nought.

Another concern that does arise from the decision itself, and an attempt has been made by Bill C-16 to address it, is the further definition of exigent circumstances which is the language that is used in the majority decision of Feeney. It is not clear, I would suggest, to this point what those exigent circumstances would include. The police I think are looking for further clarification on this.

True to form as in all legislation there are going to be challenges. Certainly the government cannot simply be responsive to the fact that this is going to be challenged and therefore try to anticipate every single charter challenge that may arise but clarification is needed on that definition.

Another point with respect to the listing of multiple dwellings within a search warrant and entry authorizations, the Interpretation Act seems to infer that singular means plural and vice versa within that act as the wording is set out in the current bill. I would suggest that there is still some vagueness surrounding the language as it pertains to multiple listings for residences or hideouts where a suspected criminal may be staking out.

In conclusion, I do want to say that we in the Conservative Party are supportive of this bill. I would also like to indicate that the Minister of Justice has done the right thing in responding in a timely fashion in this sitting of the House, keeping in mind my earlier remarks with respect to the work that has been done thus far to see that the bill is brought to fruition in the House. There is some concern I have in that regard.

The federal government obviously has a huge obligation when it comes to the Criminal Code of Canada. The Minister of Justice is certainly the top dog when it comes to effecting change within the Criminal Code.

I look forward to the opportunity of having a direct impact on the final draft of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House to seeing Bill C-16 through to its final conclusion which will hopefully be put forward in a way that it is going to be very effective in ensuring that police officers are permitted to do their job and to help keep the streets in this country safe and sound.

[Points Of Order, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to a question posed by the member for St. John's West where the Speaker, in your discretion, sat him down for using the word “deliberately”.

I can understand the use of that word in the context of a nefarious purpose where there was an accusation that a person was deliberately misleading or deliberately misinforming, but I think the record will show in the context of the question it was deliberately causing unemployment and for that reason—

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I lend my voice to the member opposite in congratulating her with respect to her passionate and very personal account of her experience as it relates to this issue.

She speaks of deterrents both general and specific I assume. I am interested to hear her comments as they relate to the concept of having an alternative when a person has gone through the due process and has been found guilty in a court of law.

With respect to sentencing, what if judges were to have discretion to impose an alternative to jail giving that person the opportunity to attend a treatment program? We all know that there are problem drinkers, that there are alcoholics who simply cannot get off the booze. Unfortunately there are also those in the system that have the attitude that they do not want to attend a treatment program. If that discretion were there, would the member be supportive of it? Similarly, would Reformers support an initiative aimed at addressing the problem in the same way if it were introduced in the Senate of Canada?

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will just respond briefly and thank the hon. member for his comments.

Speaking of blunt instruments, I would suggest that whether it is a vehicle or legislation, the person who is driving the instrument and their mindset and level of impairment that will often affect the result.

I agree with the comment that there is a time and a place for all of us to put our efforts together and address this most serious problem. I would suggest that the time is here. It has been here for some time. I encourage all members to support this motion and work together at the committee level and throughout the country to see that we bring these numbers down and hopefully have a significant impact in the very near future.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise in this House to speak on this issue. As has been indicated by many members already, there are very few Canadians who are not touched in some way directly or indirectly by the issue of drunk driving. The laws that we as members of Parliament examine and the opportunity that we have in this House to affect and to address problems of a preventive nature is something that we have to take very seriously.

There have been many statistics quoted within this House, financial, economic, but the emotional impact I think is something that is very difficult to quantity. This very day we know as a result of a survey released last week by Mothers Against Drug Driving that between four and five people will die somewhere in Canada, and that more than 300 people will be injured as a result of alcohol related crashes, and again tomorrow and the day after. These are shocking statistics and ones that made an immediate impression on me and I am sure all Canadians when this was pointed out so poignantly at the press conference held by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

A further statistic to quantify this number is that there were over 1,700 Canadians killed last year, and between the years 1983 and 1991, 1.1 million. Impaired drivers caused over half of Canada's fatalities in 1995, that number being 3,300. In fact, it is very clear that alcohol significantly increases the risk of a motor vehicle crash any time a person gets behind the wheel regardless of the level of impairment. It certainly increases the severity of an accident when a person is impaired and operating a motor vehicle on the highway.

Canadians witness far too many tragedies in this country on a daily basis. This is one area where these tragedies can be prevented and can at least be lowered in terms of their numbers. It would be naive for me or any member of the House to suggest that this problem would ever be completely eradicated, unfortunately. However, it is certainly incumbent on members of the House, people in the law enforcement society and all Canadians to do everything in our power to address this most serious problem.

At the news conference which I mentioned earlier in my remarks, Mothers Against Drunk Driving indicated in its survey that 80% of Canadians support the toughening of the Criminal Code as it applies to this issue. Again, this is an issue that spans all partisan comment. It is clear, simply from the comments today in the House, that there is unanimous sentiment that we address this and do so quickly. I certainly hope that the government is sincere in its support of this issue. We will soon find out when the motion is put to a vote.

I want to indicate the support of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada for the motion that has been tabled. I have listened very carefully to the comments of my friends in the opposition as well as those of the government. It would appear that there is a unified front.

I want to refer again briefly to the results of the survey which indicated that 94% of Canadians believe that impaired driving is a problem that the government should address. Three of every four Canadians believe that the federal and provincial governments are not doing enough at the present time to address the problem.

In expressing that sentiment, Canadians have said that they have a very low tolerance for those who choose to drink and drive. With a clear majority of Canadians of that right mind, I would suggest that some of the proposals which have been put forward by Mothers Against Drunk Driving have to be embraced by the government. Since a clear majority of Canadians indicated that they support the lowering of the blood alcohol level as it applies to the Criminal Code, it is something the government should certainly take action on.

Eighty-four per cent of Canadians also support changes to the Criminal Code that would include a minimum jail sentence should a driver be convicted of an impaired driving offence that caused death. I would go further and include an offence that caused injury.

It is painfully clear that too many Canadians are losing their lives and too many Canadians are being seriously injured because the laws in this country, as they exist, have little teeth and do not go far enough to act as a deterrent. However, it goes further than that.

More can be done, as has been demonstrated by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other groups throughout the country that, without adequate resources, have gone forward and tried to educate the public. The younger generation will have the opportunity to see that these very frightening and staggering statistics are lowered. Attitudes are changing and that has to be encouraging to all present and to interest groups.

The impact of impaired driving touches us all in a very significant and real way. The time is here and now to do everything within our power to address the issue.

The Minister of Justice indicated that she is waiting for a report to be tabled from the transportation department, as well as for a meeting with provincial counterparts. I would reiterate that neither the Ministry of Transport nor the provincial counterparts have the ability to amend the Criminal Code.

It was 12 months ago that the Mothers Against Drunk Driving first met with the justice department. Since that time nothing has changed other than the fact that the statistics have increased and that more people have lost their lives or been seriously injured on Canadian highways. I indict the government. It bears responsibility for those numbers.

Suggestions have been made that by changing the Criminal Code and the justice system that an immediate impact would be felt. I concur with that. The suggestions that have been made will be given further discussion at the justice committee level.

With respect to the motion that has been tabled, keeping in mind my commentary on the fact that this is a non-partisan issue, I hope that the Reform Party and other members of the House would support any initiative that would see this issue addressed, whether it be at the committee level or a simultaneous attempt to bring legislation in through the Senate by either the government or the opposition party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I would hope that the Reform Party in particular would support us in that effort.

There has been mention by my friend in the New Democratic Party that Canadian law is presently out of sync with progressive countries such as Australia, Belgium, France, Portugal, Finland and others. This is something that we have to keep in mind. We live in a global community and we must look to other countries to see how they address the problem. They have taken the initiative by lowering the blood alcohol concentration to less than 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

Other specific references to changes that could be made include a review of the code with respect to reasonable and probable grounds that police officers must follow in the investigation of crash sites involving death and serious bodily harm. Police officers on a daily basis encounter this situation and are charged with the important task of responding and holding people accountable for their actions. Giving them the ability to deal with this in a more effective way with respect to the law's interpretation of reasonable and probable grounds I suggest would go further.

With respect to attitudes as they apply to impaired driving, perhaps a change to the language used in the Criminal Code designating it as vehicular homicide would help to emphasize the seriousness of a charge. Creating standards that would enact a victim's bill of rights would certainly help to include participation of victims at the trial level and would give them more support and more input into what was happening in the aftermath and the task of trying to deal with the problem and putting their lives back together.

This is why we support a fundamental standard for a victim's bill of rights that would include not only impaired driving matters but all matters. It is high time we recognized the needs of victims within our justice system and I would support initiatives in that area as well.

I know my time is limited. I put my support forward on the floor. Members should come together without partisan politics and create new legislation that will contribute to the saving of lives. Introducing this issue at various levels will hopefully do that. We owe it to the memories of those killed on the highways as well as the safety of all Canadians to ensure that when Mothers Against Drunk Driving come to Parliament Hill next year, Parliament will have taken meaningful action.

[Dna Identification Act, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-3, the DNA identification act. As my learned friend in the New Democratic Party pointed out, I was a crown attorney in the province of Nova Scotia and had the opportunity to deal with a number of cases which featured DNA evidence.

Although this may give lawyers, both prosecutors and defenders, a unique perspective on the legislation, I would suggest that DNA evidence is something that has a tremendous effect and impact on the criminal justice system for all Canadians.

There has truly been a number of changes within our legal system and DNA type testing is certainly the next generation of fingerprinting.

Since 1988 trial judges have allowed DNA evidence from the accused to be identified in several criminal prosecutions throughout the land. Indeed forensic DNA analysis has been instrumental in securing convictions in hundreds of violent crimes, as well as resulting in the release of wrongfully convicted persons, as referenced by the Reform member. He mentioned the Morin case as well as the Milgaard case in his province. The key here is that both an inculpatory and exculpatory notion arise from the use of DNA evidence.

During the early years of DNA evidence there existed a vacuum in regulating the collection and use of DNA data. In a number of cases judges allowed DNA samples which were taken from individuals without their consent. This is something which is addressed within the proposed legislation. It is something which will certainly lead to more lively debate with respect to individual rights, as opposed to the rights of the victims and their families. Caution must always be exercised in the use of this type of technology.

Organizations such as the Canadian Police Association have warned the Liberal government that legislation would be needed to ensure proper and effective use of DNA evidence similar to the type of evidence that is introduced through the identification of criminal acts with photos and fingerprints and of the need to potentially purge the samples if a person was found not guilty.

In December 1993 the Canadian Police Association met with the then justice minister and in January 1994 met with the then solicitor general. The purpose of the meetings was to raise the urgent need for updating the evidence laws, including DNA technology. Despite the warnings from the country's top law enforcement personnel, the men and women who are on the front lines enforcing the laws, the Liberals decided to wait. They dragged their heels until the Supreme Court of Canada intervened in 1994, much the same way they continue to drag their heels on the faint hope clause, the Young Offenders Act, victims bills of rights and impaired driving legislation.

The supreme court ruled that in the absence of federal legislation the police did not have any lawful authority or means to obtain a search warrant for the seizure of bodily substances for the purposes of DNA typing. This lack of legislation led the Supreme Court of Canada to determine that DNA evidence obtained without the consent of the accused risked being excluded at trial. I did see this happen in a case that arose within my constituency of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the Queen vs. Borden.

The government finally took the step to provide a legal framework for DNA evidence in 1995 by passing Bill C-104. That bill gave the police the right to seek a warrant that, if approved by a provincial court judge, would authorize the collection of bodily substances for DNA analysis.

Bill C-104 also legislated the criteria for our judges to consider when reviewing DNA warrant applications. Police officers, lawyers and judges finally had some guidelines, albeit very broad guidelines, to govern the collection and use of DNA evidence.

With Bill C-104 in place the obvious question arose of what would the government do with the DNA samples once they were collected. The logical answer was the creation of a national DNA data bank in which the collected samples could be stored for future reference in the use of criminal investigations or trials. Even the justice minister at the time, when not preoccupied with cracking down on law abiding gun owners or launching politically motivated witch hunts, did concede that the importance of a national DNA bank existed. He felt that it was so important that when Bill C-104 was approved he promised complementary data bank legislation for the fall of 1995.

That promise bit the dust when the government decided to start consultation again in January 1996. A discussion paper entitled “Establishing a National DNA Data Bank” was tabled. Interestingly enough, the cover note on the news release which accompanied the discussion paper of the day stated that the government would bring in DNA legislation within the coming year. We all know what happens when these promises are made on justice issues. The coming year seems to be stretched into 16 months and the promised legislation was tabled in April this year just in time for its inclusion in the writing of the order paper. It was also introduced in time for inclusion in the red book.

Thankfully the Liberals did not use this as an election excuse to delay the potentially important piece of legislation before us today. With some minor exceptions, technical language that is, Bill C-3 is essentially the same bill that was introduced in April during the dying days of the last Parliament.

The solicitor general has outlined many of the positive elements of this bill, of which there are several. The national DNA data bank, to be managed by the RCMP, will consist of two main components, a crime scene index that will contain DNA profiles obtained from unsolved crime scenes, as well as a convicted offenders index which will contain DNA profiles of adult and young offenders convicted of designated Criminal Code offences.

Because police officers would be able to cross-reference these data from certain convicted offenders with unsolved crimes, the DNA identification act is a great improvement over the vacuum which previously existed in terms of storing the DNA data.

But will this national data bank established under Bill C-3 provide police officers with an effective tool to solve crimes and keep our streets and communities safe as referred to by the solicitor general?

Police officers, particularly those involved in the Canadian Police Association, do not feel it will. The Canadian Police Association, which has been at the forefront of lobbying the government to establish this DNA data bank, is concerned about the effectiveness of Bill C-3. In essence, it is opposed to the legislation in its current form.

The major concern of the Canadian Police Association is the timing of DNA collection. According to the CPA, a national DNA data bank will only be successful if the collection of DNA evidence from a person charged with an indictable offence is done at the time of arrest. Why is this the case? Because the only guaranteed opportunity to obtain DNA evidence from an individual charged with an indictable offence is when the police have actual custody and possession of this individual.

The proposed convicted offenders index, while somewhat useful, would not help police with unknown murderers and rapists. It might even encourage suspected offenders to skip bail. Most people charged with offences do receive release pending trial. Our criminal justice system grants bail in more than 95% of cases when individuals are charged. According to

Juristat

in 1995, 66,000 people broke bail or failed to appear as required.

Consider this example of what might happen if a person were arrested with respect to an offence related to juvenile prostitution, a designated offence for which the DNA collection would apply. If that person had also committed an offence such as a murder or a sexual offence in another part of the country from which the offender's unidentified DNA was to be collected, that person would know that if convicted for juvenile prostitution, an offence not as serious as the prior offences I have mentioned, the DNA analysis would be obtained, cross-referenced with the crime scene and then that person could potentially face a murder charge. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that under the bill in its current form the offender would certainly have an incentive to skip bail knowing that he was going to face more serious charges.

As it stands, this bill is a huge loophole that we do not need. We certainly do not need more unnecessary loopholes in our justice system. I understand the fears of individuals in Canada with respect to privacy but I believe there are ways to deal with this without compromising the collection of samples and the ability to solve serious unsolved crimes.

I respect the fact that many members in the opposition have posed serious questions that will be debated at the committee level. I also look forward to taking part in that rigorous debate and to seeing that this bill is brought forward in such a way that it will aid our law enforcement agents throughout Canada.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, I want to pose the question again to the government House leader that is this not covered by the fact that the Deputy Speaker could fill that role.

This seems to be the omission with respect to this. The Deputy Speaker would automatically assume the position of the chairman. I have never seen a situation where there Deputy Speaker would be anyone other than a government member. This seems to be an automatic ascension to the chairperson's position. This would prevent any concern on the part of the government side.