Peter MacKay

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from Chicoutimi spoke very eloquently. He mentioned the helicopters. We heard from the minister of defence this morning. He talked about how this was actually a good deal for Canadians. Somehow he expects Canadians to accept that receiving half the helicopters at a loss of over half a billion dollars, a helicopter that has only half the capacity of the one we would have purchased under the previous government, is a good deal.

I wonder if my friend might respond to that.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Question No. 21 has been absolutely languishing now for eight months. In the name of patience it would be nice to know from the government if it intends to answer this question, let alone when. I have raised this countless times. I would like to know when we might expect to get an answer to this very straightforward question.

[Points Of Order, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to protest in the strongest terms the actions of the chair of the justice committee yesterday to bring a report before the House this afternoon.

The committee adopted this report with only one opposition member present and no notice was given of the intention to proceed in this manner at yesterday's meeting. The chair and the Liberal members at the committee knew full well that the opposition members were intending to attend the briefing that was called by the Minister of Justice.

Members of the Liberal caucus were given an advanced briefing of the same material at 1 o'clock yesterday, while the opposition members were not provided the same information until 3 o'clock. This activity, I suggest, created a planned conflict for the justice committee.

The agenda of the justice committee could have been adjusted and the Liberals' intention, therefore, to adopt the report with a full committee would have been much more advisable.

The Minister of Justice certainly should have been and I suggest would have been aware of this conflict and resulting fiasco for the opposition. The contempt that she showed for the House of Commons by failing to make her policy statement here in the House as a ministerial statement rather than a statement to the press is an attempt to manipulate this House.

I would suggest that a warning to the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the chair of the justice committee is in order. All of those individuals have to depend on the goodwill of the House, including the opposition and the second House of Parliament, if there is to be a successful disposition of legislation.

I urge the government to use this coming week to reflect on this point and I serve warning that the insults shown to the opposition and the amateur attempts to manipulate the House will result in the undermining of the government House leader, which might lead to unforeseen consequences for future good workings in this parliament.

[Young Offenders Act, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, according to the leak to the media yesterday the minister has no intention of lowering the age limit of the Young Offenders Act to cover those under the age of 12.

She should also know that children between the ages of 10 and 12 are being recruited by youth gangs to do their dirty work because they know they are exempt from prosecution.

Will the minister extend to parliamentarians the same courtesy she did to the media and confirm she has no intention of lowering the age of responsibility to under 12?

[Young Offenders Act, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows that the Young Offenders Act is administered by the provinces and is supposedly funded 50:50 by the federal and provincial governments.

Yet the minister should also know that the real federal contributions only amount to about 30% of total administrative cost, downloading the majority of these expenses to the provinces.

Is her government prepared to put its money where its mouth is and make sure the provinces do not get stuck with the bill on her recent musings about changes to the Young Offenders Act?

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 12 would allow an individual who is charged with a criminal offence or who subsequent to that charge has been convicted of an indictable offence to voluntarily provide a substance of DNA for analysis and entry into the DNA databank.

What this essentially enables an individual to do is give exculpatory evidence. Once again it demonstrates that this type of technology is not only to be used by the state but can be used by an individual and it would entrench this in the bill by allowing them to voluntarily give their DNA for use in the trial.

I suppose it could be argued that this would exist in any event if an individual wanted to do so and have the sample taken. Perhaps the funding is going to be a question that will inevitably be asked but this would include in the bill an individual's right to have their DNA considered by the state in the prosecution of a criminal offence. We are talking about designated offences.

The drafters of this bill in their wisdom have designated certain serious offences where DNA substances are very prone and very apt to be left.

I suggest this is a useful amendment. It is one that in the past would have been useful. The names Milgaard, Morin and Marshall come to mind with respect to how DNA did and could be used as exculpatory evidence.

It again shows the scope of the use of this type of technology in our criminal justice system and it is a positive suggestion and one which the government and hopefully all members of this House will support.

DNA is going to be used more and more in our justice system. It is inevitable. It is technology. It is going to serve a very useful purpose for those in law enforcement and for those involved in the justice system generally.

I hope all members would embrace this useful motion and would be supportive in their remarks and in the vote which will inevitably take place in the near future.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

No, it could be used for both.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my hat goes off to the previous speaker. I think he gave a very compelling address to this parliament. I have the greatest respect for him, his legal background and his input on the justice committee. He obviously has substantial experience which is of benefit to us at that committee.

We have before us, in the form of amendments, Motions Nos. 10 and 11. This is perhaps our last chance to right a potential wrong because we are not going to have the opportunity to do it again for some time.

The motion put forward by the hon. member for Crowfoot is aimed specifically at allowing for the collection of DNA evidence at the time of charge. It has an additional safeguard, which was put in I suggest as a compromise to entice members of the government to take a second look at this amendment. This amendment would allow a person who has previously been convicted of a schedule of offences that have been deemed heinous enough or serious enough to suggest that therefore the prevention element should take precedence over that particular convicted person's right to be free from this intrusive taking of a DNA sample.

I will speak to that issue of intrusiveness later in my remarks, but the important point to be made here is that what we are talking about is the taking of a DNA sample which would allow for the prevention of the further commission of an offence, potentially, because the police with the DNA in their possession at that point in time could then take that sample and match it with crime scene samples that are connected to outstanding crimes.

Figures were discussed at the justice committee. In the province of British Columbia alone there are 600 unsolved murders. If we calculate that in terms of the population across the country, in terms of sexual assaults, serious assaults and unsolved crimes, what greater benefit could there be than for the use of such an innovative police investigative tool to address and solve these crimes? We should keep in mind that the perpetrators of these crimes are still out there. They have not been caught. They are not accountable. They have not been brought to justice. They are ready, I would suggest, to do it again.

This amendment would allow the police to make that match, to make that connection, to go out there armed with that evidence and hopefully complete an investigation that might prevent the perpetration of another crime.

I have the greatest respect for the hon. member who spoke previously. He has a great deal of confidence in the justice lawyers. I do not share the same degree of confidence. We have seen in the past that the Department of Justice has gone outside of its own lawyers' cadre to get a practising lawyer to represent the government in court. We have seen that in the current firearms challenge in Alberta. Similarly what we saw here was an opinion at the eleventh hour from three very respected jurists. There is no question they are very respected, but I would suggest that the question that was put to them was put to them in very narrow terms, coupled with the fact that we already knew the position of the government. Mr. Speaker, you will have to excuse my scepticism on the response that we received.

That is of course not the only opinion that the justice committee had the benefit of. We had the benefit of a similarly respected and decorated criminal lawyer, Mr. Danson, who gave the opinion in a very straightforward way that in fact the sampling at the time of charge, and that is without this added designation of having a previous conviction, would withstand a charter challenge.

I embrace some of the comments with respect to the supremacy of this parliament and the responsibility that we have here to make laws in the area of criminal law.

The remarks of the hon. member I think reflect, in many ways, the opinions of a lot of the non-partisanship that must go into the criminal field. The members of the committee voiced very similar opinions regarding the fact that we are being supreme court driven. That is a dangerous area in which to find ourselves.

Criminal law, first and foremost, has to be accountable and responsible to the people. The people have elected members of parliament. They have entrusted them and placed in them their hope and desire that we will make laws which reflect the protection of the public and the accountability we must find in our criminal justice system.

When there is a supreme court paranoia or a supreme court constipation about criminal law it is a very dangerous position to be in.

The hon. member gave the very apt example of Paul Bernardo. He said that under the current legislation we would not be able to use his DNA in future investigations. The very premise of this motion is that we should be taking a very proactive as opposed to reactive role in the use of DNA in the criminal justice system.

The important example made and emphasized by the Canadian Police Association was that an individual taken into custody for a designated offence, who was previously charged and convicted of a designated offence, has the benefit of due process.

If the police cannot take a DNA sample and use it in the course of a trial, use it as a sample against other outstanding, unsolved offences, it is a lost opportunity. It will slip through our fingers.

The Canadian Police Association emphasized the fact—and there are statistics to support this position—that individuals who are released on bail are simply not going to return. If criminals have in the back of their minds that if they return and are convicted of an offence they must face the possibility that they will have their DNA matched with a crime they knew they committed in another part of the country, they will not return for trial.

They are certainly not going to return if they are charged with a break and enter offence and they know they were involved in an offence of a much more serious personal nature, such as murder or sexual assault. If that opportunity is lost because of the way the current legislation is drafted it would be an absolute tragedy.

This motion, in a very straightforward way, would address that. It would allow police to use DNA to a much greater degree. That is the intention here. There is no hidden agenda. I would suggest that this motion is put forward in a very constructive, straightforward and practical way. I am surprised there is not more support for it.

Luckily we will have the opportunity to vote. I am still holding out hope and optimism that common sense will prevail and we will find that this amendment will be accepted.

The safeguards we have in place in the rest of the bill, that is to say, the provisions that would make it criminal if a person was to misuse the DNA technology, I suggest would protect individual rights. They would protect individuals from the fear of misuse; the Orwellian thought that somehow, some way, a person might misuse this DNA and therefore create a miscarriage of justice.

We cannot succumb to that fear, given the public interest and the importance of optimizing the use of DNA technology. It will happen. Mark my words. If Canada does not seize the opportunity to be on the cutting edge, to be a country prepared to move forward, making the most of this DNA legislation, we will be left behind. Other countries will be looking at our country, shaking their heads and saying “Why didn't they do it when they had the opportunity?”

In conclusion, I want to suggest that both of the amendments found in Group No. 10 could gain the support and the confidence of all members of this House. When the vote is before us, I am encouraging and hoping that all members on both sides of this House will put partisanship aside and put common sense and good, right-minded thinking first.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. This might come as some dismay to the hon. member opposite, but I do not share that opinion. This is an important part of the process to have embodied in this piece of legislation.

It attempts in a substantive way to keep elected officials in the legislative loop, to keep them as a part of the process and to ensure that arbitrary changes do not occur. The hon. member for Charlesbourg does go about this in an interesting way. One could almost draw from this an inference that the Bloc or the hon. member are supportive now of the Senate's being actively involved in the review of this type of legislation.

The bill in its present form would not allow those members of parliament who are most affected on behalf of their constituents in the changing of the legislation to be directly involved. In the current reading of the bill the solicitor general could bring about a change arbitrarily. He could bring about a change without going through the normal process of review of looking at the legislation and bringing in what might somehow be interpreted as damaging to the entire bill.

I do support what the hon. member for Charlesbourg is trying to effect in this amendment. It is something that I think we all want to encourage. We want to encourage consultation and participation in the process. It recognizes as well the importance of both houses.

Draft regulations are fine. Putting a process in place is fine. But what we want to do here at all times is ensure there is proper review and consultation. Parliamentarians are certainly a necessity and must be consulted when we are reviewing something like this. Let us not forget that this is arguably one of the most important opportunities we in this House have to bring forward a piece of legislation to combat serious violent crime.

The sad reality is that the bill in its current form does not go far enough. It does not allow police officers to use this legislation to the full extent. It does not allow them to arm themselves with an investigative tool to permit them to combat violent crime. It does not allow them to investigate fully and make full use of the technology. We are not keeping up with the rate at which technology is changing.

It also is consistent with the need for transparency and the need for responsibility for those who are entrusted with this important task of changing legislation to have their say, to have the ability to go before committee, to talk to the amendments, to flesh out ideas and to call witnesses if necessary. Therefore they can follow the procedure that has been put in place.

I encourage all members to take a serious look at this legislation, including the member opposite. I encourage them to support this type of change. It would be consistent with the stance that his government has taken to encourage openness and transparency. This amendment does that.

We have to encourage these types of amendments at this point when we are debating them in the House, before they are law, before they are put in place hard and fast. We know when that does occur we will have to go back almost to the start.

It is then a very complicated process to invoke the change. Time is certainly of the essence with this particular bill. The clock is running. Sadly we know that each day in Canada violent crimes are happening. As we speak, violent crimes are being perpetrated across this country. As we speak, police officers are still unable to use DNA to the full extent that they could and which this bill offers them an opportunity to do.

I encourage all hon. members to partake in this process. Support this type of change which will allow members of the justice committee, members of the House on behalf of their constituents and all Canadians to have in place entrenched in this bill a process where they can surely have a voice in any changes that may come in the future with respect to DNA legislation.

We know that this is in many ways the beginning of what may be a very expansive use of DNA. This is something we have to keep in mind. The opportunity is before us. The opportunity is there for all members to partake in this, to seize the moment to put forward a piece of legislation that is going to empower police officers to make the most of this technology.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise with respect to a question that was placed on the order paper on October 3, 1997.

Seven months have passed. We are into the eighth month. It is a very straightforward question. We have been told time and time again that they will be getting back to us, that they will provide us with the answer. It just does not seem to be happening. I ask the parliamentary secretary again when we can expect an answer to this question.