Peter MacKay

[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.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be suggesting that unless a criminal charge is laid everything is okay.

We know this is not the case. Pierre Corbeil did not act alone. He committed a crime thanks to confidential information provided by someone in the minister's own office.

Will the President of the Treasury Board stop hiding behind these meaningless statements and bureaucratic gobbledegook and clean up his office? Or does he condone the activities of Mr. Corbeil?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a political staff member of the minister's office has been directly involved in the commission of a criminal offence and nobody in this government is taking any responsibility for it.

The Liberal code of ethics claims transparency and accountability, which have surely been trampled in this case.

What is the President of the Treasury Board doing to prevent Jacques Roy or any other member of his staff from using confidential information to raise money for the Liberal Party in the future?

[Westray Mine, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the early morning of May 9, 1992 a violent explosion rocked the tiny community of Plymouth just east of the town of Stellarton in Pictou county, Nova Scotia. The explosion occurred in the depths of the Westray coal mine instantly killing the 26 miners working there at the time.

On Saturday, the sixth anniversary of the disaster, more than 150 people gathered at the Westray Memorial Park to commemorate this tragic loss of life.

We in this House must extend not only our sympathy and compassion to the many victims of Westray but also work to ensure such a tragedy never occurs again. I urge the Minister of Justice to address the recommendations made by Justice Peter Richard in his inquiry report. Furthermore I invite all hon. members of this House to join with me in calling on the province of Nova Scotia to provide fair severance to all of the former employees of Westray mine.

In memory of the victims of Westray, let us take responsible appropriate actions as elected officials of this House.

[Fisheries, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would turn the minister's attention now to area 18 and the crab fishery in Nova Scotia.

I have been informed that due to the soft shells of the crab this year fishermen have been forced to comply with a 48 hour notice to close the fishery in this area.

By confining fishermen to an area that is insufficient and by adding new licences, DFO has put the future of this fishery in peril.

Is the minister prepared to redefine this area and address the concerns of the fishermen in area 18?

[Fisheries, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries. As the minister knows, the communities of Canso and Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, are anxiously awaiting a decision with respect to shrimp quotas.

The Canso Trawlermen's Co-op and the ACS company of Mulgrave submitted proposals for shrimp quota. The quotas could very well determine the survival of these communities.

Delegations from both groups travelled to Ottawa. Although the minister was unavailable, DFO officials were briefed on their dire situation.

Time is running out. Could the minister tell us when he plans to announce a decision with respect to the northern shrimp quota?

[National Forestry Week, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Forestry Week in Canada and how appropriate and sadly ironic given the terrible fires that are raging in Canada.

Canada boasts 235 million hectares of commercial forest land. We have a thriving industry of private woodlot owners who provide important environmental, economic and social benefits to their communities.

Despite such good news, there are still a number of major hurdles that our forestry industry must overcome, due in large part to the policies of this government. For example, the Liberals have eliminated the federal-provincial forestry agreement that was established by the Conservatives in the 1980s which provided much needed funding for silviculture management. In addition, Canada's taxation policies do nothing to encourage landowners to invest in sustainable management practices that would allow for increased fibre production.

As we celebrate National Forestry Week, I call on the government to recognize the tremendous contributions made by private woodlot owners to our economy. Investing in our forest industry today will ensure its viability for future generations.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to partake in this debate and pleased particularly to follow my hon. friends and colleagues in the NDP and the Bloc.

I do note with some amusement that what we have here in the motion is a defence lawyer asking for more time in a sentence. I think that is telling and I think it is indicative of the intent of this motion, to emphasize the importance of protection of privacy here and to put a greater degree of flexibility before the courts to allow a judge to impose a sentence of up to five years when an individual chooses to breach this important piece of legislation by potentially misusing DNA evidence.

It is something that we in the House and hopefully the government will take very seriously and perhaps embrace the suggestion brought forward by the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.

The flexibility, the discretion it would allow is certainly very important. It is also going to be safeguarded, as the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria indicated, in the sense that a judge still has discretion. There is still the fallback position that there is the summary offence by which the crown can proceed, that coupled with the fact that the crown and the defence will always have input into the sentencing process. The judge will then be called upon to apply the sentencing principles, to ensure fairness, to ensure that it is a measured response and not a cookie cutter response, a phrase that my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia will have also heard in courtrooms.

It is there. It is implicit in the particular system we have that there is not going to be a disproportionate response.

The hon. member's motion in essence broadens the ability of judges to look at the factual scenario before them if it involves a breach of this privacy, a breach or misuse of DNA evidence. I therefore concur with his remarks. I believe it is an important motion he is bringing to the House.

It emphasizes and provides a more serious note and response to a criminal activity that would involve the criminal misuse of DNA evidence. It is important that we look at this and consider it very seriously because in bringing forward the bill we are arming the government and police with a very important tool to respond to a very important and widespread problem in Canada.

That is why we on this side of the House are encouraging the government to go all the way. I think this is going to be the emerging rallying cry about this particular piece of legislation, all the way with DNA. Let us use this to the full extent. Let us for once be on the cutting edge of the justice system. Let us move forward, not with tentative steps. With no disrespect whatsoever to the supreme court, let us not clutter our minds too much with what the supreme court will do with this piece of legislation. Let us move forward in an informed way.

We have had extensive hearings on this particular bill. Numerous witnesses have given input before the committee. Members of the policing community, members of the victims advocates groups, members of the science community who are going to be called upon to implement this bill, all of them are encouraging us to make the most of this opportunity we have at this time. This is the time for parliament to act, to do something in a positive way that is going to help the law enforcement community and significantly help satisfy those victims who feel that the justice system is failing them.

To put a point on this, we have an opportunity to reflect the serious reprisals when this legislation is breached. If a person chooses to misuse this, the hon. member's suggestion is that we should raise the ceiling to five years for an indictable offence involving the misuse of DNA technology. That sends a very clear, unequivocal message to those who would be so inclined to partake in that criminal activity. It ups the ante on the importance of ensuring that there is deterrence, that there is a significant response from the government and from the justice system when this legislation is breached.

We need to ensure that the police and Canadians at large know they have the support of parliament and know that parliament is working to protect them.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, we support this particular amendment. We support it as an important step in building a piece of legislation that is workable and that is taken very seriously by Canadians. It allows the police to get on with the very important task they are charged with, to implement and to use this tool in a significant way in their daily fight against crime.

With those remarks, I congratulate the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria, my colleague from Nova Scotia. He brings forward a very important amendment. I urge all members of this House at the time of the vote to take it very seriously, turn their minds to this suggestion and to support it. That is what should happen.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to partake in this very important debate on this very timely and important piece of legislation.

As has been indicated by previous speakers, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Charlevoix is aimed specifically at the protection of the privacy of individuals and particularly the integrity of the test samples that may be taken by the police in the course of their investigation.

As with the previous speaker, I find myself in a position where I cannot in all conscience support this motion. It had been clearly demonstrated at the justice committee, by a professional chemist who spoke of the ability scientists would have to destroy the actual DNA profile, that this is not a possibility. The DNA profile itself is set up in such a way that it appears on a sheet with 24 other profiles. If one profile were physically removed all the other profiles would fall and it would cause a mix. I am not articulating this as well as the professor, but as I understand it is a physical impossibility to destroy the profile. I am puzzled as to the insistence of the hon. member from the Bloc that this motion be adopted.

Motion No. 4 of Group No. 2 is the first motion. For the reasons I have indicated I feel it is not appropriate that we would be quick to embrace this motion.

Motion No. 6 was moved by the hon. member from the Bloc. It speaks of the necessity of the commissioner to order without delay the destruction of stored bodily substances of a person after the forensic DNA analysis of those substances has been performed. As indicated by previous speakers, I suggest this is not a necessity and this proposed amendment in its present form would contradict the previous amendment. That is to say that section 7.1 as amended would contradict section 7 of the same clause.

The member for Charlevoix should have indicated in the amendment that there should be a deletion of section 7 if the amendment were adopted. In its present form section 7 is clear and sufficient. It would defeat the purpose if we were to do away with all the other safeguards. The safeguards are crucial to the protection of individual rights. The safeguards put specific onus on the commissioner to take into consideration certain factors as to when and where the substances and the DNA profile should be used.

It is not a section that we should tamper with at this time. I would not be supportive of this amendment for the reasons stated.

Motion No. 13 which appears in this grouping talks of the need to amend section 487.09 of the Criminal Code which speaks of the use of DNA sampling in trials or court cases where there has been an individual who has been found not criminally responsible. When a person is finally acquitted of a designated offence or any other offence with respect to the same transaction that individual would not be subject to any further review or that the DNA would never be sampled or used again.

This motion calls for the destruction of bodily substances and the removal of the DNA profile of a person found not guilty by reason of a mental disorder.

We believe it is important to continue to store and to keep this information and profile of an individual as the current law does presently provide. To destroy that information on the basis of the finding of the court would destroy the ability of the police, with the use of this sample, to establish that the individual had committed the actus reus. Whether they had formed the requisite mens rea, whether they had intended to do this act, would be a finding for the court. At least they would be able to put some finality on the investigation. They would be able to say we have the DNA profile, we have the individual who committed the act. That is an important feature that this amendment would prevent the law from doing.

Section 672 of the Criminal Code, which deals with mental orders, allows the courts to make specific findings with respect to a person's culpability and whether they have formed the intent to do so. There are provisions aimed at individuals who have been deemed to be not criminally responsible. This is not the time or the place for us to interfere with that, which is what this motion calls for. It is tampering with the safeguards that presently exist. It is not something that we should be getting into at this point.

The important amendments put forward are done so with the best of intentions. They are done so with a very clear purpose by the hon. member for Charlevoix, to address privacy concerns. Once again I am afraid that what we are in danger of doing should we accept these amendments is making this legislation unnecessarily cumbersome and more complicated than it is in its present form.

What we are hoping to do by the enactment of this important and historic piece of legislation is give police officers the necessary tools to conduct criminal investigations, particularly into very violent offences. This will help police officers to solve a great number of outstanding murders. This legislation will give those police officers a tool to get on with the very important task of solving these crimes not only for the purposes of holding people accountable for their atrocious acts but to give victims some closure. It will give the families of those who have been affected an opportunity to come to grips with what has happened. There are 600 cases in the province of British Columbia alone.

I hope the process we are embarking on today by going through this piece of legislation and looking at ways to improve it and to beef up what the intent of this legislation will help police officers to perform the important tasks they are charged with.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 4th, 1998]

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

This is again an opportunity I am putting to the parliamentary secretary to advise the House when we might expect an answer on Question No. 21. On numerous occasions I have stood and asked when, not if, but when we might expect an answer. It is a real brow wrinkler when one considers the line of questioning that is put forward in the House that pertains to this exact question that was tabled.

I again ask the parliamentary secretary when we might expect an answer on this question.