House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police May 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am back on the issue of dead horses, but I would like to know from the President of the Treasury Board what safety provisions he has put in place to ensure this type of information is not going to be used for an illegal purpose like we have seen in the past.
I would like to know when he knew, what he has done and what he intends to do about this leak of information from his office.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police May 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as much as the minister would say the file is closed and the matter will go away, I want to point out that it is a fact that it was an employee of his who provided confidential information to Mr. Corbeil. It is a fact that Mr. Corbeil then, in turn, used this information to participate in an illegal kickback scheme to the Liberal Party.
It is a fact that the person involved in the office of the President of the Treasury Board could not have participated in this if the information had not been provided. It is a fact that the President of the Treasury Board, who denied the involvement of his office, is wrong.
In light of these facts, will the President of the Treasury Board clean up his office or resign?
Royal Canadian Mounted Police May 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I think there is more to add.
Canadians need to know that private information given to the government is not being used for a Liberal Party graft.
Last week it was confirmed in a Montreal courtroom that Jacques Roy, special assistant to the President of the Treasury Board, turned over government information to a convicted extortionist, Pierre Corbeil.
My question to the minister is, what disciplinary action has been taken for his employee, or does he condone this activity by his employee?
Royal Canadian Mounted Police May 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, last week the President of the Treasury Board stated that he did not see any problem with what his employee, Jacques Roy, was doing since the information he gave up for legal fundraising was actually public information.
Will the minister stand in his place today and tell the House that applications for funds for federal departments are public information prior to their governmental approval?
Elizabeth Fry Week May 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the week of May 4 is National Elizabeth Fry week during which time Elizabeth Fry societies across the country will hold activities to enhance public awareness and education regarding the circumstances of women involved in the criminal justice system.
National Elizabeth Fry Society week is always the week preceding Mother's Day as the majority of women who come in conflict with the law are mothers. In fact, the majority of these women were the sole supporters of their families at the time they were incarcerated.
When mothers are sentenced to prison their children are sentenced to separation through no fault of their own. On the occasion of national Elizabeth Fry week let us support the important role of the Elizabeth Fry Society in identifying community based alternatives to costly incarceration for non-violent offenders.
Dna Identification Act May 4th, 1998
Madam Speaker, as previous members have expressed, I am very pleased to take part in the debate.
The members previous have also indicated this is a very crucial and important piece of legislation that will certainly aid police officers and Canadians generally in their never ending fight against crime.
I want to address the motions in the order in which they appear. With respect to the first motion, which is moved by the member for Charlesbourg, although I certainly agree with the purpose for which he has brought the motion forward, I would suggest it is a motion or an amendment that is already addressed in the current form of the bill. Clause 4 of the bill is clear. Any further tinkering with this clause would only lead to potential misunderstanding, which of course could then lead to unnecessary litigation.
I find myself in the untenable position of having to agree with the government that the legitimate concerns are in fact met. Although there is always concern for misuse of this important technology, I believe the principles set out in the preamble will address that point. I certainly would not call it a pointless or irrelevant motion but simply duplicitous.
It is a very complicated bill. There can be no debate on that issue. We as members of the House, and particularly those participating in this debate, have an obligation to try to simplify where possible the legislation, not to complicate it.
Motion No. 2 was proposed by the member for Sydney—Victoria. For the reasons I previously stated I feel it may be a motion that is addressed in a more direct form in the current drafting of the bill.
It is not the principle that we disagree with but rather that the bill might become unduly complicated by making this amendment. Certainly there is evidence that this type of DNA data can and perhaps will in the future be used for other purposes.
With respect to how it will be used as it stems from this piece of legislation, safeguards are in place and sections of the bill will be addressed in other amendments which we will be debating on the floor today. It is perhaps duplicitous. Safeguards currently exist in the act. Any improper or illegal use of the DNA evidence would be addressed by existing sections of the act.
The third motion is proposed by the member for Charlesbourg with respect to the use of DNA, or how the commissioner would ensure that DNA was not being abused, is a motion that I embrace, a motion that I think is a good one.
It is aimed particularly at protecting the privacy interests of individuals. It ensures accountability and is aimed at correcting or addressing any misuse of information. It is a good motion. It is one that I hope all members of the House will consider and take seriously.
It would allow for a more complete and perhaps a more thorough investigation of the DNA databank. It is an important safeguard. As I have indicated earlier, it is a motion we should support. It would also ensure that improper use does not occur.
The fifth motion in this grouping proposed by my hon. friend in the Bloc is a motion that I believe in principle we should support. However, as has been indicated by the parliamentary secretary and the member from the Reform Party, there are provisions in existing legislation that would allow for an audit outside a defined three year period.
In essence this concern has been met. I am pleased to hear that the parliamentary secretary is supportive of that position. Therefore the legitimate concern raised by the hon. member is addressed. It is certainly there for a very crucial intent, that is to balance the protection of the public and the crucial need of law enforcement officers to use this trace evidence and DNA sample evidence for their legitimate fight against organized crime and crime generally, coupled with the need for the privacy concern interest.
We have an obligation to ensure that is what happens by the enactment of the legislation. There is a great deal of responsibility weighing upon us in that regard.
I conclude by saying that of the motions before the House in this juncture of debate, we support the last two but have some difficulty with respect to the prior two motions which appear in this grouping.
Dna Identification Act May 4th, 1998
Soon.
Dna Identification Act May 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I apologize for rising but on this point I do want to bring to the House's attention that this grouping I suggest is inappropriate in the sense that Motions Nos. 1 and 2 have absolutely nothing to do and have no bearing on Motions Nos. 3 and 5. I am not suggesting they be voted on differently. My understanding is that all these motions will be voted on individually, but Motions Nos. 1 and 2 should not be in the same grouping as Nos. 3 and 5.
Dna Identification Act May 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I think it bears mentioning that it was received at our office by regular standard mail. It was not sent by courier to our office, just to differentiate from what the parliamentary secretary said.
I think the hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair also raises an important point that this information has distributed in one language, and that point was raised by the hon. member from the Bloc.
I suggest that if a prima facie case does not exist, at the very least we should be given an opportunity to review this material in its entirety. If it was important enough to seek this decision and important enough to get to an important group like the Canadian Police Association, surely that in and of itself bears out the argument that we as members of parliament debating this issue on the floor of the House should be given an opportunity to digest this information.
Dna Identification Act May 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I bring this matter forward, but I feel I am under a duty to do so. It arises out of Bill C-3 which will be before the House today for amendment.
It also bears on government action which I feel impedes members of this House in their consideration of this bill which is scheduled for report stage today.
An essential part of the debate on Bill C-3 has to do with a disagreement over an important constitutional question. Eminent counsel outside the government were requested to give an opinion with respect to the options the government was considering. The chief law officer for the crown, the Minister of Justice, decided to go outside her department to secure the opinion of these three distinguished lawyers who had in the past been members of the judiciary. This information was made known to members of the justice committee on April 20 when the minister appeared before the committee for main estimates.
The Minister of Justice felt it was necessary to get this judicial opinion outside her department as it bore directly on the issue of the timing of the taking of DNA which is central to the debate before the House today.
Over the weekend I learned that on Friday evening the opinions of these three eminent jurists were made available to the executive director of the Canadian Police Association. At the same time, those opinions were not made available to members of the justice committee, or at least not to the members of the opposition I spoke with. The information was made available to the director of the police association, but not to the justice committee.
The House of Commons will be asked to vote on questions relating to this very important opinion which the Minister of Justice felt it necessary to seek. I suggest that, as members of the House, we have been placed in a disadvantaged position. I and my staff worked on this issue over the weekend, as did other opposition members in preparation for today's debate. We did so without the knowledge of the opinions sought by the Minister of Justice. I only received these opinions this morning.
I believe the opinions were made available, but it would appear they were not delivered to the office in the same manner that they were delivered to the director of the Canadian Police Association. I understand he received them via courier to his house in Brockville, while we as members of this House did not receive them until this morning. I took the liberty of providing those opinions to my colleagues in other parties because they had yet to receive them at all.
I would suggest that the government's actions demonstrate that it cares more for the opinions of an interest group than it does for those of members of the justice committee who are being requested to speak on this issue in the House today. The government has failed in its obligation to treat this House with the same respect as it does those who are not members of this Chamber. It is the “cheque is in the mail” response. The government went to the trouble of having this decision rendered and then did not go to the trouble of having that information provided to us as members of the committee.
This is not to show any disrespect for interest groups, in particular the Canadian Police Association. It is certainly entitled to this information as well, but the same courtesy should have been extended and the same effort should have been made to ensure members of this House had that crucial information. Instead the government chose the slowest and least cost effective means to transmit the material. We in this House have been asked to approve departmental estimates and to provide the department with our feedback on this important piece of legislation, and yet the government has communicated this information to us by the slowest of all possible means.
I submit there was a breach of parliamentary privilege. The government's purpose in securing a legal opinion was to influence the deliberations of the vote that will take place on Bill C-3, yet it has failed to give sufficient time for us to fully consider these important legal opinions.
I point the Chair to citation 31(10) of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's where a Speaker on the issue of ministerial communications to the House stated:
The question has been asked whether Hon. Members are entitled, as part of their parliamentary privilege, to receive such information ahead of the general public.
I can find no precedent to justify this suggestion.
I am not arguing that we have a priority to receive it before members of the public, but at the very least we should receive it at the same time. This information relates directly to the point that will be debated in the House today. It relates directly to the point with respect to the timing of the taking of DNA. I assure the House that will be the position taken by members of the opposition. There is an obligation to make that information available in advance. This action by the government, I would suggest, was not only contentious, but ill-thought out and ill-advised, given the fact that this information is before the House. Haste makes for bad law and that is the danger that arises when situations like this occur.
Therefore, I believe it is incumbent upon the Chair, at the very least, to consider this issue prior to the commencement of the debate. We need time to review these decisions. We need time to digest the opinions of these jurists who have been called upon by the government to render a decision and to consider them in the debate here prior to speaking to these amendments.
I would suggest it is urgent that we deal with this in a timely fashion, to use the minister's words, and that we do so prior to the commencement of the debate today.