Peter MacKay

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to lend the voice of the Progressive Conservative Party to supporting Bill C-13 as well. I will be brief.

I want to thank the government House leader as well as all the House leaders present for their participation and co-operation with respect to this agreement. I think it does show an important sign to this House and to the Canadian people that there is a spirit of solidarity and co-operation that can help to facilitate bills such as this.

I think it is important particularly when there is a breakdown in the House as we experience here where there are five parties for the first time in Canadian history.

It is also extremely important democratically to have representation on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party as well as my friend in the New Democratic Party to participate in the important decisions that are made at the board.

This bill continues with a floor level of 12 members of a party that gains access to the board. I believe that the House, at some point in the future, should take a look at this number after an election because it may help to avoid some unpleasantness that arose in the last Parliament.

There is nothing particularly significant about 12 other than the fact that this happened to accommodate the political situation decades ago.

The bill will also make amendments to provide for the operation of the board in the event of the demise or the disability of the Speaker and to ensure that a minister of the crown is included in the quorum of the board if it should have to select a new chairperson. Obviously we hope and pray this will never occur.

I will also acknowledge, as did my friend in the NDP, the spirit of co-operation and the concession that was made by the Bloc. We appreciate that. With respect to the proportionality, there was a concession made and we do acknowledge that.

I want to congratulate all the members who participated in this decision. It is our hope that once we gain actual participation within the board of economy this spirit will continue.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, by doing nothing on the issue of drunk driving the Liberal government bears responsibility for the deaths and injuries caused by drunk drivers.

Yesterday the minister said that she was waiting for the transport department to do something. The minister knows well that neither the Department of Transport nor provincial ministers can do anything to amend the Criminal Code.

Is the justice minister hiding behind another public servant's report to cover the lack of action by her government on this issue? I urge her to take the responsibility to prevent another 1,700 deaths in the coming year and commit to concrete steps to review the Criminal Code roadside procedures and enact a victims bill of rights.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Mothers Against Drunk Driving held a press conference and released very important results of a national survey which indicated that more than 80% of Canadians support toughening the Criminal Code with respect to drunk driving.

Twelve months ago MADD came to Ottawa looking for action and attempted to meet with the former justice minister. Apparently he was too busy dealing with politically motivated matters to meet with them and was oblivious to the 1,700 Canadians who were killed by drunk drivers.

My question is for the current Minister of Justice. Will the minister commit today to stopping the carnage on Canadian highways by tabling amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with drunk driving?

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I commend my friend for bringing this to the floor of the House. This is new information. He has made a specific reference to Beauchesne. I would encourage the Chair to take this under consideration. It is not a revisitation of the same point of order. I would encourage the Chair to render the decision according to the new information which has been provided by the hon. House leader.