Rob Anders

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe we have quorum right now. I would like a quorum call.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are speaking now to the second group of motions. I want to clearly identify for the folks at home what we are speaking to. It is Bill C-3, the national DNA databank. There are 13 motions. We are now referring to Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13.

To give a brief thumbnail sketch, one motion would basically destroy the convicted offender index. The whole purpose of the national DNA databank is to establish an index of those people who are convicted offenders.

I believe it speaks directly against the whole purpose of the bill. If the purpose of the bill is to establish a national index of convicted offenders and if Motion No. 4 proposed by a member from Bloc is to actually destroy the index, then it speaks directly against the main purpose of the bill.

There is more destruction yet. Motion No. 6 speaks to the destruction of stored bodily substances. To develop the index we need stored bodily substances. There is a debate in terms of whether once we have a profile established we need to keep the bodily substances, because once we have the profile, supposedly we have the profile.

I ask hon. members to think back with me in a bit of a tale. Imagine if previous to the discovery and the understanding of the double helix structure we had the ability to collect substances from the scene of a crime but without DNA evidencing or without being able to break things down on a DNA level and without being able to analyse bodily substances we would not be able to know whether they were the substances of that offender or criminal.

It is like we are standing on the edge of a technological cliff, on the edge of a brave new world. If we destroy these substances when the government has admitted here today that it was brought forward by chemists in committee that each day or each week advancements are being made in DNA technology, in the ability to analyse these things forensically or otherwise, we are tossing away data that will be vital in terms of the prosecution of these crimes. That is a crime in itself. That speaks to Motion No. 6. If we destroy these bodily substances when it would be easy enough to keep them on file and to bank them, all we are doing is keeping the profile as it stands right now at the simplistic level.

Far be it from me as somebody who is not a chemist but a mere politician to determine whether 10, 15 or 20 years down the road chemistry will advance or DNA analysis will have advanced to the point where the profiles can be much more expansive than what they are right now.

Motion No. 13 is with regard to once again destroying bodily substances. Here the idea is to keep it in sync with other parts of the Criminal Code in terms of destroying substances or pieces of evidence in the case of acquittal.

Once again let us think about this is terms of the victim and in terms of those who are innocent and want to be proven innocent and want to get their acquittals as opposed to those people who are actually the offenders.

Too many times we have taken into account the rights of the criminal rather than the rights of the victims in this circumstance. I am will now go over some of the arguments that have been brought forward today with regard to the second set of motions.

One of my colleagues in the Reform Party brought this up and it was very effective. The idea comes up that if one lives in a small town everybody knows what one is up to and is that not awful. Actually it is only awful if one is not very proud of what one is up to. This once again speaks to the whole idea of innocents.

If we have this national DNA databank and if substances are kept past one's acquittal and if bodily substances are kept rather than just the minuscule or whatever type of profile we are able to have at this time, never mind what we are going to have 10, 15 or 20 years down the road, the only people who have something to fear in this case are the criminals, not the innocent, for indeed they are the ones who shall be set free.

Merely it raises the question of what these people are doing if they are so worried about having a DNA databank that stays for longer than a year or for just that crime or case. The whole purpose of having the index is so that we can cross-reference these things when other crimes come up.

One of the Bloc members asked why we should keep these materials. We may need more samples to go ahead and verify a sample. Once again, I am not an expert in these things but if there are multiple clippings of hair or types of blood at a site and merely one sampling is taken then destroyed, what if there were other blood samples mixed in? We want to be able to know these things, so keeping the actual bodily substances is important.

The second point that I have already raised is to future testing. I think I would be a poor person to judge at this moment in history whether technology will change and allow us the ability to make further testing, more comprehensive testing than what we have right now.

NDP members also had a chance to speak to this set of motions. They said it was an intrusion of the self and that it was too important in terms of the intrusion of the self to allow these bodily substances and these databanks to be maintained. They said we should seriously question this. The destruction of these things in what they considered to be due process it would be the best thing to do.

I think that is part of what we are getting at here. If all we are worried about all the time is the intrusion on the actual criminal, if we are worried about in a sense how the case of the defence stands, then we are not having as a primary concern the rights of the victims rather than the rights of the criminal. In that case, when there is a rape or a murder, why are we more worried about the intrusions made on the victim than the intrusions made on the criminal in these investigations?

Too often we are concerned with the criminal legal system, not enough with the victims.

We also heard today from a Reform colleague of mine about how blood banks are far exceeding the expansion and growth than anything we could possibly be worried about at this point with DNA databanks. If that is the case we certainly have a precedent set already with the expansion of blood banks for every new infant. To collect data in the case of crimes is merely doing due diligence for law-abiding citizens who want to see injustices righted.

The Progressive Conservatives, our Tory friends in the House, also spoke to this, the member in mind having actually sat in on the justice committee. He said that according to people who presented there was great difficulty, indeed an impracticality, with regard to the destruction of DNA profiles.

Having 20 profiles on a page and trying to destroy one, and thereby in some way tampering or destroying an entire page, it is getting rid of the whole purpose of having an index. Once again, if we are going to go to this trouble, if we are to increase the effectiveness of the enforcement of law, why tamper with the index in any way? We should want to have it. It is going to help in the prosecution of crimes.

We had Liberals who spoke to this group of motions and their words were often encouraging when they said why destroy samples when technology progresses day by day or week by week. I pointed that out as well, so good on them for recognizing something that has true value. They spoke to the costs and the administration of resampling these things. We would not want to burden taxpayers with more cost and more administration. It just does not make sense.

To my Liberal colleagues across the way who wanted to cut down on the administrative costs of resampling, good on them. I only wish they kept these things in mind on more issues.

Another Reform colleague spoke to the whole idea of indexing. Trying to get rid of the index is working against the very purposes of the bill and the underlying justice we are trying to achieve.

With that I leave it to other members in the House and say that in no way can we support some of these amendments, namely Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 13. We have to stand against them.

[Dna Identification Act, May 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify for the people at home that I am generally in favour of setting up a DNA databank. I think it makes a lot of sense.

When fingerprints were first brought in, they helped solve a lot of crimes that previously were unsolvable. Having our DNA databank will give us the technological tools to solve crimes that right now we do not have the capability for. As a result it is generally a good idea. But the problem with Bill C-3 as it stands is that it does not give the government as many opportunities as it would otherwise have with some of the Reform amendments and others across the way to go ahead and break these crimes, get these criminals convicted and incarcerate them.

In the first grouping of amendments, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, the first amendment by an hon. member from the Bloc is with regard to the respect of privacy. Unfortunately I am not going to be able to support my Bloc colleague on this because it basically precludes us from having access to information that we would otherwise possibly need.

So even though it is something done with respect to privacy I would have a tough time in some of these circumstances to look a victim of rape in the eye and because of a lack of due process or some problem that would be laid out in this amendment be able to say that because of a technicality the offender walked free. Therefore I am not going to be able to support the Bloc member on Motion No. 1.

Motion No. 2, proposed by an NDP colleague, precludes private agencies and labs from taking samples and creates public standards and better accuracy of testing quality. I believe these types of DNA materials or DNA information should be kept by the government. I would have some problems with it being doled out to somebody or any group willy-nilly. As a result I support this NDP motion.

The only concern I have with this motion is that I hope, if indeed private laboratories become more advanced than the public ones we have for DNA identification and information gathering, that this will not preclude the use of some of the advanced techniques that private labs may have access to above and beyond the public ones, if that happens. I think it would be a real travesty if we were to prevent justice from having access to advanced techniques that may be available in the private sector that would not possibly be available at that time in the public sector. On that level that is the only caution I give to NDP Motion No. 2.

Motion No. 3 is to safeguard against wrong persons accessing the DNA databank. This again speaks to the first motion. Once again it is from my hon. colleague from the Bloc. We have to make sure there is privacy and this information is not doled out to anybody. It is something used almost exclusively for this criminal work and nobody else has access to it unless they are actually doing work with regard to the investigation of a crime.

Motion No. 5 is basically viewed as a make work amendment in that it asks for a three year review. If we are able to get some of these amendments on the national databank passed then we are not going to have to worry about as many reviews of the legislation in the process if we set it up right in the first place.

Speaking to the generalities of these four motions in the first group motions and how they impact the bill as a whole, we are looking to set up a registration system so that we can track those offenders, those violent criminals, and prosecute and convict them where possible. The government has no problem going ahead and registering people, law-abiding citizens, with Bill C-68. On firearms certainly there should not be a problem with being able to give the necessary tools even above and beyond what we have here in Bill C-3, to enhance the ability of police officers to go ahead and convict.

Some of these suggestions were provided to us by the Canadian Police Association. It is not just the Reform Party standing here in the House today asking for increased powers and expanding jurisdiction of some of these things so that the national DNA databank can be more effective.

The police and their representative, the Canadian Police Association, are asking for some of these things.

These are reasons why some of these amendments need to be included and why the DNA databank needs to be as effective as possible. We would see a reduced cost of enforcement of the law and a greater ability to convict. There would be an increased effectiveness of the enforcement of the law. We believe in public safety. We believe people deserve a sense of security. We should not be instilling a false sense of security. We should make this as effective as we can.

We do not believe in depriving the police, the RCMP or the respective municipal police forces, the tools necessary to to conduct their work in criminal investigations and violations of the Criminal Code.

This will be bar none the most effective thing that has been changed with regard to the justice system in the collection of evidence since the introduction of finger prints. Finger prints with their oils would probably leave some skin samples to enact some DNA information gathering. It has expanded beyond the oils that are left on one's fingers and skin samples to hair and in the case of sexual crimes semen samples and blood samples. All these things are now available to us to test and determine. No one else in the world will have the same DNA of a criminal left at the scene of the crime.

The gist of this is good but half measures are not good enough. That is why we have to make changes to this bill to make sure that it is better than what it is. Because of DNA people who are innocent and who have been charged with a crime will not be convicted wrongly. It is the innocent who will triumph in this. They will be vindicated by DNA information gathering. If they were not at the scene of the crime, it will be that much more easily ascertained.

I leave this caution with the government. We ask some of the fundamental questions of cost, who wants it and other questions I have asked before in this Chamber. The cost of our not making these amendments to make this as effective as possible and to expand the range of the collection of DNA evidence will mean some people will walk free when they are criminals and should not be walking free.

Who wants it? Obviously not only the police officers who enforce the law and the people who want to see justice but also the victims who would see some of their perpetrators walk free.

For the victims, for the Canadian Police Association, the police officers, for the law-abiding citizens who want to see justice served and a more effective justice system, we need to enact some of these changes. We need to make sure that Bill C-3 does not go through without serious questioning and without making it the best that it could be.

[The Senate, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when? October 19. Where? Alberta. Who? No appointee can be more accountable a representative than a senator chosen by the people of Alberta. The only question remaining is why?

Will the government respect the will of Albertans or will it stand the Deputy Prime Minister to absorb the shock waves for not appointing the duly chosen person on October 19?

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, by looking around the Chamber I notice we do not have enough members to represent a quorum in the House.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

I hear rumblings from members opposite who think that should be the case. Good for them. I encourage them to make amendments to Bill C-37 to make changes to the patronage process that awards justiceships to Liberals.

Let us speak to the lack of priorities for a second if we may. On the Young Offenders Act we have seen no substantive changes coming out of the government since it was elected. We still have serious repeat offenders who are being treated with kid gloves under the Young Offenders Act. Yet the priority of the Liberals is to raise the salaries of judges.

Surely taking care of serious repeat offenders, young offenders who violate the act again, again and again, must take a higher precedence not only in the eyes of the Canadian public but also in the eyes of the technocrats here. That must be more important than a raise in the salary of judges in this land.

Regarding section 745, I heard the Liberals claim that they have made changes to it. Tinkering they must be, for otherwise I would not have had to appear on the steps of some of the Alberta courts in 1997 with Darlene Boyd, a mother who lost a child and wanted to make sure the individuals who killed her child would not be getting early parole under section 745. If there had been substantive changes to section 745, mothers like Darlene Boyd would not need to make appearances before courts hoping that the killers of their children would not be set free.

I also speak to the lack of priorities in terms of the backlog of the courts. Nowhere in Bill C-37 do we have an address of the issue of the backlog in the courts. Surely this is something of high priority and concern. Yet we see nothing to deal with the backlog in the courts. Once again, they are fast to want to raise the salaries of the judges under Bill C-37.

My fourth point in terms of lack of priorities is that we have prison overcrowding. Nowhere in Bill C-37 do we see an address of the issue of prison overcrowding. Yet they are quick to raise the salaries of the judges in this land.

Maybe it is that Liberal politicians do not like to actually make laws in the House. They would rather abdicate the supremacy of parliament to the judiciary. As a result, they only see fitting that taxpayer money and their salaries go toward paying judges because they write more laws and make the laws, not the Liberals who like to abdicate that ability.

My fifth point is that street gangs are becoming a problem. Nowhere in Bill C-37 do we see an address of the issue of the rise of street gangs, but it certainly speaks to the raise in judges' salaries.

My sixth point concerns lack of priorities and once again speaks to the whole idea of judicial activism. I touched lightly on the idea that the justices rewrite and write the law of the land. It should be a supremacy of parliament that is respected. We as members of the House of Commons should write the law, not the justices. This does nothing to speak to the judicial activism that goes on and what is happening now with the justices' writing the law rather than elected members of the House of Commons.

The six reasons I listed are all perfectly justified. They give a clear indication of the lack of priorities of the Liberals in criminal justice. They would rather raise the salaries of judges than deal with the six substantive points that should take precedence over raising judges' salaries.

Now I will speak to the money. When the money trail is traced that is usually when these matters get interesting. Let us take a look at the lack of priorities in terms of money. A lot of working poor do not have the luxury of colour cable TV but our prisoners do. By committing a violent act they earn the right to have colour cable TV but the working poor do not have that right.

It is a misappropriation of government resources to raise the salaries of judges while it continues to give colour TV to our prisoners. This money could be better allocated to hiring more judges or RCMP officers to hopefully get rid of the backlog.

There is a lack of priorities when free condoms are handed out to prisoners in jail. I do not see the purpose of handing free condoms to sexual offenders in jail. They are not supposed to be having sex in jail. That is not the whole point, yet money is spent on handing out condoms to prisoners. It is a Liberal priority to hand out condoms to prisoners.

Bleach is given to prisoners to sterilize their contaminated needles. They should not be using needles in jail. Once again that is a Liberal priority.

We have a situation where prisoners have the right to sue and use public funds to initiate charter challenges. How is this justified? How is a charter challenge on behalf of a prisoner more justified than hiring an extra RCMP officer or an extra judge to look after the backlog in the courts?

Money is spent to make sure that the prisoners have a right to vote with all the logistical costs involved in that process. Paul Bernardo had an opportunity if he so wished to cast a ballot in the last election, which I believe was in your riding, Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly. How could anybody justify to a constituent in Kingston that money should be spent to allow Paul Bernardo to vote when there are other things that are much more needed?

Money is spent on pool tables in our prisons to make sure that our prisoners are entertained. There are many people in Kingston or in my home town of Calgary who would love to have unending amounts of time to play pool. They do not have that luxury because they have to pay taxes to the government and they have to work for a living. They cannot play pool as many hours as they might like to while away the day. Certainly Canadian prisoners have that ability because it is a Liberal priority.

Many other people would like to spend some more time on golf courses but the Liberals are allocating money to make sure prisoners have golf courses. I do not understand the logic in providing pool tables or golf courses. Why not hire more police officers?

The working poor would not be able to afford an exotic meal of eel, but such foods are shipped in to make sure the requirements are met for the Inuit serving time in our penitentiaries so that they have access to foods that are part of their traditional diets. We spend a lot of money on these types of perks and privileges for our prisoners.

It does not speak to the real needs of the Canadian justice system to hire more police officers or to hire more judges and not give them raises. Certainly none of these things speak to the priorities.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, like other members of the Chamber I enjoy the opportunity to speak to Bill C-37.

What does Bill C-37 basically boil down to? It means that judges will receive a raise in a two year period of 8.3%. How many other public servants or how many other people in the country, period, can expect a raise of 8.3% in that short period of time?

There is a comparison to make. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have gone five years with a wage freeze. Are judges somehow more important? Do they have a higher priority with the government than those who enforce the law, than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? It appears so. They are misplaced Liberal priorities, things that both you and I have problems with, Mr. Speaker.

How many other Canadian workers can count on a retroactive pay raise like the one under Bill C-37 for judges? It just does not exist for other people. It is not on the Liberal agenda for other people and it is a crying shame.

As well there is nothing in Bill C-37 that addresses the patronage process for appointing judges. It is a shame. I am sure members know only too well that it is Liberal lawyers who go on to become Liberal justices. That has to end.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague would like the opportunity to comment on the lack of priorities the government has had with regard to Bill C-37.

In this bill the Liberal government is raising judges salaries. Yet day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, the justice minister has been asked when we will be seeing changes to the Young Offenders Act.

Bill C-67 which raises the wages of our judges takes higher priority and comes before making serious changes to the Young Offenders Act. Not only do we see it before changes to the Young Offenders Act, but we see it before changes to section 745, the faint hope clause. There is also a backlog in our court system. If there is a backlog in our court system, surely the money would have been better allocated to hire more judges to take care of the backlog rather than to pay the judges more money.

I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on the lack of priorities of the Liberal government on criminal justice.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to change the nature of the question that I posed before because I have new information that I would like to add to it.

If we were to take the costs of colour cable TV, free condoms, free bleach for needles, the right to sue and legal costs involved, the right to vote and the administrative and logistical costs involved, gun registration and the cost of patronage appointees the Liberals have put on the parole board, just those costs alone, would we not be able to spend more money on hiring more officers or more judges without the increased raises to get rid of the backlog in the courts?

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I issue a challenge to the member for Surrey North. If we were to take all the televisions and the condoms provided to prisoners, if we were to take all the bleach provided for their needles, if we were to take the money used in terms of their right to sue in legal challenges, if we were to take the money allocated for prisoners to safeguard their “right to vote”, and if we were to take the money the government is looking at currently spending in Bill C-37 with regard to raising the salaries of judges, how many extra police officers could we potentially hire?

I wonder if anyone has done a calculation. I do not think anyone would question the idea that money spent on hiring more police officers to enforce the laws and to go after criminals would be better spent than on bleach, condoms, right to sue, right to vote, TV and raising the salaries of judges.