Jack Ramsay

[Privilege, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I want to add my comments to this question of privilege. I am thankful that it was raised by a member on the government side because it has happened to me personally on two occasions.

The first occasion it happened to me was as a member of the justice committee when we considering the recommendations of the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act in in camera hearings. Those recommendations were prematurely leaked and carried in the Ottawa Citizen .

It is interesting that the reporter who covered the story wrote verbatim some of the recommendations that we were contemplating at that time. I approached the reporter and challenged him if he had been used by the government side to leak the message it wanted leaked to the news media. He admitted that was the case. When I jokingly challenged him to reveal the name of the individual, he refused to do so.

On a second occasion, with the same justice committee that was dealing with recommendations on victims rights in in camera hearings, the same reporter prematurely leaked those recommendations. I want it placed on record for the consideration of those members of the House or the committee that this matter might be referred to. If they are interested, the fact of the matter is that reporter from the Ottawa Citizen is now working for the federal justice department.

As I said earlier, I was very grateful that this question was raised by a member on the government side. It has been ongoing. There is no doubt in my mind that on each of the occasions I was involved in there was no member of the justice committee involved in the leak.

The concern expressed by all members of the justice committee clearly indicated to me that someone else probably beyond the members of the committee was using, for whatever reason, the information contained within these in camera meetings for his or her purposes. It is very serious. Either we deal with it as a serious matter or, as my whip said earlier, we simply ignore the importance of the work of members of committees.

I lend my support to the need to have a serious look at these breaches of confidentiality that ought to be regarded with the greatest degree of severity as work commences and proceeds within these committees.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

If the hon. member across the floor is concerned about not having time and has to leave the House, I would certainly acquiesce and allow him to stand and speak. Nevertheless, I have been given the floor.

I have been asked to meet with the municipal council of the town of Wainwright as well as the district council next week based on the crisis in the farming community in that area. Some of the farmers there have been told by the bank that they must list their land for sale.

This whole business of leaving things until we reach a crisis situation is not the way to do it. It seems that the only time the government will listen to us is when it is afraid of what the people are going to do at the next election.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate today—

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of points on this issue and tell the House why we should be supporting this motion.

The complaints commission is to deal with two or three issues which are very important. One is to determine whether or not excessive force was used by the police. Another is to determine whether or not the police action constituted illegal acts. In other words, did they do things without legal authority and, if they did, were they motivated by instructions from the Prime Minister's office?

There is evidence to suggest that this situation has to be looked at. There is no question that the lawyers for the RCMP are not going to pursue that evidence. There is no question that the lawyers for the government are not going to pursue that evidence. That leaves it up to the commission counsel. That is not good enough.

There must be a legal pursuit of any evidence that suggests that there was manipulation by the Prime Minister or members of his office that caused the RCMP to act in a way that was improper or illegal. The commission must have the capacity to do that.

I submit that we do not have that now. We must have trained, experienced legal counsel to make submissions and motions for further documentation that they feel is necessary to be examined by the commission, all types of motions to ensure that this area has been completely and thoroughly exhausted so that when the report comes down we will have the answers. Was excessive police force used? Were there illegal acts committed by members of the RCMP in taking down signs where there was no constitutional or legal authority to do so? Was there any action taken by the police, particularly that which may be termed to be without legal foundation, which was motivated by instructions from the Prime Minister's office?

The commission must have the capacity to do that. What the motion before the House today, which we will be voting on later, clearly indicates, and what the discussions and the debate today indicate, is that we do not have that capacity within the commission now. That is one of the reasons, I suggest, the commission has asked for legal representation for the students.

If we want to rest assured when the report comes in that all avenues of investigation have been exhausted to determine those points—whether excessive police force was used, whether illegal police force was used, and whether any of it was motivated by instructions, or counsel, or intimidation, or whatever from the Prime Minister or his office—we must have legal counsel there.

That is why all members should consider supporting this motion when we vote on it later today.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. There are lawyers to represent the RCMP and there are lawyers to represent the witnesses who may be called from the Prime Minister's office. Who will pursue the evidence that leads to the Prime Minister's office if there is not legal representation for the students? If there is no legal representation in this area, how will that evidence be pursued? How will it be examined? How will it be determined whether or not there was political interference in the exercise of police authority at the APEC summit?

[Bill C-68, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Alberta government to immediately appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal's marginal 3:2 decision regarding the constitutionality of Bill C-68.

The provinces must stand firm and not retreat. They must protect their exclusive power to regulate property and protect law-abiding Canadians from this unprecedented attack upon their civil liberties. They must protect taxpayers from the horrendous costs of Bill C-68. There is clear justification to stop the Liberal government from implementing Bill C-68 at any cost.

According to Sun columnist Michael Harris, the justice department failed to competitively tender a $1.3 million printing contract for the registration forms, a direct violation of Treasury Board guidelines and the NAFTA agreement. This is a clear and apparent circumvention of the law.

Once again I implore the provinces to stand firm. The Alberta court decision must be appealed.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of points I would like to put on the record in this final reading debate of Bill C-3. I would like to follow up on the closing remarks of the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

During the examination of the bill by the justice committee of which we were both members, the record will show that the justice officials who appeared before the committee on two different occasions indicated there was a necessity to go slow on the taking of DNA samples. There must be some degree of reluctance to move into the area we are asking the government to take the bill. At a later date we could do that. I think this was the inference by my hon. colleague who spoke last, let us give this some time and let us advance the bill into these areas after some time has elapsed.

To me the inference of this is that the judges may rule something unconstitutional today that they are going to rule constitutional tomorrow. If that is the case, then I would suggest the three independent legal opinions that were submitted late by the government on this bill are simply redundant and meaningless.

I add as well that I have listened to many of the speakers today. They do not seem to understand that their concerns over the intrusive nature of taking a blood sample, a hair sample or a saliva swab have already passed the constitutional test. It is there in the Criminal Code now for something that is not always tried by indictment, impaired driving. At least one of the former judges who submitted a legal opinion on this bill referred to that fact. If it is not a constitutional violation to take a blood sample in connection with an impaired driving charge which may be tried by indictment or summary conviction, then why would it be unconstitutional now to take a blood sample, the most intrusive of three methods of taking a DNA sample from a human being?

We examined these two very strongly presented arguments against going beyond what the bill does now, which is the intrusive nature of it as well as the privacy of the individual. We heard many times from witnesses as well as from members of the committee. I believe we heard it here today during this final debate that the extensive nature of the information gained from a DNA sample is what causes people to be concerned about allowing this to occur.

We know every day there are blood samples taken and lodged in clinics and in a bank somewhere. The detrimental or negative impact of having those samples somewhere in a data bank has not resulted in the negative aspects which many witnesses and members of the government have put forward would occur if we went beyond where the bill takes us today.

My colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River referred to another point, the rapid advancement of the technology to take DNA samples. There may come a day when we will leave a sample on the barbershop floor that will be suitable for DNA testing. We know that a blood sample is taken when every child is born. The sample is lodged somewhere in a data bank at least for a certain period of time.

When we examine the privacy aspect and the intrusive nature, and I can refer hon. colleagues back to the record of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, there is just not an arguable, sustainable, logical, comprehensive debate on either of these two issues to deny further advancement of the taking of DNA samples at the time of charge. It simply does not exist.

My hon. colleague from the Tory party who sits on the committee has touched upon the real reason we are not going as far as we should be going to satisfy the needs of the Canadian Police Association and other law enforcement spokespersons as well as members in the opposition parties. There is fear and concern and a degree of timidity with regard to what the Supreme Court of Canada will say.

I go back to my opening comments. If we are to go slow or to go into the area we want the bill to cover at a later date because of a fear that if we bring it in too early the supreme court will strike it down, we are really saying that what it declares unconstitutional today it will not declare unconstitutional tomorrow as it gets used to it and as it becomes part of our legal system, the legislation and the process. That is wrong. What is constitutional today must be constitutional tomorrow. How can what is constitutional today be unconstitutional tomorrow?

I do not understand or comprehend that argument. Inasmuch as we have opened the door and entered the room of taking samples from those who are convicted and incarcerated for designated primary offences, we have taken that step and will take samples from certain individuals.

What is the difference in going beyond that? Why is there a reluctance to go beyond that and include all primary designated offences in that category? I do not understand. When we asked that question before the committee the answers were not comprehensible to me and were not justifiable in refusing to move further into that area.

I wrap up my comments by saying we all know the bill is moving in the right direction. However, the role of the opposition is to leave its concern indelibly marked on any document it does not feel is in the best interest of Canadians.

The government is to move this bill forward and it will pass. I hope members of the Senate will take a hard look at what we have been asking for, what the Canadian Police Association has been asking for and what others have been asking for. Some good work comes out of the other place regardless of our feelings about its make-up and constitution. When it gets to the Senate I hope the committee that looks at it will examine our concerns and why opposition members could not endorse the bill.

Perhaps the government is right. Perhaps in time all our requirements will be met. The problem is that it is a matter of safety, of concern and of providing the police with the tools they could have now but will not have on the passage of the bill. This is a shortcoming we cannot accept and must object to. We will do so by the way we vote on the bill in the House.

[Petitions, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition asking the House to support private member's Bill C-304 which would strengthen the protection of property rights in the country.

[Petitions, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, 70 of my constituents have asked me to present their petition supporting Bill C-225 which would define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Petitions, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to put forward a number of petitions regarding the issue of firearms registration and firearms control. Almost 150 petitioners have asked that the House repeal Bill C-68 and redirect the funds for the registration and licensing scheme to more effective means of reducing violent crime and improving public safety, such as more police and crime prevention programs, women's crisis centres, suicide prevention centres and increased resources for fighting organized crime and street crime.