Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I think that if you were to seek you would find unanimous consent from my colleagues in the House for the following: I ask on behalf of the member for Burlington, the sponsor of this bill, for this item to be designated to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau)

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

Agreed.

Mr. Dave Van Kesteren

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak before the House and my hon. colleagues about this issue brought forward by the hon. member for Burlington.

Let me begin by telling the House that the addition of a missing persons index to the National DNA Data Bank would be beneficial on two fronts. On the one hand, it would help law enforcement agencies solve missing persons cases with solid scientific proof. On the other, it would enable officials to make positive matches with missing persons, thereby providing the families of missing loved ones with closure and relief.

In the time that has been allotted to me today, I will address the motion of the hon. member. I would first like to note that this government fully understands the principles of the motion. The government recognizes the valuable and expanding role of DNA as a tool for law enforcement.

DNA analysis is a powerful tool. It is unparalleled in terms of its ability to identify an individual. As members probably know, with the exception of identical twins, each person's DNA is unique to them.

We believe that it is a worthwhile endeavour to further investigate how to use DNA technology more effectively to assist in the identification of found human remains and to bring relief to the families of missing persons.

In fact, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is leading the significant work to establish a DNA missing persons index. Federal officials are working with their counterparts in each of the provinces and territories.

It is important that we understand first how DNA is now used in the criminal system before we can contemplate adding the humanitarian aspect of a missing persons index to that system, as proposed in this bill. The use of forensic DNA analysis to solve crime has shown itself to be of enormous benefit to public safety in Canada. The use of DNA is one of the most valid and reliable investigative tools known in law enforcement today.

Since the National DNA Data Bank came into existence in June 2000, thousands of DNA profiles from convicted offenders have been processed and added to it. Also added are the profiles received from crime scenes across the country. Police from across Canada have been trained on how to properly collect DNA samples from a crime scene. It is from these samples that profiles are obtained.

As I have said, the DNA Data Bank is an extremely valuable tool and its value can be seen very clearly in these statistics. In its first year of use, 2000, the data bank scored 25 hits. It linked DNA evidence found at crime scenes to other investigations or to DNA profiles of convicted offenders. However, from April 2005 to April 2006, that number had increased to 2,323 hits in a year.

During its six years of operation, over 130,000 DNA profiles have been entered into the data bank. What is the final result? As of this past summer, the data bank has assisted in over 5,800 criminal cases in Canada.

Clearly it is undeniable that DNA technology is an important part of law enforcement in Canada and is being used quite successfully by our law enforcement agencies across the country.

The government continues to consult on the principles behind the proposed legislation and must investigate the matter further. What needs to be determined is whether the resources of the National DNA Data Bank should be used not only to help protect the safety of Canadians by solving serious crimes, but also for compassionate and humanitarian reasons.

The hon. member proposes that a new index be added to the data bank that would hold DNA samples of missing persons and unidentified human remains. He also proposes that the new samples should be cross-checked both against each other and also against the existing criminal samples maintained by the data bank in an effort to identify human remains.

Using the National DNA Data Bank in this way might offer the potential to bring comfort to Canadian families whose loved ones have disappeared and who have waited for years for news of a missing person. It is understandable how using the data bank in this way could be seen to offer the potential to comfort those families whose loved ones have disappeared. The thought that we might have a tool that could bring a sense of closure to these families compels us to consider this idea.

However, concerns have been raised with the way this bill is currently drafted. For instance, jurisdictional issues are raised because both the identification of found remains and the police response to missing persons reports are provincial responsibilities. Therefore, the federal government's right to legislate in this area is not entirely agreed upon by all parties.

It is a fact that the federal government and the RCMP commissioner have no jurisdiction to impose duties upon the provincial laboratories, police and coroners.

Also, Canadian charter rights would be infringed upon if the uploading of the DNA profile to the National DNA Data Bank was made without the consent of the person in question. This government is committed to ensuring that the privacy of Canadians will always be respected.

This proposal as it now stands could constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore, it could be argued that any evidence derived from the match between the crime scene index of the National DNA Data Bank and the missing persons index could be inadmissible in court.

Moreover, there is concern that relatives who are asked to provide their own bodily substances for DNA analysis may be reluctant to do so if it exposes them to the potential of a criminal investigation.

Finally, as with all new government incentives, there would be added costs to running the National DNA Data Bank. Until decisions are made about the design and exact parameters of this project, it is not possible to accurately estimate costs and precisely profile expenditures.

The existing National DNA Data Bank and forensic laboratories operate as efficient public safety programs. It is important that the inclusion of a missing persons index add to its value and not draw on the data bank's or the forensic laboratories' existing resources used for current criminal investigations.

For all these reasons, the government must take the time it needs to further its study of this issue before going forward. The work that remains now continues to be dealt with by the already established federal, provincial and territorial missing persons index working group.

In conclusion, the detailed issues that need to be considered before moving forward with this bill may seem minor compared to the enormous suffering of a family whose loved one is missing. But we cannot move forward before ensuring that the method proposed will be effective and workable for all jurisdictions, will not infringe on the privacy rights of Canadians and will withstand possible future charter challenges.

If we put something in place that will simply not work, then we are not looking after the best interests of Canadians. No one is denying that the proposed bill has merit, but amendments to the bill must be made before we can adopt a firm position.

As it stands, I believe that it is important for federal, provincial and territorial officials to continue their work on this matter and to find an acceptable solution to possibly allow the National DNA Data Bank to serve a humanitarian purpose as well as a criminal investigative purpose.

Until it can move ahead on this process, the government needs to reserve any further judgment on the bill presented by the hon. member.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau)

I want to give the House fair warning that I am about to recognize the hon. member for Burlington who is the mover of this motion for the right of reply. Once he has spoken for five minutes, that ends the debate on this issue.

Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity and I want to thank everybody on all sides of the House who have spoken to my private member's bill. I do not necessarily agree with everybody, but I do appreciate the effort everyone has put into it.

It has been said that there are nearly 100,000 missing persons in Canada, 6,000 missing person cases currently unresolved and about 450 added every year. The data bank will help resolve the issues for many families.

I have heard tonight, and in our previous debate, discussions about jurisdiction, privacy and the definition of a missing person. I assure the House that is why we need to get the bill to committee. We have a number of things we would like to bring forward and discuss. By sending it to committee, that action can take place. I appreciate the words I have heard from all sides of the House in terms of support to get bill to committee so we can properly debate this item.

Since the first hour of debate, a few things have gone on which I want to share with the House about a meeting of the FPT justice ministers in October, although my friend from Etobicoke North mentioned November. This bill and the missing persons piece was part of that conversation. They worked on a number of issues, including the privacy issue and jurisdictional issue as has been presented by the Bloc. More work still needs to be done and that can be done at committee. I look forward to presenting that and making it happen.

All parties basically have said that they are in favour of moving this forward, other than the Bloc. It is not on its merit as a bill, but on its merit on jurisdiction. I just want to quote from Bloc member who spoke in the first hour, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who said, “I think this is an excellent idea and it should be implemented”. The idea is good.

I have heard from the Liberals who also believe it is a great idea. They admit that they were working on it before, and I appreciate all the work they have done on this. It is helping me make it happen at this point.

Staff, the Privacy Commissioner's office, the data bank advisory committee, justice and the public safety department have also worked on it. I have to give credit where credit is due. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the Minister of Natural Resources, really worked on this project with Ms. Judy Peterson. She has done a fabulous job to ensure that we are aware of the issues and understand them and can we move ahead to try to rectify those as quickly as possible.

In the end, if we can make it happen, which I know we can, the bill will help bring closure to families with missing persons. It will help law enforcement professionals to do a better job of catching criminals. It will reflect Canada's commitment to be a leader in DNA. We are a leader in the use of DNA now. There is no reason why we cannot continue to create an example for other communities, other countries, as a leader in this area.

I want to thank my hon. colleagues for all their words. I look forward to the debate at committee. I look forward to providing the information and the feedback on all the concerns that they had with the bill. I look forward to support from the departments that have the information and can supply that for me. I look forward to seeing the bill become law some day.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau)

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed.

No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the recorded division is deferred until Wednesday, November 22 just prior to the period provided for private members' business.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau)

Is that agreed?

Agreed.

Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, on June 9, I asked the Minister of Health why he refused to allow people to get AIDS drugs under the special access program, yet he allowed thousands of silicone breast implants under the same type of program.

Since then, the Minister of Health has approved licences for two companies, Mentor Medical Systems and Inamed Corporation, to manufacture silicone breast implants, which had been banned since 1992, and to put them back on the market, when we know full well that no long-term study has been done beforehand to ensure that these breast implants are not harmful to women's health.

We have been told that the minister had assessed 65,000 pages of studies and research that had been reviewed by Health Canada. However, most of these documents were provided by companies seeking the approvals.

We truly wonder how we can trust two companies that faced a criminal investigation in 2002 for hiding data from the FDA. Mentor Medical Systems is currently facing new allegations that it provided fraudulent data, according to a scientist it formerly employed. This investigation began just two weeks ago. Furthermore, neither the minister nor Health Canada are able to name a single independent researcher among the studies consulted.

Ms. Bell, head of the musculoskeletal section at Health Canada, gave us the name of Dr. Harold Brandon. The problem is that the doctor is one of the four scientists on the expert advisory panel who was in conflict of interest.

Many women today are still having problems with their implants. I receive emails, letters and phone calls every day. A young woman from Quebec named Michelle, who is only 24, suffers from acute pain. She turned to a surgeon for implants because her breasts were not the same size. The surgeon did not warn her of the problems she could encounter. He did not tell her that he had to ask for special permission from Health Canada. But he did tell her that silicone gel implants would give her the best results. She later suffered capsular contracture and must now undergo further surgery to have the implants removed. She must pay for this herself, and it is expensive. It costs $5,000.

Lise, from Laval, who had her implants removed, has chronic health problems. Rose-Hélène, from Laval, suffers from Raynaud's disease and fibromyalgia. Lucienne, from Laval, has pain in her arms and back, even after having her implants removed because they were stuck to her rib cage. They cracked and got stuck.

There are currently two class action suits: one in Quebec and one in Ontario. We want to know how the Minister of Health can spend taxpayer dollars to defend his view of things in class actions suits, when he will not pay for women to have an MRI or to have emergency removal of their implants.

We find this is a shameful use of public money, of money that comes from every citizen who pays taxes. We would like to know whether the minister intends at least to impose strict conditions on the companies who have received authorization to produce breast implants again, or—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau)

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Steven Fletcher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Laval for raising awareness of this important issue. In the original question in June, the member asked why one product was allowed under the special access program and why one was not. I will take a moment to discuss this.

Health Canada has two special access programs, one for drugs and one for medical devices, and both are governed by different regulations and administered differently. Both programs are administered with the aim of providing Canadian health care professionals with access to therapeutic products to meet the treatment needs of their patients.

Neither of the two special access programs were intended as a means of marketing a product without appropriate regulatory oversight. The drug special access program allows physicians to access drugs for the emergency treatment of serious or life-threatening conditions of their patients. Health Canada must be assured that sufficient evidence exists to support the safe use of the drug.

The drug special access program is not intended to replace clinical trials. A drug clinical trial is most often the best option for manufacturers, patients and physicians to ensure both continued access and protection of patient safety. It is a means for manufacturers to collect the necessary safety and effectiveness data for the marketing applications.

The medical device special program allows physicians access to medical devices for emergency use or conventional therapies that are not available or unsuitable. The medical device special access program, which is the program dealing with breast implants, was not intended to replace general marketing authorizations. Health Canada must be assured, through the review of safety and effectiveness data for the device, that the device will provide a benefit for the patient without causing undue harm.

In the case of the drug special access program request for the access to combination treatment for HIV-AIDS, the physician that was referred to in the original question in June was unable to supply the necessary data to support the authorization of access to the drug combination.

In August 2005, Health Canada offered to consider early access to the same combination through a clinical trial. Had this offer been taken, the patients would have had the medications they were seeking at the time and been protected by inherent checks and balances in the clinical trial settings.

A clinical trial application was not received from the physician until December 2005 and once received it was subsequently reviewed and approved within 24 hours by Health Canada. Each medical device special access request for a silicone gel breast implant was supported by the safety and effectiveness data contained in the licence application.

In addition, the specific benefits and conditions to be treated are provided for each individual patient by their surgeon in support of their special access authorization application. As we made that decision on silicone gel breast implants, the special access program is no longer relevant in this case. The fact remains that there have been many trials that have taken place within the margin of reasonable risk and they have been approved.