Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. This is my first opportunity to say this publicly with you in the chair. As do my colleagues, I look forward to this session with you in the chair.
Let us talk about Bill C-3. No one from our party would be opposed to a national DNA registry. The theory is sound and solid. No one in this party would disagree with that.
However, my concern is that I do not believe the bill takes us far enough into the future and makes arrangement for a DNA registry that will encompass all the things that should be in it. We think the bill at very best is a half measure.
I just spent a week in Washington meeting with officials of the justice department. One of the issues we talked about at some length was the issue of DNA evidence and registry. I would like to quote from a book of case studies carried out and issued by the U.S. department of justice about how important DNA evidence can and will be. I quote Rockne Harmon, senior deputy district attorney for Alameda County, California:
The introduction of forensic DNA typing into the legal system was heralded as the most significant event in criminalistics since dermal fingerprint identification. Few developments ever live up to their advanced billing—but DNA has.
Cases are now being prosecuted that never would have been possible before the advent of DNA typing. Many states have created DNA data bases on known offenders that they can compare against unsolved crimes.
—the results occasionally exonerate a suspect or suspects. Such cases rarely are front page news because the tests have served their purpose. Investigators can redirect their efforts to alternative suspects.
I use that quote because Canada is on the cutting edge, the leading edge of this type of technology. Our thinking on this side is why would we want to cut that process off at the knees. Let us make this DNA registry supply the tools that the people in our justice system need in order to carry out their jobs more efficiently.
Equally important for a DNA registry is the ability to exonerate someone who is actually not guilty of a crime. I use a well known case in Canada, from the province of Saskatchewan, the David Milgaard case. This past summer with the use of DNA evidence David Milgaard was released from prison. He was released because through DNA testing it was found that he did not commit the crime he was accused of and for which he spent 23 years in jail.
The evidence is so conclusive that the Saskatchewan government immediately entered into negotiations with Mr. Milgaard on how much they were going to pay him in compensation. Very few governments would take that route without convincing evidence. The province of Saskatchewan had no doubts about the conclusiveness of the DNA test.
To quote from the same book I quoted from a moment ago, Walter F. Rowe, professor of forensic science at the George Washington University said:
An unforeseen consequence of the introduction of DNA profiling has been the reopening of old cases. Persons convicted of murder and rape before DNA profiling became available have sought to have the evidence in their cases re-evaluated using this new technology. In some cases, DNA test results have exonerated those convicted of the offences and resulted in their release from prison.
The point I am getting at is this technology is so critical and crucial to law enforcement agencies that we must do the very best job we can to put this registry together so it serves the purposes of those involved.
Our plan on this side of the House would be to go much further than the Liberals in their original draft of Bill C-3. We would like to make the DNA registry and Bill C-3 completely parallel to the current fingerprint legislation whereby a suspect at point of arrest would have a sample of DNA taken. That sample would then be used in order to either convict or exonerate that person accused of the crime. Anyone found not guilty of a particular crime would have the right to ask the department to remove their DNA sample from the registry, as they are allowed to do under the fingerprint legislation.
One of the arguments we get from some of the civil libertarian groups is that it goes too far. What is too far? That really is the question.
My answer to that is if you are going to make a mistake, if you are going to err, it is far better to err on the side of victims than on the side of accused criminals.
The other argument I hear is why would you want to take this sample at point of arrest. You are certainly not convicted of a crime at that point in time. That is true, of course. Law enforcement agencies have better things to do than arrest people without some justification. The police I talked to, the men and women protecting this country, have reasonable grounds before they arrest any person.
The other argument I hear is about the security of the registry itself. Of course there is no guarantee and there cannot be any guarantee that the system would be fail safe.
The good part of this bill, and I agree there is a good thing in this bill, is that it does have very tough penalties for the unauthorized use of the registry. That must be continued and strictly enforced.
When I look back through the history of fingerprint legislation, we have never had a problem, to my knowledge, of a breach of security for the fingerprint system.
This bill should be a very critical part of our justice process. That goes without saying. It must be a major part of our process. It is not the be all and the end all of solving cases or exonerating people from crimes they have convicted. However, if used properly, it can go a very long way toward making the justice system, which many people in this country are very frustrated with, more appealing to the Canadian people.
If we give the police and the justice system all the tools available, we could put those resources, both human and financial, to better use. We can put those people back on the streets where they need to be and where they must be.
On the other hand, as I mentioned before, it also gives people wrongly accused of crimes all the tools available in this day and age to ensure them a fair and conclusive trial. That does happen. We have seen evidence of that in Canada during the last few years. That is something no one can argue with in this country.
I know we are going to have the opportunity to speak about this bill as it goes through the regular parliamentary process. I am looking forward to that. I expect that our party may well put some amendments forward to this bill and we will discuss those in the House.
I urge the government to take heart as to what is said in committee from those witnesses who come forward, to take heart and take note of what is said in this House as this bill goes through the rest of the process.
