Bill C-13 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act

This enactment amends the provisions in the Criminal Code respecting the taking of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis and the inclusion of DNA profiles in the national DNA data bank and makes related amendments to the DNA Identification Act and National Defence Act. It clarifies that the forensic DNA analysis of the bodily substances taken from convicted offenders for the purposes of the national DNA data bank will be conducted by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In particular, the enactment
(a) adds offences to the lists of designated offences in the Criminal Code, including participating in the activities of a criminal organization, the commission of an offence for a criminal organization, instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organization, uttering threats and criminal harassment;
(b) reclassifies robbery and break and enter into a dwelling-house as primary designated offences;
(c) provides for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person who has committed a designated offence but who was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder;
(d) provides for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person who committed one murder and one sexual offence at different times before the coming into force of the legislation;
(e) includes several repealed sexual offences (indecent assault male, indecent assault female and gross indecency) as designated offences and sexual offences referred to in paragraph 487.055(3)(b) of the Criminal Code;
(f) provides for the review of defective DNA data bank orders and for the destruction of the bodily substances taken under them;
(g) compels offenders to appear at a certain time and place to provide a DNA sample; and
(h) allows for a DNA data bank order to be made after sentence has been imposed.

[Vincenzo Rondinelli, Defence Lawyer, Criminal Lawyers Association]

Good morning.

I'm here this morning on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers Association. I'll give you a bit of a background. Our organization is comprised of about 1,000 defence lawyers across Canada. One of our mandates is to provide some missions to committees such as this, and also to sit in advisory capacities with the judiciary and crowns. As well, and like crown attorneys across this country, our members are really on the front line of the criminal justice system, and obviously legislation of this sort impacts our members quite drastically.

Before I begin my submissions, I just want to mention that due to short notice for me to attend today, it was a bit of a challenge to get written material in time to have it translated. I understand that the material I did provide is in the process of being translated, and you should be receiving it in the near future. In terms of my submissions, I'll keep them in a more brief compass for the purposes of the ten minutes I have this morning.

One of our main concerns, and it has been a concern since the inception of the data bank, is what we've called for a long time this concept of legislation creep. If we look at the history of DNA legislation in this country, we see that we have gone from a very restricted type of individual or offender whom we were looking at putting into the data bank to a much broader spectrum of offenders. In 1995, when the first piece of legislation that dealt with DNA warrants came out, it was really restricted to the most violent of offenders, and those of sexual offences.

Then, when we moved to the year 2000 and the data bank was created, the spectrum evolved again into a broader picture of offenders that not only included these primary and secondary designated offences, as they were categorized, but also included offences such as driving offences, where dangerous or impaired driving causing bodily harm made its way into the legislation.

Then we see a much broader sweep, in my submission, with the introduction of Bill C-13 last year. Not only were there a number of new offences listed but an even broader category of offences where if it's preceded by indictment then the punishment is at least five years were also able to be put into the data bank. We see that a different type of offender and those being found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder were also in the realm of being able to be put in the data bank.

Again, in our submission, you're seeing the trend where it really started off as a very limited scope. The balance we struck as society with the obvious privacy concerns and the civil liberty issues that were on the table from day one is that if we are going to take something that has been termed the blueprint of life, we're going to restrict it to those members of society who really have a lower expectation of privacy because of what they've done and what they're capable of doing in the future. The balance was struck that we're going to restrict it to the murderers and the sexual assault type of offenders, and then, as I mentioned, the pendulum seems to have swung to a much broader area.

Leaving aside the civil liberties scope or basic arguments that have been there since day one in terms of the privacy interests engaged in all of this and the information can be gleaned from a DNA sample and all that, I wanted to focus more on a practical aspect of what we're saying.

We're fortunate because the U.K. is well ahead in this area, as you've heard. Their data bank is close to five million now, and obviously a large percentage of their population is in there. The U.S. as well has a long experience with DNA data banks. We can learn things from their history in what has and has not been working.

One of the areas in our submission that should be paid close attention to is that the legislation creep isn't unique to this country. You've obviously seen in the U.S. and the U.K. in particular, they're getting DNA not only upon arrest but whenever an offence is recordable or arrestable and they're able to keep this in the DNA data bank, with some limitations.

If I have time, I'll get into the European Union decision that came out in December, which was quite a blow to the U.K. database as it is today.

What we see, at least in some of the empirical evidence that came out of there, and again in the two practical areas that I'd like to deal with briefly, is the following. Can we handle any expansion? When we're dealing with it, yes, it sounds great to include all these new offenders in the database, but on a practical, technical, and financial basis, can we handle the expansion? Secondly, is there really any value-added to expanding? Are there results being seen with a larger database?

Dealing with the first point, then, all of you may be aware of the 2007 Auditor General's report that found some issues dealing with backlog in our database. Samples not being processed in time created some backlogs.

Again, this is not unique to this country. The U.S. is plagued with database logjams, to the point that they have put federal legislation in place that is called the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act. I can't remember the criteria off the top of my head, but states can apply for federal funding to help them deal with the backlog they've generated in their own states because of expanding a DNA data bank to include more types of offenders. Obviously that's going to create more work, more budget constraints, and everything else that goes into that type of decision.

The U.K. isn't without their issues of backlog either. While the U.K. is close to five million, the U.S. is probably closer to four million these days. As I understand it, our data bank is at about 155,000.

This leads me to the second point in terms of whether further expansion may actually yield results. Again, it's helpful to look at some of these studies coming out of the U.K. and the U.S. A lot of the stuff I mention is mentioned in my materials, so at some point you will be getting the references for where these studies can be found.

A recent study in the U.K. found that even though their database was expanding by about 650,000 profiles a year, they were getting crimes solved in only one in eight hundred cases. Basically, they're not really getting as much value-added from the database as they did at the beginning, when it was restricted to the most violent and sexual assault types of offenders.

In our submission, that should come as no surprise. When you look at the database and whether it's going to plateau at some point, where you're really not going to get much more bang for your buck in terms of solving crimes, you look at the types of offenders. Statistics in the past have always demonstrated that it is the most violent or the sexual offenders that are the highest recidivists, so having them already in the data bank....

A lot of good things have been done in terms of tweaking the data bank, even in a retroactive aspect, as we've heard already this morning. Before, they would have had to commit two or more murders, but now that has changed to one, and rightly so in terms of how the legislation was put in place. Anyone who commits murder should be in the data bank. That's obviously been justified on a charter basis. But when you start including all these other offenders and at the end of the day you're not getting results, it shouldn't be a surprise, because the recidivists, as I've said, have always fallen into the category of the most violent or sexual offenders.

One of the difficult things for us in Canada, I guess, when we look at the statistics, or at least at what is provided at this point, is to see what sort of value we're getting. All I can really go with is what's on the website of the national data bank, or, as they term it, the “National DNA Data Bank Investigations Assisted”. They have a total of 11,126 as of February 13, 2009. It's broken down into some of the offences where they say they have been assisted.

Now, the question we usually have is what does that really mean? There are no statistics that we've been able to find in terms of which ones actually lead to convictions. Of those statistics, if you try to break those down with any types of statistics, depending on how you use them, they mean different things to different people. Did any of those investigations result in guilty pleas? Did they even result in convictions? Was there any other evidence that was first used to then use DNA? It's those types of questions. Again, as the statistics stand there's nothing really there to demonstrate that there really is a value added to expanding it any further, a value added in the sense that when you're looking at what the data bank was meant to do, and that is detection of crime and solving crimes and so forth, I think there should be more research done on the actual statistics.

I see I am running out of time. I'll end. I have it more fulsomely in my written submission.

As it stands and what it was meant to do in detecting crime and solving cold cases from the past, one glaring thing with the data bank is that there really is no opportunity or provision for access for exoneration. On what can be done and what can't be done with the crime scene index and the convicted offender index, there's nothing legislated in there that allows access to, for example, an innocence project, where they have some sort of file where they would really get some use out of accessing the data bank to see if there's some sort of match in whatever capability they can make of it. This is unlike some states in the U.S. As mentioned in the paper, there is the New Jersey database. They do have specific mention and provision for an innocence project, to be able to access it. If we look at what we want from the DNA data bank--and solving crime is obviously in everyone's best interest--exonerating the wrongfully convicted should at least play a part as well. Thankfully we don't have the type of track record that the U.S. does, but that doesn't mean wrongful convictions don't happen in Canada. We unfortunately have seen that.

Even in speaking with Alan Young, who is the director of the innocence project at the Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, he mentioned that he does foresee a problem in the future. He has some files coming down the pipe where he thinks that he may have to somehow try to get access to the DNA database. As it stands right now, there is no access.

Those are our overall more over-reaching submissions. Thank you.

[David Bird]

The only guarantees I could provide you with are those provided by the DNA Identification Act, which makes it a criminal offence for the commissioner or the commissioner's delegates to use DNA information that the agency has in the National DNA Data Bank for any other purpose than what's permitted by the DNA Identification Act. There are restrictions on the use, and there are restrictions on what can be communicated, and there are further restrictions domestically on further communication by those who receive that information from the RCMP.

So the current DNA Identification Act and the amendments in Bill C-13 are, in my view, very restrictive. The DNA information that the RCMP has can only be communicated as authorized by the DNA Identification Act, section 6, and any other communication is an offence. Similarly, any other research that could be done with the DNA profiles, except to derive a forensic DNA profile, for the purposes of DNA data banking would be an offence.

Those are fairly serious prohibitions, and that in itself should be sufficient, in my view, to satisfy Canadians' concerns that there may be unauthorized or illegal uses of DNA profiles in the National DNA Data Bank. We probably have the most robust genetic privacy regime in any DNA data bank where the people who are using the DNA do not know the personal identification of the person who has submitted it. So the data bank operates anonymously with respect to the personal information. All it has is genetic information, and it has a very restricted legal regime that allows it to communicate only for the purposes that the DNA identification allow it to, and that's to essentially compare the convicted offender index with the crime scene index and report a match, and the moderate matching provisions that allow it to ensure the question, do we have a match? That's the expansion of the regime.

Otherwise, that is essentially all the DNA data bank officials can do with the DNA they have in the National DNA Data Bank. They ask, do we have a match? And then if it does, it goes to another portion that doesn't have the genetic information. All they have is personal.

[David Bird]

It seems to me--and this is my understanding--that these categories were really created by the committee itself when Bill C-13 was being debated.

The concern of the committee was that the data bank, the convicted offender index, was not receiving the volume of designated offences that we expected for primary designated offences. The committee, in its wisdom, chose to suggest that it would be useful to tell the courts that in certain cases they had no discretion.

[David Bird]

Thank you, Mr. Hanger.

I would agree with the assertion that Mr. Thompson put forward, that it is a complicated process to determine what is or is not a designated offence. The courts have a problem determining that, because we do have a number of what we call non-designated offences issued for orders with which we have a problem. A number of historical offences, such as rape, are listed in the definition of primary and secondary designated offences, going back to the old sections of the Criminal Code. These are specifically listed in the definition.

Another principle is that where offences that existed in the Criminal Code historically have been renumbered due to a statute revision act, those references to the present law go back and apply to those old offences. So where we have those cases coming before us, we have to get out and do some research to determine whether or not those are non-designated offences or actually qualify under that provision.

So it is not an easy step, and the courts are grappling with it. We also have provisions in Bill C-18 , started in Bill C-13, to deal with this issue of how we handle these orders that we cannot justify in terms of that kind of rationale. That's one of the reasons for Bill C-18, to help us resolve those kinds of cases.

But it's not an easy situation for the courts to determine in all cases whether an offence on its face, where it's historical, qualifies for a DNA data bank order. There will probably be a discussion between the Crown and the defence and the court as to whether or not an order should be issued at that time.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

First of all, there was no attempt to gloss over the Rodgers decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, but we believe the rationale in that particular case is consistent with the legislation you have before you. In any case, our analysis of this doesn't rest on one particular case. It's an overall analysis of this particular area of the law and what we believe, in our analysis, is going to withstand any particular challenge.

So I am quite confident that the bill you have before you is constitutional and will stand scrutiny, and quite frankly is an improvement that I think most people will agree with. It does two things: as you indicated, it clears up the Bill C-13 provisions that weren't or couldn't be enacted for a number of reasons, and I think it brings some other technical clarity to this bill that will withstand a challenge.

Mr. Yost has indicated to me that he would like to add some comments.

[Greg Yost]

I admit it's a bit difficult to get a definitive answer. There are always problems when you have a list. This list was first prepared in 1995, when we had DNA warrants. It was a list of offences for which a warrant could be sought. The same list was then adopted, but it was divided in two. At the time, the thought was to put more serious offences on it, followed by the others. Every time the Criminal Code is amended, offences are added, but sometimes people completely forget to put them on the list, and so on.

Bill C-13 made it possible to clean things up. I could obviously talk at length to determine whether we should add them to this list or not.

[Greg Yost]

Most of the 172 offences are punishable by indictment and carry prison terms of five years or more, like drug offences and so on.

So these offences would be added in Bill C-13, as amended by Bill C-18.

[Greg Yost, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I'd simply like to clarify one point. The minister said that we were adding 172 offences; that's true, but they were added in the old bill, C-13. The present bill, C-18, adds no offences to the list that was previously adopted in Bill C-13.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize if there was a bit of a mix-up. I had this on my schedule for 10 o'clock; this actually works out better. I'm now subject to House duty. This is a function that I didn't have as House leader or whip. I was always impressing upon others the importance of House duty, and now I have it myself. So this will work out very well.

I'm glad to be joined here by two colleagues who are experts on this particular piece of legislation, and I'm glad to have them at the table with me.

It's a pleasure for me, Mr. Chairman, to appear before you today to discuss a bill that addresses concerns that we all share about how to make better use of DNA to assist law enforcement, a bill that has been supported at second reading, I'm pleased to say, by all parties within the House.

As members are aware, the last Parliament passed Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act. As introduced, Bill C-13 included an expansion of the retroactive scheme to include persons convicted of a single murder and also of a single sexual offence committed at different times. There were some additions to the list of primary offences, including robbery and break and enter of a dwelling, and some additions to the secondary offence list, including criminal harassment and uttering threats.

Bill C-13 was the first opportunity Parliament had to consider the DNA scheme since it had come into force in June 2000. It was always recognized that the DNA legislation, which was pioneering, would have to be revisited in light of experience with its provisions, judicial considerations of the legislation, and developments in the rapidly developing DNA science and technology. Indeed, the legislation itself required a parliamentary review within five years, and I will come back to that point in a minute.

Even though Bill C-13 was never intended to replace the review, the hearings were quite extensive. Major amendments were made to the bill in committee that greatly extended the reach of the DNA databank provisions, including creating a new category of offences where judges would have no discretion and including all offences that are prosecuted by indictment and are punishable by five years under the Criminal Code as secondary designated offences.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, most of Bill C-13 is not in force. There are technical glitches that must be addressed before it comes into force to make its provisions more effective in carrying out Parliament's intention.

The previous government recognized the need to make changes and introduced Bill C-72 in November 2005. Bill C-72 died on the order paper, and we have now introduced Bill C-18 to make the changes proposed in Bill C-72, along with other technical improvements in the legislation that were identified by federal and provincial officials after Bill C-72 was introduced into the House.

Bill C-18 is complicated in its drafting because some sections amend the former Bill C-13, so that when Bill C-13 is proclaimed, the new provisions will work better. I'm pleased to have the officials here with me who will be able to answer any questions you may have on how these two bills will work together.

To assist the committee, my department has prepared an unofficial consolidation to show how the Criminal Code DNA provisions will read if Bill C-18 is passed and then Bill C-13 is proclaimed, and I have provided copies to the clerk. There's also an excellent summary of the bill, including its background, which has been prepared, I understand, by the parliamentary information and research service.

Colleagues, as members know, DNA has had an immense impact on our criminal justice system. It has exonerated many people who were innocent but were convicted on the basis of witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. It has led to thousands of convictions where accused, who might have been able to go undetected in the past, are identified through DNA matches to known persons, thereby giving police the lead they need.

Moreover, cases in the past that might have gone to trial with the defence casting doubt on the accuracy of the victims' and other witnesses' recollections of events now are resolved by a guilty plea because the defence knows it cannot explain away the DNA evidence or cast doubt on the reliability of the science.

In the late eighties and early nineties, prosecutors began to use DNA, but it was only in 1995 that the Criminal Code first allowed for a judge to compel a person to provide a sample for DNA analysis, a provision that was unanimously upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

It was in 1998 that Parliament passed the legislation necessary to take DNA samples from convicted offenders and to create the national DNA data bank to compare those samples with DNA samples found at crime scenes. I understand that members of the committee were able to tour the national DNA data bank yesterday. I'm sure you were impressed by the facility, and especially by the dedication and professionalism of the staff. It is certainly a most cost-effective institution, of which all Canadians can justly be proud.

The effectiveness of the data bank depends on the number of profiles in the convicted offenders index and the number in the crime scene index. The passage of this bill, and the subsequent proclamation of Bill C-13, will increase the number of samples in the convicted offenders index in a number of ways.

Firstly, it will create a new category of 16 extremely serious offences for which a judge will have no discretion not to make the data bank order. There are cases where persons convicted of these offences have not been required to provide a DNA sample for analysis.

Secondly, this bill will move some offences—most importantly, break and enter into a dwelling place and all child pornography offences—from the secondary designated offence list to the primary designated offence list, so that there will be a far greater likelihood that an order will be made.

Thirdly, this bill will add many more offences to the secondary designated offence list, including offences under the Criminal Code and under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that are prosecuted by indictment and that have a maximum sentence of five years or more.

Fourthly, it will provide many procedural changes to make it more likely that an order will be executed, for example, by allowing a judge to set a time and place for a person to appear to provide a DNA sample rather than having to do it at the time of sentencing, and providing for a warrant to be issued for the person's arrest if the person fails to show.

Fifthly, persons who are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder will be brought within the scheme.

Sixthly, a new procedure will allow a judge to set a date for a hearing to consider whether to make a DNA order within 90 days of imposing a sentence. This is intended for the situations that inevitably occur in our busy courts, where a trial is concluded and a sentence is imposed but nobody remembered that a DNA order could be made in the particular case.

We cannot be certain how many more samples from convicted offenders will be submitted to the data bank for analysis and for uploading to the convicted offenders lists as a result of these changes. Much depends on the courts, prosecutors, and police. We trust they will use the new provisions to the fullest extent.

It seems certain, however, that these changes will at least double, and could triple, the number of samples coming in. I believe this legislation will have a similar effect on the number of samples being uploaded to the crime scene index. Certainly, the changes to the definitions of primary and secondary designated offences mean that samples from many more crimes could be uploaded, because the DNA data bank only uploads samples from those crime scenes involving a designated offence. For example, it will be possible, when the legislation comes into force, to upload samples from drug offences.

However, as I believe members are aware, the forensic DNA laboratories across Canada are struggling to meet the workload they now have. The advances in DNA technology mean that scientists can now extract DNA from small samples, such as the saliva that moistened glue on an envelope. Since police do not know which items found at a crime scene may have DNA, they may want dozens of items analyzed—chewing gum, beer cans, cigarette butts, clothing and sheets—in the hope of finding the one that has the offender's DNA.

Crime scene analysis is a labour-intensive process. Every step of the process has to be meticulously documented because the successful prosecution of an offence based on DNA evidence will require the police and the lab to show they did not mix up the samples or allow contamination of the sample. This is not work that can be done by untrained personnel or that lends itself to robotics. Accordingly, there is an almost insatiable demand by the police for DNA analysis and there is a limited supply of persons competent to do the crime scene analysis.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I would make two observations.

First, I believe it is urgent that Parliament pass Bill C-18 so that we can begin to feel its benefits. Certainly it may be possible that more extensive changes, then, are proposed in either Bill C-13 or Bill C-18 and can be made, particularly in light of the endorsement of the DNA legislation by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Rodgers case last April. However, such changes should be made after a full hearing of all the stakeholders and should not be grafted onto Bill C-18.

My second observation, Mr. Chairman, deals with how we might consider major changes to the DNA system. As members know, Parliament was supposed to have begun the parliamentary review no later than June 30, 2005. We are now more than 18 months past that date. Bill C-13 was intended to address the problems in the system identified in the first two years of the operation of the DNA data bank. It followed consultations undertaken in 2002, and at that time the consultation paper specifically stated that the consultations led by the Department of Justice in cooperation with the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada are part of the government's ongoing commitment to review and refine existing laws in response to evolving experience and stakeholder feedback. They are intended to support a parliamentary review scheduled for June 2005.

Many respondents to that consultation made it clear they wanted the whole system rethought and looked forward to the parliamentary review. The Canadian Association of Police Boards, for example, before answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper, stated:

The CAPB believes that at this juncture, the core issue is whether the incremental approach, such as is signalled in the consultation paper, remains appropriate, or whether legislators should instead be considering a much more comprehensive and wide scale use of DNA testing and collection.

How can we best advance the consideration of a comprehensive review that the CAPB and many others have been waiting for? Officials of the Department of Justice, the Department of Public Safety, the RCMP, and the national DNA data bank have all been ready for the beginning of the hearings since 2005. I understand they had prepared a discussion paper on the issues and a series of questions. Of course, Parliament was dissolved before the committee was able to conduct the review and the paper prepared by the officials has languished ever since. The paper could be quickly updated and form the basis of a consultation by the Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety. The consultation could probably be completed by September, and the results of the consultation would form the basis for recommendations by government on how to change the legislation. Hearings on those recommendations would allow for a focused review on the use of DNA in the criminal justice system to begin late this year or early in 2008.

As always, I would appreciate the views of the committee on whether this would be an appropriate way to proceed.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear again before this committee.

An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA Identification

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this evening to speak to Bill C-18 which introduces a series of technical amendments to strengthen Canada's DNA databank laws. Canada is one of only a few number of countries in the world to have a National DNA Data Bank.

The legislation is similar to Bill C-72 introduced in the 38th Parliament. That Parliament came to an abrupt end when the current Conservative government collaborated with the other opposition parties to prematurely bring down the Liberal minority government.

These new legislative changes will allow for the implementation of Bill C-13, the former Liberal government's original DNA databank legislation. At the urging of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and police organizations across the country, the former Liberal government undertook a wide range of consultations with government agencies, privacy groups, and forensic and genetic organizations which led to the introduction and passage of Bill C-13. Bill C-13 is acknowledged as a key law enforcement tool.

Forensic DNA analysis has been instrumental not only in securing convictions but also in exonerating wrongly convicted individuals as some recent high profile cases have shown. Mr. Milgaard and Mr. Guy Paul Morin were just mentioned a few minutes ago.

As one of the most accurate methods of obtaining solid evidence in criminal investigations, deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA as it is commonly known, is found within the chromosomes of every living organism. Except for identical twins, it is believed that no two people have the same DNA. Based on that premise, DNA from bodily substances found at a crime scene may be compared with the DNA obtained from a suspect in order to determine whether both samples came from the same person.

The benefits of using such a system are numerous. Police are able to identify and arrest repeat offenders by comparing DNA information from a crime scene to the convicted offender's index. They are also able to determine whether a series of offences was committed by the same offender or whether more than one perpetrator was involved. Police are able to cross reference and link DNA profiles to other cases within and across jurisdictions.

Using DNA profiles help focus police investigations by more quickly eliminating suspects whose DNA is already in the databank in a case where no match from crime scene evidence is found.

Finally, the knowledge of DNA testing to solve crimes may also deter offenders from committing further crimes.

The National DNA Data Bank is maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and is used to assist Canada's law enforcement agencies in the investigation of a serious crime. The databank has two indices or data indicators. The crime scene index would contain DNA profiles from bodily substance found at the scene of a designated offence or within the body of a victim or any other person or thing associated with the commission of a designated offence.

The convicted offenders index contains DNA profiles taken from offenders either on their consent or following an order by the courts. It applies to offenders convicted of designated Criminal Code offences as well as people who are subject to the military code of service discipline and convicted of a designated offence under the National Defence Act.

We are keenly aware of the significant privacy concerns, particularly in relation to the retention of biological samples. Strong arguments have been advanced by the scientific community indicating that in its view the retention of biological samples is essential for the DNA databank to be able to adapt to technological changes in the future.

We are aware that the field of forensic DNA analysis is developing rapidly and forensic scientists have told us that as the technology evolves the DNA profiles of today are likely to become obsolete later on. Samples retained can be reanalyzed using new technology thereby insuring that Canada's databank is able to keep pace with technological advances.

Bill C-13, the DNA Identification Act, will authorize police to collect DNA samples from offenders convicted of designated criminal offences. The 38 primary designated offences were selected because of the nature of the offence, the seriousness of the offence, and the likelihood that some biological evidence would be left at the crime scene by the perpetrator. These include the most serious personal injury crimes including homicide and sexual offences. The legislation also provided for the inclusion of DNA to be collected from offenders of designated offences committed before the DNA Identification Act came into force.

The DNA databank is of little or no use for identifying serious offenders unless it already contains their DNA profile. There are criminological studies which suggest that offenders who commit serious offences have previously committed less serious ones. Some have advocated expanding the primary designated offence to include less serious offences.

In Canada, any broadening of the category of designated offences to provide for mandatory DNA sampling would be subjected to the charter of rights scrutiny. The taking of bodily substances from individuals is considered an intrusive process constituting a search. The challenge is to seek a reasonable balance between the rights of an individual and the desired protection of society.

Bill C-18 would add attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered to the offences covered by the retroactive provisions which would apply to offenders convicted of a single murder, sexual offence or manslaughter prior to June 30, 2002, when the legislation establishing a DNA databank came into effect.

During the course of the original hearings on the DNA databank, consultations indicated strong support for the creation of a National DNA Data Bank, but there were also concerns regarding Canadian values of privacy, public protection and individual rights guaranteed by the charter.

Various interest groups, including the Privacy Commissioner and the Barreau du Québec, suggested the bill did not contain sufficient safeguards to protect the use of DNA profiles from the samples of victims, cleared suspects, and people who volunteered samples to help police in their investigations.

As a consequence, the former government brought a motion to clarify that access to the information contained in the crime scene index shall be permanently removed if it relates to a victim or person who has been eliminated as a suspect in a criminal investigation.

The current legislation also proposed a change permitting the destruction of samples when the provincial attorney general certifies that the order was made for an offence not intended to be included in the DNA databank. This simpler approach would eliminate the expense of having the attorney general make an application to a court to have the order quashed.

In certain circumstances, the legislation would also allow a court to require a person, who wishes to participate in a hearing relating to an order for the taking of samples of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis, to appear by video links, such as a closed-circuit television or a similar means of communication, for the retroactive hearings. This would significantly reduce the costs and security associated with transporting the offenders eligible for retroactive sampling.

As we all know, crime and criminal activity knows no borders. Offenders must be apprehended and prosecuted whenever they are found and law enforcement agencies must have the tools to do so. This legislation would allow a foreign law enforcement agency, for the purpose of the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offence, to submit a DNA profile for analysis and would allow the results thereof to be communicated to the foreign government by the commissioner.

The series of technical amendments set out in Bill C-18 would strengthen our country's DNA databank law and would improve law enforcement, not only within this country but beyond our borders as well.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Yes, it is overdue. We should be reviewing it because it is an act of Parliament. I would support a move in that direction.

As I was the parliamentary secretary at the time, I know there was extensive consultation on Bill C-13 but that does not replace a parliamentary review. I think the point is well taken.

I was quite involved with respect to the missing persons index and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was the person promoting it. He has, of course, had to pass it on to someone else now. At that point in time the federal government supported the missing persons index. However, the issue involved jurisdiction. In other words, the impetus really had to come from the provinces and territories because it fit within their constitutional jurisdictions.

However, extensive consultations were held across Canada with the provinces and territories to sort that out and to see what sort of support would be provided by them. I think it was put on the justice minister's agenda with his or her colleagues across Canada. There were some issues around privacy but the general view was that those issues were surmountable.

I certainly support the missing persons index. However, it is critical that we have the provinces onside and the modus operandi laid out very clearly as to how it will work, how the information will be fed into the DNA data bank and how it will be used.

An Act to Amend Certain Acts in Relation to DNA Identification

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification.

Bill C-18 is largely a technical bill but it builds on some initiatives from the last Parliament before it was dissolved when Parliament passed Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act. This was the Liberal government's original DNA data bank legislation. There was some keen interest to have this legislation passed quickly and efficiently for a couple of reasons.

There were a number of high profile people being detained in penitentiaries who were about to be released, and without this legislation in place they would have been able to have left the penitentiary without giving a DNA sample.

DNA samples are very helpful to law enforcement to solve crimes and to prevent crimes. That was one of the imperatives that led to a very speedy passage with all-party agreement in the House and I think all-party agreement in the other place and royal assent in the last Parliament. It was done very quickly.

There were amendments made at the committee level that were quite complicated. I think in the rush to get the bill through, there were some slip-ups in some of the language in the bill. This bill is designed to correct some of those technical problems with original BillC-13.

Bill C-13 in the last Parliament was a very good example of how parliamentarians of all stripes in the committee worked together. The Liberal government had a minority government at the time, but at committee we worked together to make changes to the bill, which I think improved the bill and helped its speedy passage through the House of Commons and the other place.

To give some background, before the bill came to Parliament and to committee, the RCMP were reporting that only about 50% of the DNA samples that were meant to be going to the RCMP DNA data bank were actually getting into the data bank. This was a cause for concern by myself and others. At the time I happened to have the honour to serve as parliamentary secretary to the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness, so it was an issue that I took up with the justice department and others. I could not quite understand why only 50% of the DNA samples were finding their way into the DNA data bank.

It turns out that the way the law was written, the judges had discretion as to what DNA would be passed on to the DNA data bank and what DNA would not be passed on to the DNA data bank. I found this quite puzzling because I could not ascertain under what circumstances the judge in his or her wisdom would decide that it was not in the public interest to pass the DNA of a convicted person to the DNA data bank.

In fairness to all concerned, following the establishment of the DNA data bank, there was some confusion among the crown prosecutors and judges. The DNA order has to be an order that is presented to the trial judge asking the judge to order that the DNA sample be taken and passed to the DNA data bank and there was a lack of communication or a lack of education on what DNA had to be passed over to the RCMP DNA data bank.

As I recall, the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Justice mounted a program to get the word out to the judiciary and to the prosecutors that this order had to be prepared by the crown prosecutors and presented to the judge before the DNA could be taken and submitted to the DNA data bank.

When the bill was sent to committee, these questions were asked. As a result of a lot of collaboration among all parties, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the NDP, we made some significant amendments to the bill.

We started out with a very long list of crimes where the judge would not have any discretion, where the DNA would automatically have to be taken and sent to the DNA data bank. There was much discussion around this point with the Department of Justice. The view was that there was a possibility if we included all crimes, this would be challenged under the charter and the good parts of the bill would be tossed out with the parts that would be turfed out in any sort of challenge under the charter.

At committee we put a little water in our wine and we said that for the most heinous of crimes there had to be no discretion, in the judgment of the committee members. For acts such as murder and rape, what the bill did when it was amended was it removed any judicial discretion so that the DNA automatically had to go to the DNA data bank.

That was a very proud moment for me. It really pointed out that even though there was a lot of discussion that the minority Parliament was not working at a certain level, I felt that at the committee level, certainly at the justice subcommittee level, there was a lot of good cooperation. I think we improved the legislation in front of the committee. We did some other work with respect to child pornography. Subsequently Parliament was dissolved and we had an election. But for Canadians this committee was working very well.

I was very proud that we were able to pass Bill C-13 which received royal assent. There were some technical matters which came to light through the Department of Justice later and that is what the current bill is meant to reflect. Bill C-13 was a follow-up on our Liberal government's commitment to law and order to give the police the tools they need to fight crime.

That is why I am sorely disappointed that the Conservative government is seeking the scrapping of the gun registry. We know the gun registry is working very efficiently, very effectively. Yes it is true that it cost too much to develop, but those are sunk costs. Anyone who knows anything about economics or finance knows that once there is a sunk cost there is not really much point in going back and analyzing what to do about that cost because it is historic. The question before us is whether the gun registry performing today a useful purpose, and the answer is a resounding yes.

For example, law enforcement officers are making something in the order of 6,000 inquiries per day on the gun registry data bank. Do law enforcement officers have the time to sit around and tinker away on the computer if it is not relevant information for them? They are very busy people. They have many different competing priorities. They have to decide which call to take. They have to rationalize that. Do we think they sit at a computer keyboard and tinker around for the fun of it? Of course not. We know for sure that especially in domestic violence situations the police find this to be a very useful tool.

Does it mean if they go to the gun registry and the registry shows that there are no guns registered at a particular residence that they can stroll in and be happy campers and not worry? Of course not. Police officers across Canada are not so naive, but by the same token, if they go to the gun registry data bank and discover there are guns in that residence, it helps them establish their modus operandi of how they are going to approach that situation.

I will give another example of why DNA and the gun registry are so important in terms of law enforcement. The gun registry supports something in the order of 7,000 or 8,000 affidavits to date that they have signed which has helped crown prosecutors obtain convictions. The gun licensing component of the Firearms Centre screens out many individuals who would otherwise like to have a gun but because of certain instabilities or criminal records in their past, they are precluded from owning a gun. In fairness to the Conservative government, it is not suggesting that we ban or do away with gun licensing, but it is making a serious mistake with respect to the long gun registry.

The other myth I would like to focus on again today is that some would argue that long guns are not involved so much in criminality, that they are owned by people in rural parts of Canada. The facts are just the opposite. Long guns are involved in more homicides and suicides in Canada, or in just as many as are handguns. Handguns are more of a problem in the urban centres and long guns are a problem in the rural parts of Canada.

I certainly will be supporting the DNA bill because Bill C-13 was very important in terms of law enforcement and law and order in Canada. This bill tidies up some of the language, some very important language, so that the bill can be that much more effective.

I will expand a bit on Bill C-13 and the list of those offences which the committee and ultimately Parliament and the other place approved in this legislation. The offences that were put on the list of those where a judge would have no discretion with respect to the DNA that would have to go into the DNA data bank, we included crimes like murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault. Internet luring of children, child pornography and organized crime offences were also added to the list of designated offences for a data bank order. This is absolutely necessary so that the DNA can be used by law enforcement agencies to either solve crimes or prevent crimes.

I was very proud of the work of that committee. Now I am very happy to speak in support of this bill because it makes the technical changes that are needed to make the original bill even more efficient and more effective.

By way of example, Bill C-18 makes it an offence to fail to appear for DNA sampling. It is an important part. The court can order a DNA sample, but if the individual does not appear, how could one possibly get a DNA sample? There are sanctions for not appearing for a DNA sample.

The Conservative government, and frankly I support what it is doing here, has also added some additional heinous crimes to the list where a judge would have no discretion but to send the DNA sample to the DNA data bank. Those offences include attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Those also are covered by the retroactive provisions which apply to offenders convicted of a single murder, sexual offence or manslaughter prior to June 30, 2000 when the legislation that enabled the creation of the national DNA data bank came into force.

It sounds like a lot of gobbledygook, but in fact these are very important technical changes and I am hoping the House will support them. The purpose of the bill is that the government is trying to capture as much DNA as possible to get into the data bank so that law enforcement can use that DNA to fight crime and to prevent crime.

Another example of one of the technical fixes to the legislation is that it ensures information provided by the national DNA data bank can be used to investigate all criminal offences. It may sound somewhat obvious, but if it is not written in the legislation, then someone will argue that the DNA could be used to investigate certain offences but not other offences. It makes this particular point crystal clear.

I will go back for a moment to the list of crimes where the judge has no discretion. The committee at the time had somewhat of a debate on that issue. Frankly, I support a certain level of judicial discretion but if, for whatever reason, the Parliament of Canada believes judicial discretion is not being exercised in a way that is appropriate in the judgment of parliamentarians, then I think it is quite appropriate for Parliament to remove that judicial discretion.

This is not for petty crime where the DNA must go to the data bank. This is not for shoplifting, nor is it for someone who is caught speeding. This is for murder, rape, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder and a whole list of other heinous crimes. I think it is quite appropriate that judges are required without discretion to ensure the DNA goes to the DNA data bank.

Another example of one of the technical amendments to this bill that is before us today is to simplify the procedure to destroy samples taken from those convicted of an offence not intended to be included in the DNA data bank. Again, it is somewhat a procedural but an important procedure so that samples can be destroyed if they are not intended to be included in the data bank.

When we get into DNA there is often this debate, a debate we had in committee as well, about the privacy issues of Canadians. Privacy is an important aspect that we need to consider as parliamentarians.

I do not pretend to reflect the views of all Canadians on this point, but if someone wants to take a follicle of my hair and put it into a DNA data bank, frankly, I say go to it. However, I understand and respect that some people might see this as impacting their privacy, which is why the legislation that we bring before Parliament needs to be mindful of those considerations. We need to ensure that only DNA that is required by legislation and that meets certain tests of Parliament is actually proceeded with.

Another example of one of the technical changes in this bill is to help to ensure that the DNA data bank orders can be carried out even when, for logistical reasons, it may not be possible to take the sample at the precise time set out in the order. Again, this is somewhat procedural. Unfortunately, there is a whole body of jurisprudence and lawyers who will try to find reasons why their client should not be required to submit a DNA sample. They might say that they could not comply with the order in the timelines provided in the order.

This provision makes it clear that even though it is not at the precise time that is laid out in the order, the DNA must be presented.

It also clarifies definitions in procedures for obtaining a DNA data bank order and for sharing information with international law enforcement partners. There is a whole range of sharing of information that goes on between Interpol and other law enforcement agencies around the world and one has to be mindful of the privacy concerns of Canadians. This amendment makes it clear what the rules are for the sharing of that sort of information.

I hope the House passes this bill. It would be helpful to our law and order agencies to prosecute and prevent crimes. I am sure our party will work with all sides of the House to ensure the speedy passage of this bill. I will be supporting the bill and I hope others will as well.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak about Bill C-18.

I was just thinking two thoughts by way of introduction. The member for Wild Rose is right. The viewing public might think with the numbers C-18, C-72 and C-13 that this is just a well-dressed bingo game that we are playing, but it is actually very serious material.

The combination of these bills will culminate in a better method and tool for police officers and the police forces to do their jobs both in inculpating, finding the people who have done crimes, but also as my speech will indicate, exculpating people when they are actually not guilty.

I also might give my friend from Fundy Royal compliments on his good speech. I think that people in our community, he and I share an undefended border between Westmorland County and Albert County, share the same belief system and the same community values.

The people in Albert and Westmorland counties might think that the member for Fundy Royal and I are dominating the debate. I think it is just because we are on the committee together and we work on these subjects, not always together but certainly with the same view. That view is to make the laws of Canada better and more effective.

With that I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-18, a law designed to help implement the DNA databank legislative reforms. It does, however, and it must be said, build on the good Liberal Bill C-72. This was an excellent effort of the previous government to clean up some of these outdated and, frankly, awkward and lugubrious anomalies that exist in the current system.

The success of the DNA databank is impressive. It has provided critical evidence leading to convictions in nearly 2,300 serious crimes. It has been crucial in helping police solve over 300 armed robberies, 1,200 break and enters, 200 murders, and the member for Wild Rose might want this statistic, and 400 sexual assault cases in Canadian communities from coast to coast to coast. These are impressive numbers.

It is an extraordinary success. In addition, the national DNA data bank is one of the most powerful tools available to the country's police forces and courts. Even more importantly, the national DNA data bank makes it possible to exonerate innocent people and punish the real criminals.

We forget too often in the law and order rhetoric of the other side that there are people who have been falsely accused and falsely convicted of crimes. One of those falsely accused and falsely convicted cases is one too many. Not only is the DNA databank a great success story, it is an amazing example of technological use in the betterment of our justice system by providing indisputable evidence.

That is why I am pleased to see that the Conservative minority government introduced Bill C-18 and this is largely, as I indicated, based on former BillC-72 presented by the Liberal government.

The new modifications proposed by Bill C-18, and as they were in Bill C-72, will enable a number of modifications and ameliorations to the DNA databank in accordance with the proposed Liberal reform of the DNA databank included in Bill C-13 which received royal assent in May 2005. These improvements are eagerly awaited for by the police departments, the provinces and territories, and they cannot come too soon.

I must echo at this time two comments made by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh. One of them is that the Criminal Code of Canada, a large document that is roughly incoherent notwithstanding that it was created by a Conservative justice minister in the late 1800s, has been added to like a big overgrown shrub that needs pruning and frankly needs to be completely redone. Those sentiments are not just those of the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. The hon. members for Fundy Royal and for Wild Rose will know that the esteemed professor from the University of Ottawa, David Paciocco, suggested that to us just recently at the standing committee.

In the beautiful province of Quebec, respected professor Daniel Grégoire has also called for these reforms.

The second point about the need to pass the bill, which is why we are in favour of it, is that the justice committee is bogged down with so many justice bills right now that we have to be sure the government is sincere. I have heard the expressions of sincerity from the hon. members of the committee, whom I know well. I take it that the committee is sincere in passing the bill, in getting it through committee and back to the House and into effect. Since we all agree on its raw and innate goodness, let us get it through the committee quickly and get it passed into law.

Once again, the current minority government is trying to show, however, that its great legislative agenda is its own. In fact, any bill that comes before us that has more than three pages was probably one that was introduced by the Liberal government and died on the order paper, not one of the new bills produced by the Conservative department of haste in bills. I call it the hasty bill writing department that the government must have over there.

For those keeping score, this is one of the good bills. This was a Liberal bill that a new number has been attached to. We will happily call it a Conservative bill for now, if we can just get it through committee. That being said, the DNA data bank, just as any other governmental program or legislative measure, raises concerns about privacy.

As many examples have shown in the past, personal information can travel fast over the legal borders that exist and over all the limitations that we think exist as well. This is why I stress the need to strike a balance between all citizens' rights to privacy, including suspects, and the need to protect our society as a whole from crime and criminality.

The respect of privacy has been so far protected in the DNA data bank by ensuring that the identity of all suspects is kept confidential to ensure fair treatment. We must ensure that the proposed changes do respect the boundaries of the current privacy provisions in the law of Canada.

The technology used in DNA identification has proven itself on many occasions over the years. DNA identification can play a vital role in convicting or exonerating people suspected of major crimes including murder, as well as other crimes that caused the death of innocent victims.

The changes currently proposed by Bill C-18 will allow even more law-abiding citizens to be exonerated of charges and will strengthen the current legislation on DNA sampling.

In fact, attempting to escape or avoid having a DNA sample taken seems to me to be sufficient reason for doubt about the motivations and motives of a suspect.

There is certainly reason to wonder why a potential suspect would do everything possible to avoid having a DNA sample taken when, in fact, the sample could lift all suspicion from that person, if he is innocent, of course.

Since the DNA data bank is a fairly recent tool, it is understandable that it needs to be tweaked and bettered to ensure that it reaches its maximum potential.

This is why adding attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder to the offences covered by the retroactive provisions makes sense. The law is organic and it must grow with what is occurring out there in our communities.

Those added offences are serious. They are important. Those individuals, dangerous as they may be, should contribute a DNA sample to the DNA data bank to ensure that other crimes they might have committed in the past, or could commit in the future, will be linked to them and their DNA.

It is important for us on this side of the House to underline that we are a party, and I think all parliamentarians would agree, that respects and wants a rule of law in this country. We are a party--and I think as parliamentarians as well we could join in this statement--that wants a safer community. If the DNA data bank, improved as it would be by this bill, helps us catch more criminals who have done harm or who will do harm, this is a good thing.

Furthermore, I do believe that law-abiding citizens' rights to live peacefully should always be the first objective of all proposed legislation. It would not make sense to actually protect criminals from other criminal offences, and this is why it simply and clearly makes sense to ensure that information provided by the DNA data bank should be used, and needs to be, to investigate all criminal offences. Canadians will in the end benefit from criminals being better investigated, and perhaps having them linked to accusations and criminal offences as alleged would be a good thing as well.

Of course, these measures have to work both ways. Although law enforcement agencies should be able to use the DNA data bank information to investigate all criminal offences of certain individuals, it should not create some sort of tightly secured DNA data bank from which no information can be deleted. There is, in fact, a time limit to the efficacy of the DNA data bank.

Accessing and destroying specific information from the DNA data bank is essential to ensure errors can be corrected and true justice can be served. This is why simplifying the procedure for destroying samples also makes sense and is a very important part of an efficient DNA data bank.

As the DNA bank continues to grow with each sample taken, the usefulness of this extraordinary tool also continues to grow. It will make Canada a place where Canadian justice—as well as our police forces and investigators—is as fair and equitable as it can be.

The National DNA Data Bank is an impressive and wonderful resource. It is one of the most powerful investigative tools the justice system has ever had. Bill C-18 would make it even more efficient.

It is very important to underline for us on this side of the House that none of these bills being proposed by the government will work unless there are adequate resources to back them up. The only program statements that have been made with respect to justice in the past couple of weeks have been cuts.

Whether they are cuts to the judicial contestation program or cuts in the RCMP budget for a trial method of catching people at the roadside who are committing violations of our Criminal Code while impaired from drug abuse, these are the actions that back up the words of the government with respect to its law and order agenda.

I can only hope that through discussions such as these and the discussions that might happen at committee the government can see the folly of pronouncing grand statements about how the Conservatives are the stewards of law and order when they do not back that up with the allocation of resources necessary to put in effect the laws the Conservatives so proudly pronounce from every church steeple, city hall and mall encounter.

In short, and in conclusion, the Liberal Party and I, as a member of the justice committee, will in good faith give our word to support this bill in principle, to work diligently at committee to improve it and, more important, to move it along to put it into law, because after all, it is just Bill C-72 in new clothing. It was our idea. We put it together. Perhaps once, in a non-partisan way, I can say we do not care if the government gets the credit for it, because we know in our hearts that we put it into place.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure today of speaking in favour of Bill C-18 and in favour of sending Bill C-18 to the committee for further study.

The National DNA Data Bank is a great Canadian success story. It has assisted the police in their investigations of thousands of serious crimes. It is making an invaluable contribution to the safety of all Canadians. This bill can only increase that success.

Much of what I will say will be familiar to those who were involved in the debate on former bill C-13 in the last Parliament, and in particular, to members who were on the standing committee during its hearings into the bill because, as the minister stated, this bill paves the way for the proclamation of former Bill C-13. Nevertheless, it is important to outline for all members the way the legislation and the DNA system work.

The National DNA Data Bank carries out four principal functions and assists law enforcement agencies in solving crimes by one, linking crimes together where there are no suspects. The DNA data bank would advise the police forces involved so that they can compare notes on their respective investigations.

Two, it helps to identify suspects. When the DNA data bank provides a match between a crime scene profile and a convicted offender profile, the police agency is advised and it can focus its investigations on that identified offender.

Three, it assists by in fact eliminating suspects where there is no match between crime scene DNA and a profile in the data bank. This is often overlooked in debate about the DNA registry or amendments to the legislation impacting on the DNA registry, but a DNA registry has been used to eliminate suspects and in fact exonerate people. A lack of a match tells the police that none of the 100,000 convicted offenders whose DNA is in the data bank was involved.

Last, the DNA data bank is used to determine whether a serial offender is involved. The DNA bank would advise the police force that several crimes appear to have been committed by the same person. This is a very important fact indeed when police are assessing a certain criminal act as it is certainly helpful in their investigation to know whether it is someone who is acting in a repetitive or serial way.

As David Griffin, an executive officer of the Canadian Police Association, told the standing committee during hearings on former Bill C-13:

DNA analysis has proven to be a breakthrough technology in policing and the administration of justice. It is a science that assists in detecting and convicting offenders and acquitting the innocent. In serious police investigations, the cost savings in reducing the time spent on investigations and in identifying and confirming or eliminating suspects can be extraordinary. This is particularly important in crimes such as child abductions by strangers, where precious hours can be critical to finding the victim alive.

DNA orders can only be made against an offender for a limited number of offences. Judges retain a discretion to refuse to make an order in all but the most serious cases. The use of the information is strictly limited to the investigation of criminal offences. That again is an important fact that is often overlooked by those who would criticize the national DNA data bank, that it is only used for the investigation of criminal offences.

Bill C-18 does not change the fundamentals of the Criminal Code DNA provisions and the DNA Identification Act. The five year parliamentary review that is yet to begin is the proper form for considering more far-reaching changes. This bill is limited to technical improvements to the existing system.

The minister has already spoken of the ringing endorsement of the present legislation by the Supreme Court in the Rodgers case. Members can be assured that this bill is consistent with the charter. Moreover, the strong protections for privacy which are built into the scheme are also unchanged.

Canada has probably the strongest protections against the misuse of our DNA profiles, stronger in fact than any other country. In particular, the legislation provides that bodily samples collected pursuant to a DNA data bank authorization for inclusion in the National DNA Data Bank may only be used for forensic DNA analysis. Unused portions of bodily samples are required to be safely stored at the National DNA Data Bank.

Further, it is a criminal offence to use bodily samples or results of forensic DNA analysis obtained under a DNA data bank authorization other than for the transmission to the National DNA Data Bank. A breach of that provision is a hybrid offence that is subject to a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment when prosecuted by indictment.

Use of DNA profiles and bodily samples at the National DNA Data Bank is strictly limited to the narrow purposes of comparing offender profiles with crime scene profiles. Any use of stored information or bodily samples or communication of information that they may contain is strictly limited to the narrow identification purposes of the act. Again, this is something that is often lost on those who are critical of the data bank. In fact, any breach of those provisions is a criminal offence subject to a maximum of two years' imprisonment.

Communication of information as to whether a person's DNA profile is contained in the offenders index may only be made to appropriate law enforcement agencies or laboratories for investigative purposes or to authorized users of the RCMP automated conviction records retrieval system.

Although the seized bodily samples are retained for safekeeping in the DNA data bank after analysis, they may only be used for further forensic DNA analysis where significant technological advances have been made since the time the original DNA profile was derived. The results of such subsequent DNA analysis and any residue of the bodily sample are subject to the same rigid controls as the original profile and the original sample.

The sharing of DNA profiles with foreign governments and international organizations is only allowed for legitimate law enforcement purposes and only pursuant to specific agreements that must include safeguards to protect the privacy of the personal information disclosed.

I repeat that these legal protections are untouched by Bill C-18. All of those protections that protect the rights of Canadians against any possible misuse of the DNA data bank or any use outside of aiding our police in the protection of Canadians and society as a whole is unchanged and untouched by Bill C-18. In practice, they are buttressed by the procedural safeguards developed by the National DNA Data Bank.

By international agreement the DNA analysis process used by the data bank and other data banks in the world examines only a small segment of the entire human DNA blueprint. Scientists internationally have chosen 13 loci to analyze because there is a wide variation in those among the world's population. The DNA that is analyzed is often called anonymous DNA because apart from the ability to identify gender, there is no link to physical or medical attributes. Therefore, the profile generated by the DNA data bank will not reveal a person's hair, skin or eye colour.

The variations mean that except for identical twins, every person's DNA is unique. It is this power to identify a person beyond a shadow of a doubt that makes the DNA data bank and data collection such a valuable tool for law enforcement. It can identify an individual beyond a doubt.

The RCMP has developed internal procedures to ensure that there is no manipulation of the data. Upon receipt of a kit, the data bank separates the genetic material from the personal data. The biological sample and the identifying information are given the same unique bar code. The data bank keeps the biological sample and analyzes it. The personal information and full set of fingerprints of convicted offenders are sent to the Canadian Criminal Records Information Services, which retains them under strict security provisions. Therefore, the data bank has no idea whose sample it is analyzing or, in the case of a match, which convicted offender is linked to the crime scene.

It is important to emphasize that we have gone to great lengths to separate the information contained in the DNA sample and the information attributed to the person to whom that DNA belongs. It simply advises Canadian Criminal Records Information Services of the bar code and the service retrieves the identifying information and sends it to the laboratory that uploaded the profile to the crime scene index. It is of course not possible for unauthorized persons to enter the data bank or the Criminal Records Information Services to view or retrieve data.

The National DNA Data Bank's website has a wealth of information about how it actually operates and about the history and science behind it. I also hope that the members of the standing committee who have not had the opportunity to tour the National DNA Data Bank will arrange to do so. I know the staff would be most happy to show them how the system works and to answer all their questions. Certainly a tour of the data bank made it much easier for members who were considering former Bill C-13 to understand the submissions of the witnesses and to formulate their recommendations for amendments.

Finally, I remind the House that a National DNA Data Bank Advisory Committee has been established by regulation. Its membership includes eminent scientists, specialists in privacy and human rights law, and a former justice of the Supreme Court. The committee's duties encompass any matter related to the establishment and operation of the DNA data bank.

Members will find much wisdom in the reports that the advisory committee has made over the years. Members of the advisory committee will, I trust, be witnesses when the parliamentary review of the legislation gets under way.

I now wish to turn to some of the specifics of Bill C-18. Fundamentally, the effectiveness of the National DNA Data Bank depends on three factors: one, the number of profiles from crime scenes; two, the number of profiles from convicted offenders; and three, the resources of the police to pursue leads generated by the data bank.

Upon passage of Bill C-18 and the proclamation of former Bill C-13, there will be many more offenders eligible for a DNA data bank order and the police will be able to upload many more crime scene profiles to the National DNA Data Bank. This will undoubtedly lead to more matches between crime scene samples and the convicted offender samples and more matches between crime scenes. That is ultimately the goal of the DNA data bank, to provide those matches.

As for the resources of the police, we earmarked $15 million over two years to increase the capacity of the National DNA Data Bank to process convicted offender samples and the capacity of the regional laboratories to process crime scene samples. Without these additional resources and without the changes proposed in Bill C-18, the proclamation of former Bill C-13 would be largely ineffective in achieving Parliament's purpose.

Former Bill C-13, however, contained flaws that required correction. The previous government introduced former Bill C-72 to correct problems in Bill C-13. That bill would have one, re-enacted the definition so as to make the various amendments fit together in a logical order; two, changed the forms to reflect the changes made in the procedures for obtaining an order in retroactive proceedings; three, ensured that the commissioner provided further information regarding a possible match only at the request of the laboratory or police; and finally, corrected a difference in the French and English versions of the section authorized in the international sharing of DNA profiles.

Former Bill C-72 contained many other changes to the drafting of Bill C-13 and two procedural changes requested by the provinces to reduce cost: a provision to permit retroactive hearings by video; and a simpler defective order procedure that would have eliminated the application to a court of appeal for the order to be quashed and substituted certification by the attorney general. These changes are reintroduced in Bill C-18 which is before us today. It contains, as the minister has said, many further clarifications and improvements that have been suggested by officials since former Bill C-72 was tabled.

Members should be aware that it will take several months for the provinces to be ready. They have to train their prosecutors, police, court administrators and clerical staff in the new procedures. Understandably, they will not begin that process until the bill has received royal assent.

We believe the House should move swiftly to send Bill C-18 to committee and it is therefore with pleasure that I urge the House to give Bill C-18 second reading.

An Act to amend Certain Acts in relation to DNA Identification

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill in principle, that is, we want police forces to have the tools they need to solve investigations quickly. During investigations, the police may need to collect DNA samples. We also understand the need to have a DNA data bank managed by the RCMP. We will therefore vote in favour of sending this bill to committee after second reading, and we will raise a number of questions.

We feel it is our duty to do so, especially since, in the very recent past—just now, actually—the RCMP's actions were not beyond reproach regarding the collection and sharing of information. In our opinion, there must be extremely firm guarantees that the appropriate recipients of such information will be correctly identified.

Since 1998, the Bloc Québécois has supported these measures. In 1998, we began voting on the first measures concerning the collection of DNA samples. Furthermore, we supported Bill C-13. This is really a question of judges having the ability to impose an order that will be mandatory in some cases, but optional in other cases. This will allow something extremely intrusive in terms of human rights, that is, collecting DNA samples.

We understand fully—and the minister was right to point it out—that when an individual is imprisoned and convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code, it is not unreasonable to ask for a DNA sample.

I will close by sharing our questions on this matter. Bill C-13 deals with the primary designated offences that involve the most violence and relate to sexual assault, and I will name them. There are 16 cases where the courts must issue mandatory orders to take DNA samples. The DNA information is kept in a data bank that is managed by the largest police force, the RCMP. Sampling is mandatory in the following cases: prostitution, living on the avails of prostitution, murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, etc. This list of primary designated offences also includes offences such as breaking and entering a dwelling house and participation in the activities of a criminal organization.

Section 467 of the Criminal Code was created in response to the conflicts between outlaw motorcycle gangs in major urban centres. A new offence was added to the Criminal Code: gangsterism, which consists in committing an offence for a criminal organization. Now, in cases of luring children using the Internet or procuring, the Crown must prove that the mandatory sampling order will better serve the interests of justice. In the case of secondary designated offences—all crimes punishable by more than five years in prison—the prosecution must request an order and demonstrate that it is in the interests of justice.

The Bloc Québécois was in favour of all these provisions that would give the police additional resources, because we voted in favour of Bill C-13.

One aspect of Bill C-18 that might warrant further discussion is the fact that, in addition to the existing provisions, the government wants everyone who has been convicted since 2000 of conspiracy and attempted murder to be included in the national DNA data bank.

Obviously there is some grey area. Conspiracy corresponds to a fairly broad provision in criminal law. There are situations where conspiracy leads to the commission of criminal acts, but conspiracy in and of itself is closer to plotting than actually committing the criminal act.

I asked the minister a question earlier, but unfortunately he was unable to provide an answer. Our question is on a provision in the bill that will allow the RCMP—the entity in charge of administering this data bank—to use the information, and thus the DNA.

This data bank has two major indices. The first index includes DNA samples of people who have indeed been convicted of one of the 16 designated offences I mentioned earlier. As far as the second index is concerned, it has to do with scenes of crimes, including unresolved crimes. I will give you an example. A murder occurs on a property and the guilty party is not identified, but there are traces of blood, bodily fluid and other substances. The RCMP collects samples and they become part of the crime scene index. Even when no suspect is identified, there is still anonymous information left by DNA, bodily fluids and blood.

This information is found in two major indices. I was somewhat surprised to see that Bill C-18, if passed in its current form, would allow the Commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Zaccardelli, to use DNA information for all criminal investigations and offences.

I hope the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities shares my opinion, but, at the risk of repeating myself, I maintain that we must be extremely careful when it comes to distributing personal information. The RCMP is not above reproach. That is why we will leave the parliamentary committee to do its work.

I have read the O'Connor report on the Arar case and it is clear that the RCMP was given a lot of power. It can even respond to requests from other countries and both parties may want to share information.

In investigating an offence that is not necessarily on the list of 16 designated offences that I was talking about, if there is information to do with the DNA of bodily fluids and blood, in other words a genetic profile, the RCMP could distribute this genetic information, affecting potential suspects, to different police bodies and to independent investigators. Obviously we are concerned.

Once again, I recognize the importance of Bill C-18 . In 1998, the Bloc Québécois agreed to the creation of a data bank. We even collaborated on Bill C-13, which was passed unanimously, but we have always expressed reservations concerning the extent to which the information may be shared. This is very important for genetic profile information, and it makes a significant contribution to resolving criminal investigations.

In the absence of a perfect match, Bill C-18 would also enable the RCMP commissioner to communicate similar genetic profiles to foreign authorities.

This is extremely important. Since Bill C-13 was passed, the international communication of profiles has been limited to the validation of DNA samples found at crimes scenes outside of Canada. In such cases, the information in the profile is communicated to police authorities in countries that request it. If there is no match—if the DNA sample is not validated—all the RCMP is authorized to say, according to Bill C-13, is that the DNA profile requested for validation does not correspond to any information in the current data bank.

Bill C-18 takes this a little farther. It would permit identification by DNA profile in the communication of possible matches. This may seem very technical, but it is not just technical. This is about the concerns and the balance we have to have. We accept that convicted individuals who have harmed a person or property and been imprisoned may be subject to an RCMP investigation. However, we are not prepared to say that all foreign police forces can have access to the information in the data bank, even if a suspect has not yet been identified.

These are the issues the committee will discuss. I will take a break for member statements under Standing Order 31, and I will continue my speech after oral question period.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification. Bill C-18 impacts the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act.

I, along with many in this chamber, was a member of the House when the DNA Identification Act was created in 1998. The act came into force on June 30, 2000.

Section 13 specifically provides that within five years of the coming into force of the act a review of the provisions and operations should be undertaken by a committee of the House, the Senate, or by both. This review has not yet taken place and the current Minister of Justice by letter earlier this year states that the review “should begin as soon as possible after this bill receives royal assent”.

I believe for many reasons that the review should happen as soon as possible. I would like to know from the minister if his assurance for the mandated review really means only after more of his so-called law and order bills come before the House or if the review can take place within the next year in a reasonable amount of time. Where exactly is the review on the list of priorities of the minority government?

In a letter which I believe was sent to all members of the justice committee, the minister identified various issues he wished to be discussed and they are important areas for discussion. Among them are: having only one list of designated offences; the scope of judicial discretion with respect to making an order; taking DNA under the Identification of Criminals Act; international sharing; the one I just mentioned moments ago, kinship analysis; volunteer samples; victim samples; and exoneration.

The current Minister of Justice whom we have just heard from has urged that the amendments in Bill C-18 are needed to give the benefits of changes made under the former government's Bill C-13 passed recently. Former Bill C-13 was adopted on May 19, 2005 and only some parts of Bill C-13 are currently in force.

For people who may have not been part of that legislative process, it may be useful to set out the purpose of the DNA Identification Act. Section 3 states:

The purpose of this Act is to establish a national DNA data bank to help law enforcement agencies identify persons alleged to have committed designated offences, including those committed before the coming into force of this Act.

The principles of the act are contained in section 4 and include:

(a) the protection of society and the administration of justice are well served by the early detection, arrest and conviction of offenders, which can be facilitated by the use of DNA profiles;

(b) the DNA profiles, as well as samples of bodily substances from which the profiles are derived, may be used only for law enforcement purposes in accordance with this Act, and not for any unauthorized purpose; and

(c) to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves, safeguards must be placed on

(i) the use and communication of, and access to, DNA profiles and other information contained in the national DNA data bank, and

(ii) the use of, and access to, bodily substances that are transmitted to the Commissioner for the purposes of this Act.

The use of DNA analysis in solving crime has emerged as one of the most powerful tools that is currently available to law enforcement agencies for the administration of justice in our land. This has taken place in just over a decade. Actually it is remarkable. Its impact is akin to the introduction of fingerprint evidence in court over 100 years ago.

In the science of police investigation, DNA evidence is a major enhancement for the safety of Canadians. What is the value of DNA to public investigations? We should know that biological samples collected from a crime scene can either link a suspect to the scene or rule the suspect out as a donor of the DNA. Evidence from different crime scenes can be compared to link the same perpetrator to multiple offences, whether they occurred next door, across the country, or halfway around the world. It can also identify a victim through DNA from close relatives.

DNA is referred to often as the blueprint of life. It is a fundamental building block of a person's complete and entire genetic makeup. DNA is found in virtually every tissue in the human body. Experts tell us that the DNA in a person's blood is the same in the skin cells, the saliva, the hair and other bodily parts. Highly discriminating other than with respect to identical twins, it is a powerful tool for identification. Every person's DNA is unique to them, again with the exception of identical twins.

The DNA molecule itself can last significant environmental challenges. It is very stable. This enables the forensic experts to obtain new information from very old biological evidence, or establish important data from very badly degraded samples, which can occur when say a body is found or a crime scene is unearthed long after the fact of incidence.

The stability of the molecule and the fact we have very discriminating features of individual DNA and the accuracy of the analysis techniques that the current DNA people use make this a very efficient and strong human identification technology. It is a most vital component of most of our police investigations today of a very serious nature.

I should state that the national data bank respects the considerations, as it should, of the genetic privacy of individuals and follows strict guidelines as specified in the DNA Identification Act. The biological samples that are collected from convicted offenders and the resulting DNA profiles can only be used for law enforcement purposes. Thus, the National DNA Data Bank assists the law enforcement communities in solving crimes by linking crimes together where there are no suspects, by helping to identify suspects or conversely by eliminating suspects where there is no match between the crime scene DNA and the DNA profile in the national data bank. Further, it assists in determining whether a serial offender is involved.

By statute, the national data bank, which is located here in Ottawa, is responsible for two principal indices. The first is a convicted offenders index, which is an electronic index that has been developed from DNA profiles, collected from offenders convicted by designated primary and secondary offences identified in section 487.04 of the Criminal Code. I believe, as of mid-May 2006, the convicted offender index had nearly 100,000 entries.

The second is the crime scene index, which is a separate electronic index composed of DNA profiles obtained from crime scene investigations of the same designated offences addressed under the act. Thus we have several thousands, as the minister said, of the DNA samples from convicted offenders, which are included in the National DNA Data Bank along with the samples from various crime scenes across the country.

Large numbers of police officers from every province and territory jurisdiction in Canada have been the recipients of specific and proper training on how to collect and forward the DNA samples, which are then sent to the data bank in Ottawa for the proper analysis.

We know that the National DNA Data Bank has recorded over 5,200 crime scene to offender matches and more than 750 crime scene to crime scene matches. As everyone should appreciate, this developing science has to be managed very appropriately and properly to safeguard people's constitutional rights.

We have had, though, over the last number of years continuous consultations with provinces and territories and the public at large. They all have been instrumental in developing the amending legislation over the last couple of bills. Again, under the former Liberal government in Bill C-13, changes were made to improve the public safety and the approach of the bill continued to respect the constitutionally protected rights of individuals and their privacy interests. This is the problematic challenge area of concern for many.

When the bill was before committee the last time, the Privacy Commissioner was there expressing some concerns. It is right that these types of debates happen. That is why it is totally necessary we have the overall review and, hopefully, that will not be delayed.

Under the act, we currently have both primary and secondary designated offences. The primary designated offences are considered the most serious criminal offences. They are, for example, sexual offences, murder and manslaughter. The significant but relatively less serious offences would come under the threshold of secondary designated offences in the act. Two examples that have been shown would be assault and arson.

For people to understand the practical difference, a judge who convicts a person of a primary designated offence is required to make an order for the collection of the DNA sample from the offender, unless the offender can convince the court otherwise, under a specific section, subsection 487.051(2) of the Criminal Code. It is usually mandatory unless there are strict criteria.

With a secondary designated offence, and this is the difference, a DNA sample collection order may be granted if the court, upon application of the Crown, is satisfied that it is in the best interests of justice to do so. It should be noted that if a person was convicted or discharged of any designated offence after June 30 of the year 2000, but the act was committed before that date, then the same criteria for granting an order under the secondary designated offence would apply.

Bill C-13 moved a number of previously listed secondary designated offences and the new offence of Internet luring of a child to the primary list. Also Bill C-13 proposed additions to the list of secondary designated offences. Examples of certain offences that moved to the primary list included child pornography and robbery.

Bill C-13 also made changes to the National Defence Act to ensure that the military justice system would remain consistent with the civilian justice system.

The former Liberal government also introduced Bill C-72 in November 2005, less than a year ago. That bill had a series of amendments to help implement the DNA data bank references that were endorsed by Parliament under Bill C-13, which I have just discussed. These technical amendments were to clarify definitions and procedures for obtaining a DNA data bank order and for sharing information. There was a provision to help DNA data bank orders to be carried out, even when, for logistical reasons, it may not have been possible to take the sample at the precise time as set out in the original order.

Bill C-72, which also died when the government fell last year, would have also simplified the procedure to destroy samples taken from those convicted of an offence not intended to be included in the DNA data bank. This is a whole specialized area. There is a lot of concern about whether samples ever really get destroyed or whether we just do not do the matching any more and we lose the ability to match properly.

Among other issues, Bill C-72 was to allow for hearings by video to reduce costs and security associated with two party and greater numbers of offenders eligible for a retroactive sampling as a result of Bill C-13. Therefore, Bill C-72 essentially picked up on some of the issues identified by the stakeholders during the consultations on the implementation of Bill C-13 and also from the committee debate. It was intended to have the technical amendment made under Bill C-72 come into force before the coming into force of the unproclaimed provision of Bill C-13 in order to increase the efficiency of the data bank system and reduce costs.

This has been a somewhat dry and truncated history of the legislation, but it puts us where we are today with the sections.

Bill C-18, introduced by the government based on the work of the former government, is supposed to represent a reincarnation of Bill C-72. Upon looking at the bill, amended forms, which were not ready for Bill C-72, have now been included in Bill C-18. As mentioned previously, we are now further behind the overall review of the legislation. We are again being asked by the Minister of Justice to do the technical amendments before the broader policy and review.

Bill C-18 has some substantive provisions also. I am not going to go through all of them today, that is what we have committee for, but I will give an example. It will make it an offence to fail to appear for DNA sampling. This is similar to the situation in the code where we have an offence for failing to show up for fingerprinting. This seems entirely logical to me. It also proposes to add attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder to the offences covered by the retroactive provisions.

Also, there are simple, or not so simple, procedural changes in Bill C-18. Examples of these amendments include allowing a DNA order to be made within 90 days after the sentence is pronounced and allowing the law enforcement agency authorized to take a DNA sample to authorize another law enforcement agency to do it on its behalf when the offender has moved or been incarcerated outside of the jurisdiction. This would save time and money. As opposed to moving the offender back and forth, we would do the sampling in another jurisdiction, as long as all the orders had been properly made.

These are practical amendments that would assist in an efficient process and rectify some of the on the ground problems that are being experienced by people who have to deal with the various systems, from the justice system courthouse, all the way to the analysis here at the data bank.

For the most part, Bill C-18 is an enhanced version of previous government bills. Since we have last had the occasion to discuss DNA legislation, the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Rogers, has held, among other things, that the collection of DNA samples for data bank purposes from designated class of offenders is reasonable, reasonable as an infringement in our constitutional sense of the word.

In conclusion, I believe it is very appropriate to send the bill to committee for careful consideration. I will restate that I also think it is very appropriate that the House, our Parliament and some of the committees consider a full review so we can have a proper discussion about further emerging areas that need to be addressed, not only those outlined in the Minister of Justice's letters, but maybe some of the concerns of some of the other stakeholders. I think that would be a useful thing to do.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification, and to recommend to the House that this bill be given second reading and referred to committee.

This bill is highly technical. It is necessary, however, to make these technical changes so that we can proclaim former Bill C-13, which was passed in the last Parliament with all party support.

Many members are familiar with the background of this bill because they were here when Bill C-13 was passed, but I will provide a brief background for the benefit of new members.

The National DNA Data Bank, which is operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, began operating on June 30, 2000. Basically, it compares DNA profiles of convicted offenders with DNA profiles found at crime scenes. It now contains almost 100,000 profiles from convicted offenders and about 30,000 profiles from crime scenes. The data bank has assisted almost 6,500 police investigations.

In 2001, federal and provincial prosecutors and officials identified a number of deficiencies in the legislation. The Uniform Law Conference, which includes representatives of the defence bar, passed resolutions calling for high priority to be given to remedying seven problems.

The government launched public consultations in the fall of 2002. It was only in May 2004 that former Bill C-35 was introduced to correct the problems that had been identified. The bill died on the order paper when the election was called and was reintroduced as former Bill C-13 in October 2004.

I believe it would be fair to say that while all parties supported the DNA data bank and the changes proposed in the former Bill C-13, many members wanted to make more extensive changes.

There were negotiations among the parties to develop a package of changes that could secure unanimous support for the bill. In May 2005, three key amendments to the bill were adopted.

First was extending the retroactive scheme to cover persons convicted of one murder, manslaughter or sexual assault. I recall that our party, in opposition, was particularly keen in bringing that issue forward.

Second was creating a category of very violent offences where the court would have no discretion to refuse to make the DNA order. Again, this was another initiative of the party that I am in, which made that recommendation in the last Parliament.

Third was extending the definition of secondary designated offences to cover all offences under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that are punishable on indictment by five years or more.

The bill then moved with lightning speed and with all party support through the House and the Senate because of an impending confidence vote on the budget.

The provisions of former Bill C-13 that came into force upon receiving royal assent were those dealing with the expansion of the retroactive scheme, which makes about 4,400 more offenders eligible to be sampled, the procedure for dealing with DNA orders that appear on their face to have been improperly made, and the procedures for dealing with moderate DNA matches.

The major amendments that have not yet been brought into force are the following.

First is allowing courts to make DNA data bank orders against a person who has been found “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder”.

Second is adding Internet luring of a child, uttering threats, criminal harassment, and “criminal organization” offences to the list of designated offences.

Third is moving “robbery” and “break and enter into a dwelling house” and child pornography related offences from the list of secondary designated offences to the list of primary designated offences.

Fourth is creating a new sub-category of the primary designated offence list of 16 extremely violent offences for which the courts will have no discretion whatsoever and must make the order.

Fifth is expanding the definition of secondary designated offences to include all offences that are punishable by imprisonment for five years or more.

Most members will agree that these are significant changes that will enhance the ability of the police to use the data bank and to protect Canadians from criminals.

Why, then, are they not yet in force? Federal, provincial and territorial officials, who were preparing for the proclamation of the remaining provisions of Bill C-13, identified a number of serious technical problems that should be corrected prior to proclamation and certain procedures that should be modified to increase efficiency and reduce costs. The former government, therefore, introduced Bill C-72 in November 2005 to make the necessary changes. However, that bill died when the election was called.

Officials have continued their work and they have identified more changes that would clarify Parliament's intent in passing former Bill C-13 and the procedures that should be modified to make the DNA legislation more effective.

As a former provincial crown prosecutor, I know how important it is to have clear procedures set out in the Criminal Code if legislation is to be effective. I am pleased that my department took the initiative of holding a two day meeting with prosecutors, police, forensic scientists and correctional personnel to go over Bill C-13 with a fine tooth comb.

Bill C-18, the present bill, proposes about a dozen changes that were not in the former Bill C-72, and those changes flowed directly from that meeting. Bill C-18 proposes no changes in the underlying policies or procedures already adopted by Parliament. It contains mainly drafting changes, such as the creation of 10 new forms. These changes are not dramatic and they will not grab the headlines, but they will be welcomed by the people in the field who need to make what Parliament passes work.

Bill C-18 also contains some substantive changes that I believe will be supported by all members of the House. In particular, it would add attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder to the offences covered by the retroactive provisions. These are very serious offences that indicate an elevated risk of reoffending and are punishable by life imprisonment, a higher punishment than for the sexual offences that are already included in the retroactive scheme.

It would also permit the Crown to apply for retroactive DNA data bank order where the offender was convicted prior to June 30, 2000 of one of the listed offences and is still under sentence for that offence, rather than requiring that the person be serving a sentence of two years or more.

There are a few cases of persons who, prior to June 30, 2000, received multiple consecutive sentences for various offences, including some of the offences that make an offender eligible for retroactive sampling and who are still under sentence. Although the court clearly considered them to be serious offenders, it did not impose a sentence of two years or more for any one of the relevant offences. It would also allow a DNA order to be made within 90 days after the sentence is pronounced.

It is believed that the main reason orders are not being made in many cases where they are already authorized is that prosecutors are extremely busy and are forgetting to remind the court to consider the issue. This would give both the prosecutor and the judge the time to review the files and, if the matter was simply missed, to have a hearing where the prosecution and the offender can present their arguments to the judge, who will decide whether to make the order.

It would also make it an offence to fail to appear for DNA sampling. It is expected that having a specific offence will better emphasize to the offender the necessity of appearing for sampling and so increase compliance with DNA data bank orders. It would authorize any police force that arrests the person for failing to appear for a DNA sample to take the sample.

It would be very expensive if offenders arrested in one province had to be sent back to the province where the order was made to have the sample taken. It would permit a police agency that has been authorized to take a DNA sample to authorize another police agency to take the sample if that would be less expensive. The police have been hampered in their efforts to execute the orders where the offender has been incarcerated outside its jurisdiction or been conditionally released but resides outside its jurisdiction.

The procedure to have the order transferred to a court having jurisdiction and obtaining another order are time consuming and use up resources unnecessarily.

There are also some changes being made to ensure that the National DNA Data Bank can communicate with the forensic laboratories and with its international partners more effectively.

Parliament certainly wanted to encourage these exchanges, but the amendment, as passed in Bill C-13, is not as clear as it should be. As well, the National Defence Act is being amended so that the DNA regime applicable to the military continues to mirror the civilian regime.

There are many other technical changes of this nature in the bill and I am sure that when the bill gets to committee for detailed consideration, officials will explain them all. I trust this is sufficient, however, for members to realize that the changes proposed by this bill will be very helpful to law enforcement, prosecutors and judges who have to use the legislation on a daily basis.

Passage of this bill will allow for the proclamation of the rest of former Bill C-13 and should ensure that it is implemented smoothly.

It is, of course, not the end of the changes to the DNA legislation. As members are aware, the five year parliamentary review of the DNA legislation should have begun by June 30, 2005. Officials of my department, the Department of Public Safety, the RCMP and the National DNA Data Bank are ready to assist the committee as soon as it is mandated to commence the review.

The delay in beginning the review is not entirely unfortunate. The committee will be able to consider such issues as making the taking of a DNA sample automatic upon conviction, or even more variations in light of the strong endorsement of the existing legislation by the Supreme Court in R. v. Rogers, which was decided in April of this year.

Rogers was primarily a case involving the ex parte nature of retroactive hearings, but Rogers also challenged the constitutionality of the scheme.

It is useful to consider the Supreme Court's detailed reasons upholding the constitutionality of the legislation. I want to quote from this because it is important for our discussions. The Supreme Court stated:

There is no question that DNA evidence has revolutionized the way many crimes are investigated and prosecuted. The use of this new technology has not only led to the successful identification and prosecution of many dangerous criminals, it has served to exonerate many persons who were wrongfully suspected or convicted. The importance of this forensic development to the administration of justice can hardly be overstated. At the same time, the profound implications of government seizure and use of DNA samples on the privacy and security of the person cannot be ignored. A proper balance between these competing interests must be achieved within our constitutional framework.

The court continues to state:

For reasons that follow, I have concluded that the collection of DNA samples for data bank purposes from designated classes of convicted offenders is reasonable within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter.

That is the section of the charter dealing with the protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court continues to state:

Society’s interest in using this powerful new technology to assist law enforcement agencies in the identification of offenders is beyond dispute. The resulting impact on the physical integrity of the targeted offenders is minimal. The potential invasive impact on the right to privacy has carefully been circumscribed by legislative safeguards that restrict the use of the DNA data bank as an identification tool only.

The Supreme Court continues to state:

Unlike the warrant provisions, the DNA data bank provisions do not target suspected offenders in respect of particular offences. Rather, they target offenders who have been convicted of different categories of offences. They do not provide for the gathering of evidence for use in a specific prosecution. Rather, they provide for the collection of samples solely for the purpose of creating DNA profiles for inclusion in the data bank. In any future investigation, a comparison between DNA evidence obtained at a crime scene and the data bank DNA profile will either serve to exonerate or identify a suspect. However, if a crime scene DNA profile matches an existing profile in the data bank, the sample is not released. Usual investigative methods, including DNA warrants, must be resorted to in order to gather evidence in pursuit of the investigation.

The court continues to state:

In my view, in considering the purpose of the DNA data bank provisions, the appropriate analogy is to fingerprinting and other identification measures taken for law enforcement purposes. The purpose of the legislative scheme is expressly set out in s. 3 of the DNA Identification Act, “...to help law enforcement agencies identify persons alleged to have committed designated offences, including those committed before the coming into force of this Act.”

The court continues to state:

The DNA data bank provisions contained in the DNA Identification Act and the Criminal Code are intended to put modern DNA technology to use in the identification of potential and known offenders. The DNA Identification Act is a modern supplement to the Identification of Criminals Act.

I am sure the committee will undertake a full review of the DNA legislation and it will want to consider carefully the implications of this judgment. I hope all parties on the committee will be able to come to an agreement as to the best way to proceed so as to protect Canadians while continuing to respect their charter and privacy rights.

However, we do not know when the committee will be struck, start its hearings or make its recommendations. I am speaking of the committee that will do the entire review that Parliament mandated a committee to do. We should not wait for this longer and broader process to implement changes that are generally acknowledged to be needed right now.

Therefore, I am pleased to recommend that Bill C-18 be given a second reading and sent to the standing committee for its review.

Criminal Code

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief so as not to delay the adoption at second reading of this bill, which will undergo consideration in committee very shortly.

We know that this is the second attempt—if that is the right term—to legislate in this area . As other parliamentarians have noted, there was Bill C-13. The use of DNA to identify genetic ties and so forth is completely new to all of us, the criminal justice system and even other sectors.

This completely new technology has been used for such purposes for several years now. It has proved effective, to the point that it can now be integrated into our criminal law procedures, particularly with regard to taking DNA samples. Previously, for example, fingerprints were taken or other methods used. Now, of course, our methods are much more sophisticated and the applications very different from those in the past.

According to the bill summary, the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act—meaning Bill C-13—and the National Defence Act to facilitate the implementation of the acts in question.

The first element is somewhat different from the others. It:

(a) allows a court to require a person who is given notice of an application under subsection 487.055(1) of the Criminal Code and who wishes to participate in the hearing to appear by closed-circuit television or a similar means of communication;

Once again, this is very different, in technological terms, from the rest of the bill. However, this technology enables and allows Canadian criminal law to better function.

The second element also mentions the following:

(b) allows samples of bodily substances to be taken as soon as feasible after the time set by an order or a summons for the taking of the samples....

This is very important in order for a proper inquiry to take place to have a summons and then be able to utilize that instrument to obtain bodily samples in order to make the later determinations that are required.

The next element of the bill reads:

(c) requires the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy to destroy the bodily substances collected under an order or authorization and the information transmitted with it if, in the opinion of the Attorney General or the Director of Military Prosecutions, as the case may be, the offence to which the order or authorization relates is not a designated offence;

In other words, if the material was accumulated and it was not one of the designated offences, this is an order to have what was acquired destroyed. I believe a colleague from the New Democratic Party referred to these data banks based on people not having been convicted of anything or at least not having been convicted of offences where this would normally be permitted. In other words, we do not utilize the process for an offence that is not covered, obtain the information and then keep it in case someone does commit an offence in which it would qualify. Obviously that would not be appropriate.

The next element reads:

(d) enables the Commissioner to communicate internationally the information that may be communicated within Canada....

Consequently, if data has been collected in Canada in connection with what I have just listed, we are allowed, but only in keeping with Canadian legislation, to share that data with similar authorities in other countries. Once again, this is very logical, provided we keep within the guidelines we have set for ourselves in Canada, so as not to provide to a foreign authority information that it would not be acceptable to disclose within this country.

Lastly, the commissioner is authorized to communicate information for the purpose of the investigation of criminal offences, and to subsequently communicate that information for the purpose of the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.

That is the main thrust of this bill, a bill I recommend to the House and will be pleased to support myself. I will not take up any more of the House's time, but will close by saying that I hope to see this bill passed in the very near future.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been seized with this bill for some time with regard to the former Bill C-13 and the upcoming review. An element in this particular bill which interests me has to do with the charter rights of individuals and privacy provisions, specifically with regard to bodily samples being taken as soon as possible.

The member is a learned individual in this area. I wonder if there are any risk areas with regard to charter provisions or with regard to privacy laws in Canada.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, on Bill C-72. I will not read the entire bill, but, for the benefit of those listening, I want to read the bill summary:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act to facilitate the implementation of An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act—

This act corresponds to Bill C-13, which is currently being considered by the Senate. So, Bill C-72 seeks to amend Bill C-13, or to apply that bill, which is currently before the Senate.

It makes technical changes to those acts and addresses five points:

(a) allows a court to require a person who is given notice of an application under subsection 487.055(1) of the Criminal Code and who wishes to participate in the hearing to appear by closed-circuit television or a similar means of communication;

(b) allows samples of bodily substances to be taken as soon as feasible after the time set by an order or a summons for the taking of the samples or, if no such time is set, as soon as feasible after the day on which an order is made or after an authorization is granted;

(c) requires the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to destroy the bodily substances collected under an order or authorization and the information transmitted with it if, in the opinion of the Attorney General or the Director of Military Prosecutions, as the case may be, the offence to which the order or authorization relates is not a designated offence;

(d) enables the Commissioner to communicate internationally the information that may be communicated within Canada under subsection 6(1) of the DNA Identification Act; and

(e) allows the Commissioner to communicate information for the purpose of the investigation of criminal offences, and allows the subsequent communication of that information for the purpose of the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.

Bill C-72, which seeks to clarify Bill C-13, mainly focuses on the taking of samples of bodily substances. Bill C-13 was passed as a result of negotiations among all the parties in this House, including the Bloc Québécois. It was a compromise that was passed unanimously in order to give ensure the taking of samples of bodily substances after certain crimes.

Bill C-13, which received the unanimous consent of the House, is currently being considered by the Senate at first reading stage.

What does Bill C-13 have to add? That is an important question. I will explain how DNA samples could be taken before we had this bill. Previously, an order authorizing the taking of DNA could be issued when the offender was convicted of a designated offence. These designated offences were divided in two categories: primary offences and secondary offences. As long as Bill C-13 is not in effect—I mentioned earlier that is under consideration by the Senate—the list of primary offences will be limited and will include serious personal injury offences such as murder, aggravated assault or sexual assault, while the list of secondary offences will include crimes against persons as well as crimes against property causing danger to human life such as robbery, break and enter, assault or arson.

In the case of primary offences, that is the most serious cases, the collection order is virtually automatic. The judge is required to make an order for the collection of a DNA sample from the offender, unless the offender can convince the court that this would have an effect on his privacy and safety markedly out of proportion with the protection of society. On the other hand, for secondary offences, the sample will be ordered on request from the Crown provided it can convince the judge that this is necessary in the interest of justice. That is the way things are at present.

Put more succinctly, in serious crimes such as murders, aggravated assaults and sex crimes, the order has been virtually automatic until now, unless the accused has been able to prove that his privacy and safety were affected. For secondary offences, the order was made in response to a request from the Crown.

When Bill C-13 comes into effect, these rules will be substantially changed.

Bill C-72 applies Bill C-13. For better understanding, we need to know that Bill C-13 divides offences into two categories: primary and secondary, and provides lists for each. These are, therefore, list A and list B, and DNA samples are handled differently for each. The A list contains the most violent offences. Under Bill C-13, the judge is obliged to order that a sample be taken as soon as the individual is found guilty of one of the offences in list A. There will be no discretion. I will read that list of offences. It is important for those listening to us to hear them.

These offences are: living on the avails of prostitution of a person under 18; murder, manslaughter; attempted murder; assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm with intent; discharge of compressed air gun with intent to endanger life; administering a noxious thing with intent to endanger life or to cause bodily harm; overcoming resistance to the commission of an offence; aggravated assault; unlawfully causing bodily harm; sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm; aggravated sexual assault; kidnapping; robbery and extortion.

Therefore, in the context of C-13, these 16 offences will become primary designated offences for which a judge will be required to order a sample be taken following an individual's conviction.

Bill C-72 adds something. Under C-13, the judge must order a sample on conviction, while under C-72, bodily substances may be taken as soon as feasible after the time set by an order or a summons for the taking of the samples or, if no such time is set, as soon as feasible after the day on which an order is made or after an authorization is granted. That clarifies matters. Once an individual is convicted, a number of steps follow in a process. So this clarifies things and tells us that the sample will be taken as soon as it is feasible after the moment set by an order. Accordingly, once a charge has been laid, the sample may be taken. It will be mandatory in the case of the 16 offences I listed, the primary designated offences contained in list A.

In list B of the primary designated offences, the sampling order is almost automatic, unlike in the case of list A, where it is automatic. The judge is obliged to order DNA sampling, unless the offender can show that the sample would have an impact on his personal life or safety that would far outweigh any protection it would afford society.

List B includes some 20 offences for which the judge must authorize the sample unless the accused convinces him otherwise. The list includes sexual assault—except for aggravated sexual assault; hostage taking; breaking and entering a dwelling-house; intimidation of a justice system participant or journalist; attack on premises, residence or transport of an internationally protected person; attack on premises, accommodation or transport of United Nations or associated personnel; explosive or other lethal device; participation in activities of a criminal organization; commission of offence for a criminal organization; instructing commission of offence for a criminal organization; luring a child; child pornography; sexual exploitation of a person with disability; procuring; and offences historically of a sexual nature, in other words offences that have been replaced by modern crimes, including indecent assault.

For the primary offences mentioned in list A there will be an automatic requirement to take a sample. For the offences in list B, unless the accused manages to prove that this infringes upon his privacy, a sample will be taken. Furthermore, some secondary offences that are non designated offences in the primary categories are punishable by a maximum of imprisonment for five years.

Under the secondary offence system, the judge can authorize the taking of a DNA sample if the Crown proves it is in the interest of justice.

That means in 200 offences where a DNA sample is taken a series of 16 will be mandatory, as will a series of 20, unless the accused manages to prove that this infringes on his privacy and safety. As for the secondary offences, if ever the Crown proves it is in the interest of justice to proceed, DNA tests will be mandatory.

Clearly, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-72. It clarifies Bill C-13 and allows, once and for all, for criminals not only to be able but to be required to give DNA samples, samples of bodily substances, so that we can confront them with their crimes.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today address Bill C-72, an act to amend certain acts in relation to DNA identification.

While I support this legislation, I want to place on the record some of my concerns generally with respect to DNA legislation. It has been a great source of frustration for many Canadians and particularly for law enforcement that the Liberal government has been dragging its feet on much needed DNA data bank legislation that would help safeguard our communities.

The use of forensic DNA analysis in solving crime is proving to be revolutionary. Biological samples collected from a crime scene can either help link to or eliminate a suspect from the crime scene. DNA donor suspects can help prove their innocence. Evidence from multiple crime scenes can be compared to link the same perpetrator to different offences in different locations. It can also identify a victim through DNA from close relatives.

Therefore, it is essential to have effective legislation in place so that our men and women in uniform can best serve to protect Canadian citizens.

Canadian police have for some time called for the creation of an effective DNA data bank to assist police investigations. The government was slow to respond, but finally assented to the DNA Identification Act on December 10 1998. The legislation allowed a DNA data bank to be created and amended the Criminal Code to provide for justices to order persons convicted of DNA offences to provide DNA samples. However, the legislation only came into effect in June 2000 and unfortunately included many loopholes.

Bill C-13 ultimately received unanimous support by all parties because it expanded and altered the offences and the offenders on the secondary and primary designation list who could be compelled to provide samples both retroactively and concurrently and after sentencing. It also permitted the destruction of samples taken, and judicial discretion was curtailed.

As I stated at the time of the royal assent to Bill C-13:

The success of this bill is a shining example of how a minority Parliament can work positively in the best interests of Canada. While everyone made compromises, I think we have a solid piece of legislation that will go a long way to address concerns about loopholes in our DNA law.

Bill C-13 still falls far short of the Conservative Party's expectations for appropriate legislation. Although DNA samples in Great Britain, and as is the case for fingerprinting in Canada, are taken at the time of charge, at a minimum all indictable offences should be deemed designated offences for DNA data banking and there should be no discretion for judges to decline to order a sample upon conviction.

The British experience shows that criminals who commit property offences are also involved in more serious indictable offences such as sexual assault and murder. There is no justification for excluding indictable offences such as break and enter from the mandatory taking of DNA samples, especially if there has been a conviction.

Moreover, the legislation has not yet been proclaimed into effect. The government has continued to delay this much needed piece of legislation because of allegedly necessary amendments to technical errors and omissions.

This excuse is weakened by the fact that Bill C-72 comes sandwiched between Bill C-13 and a review of the DNA act, mandated in the legislation and reiterated in a justice department press release, which was to have been undertaken in 2005. Technical errors and omissions should be dealt with in that review. What is needed now is not further delay but rather leadership from the government to help facilitate the apprehension of criminals by using DNA evidence.

On November 2, 2005, the government introduced Bill C-72 to deal with these technical omissions and errors in Bill C-13. Numbers of amendments were made, which I will not detail.

There was, however, one provision that caused me some concern. That was to provide discretionary powers to the attorney general or the director of military prosecutions; if in their opinion the bodily substance collected was for a non-designated offence then the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police must destroy the substance collected. I have in fact reviewed that amendment. I have received assurances that the discretion afforded to the attorney general and the director of military prosecutions is appropriate and that it is also supported by police and provincial attorneys general. Therefore, I am consenting to that amendment as well.

Although these amendments in the bill are in fact an improvement on the status quo, they do not address many of the concerns raised by police and by provincial attorneys general.

Police have asked for the ability to collect a DNA sample at the time of charge, as is done with fingerprints, instead of upon conviction. There is no evidence or jurisprudence suggesting that such provisions would be in violation of the Constitution. Indeed, my position is that, at a minimum, all indictable offences upon conviction should be subject to the mandatory taking of DNA. There clearly is no constitutional basis for suggesting that such a provision after a conviction could in any way be unconstitutional.

Indeed, in other western democracies such as Great Britain, DNA samples are taken at the time of charge, as opposed to conviction. That has proven to be highly successful, not only in deterring crime and capturing criminals but in ensuring that innocent people are not convicted.

I also want to point out that our DNA testing system is so backlogged that until sufficient resources are provided, any legislated changes made will not be significantly meaningful. They will not improve the operation of the system.

This legislation still does not address the issue of timely production of DNA results to bring dangerous offenders to justice and to ensure the safety of our communities.

The government has insisted that DNA legislation is of the utmost importance and that we must expedite the passing of Bill C-72. However, if this is the case, why has the government waited five months to table new legislation in order to enforce Bill C-13? These rectifications are, as the parliamentary secretary has said, technical amendments and omissions and in fact simply delay the actual implementation of Bill C-13.

If the Minister of Justice wanted to add amendments, these could have been dealt with in the requisite review of the DNA Identification Act set to occur this year. However, that DNA review never took place.

Let me say in conclusion that the national DNA data bank is an important example of the increasing significance of science and technology in modern law enforcement. To stay ahead of the criminals, we must make better use of cutting edge science such as forensic DNA.

Data as of November 14, 2005, shows that over 4,000 cases have successfully linked crime scene DNA to offenders. It is imperative that the government create the legislative framework and provide the resources necessary to use this great crime-fighting tool.

To date the government has put forward legislation that takes steps in the right direction, but clearly, in view of the success enjoyed in other jurisdictions, these steps do not go far enough. The government's slow approach in implementing this needed legislation is disheartening.

I can assure members that a Conservative government will stand up for more effective DNA data bank legislation. A Conservative government will increase the number of cases where a mandatory sample upon conviction will be included for DNA sampling. Also, a Conservative government will stand up for the tools needed by our law enforcement officers to fight crime by providing them with the resources in order to make legislative tools effective.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act was passed, one might say, with some haste by the House and the Senate last May.

Major amendments were adopted by the House standing committee, including amendments to effect a compromise among the parties, that expanded the definition of “designated offence” and the scope of the retroactive DNA data bank order provisions which were aimed at collecting DNA from offenders convicted of serious crimes prior to June 30, 2000. The bill, as amended, received the support of all parties.

The bill provided for a limited number of amendments to come into force on royal assent and the rest to come into force on proclamation. The important amendments in force are those that expand the retroactive DNA collection scheme in the Criminal Code and those that simplify communication of DNA profiles between laboratories to determine whether a crime scene profile matches another profile in the national DNA data bank.

The major amendments in Bill C-13 that have not yet been brought into force include the changes to the definitions of designated offences which will allow for the making of many more DNA data bank orders and will allow the police to apply for a DNA warrant in many more cases and the provisions allowing a judge to fix a time and place for taking a DNA sample from a convicted offender and authorizing the issuing of a warrant for the arrest of that offender if he does not show up as required.

Officials from Justice Canada, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, Correctional Service Canada, the RCMP, the national DNA data bank and the provinces have been preparing for the proclamation of the remaining provisions. They have identified certain technical problems that should be corrected prior to proclamation and certain procedures that should be modified to increase the efficiency and reduce costs.

Because it is urgent to adopt this bill before the budget may be defeated, the changes were drafted and passed, even though their thorough examination, the review of the necessary consequential amendments and the identification of all the consequences and of the changes required, which took place at report stage, at third reading or in the other place, were not available.

I will not list all the technical problems in Bill C-13 that the officials have requested to be fixed and which have led to the amendments that have been incorporated in Bill C-72. However Bill C-72 includes provisions to amend the legislation to address the following problems.

First, the amendments to the definitions of primary designated offence and secondary designated offence do not fit together.

Second, the forms were not changed to reflect the changes made in the procedures for obtaining an order in retroactive proceedings and in the definition of secondary designated offence.

Third, the French and English versions of the clause in the DNA Identification Act authorizing the commissioner to provide further information in a moderate match case are different.

Fourth, the French and English versions of the section authorizing the international sharing of DNA profiles set out different information the commissioner can provide. The English version forbids the sending of profiles internationally, which could hamper Canada assisting its international partners through Interpol.

Bill C-72 also proposes changes requested by the provinces to streamline procedures and reduce costs.

The decision to amend Bill C-13 so that those convicted of murder, sexual offence or manslaughter are targeted by the provisions on the taking of DNA samples resulted in an additional 4,000 individuals being targeted by these provisions.

The Criminal Code provides that, in these cases, hearings are held ex parte. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that an offender has the right to get a notice of the order for retroactive application and to appear during the hearing for that application, unless there is a risk that the individual might flee.

Because a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is not expected for more than a year, the other provinces have decided, as a precaution against an adverse judgment, to serve notice on all persons against whom they are seeking an authorization to take a DNA sample, including incarcerated offenders. Many offenders are incarcerated in a province other than the one where they committed the offence. The police and the Crown in the jurisdiction where the offence took place are best placed to make the application for the order.

There is concern that many of these offenders will seek to be represented. Transporting these incarcerated offenders around the country for hearings would be very expensive for Correctional Services Canada and could present serious risk of flight by offenders who are serving lengthy sentences with little prospect of being released. The officials have therefore proposed that the DNA legislation permit retroactive hearings by video link, and this change is proposed in Bill C-72.

Another procedural change that will simplify procedures and reduce costs is the amendment proposed by Bill C-72 with respect to the procedure respecting those cases where the national DNA data bank has received, for inclusion in the convicted offenders' index, a sample taken pursuant to an order that on its face does not refer to a conviction for a designated offence. As members know, the Criminal Code only authorizes the making of a DNA data bank order where the person has been convicted of a designated offence. Nevertheless, the data bank has now received more than 700 such orders and accompanying seized samples of body substances.

Section 5.1 of the DNA Identification Act, as enacted by the former bill, Bill C-13, provides that the commissioner of the RCMP is to return such orders to the attorney general for the province where the conviction was obtained or to the director of military prosecutions. They are to investigate the matter and if they conclude that the making of an order was, indeed, not authorized by the Criminal Code or the National Defence Act because the person had not been convicted of a designated offence, they are to seek from a judge of the appellate court an order quashing the authorization.

Last August, Ontario proposed a resolution in the criminal law section of the Uniform Law Conference that this procedure be changed so that:

where the Attorney General agrees that the order was taken for a non-designated offence, the Attorney General confirms this in writing to the Commissioner of the National Databank who would then be authorized to destroy the sample.

This resolution was adopted and, having reviewed this matter in light of the discussions at the Uniform Law Conference, the government has concluded that it is not necessary to revoke the DNA data bank orders as they have been carried out precisely as the court had ordered.

The commissioner of the RCMP is not, however, blindly to process the bodily sample and enter the profile in accordance with the order that is received. He has an independent duty to decide whether the order meets the requirements of the DNA Identification Act.

The proposed amendment in Bill C-72 would simplify the procedure for the attorney general or the director of military prosecutions, setting out what they are to follow where the order should not have been made. Instead of having to make an application with its attendant costs and delays, the attorney general can confirm that the person was not convicted of a designated offence.

I believe members will agree that this procedure is appropriate as the question involves no legal issues to be decided by the appeal court but simply the question of fact of whether the offender was convicted of the designated offence, which can be answered simply by reviewing the file.

I believe Bill C-72 is an important bill which, if adopted, will greatly facilitate the implementation of Bill C-13. Accordingly, I would urge all parties of this House to adopt the bill as quickly as possible.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the justice minister. I believe he honestly means well, but I do not believe his paradigm is in line with what Canadians want. They want justice. They want appropriate sentencing where there is a consequence for the crime. They do not believe in dangerous offenders serving their sentences at home.

Twice, at the beginning of my speech and also at the end, I talked about Bill C-2 and Bill C-13 and why they were sitting on the Prime Minister's desk without being enacted. When we come up with legislation, why does it sit on the Prime Minister's desk? Unfortunately, the minister did not answer those questions.

I think Canadians want conditional sentencing. We support Bill C-49 going ahead, but I am hoping we will get mandatory minimums added at committee stage.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Wild Rose says it from the heart. Canadians are frustrated with the sentencing that dangerous offenders are receiving in Canada.

The member sits on the justice committee, as do I. Canadians are asking for appropriate sentencing. Canadians are asking for sentencing to change. They are asking that we have consequences for dangerous and repeat offenders. Canadians want there to be consequences for those actions.

In my riding of Langley, a young man sexually assaulted two young girls. What sentence did he receive? He received conditional sentencing. It was house arrest. He served out his sentence at home. His victims lived on each side of him.

There has been an actual abuse of discretion. Canadians are calling out for change on how we sentence criminals. Canadians are calling for mandatory minimums because they do not have confidence in this government. Canadians do not have confidence in the weak legislation. They do not have confidence in the phony announcements.

Earlier I brought up the fact that we have Bill C-2, Bill C-13 and now Bill C-49 dealing respectively with child pornography, DNA and trafficking in people. What happens to those bills when there is unanimous consent within this House to have them move forward? Why do these bills sit on the Prime Minister's desk? Why are they not signed and enacted? We have heard about how important these bills are. Why are they not enacted?

What will happen with Bill C-49? Will this bill pass through this process? Will it receive immediate attention and then sit on the Prime Minister's desk? Canadians are asking for a change. The change starts with mandatory minimum sentences for dangerous and repeat offenders.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-49, a very important bill. We do have unanimous consent that this move forward to protect the most vulnerable.

I will start off by addressing some of the comments made by the justice minister. He made the comment that mandatory sentencing results in lower sentencing. Canadians are frustrated that the sentencing the courts provide for very serious offences result in conditional sentencing, meaning offenders are serving their sentences at home. Canadians are not confident that the sentencing is adequate, which is why there is an outcry to have mandatory minimum sentencing so there will be at least jail sentences for these heinous crimes.

We had a recent announcement regarding crystal meth which is now a schedule one drug. Traffickers in this drug would receive life imprisonment. The typical sentence for that type of offence is three and a half years. The government comes out with these proclamations, these phony bills saying that it will get tough on crime. Every member of the justice committee wants to make sure that these victims are protected, that this does not happen any more in Canada and that there is a serious message.

As a Conservative, I believe that mandatory minimum sentencing has to be part of the bill. We support having the bill go ahead. Why? I would like to go back to the late 1700s. There was a man by the name of William Wilberforce who was known as the conscience of Parliament. He fought against slavery.

It came to the attention of the United Nations that trafficking in people was still going on, primarily of women and children being drawn into the sex trade. It is offensive, it needs to be dealt with and it is a world concern. As we have heard, $10 billion U.S. a year is what organized crime is reaping in benefits from this. It is a very big problem and we need to deal with it.

William Wilberforce in the late 1700s stood against slavery and yet it is still happening today. We need to come up with legislation that deals with this modern day form of slavery.

Trafficking in persons has been described, as I said, as human slavery in this year. The United Nations reported that trafficking is the fastest growing form of transnational organized crime. Local crime organizations are drawn to this industry because of the relatively low risk of being caught and it is run by multinational criminal networks that are well-funded, well-organized and extremely adaptable to changing technologies.

The United Nations estimates that 700,000 people are trafficked annually worldwide and most of them are women and children. Most victims are forced into commercial sexual exploitation as well as involuntary servitude or debt bondage. Others may be exploited through hard labour and, in some countries, children are trafficked to work even as soldiers.

Trafficked persons are often duped into their new profession, deceived with seemingly legitimate employment contracts or marriage abroad. Others are simply abducted.

People are being told they can come to Canada and get a job and that it is a wonderful country. It is a wonderful country, but they are brought into Canada under false pretences. When they arrive here they are told that the job they were promised is no longer there but that they do have another job, which turns out to be that of a sex trade worker. It is terrible to trap people into that. The visas and passports are seized and taken from these people. These people are afraid to go to the police in case they will be deported from Canada, so they keep quiet and they are trapped.

The government is right that it is an abhorrent crime against humanity, against human rights and we need to stand against it as a country.

In dealing with victim protection, international attention to the issue of trafficking is very important. The status of the victim is often very complex. Although there are some universally recognized victims such as, for example, children who are exploited through the sex trade, others often are perceived as illegal migrants and criminals.

Women trafficked into the sex trade are sometimes seen as simply violating immigration or criminal laws relating to prostitution. Because of these perceptions and because of threats from traffickers, many victims are reluctant to turn to the police for protection.

The social stigma from prostitution is also a problem. Women who have been trafficked internationally and who are returned to their home countries may be ostracized within their communities and their families. It is a very big problem.

In Canada there are no hard statistics, but the RCMP estimates that 600 women and children are smuggled and coerced into the Canadian sex trade every year. If we include in that figure people who are forced into other forms of labour, it numbers about 800 people a year. This should not go on.

Canada has a relatively good record on the international stage in terms of efforts to stem this trade. In June of last year, the U.S. state department reported that British Columbia has become an attractive hub for East Asian human traffickers, who smuggle South Korean women through Canada and into the United States. In large part this is attributed to the fact that South Koreans do not need a visa to enter Canada.

The only thing these thugs understand is the full force of the law. We must have legislation. Bill C-49 must have teeth. We need to involve heavy prison time and confiscation of all profits. As a Conservative government, we would want to have Bill C-49 amended to deal with things properly.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-49 would create three new indictable offences that specifically address human trafficking. The first contains the global prohibition on trafficking persons. The second prohibits a person from benefiting economically from trafficking. The third prohibits the withholding or destruction of identity, immigration or travel documents to facilitate trafficking in persons.

The legislation also ensures that trafficking may form the basis of a warrant to intercept private communications, to take bodily samples for DNA analysis and to permit inclusion of the offender in the sex offender registry. Bill C-49 also expands the ability to seek restitution to the victims who are subjected to bodily or psychological harm.

Again, without serious penalties for these very serious, abhorrent crimes, the exploitation and abuse will continue. In this legislation, there are no mandatory minimum prison sentences. We need to send a clear message that slavery is wrong.

About five months ago, the justice committee passed Bill C-2, the child pornography legislation. It received third reading and went to the Senate and received royal assent, but Bill C-2 is sitting on the Prime Minister's desk. As well, Bill C-13, the DNA legislation, passed through this House, went to the Senate and received royal assent, but it also is sitting on the Prime Minister's desk, waiting to be enacted. These are very important pieces of legislation and I would like the justice minister to answer us as to why Bill C-2, the child pornography legislation, and Bill C-13, the DNA legislation, are sitting on the Prime Minister's desk waiting to be enacted.

Bill C-49 is such an important bill. There is a will in this House to see it go on to the Senate and receive royal assent. Is it going to sit on the Prime Minister's desk, just like Bill C-2 and Bill C-13? I hope not.

We also have heard of the Liberal-NDP coalition's plan to legalize prostitution solicitation. We have heard that there is a report coming, which has been made public. This is a very serious problem. If we go down the path of legalizing prostitution solicitation, it will exacerbate the problem.

We already know that the government wants the age of sexual consent to be 14, one of the lowest in the world. It causes us problems. We have pedophiles looking at our children. They lure them through the Internet. Now there is a plan from the government to legalize prostitution and solicitation. With a low age of consent and the plan regarding prostitution, we must have multiple types of legislation to protect our vulnerable children and our women.

This is what I want to know. We need to know from the justice minister what kind of legislation we are going to have. Are we going to have Bill C-49, which is what Canadians want, with some teeth? Would he accept amendments?

We have other pieces of legislation in our Criminal Code that have mandatory prison sentences. Is not trafficking in persons one of the most abhorrent crimes in the world today? I would argue that it is.

If we have mandatory minimum sentences for these other violent offences, why not for trafficking in persons? Are the minister and the government saying that it is really not as bad as some of these other offences? I would argue that it is. I think it is one of the worst and I think the United Nations acknowledges that it is one of the worst. If we have mandatory minimums for other criminal offences, why not for this?

I do support Bill C-49 going ahead, but we have to toughen it up.

Justice

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13 was legislation that everybody came together on in the House. Bill C-13 speaks to the fact that when people actually focus on the real problems confronting Canadians in the House, we can work together. That legislation will be in full force and effect and will help us in our pursuit of dangerous criminals. It also will help us to achieve a higher degree of safety and protection for all Canadians.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13, the DNA bill, was a high priority of this Parliament and received royal assent before Karla Homolka's release. She could now be required to provide a DNA sample. Unfortunately, Bill C-13 is sitting on the desk of the Prime Minister. While he waits to enact the legislation, other sex offenders, murderers and terrorists will escape the requirement to provide DNA.

What is he waiting for? How many other dangerous sex offenders will escape DNA sampling while the Prime Minister dithers?

Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Morris Fish, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 19th day of May, 2005, at 4:05 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Uteck

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates that royal assent was given to: Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 22; Bill C-15, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999--Chapter No. 23; Bill C-40, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act, Chapter No. 24; Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act, Chapter No. 25; and Bill S-25, an act to amend the act of incorporation of The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, Fisheries.

Justice

[Russ Powers, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after studying the DNA identification act for more than six months, the House Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness gave clause by clause approval on Tuesday of this week.

On that same day the Conservative Party and its ally, the Bloc, argued that the House should be dissolved, which would have killed Bill C-13 before the committee even had a chance to issue its report.

The justice committee heard from 48 witnesses on Bill C-13. The input of these groups and of the individual Canadians who appeared before the committee assisted all parties on the committee to bring forward the best possible DNA identification laws in order to protect Canadians from criminals.

Yet, the leader of the official opposition and his partner, the Bloc leader, were willing to kill the DNA bill because they were more interested in their own political fortunes than the safety of Canadians. I simply say, shame.

Criminal Code

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act, be deemed read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read a third time and passed.

Committees of the House

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, following an editorial amendment consented to by all parties, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, November 2, 2004, your committee has considered Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act, and agreed on Tuesday, May 10, 2005, to report it with amendments.

(Bill C-13. On the Order: Government Orders:)

May 12, 2005--Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada--second reading, report stage and third reading of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act.

Justice

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative amendments to the DNA bill have been unanimously accepted at the justice committee. These changes would compel dangerous offenders, like Karla Homolka, to provide a DNA sample to police.

I think the Prime Minister will find unanimous consent in the House to fast-track the entire bill through second and third reading, as the government is doing with Bill C-45, the veterans charter bill.

Will the Prime Minister also commit to fast-tracking Bill C-13, the DNA bill?

Standing Orders and Procedure

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, 10 minutes is not long enough to talk about this important area. Let me go over it quickly.

It has been argued that Parliament has been abdicating its responsibility with regard to legislation, the reason being that much of our legislation includes references to regulations, which parliamentarians do not see during the normal cycle of legislation. They are in fact promulgated after the fact and often include policy initiatives which, had members known about them, might in fact have influenced their opinions on certain of the clauses, if not the bill itself. I wanted to raise that as a general concern and give a specific example.

In the last Parliament, the 38th Parliament, in the second session, the second half of Bill C-13 on reproductive technologies had to do with controlled activities. There were about 24 references to the regulations. Royal assent was given to that bill on March 29, 2004, over a year ago, and those regulations still have not appeared. They are very important to the functioning of the bill. The bill is very important to Canadians, yet those regulations are still outstanding. I would simply ask why. I think there has to be a sunset clause at some point in time, where, if regulations cannot be promulgated within a reasonable period of time, the bill must come back to the House and we must determine what the problem is.

I would also suggest, as a pre-emptive strike, that we should require all bills having references to regulations to include where possible draft regulations or at least a statement of intent of the regulations so that the members can have a reasonable opportunity to understand what they can expect in that bill.

I want to move now to report stage motions, on which I got quite a bit of experience during that same bill. These motions are opportunities for members who are not on the committee to have some input into a bill. Under the Standing Orders, members can put them in. If there are too many, the Speaker has the right under the Standing Orders to group them. Since each member only has 10 minutes to debate, on one grouping alone I had 13 report stage motions.

If every report stage motion is to be respected, it is not acceptable to have more than five report stage motions in one group, simply because how could anyone possibly describe their motion and make their argument as to why that motion should be accepted in such a short period of time? I think that has to be looked at. Under Bill C-13, there were something like 10 or 12 groupings. It does not happen very often, but in controversial bills it will. I just suggest that we have to look at this situation.

We also have to look at the timing. When a bill finishes at committee and is reported back to the House, report stage motions can happen very quickly. As members know, the transcripts from the committee are not available until several days, if not a week or so, after the hearing. Report stage motions are inadmissible if they have already been dealt with at the committee stage.

Therefore, members are spending all kinds of time drafting report stage amendments that will ultimately be thrown out because they were dealt with at committee. How can a member possibly know unless when a bill is reported the committee should also report all of the amendments that were proposed? Then we have to provide a reasonable amount of time for members to draft up their ideas, submit them to the Journals branch and get the proper form in hand, in both official languages, for review prior to signing off.

The current time under the Standing Orders is absolutely insufficient to allow members of Parliament to properly deal with report stage motions. I believe that if we are going to respect report stage motions as having legitimacy we have to amend the time and the arrangements with regard to report stage motions so they get the attention they deserve.

I also want to refer to a problem that occurred. It was a very serious problem. A motion that was passed at committee stage by the committee on a particular bill came to this place in a report stage motion. There was a government motion to reverse that motion. It had to do with having a 50% representation of women on a board related to reproductive technologies.

The debate was over on that report stage motion, at which time the Speaker's normal process is to say, “All those in favour of the motion will please say yea”, and “All those opposed will please say nay”. Then the Speaker is supposed to say, “In my opinion the yeas have it” or “The nays have it”, whatever is the case.

In this case, the Speaker in the chair at the time, Reg Bélair, did not indicate in his opinion who had it and then proceeded to say, “Carried”. A very important motion of the committee was overturned. There was no opportunity to deal with it in a proper vote, because the Speaker made a mistake. He thought he had said, “In my opinion the yeas have it”. That was not the case.

I rose on a point of order. He said, “No, I did. I called it. It is carried”. That was it. The next day I rose and, with the Speaker in the chair, raised the issue again on a matter of privilege. The Speaker said the person in the chair at the time had made his decision and it would stand. That was a very serious problem. I think there has to be a solution.

Let me suggest one solution. It would be that the Table have a running recording of the dialogue going on in the House, which could be quickly reviewed in the event that there were ever a question about who said what and when. We just cannot rely on hearing “go away” and count on the blues. Sometimes important motions die because mistakes are made. I simply raise it because it can happen, it did happen and it was a very serious issue with regard to this place.

Finally, there is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Very often during routine proceedings the procedure and House affairs committee chair comes before this place and tables a report. Then, at motions, he stands and requests the unanimous consent of the House to concur in that report he has just tabled and no one has seen.

If that is the will of the House, that is fine, except that what happens if from time to time there is a substantive matter there that members have not seen? I understand that there are routine matters of changing people on committees or other routine matters that have to come forward, but what happens if there is a substantive matter that members have not seen? The point is, why should I be asked to give unanimous consent and even vote on a report that I have not seen? I think it is inappropriate to ask members to put themselves in that position.

In my view, to the extent that the procedure and House affairs committee has routine matters there should be an amendment to the Standing Orders that would make them deemed adopted on tabling, just as we have with other routine matters.

If it is viewed that all matters coming out of the procedure and House affairs committee have representatives of all parties at the highest levels, and if they are going to make the decisions on our behalf, then we might as well say any report coming from procedure and House affairs, once tabled in the House, is deemed to be adopted. We have to make that decision.

I know that the Lord's Prayer was deleted or eliminated from this place on a Friday by a report that was tabled and for which concurrence was obtained immediately during routine proceedings. I believe that sometimes there are items within the reports of the procedure and House affairs committee that members should be apprised of.

I also believe that if we could at least have those non-routine items here that there shall not be automatic concurrence given, that there should be a requirement for a concurrence motion to be put and to be debatable, like there is for any other standing committee. It is a standing committee and standing committee reports are debatable, but when I rose on one occasion to debate an item of interest in a report, I asked for debate on the motion to concur and was denied. The reason given was that it is traditionally not our practice.

I do not care about “traditionally not our practice”. I care about what the Standing Orders are. The Standing Orders say that the reports of standing committees are debatable in this place.

One way or another we need to address the activities of the procedure and House affairs committee. I do not want to see someone sneaking into the House in the middle of debate, interrupting the House and asking for unanimous consent to adopt a report that was brought forward during routine proceedings.

Again, I find it absolutely untenable that members would be asked to vote on something and have no idea what is in it. We should not be interrupting the House if that is going to be the case and if that is the will of the House.

Finally, I have talked with many members about the activities that go on in the House and how we can improve the operations of the House and the productivity of members. I have also served on a couple of the committees on the improvement and the modernization of Parliament. I have found them very exciting, interesting and productive, but most members in this place do not get anywhere close to that. It is their whips and House leaders who are driving the agenda here.

I believe that other members in this place have a vested interest in how this place operates. They should have an opportunity. I would strongly recommend that the House leaders get together and provide for a broad consultation meeting where all members of Parliament would be invited to provide their input on how to make the House of Commons more productive.

Supply

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I also rise today to speak to the Bloc motion encouraging the government to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden of proof in proceeds of crime cases. This would require accused, once found guilty, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their assets were not obtained from proceeds of crime.

The underlying message behind this motion is that criminals, especially those motivated by profit, should not financially benefit from their criminal activity. We agree.

This motion, and the message underlying it, are consistent with the government's recent legislative, operational and international initiatives aimed at disrupting and deterring criminal organizations in Canada.

We took a significant step in the fight against organized crime in 1997, with amendments to the Criminal Code through Bill C-95—which created the indictable offence of participation in a criminal organization and provided law enforcement with additional significant investigative powers.

Two years later, in 1999, amendments to the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act barred those convicted of offences related to organized crime from access to accelerated parole review. While, that same year, amendments to the Competition Act and other acts created new offences for deceptive telemarketing and defined these crimes as enterprise crimes subject to the proceeds of crime regime.

Further, in 2000 the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act was enacted and provided for mandatory reporting of suspicious financial transactions and created the Financial Transactions Report Analysis Centre of Canada to receive and manage this reported financial information.

Most significantly in the fight against organized crime, the government brought forward amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts through Bill C-24, which came into force in 2002.

Bill C-24 provided substantial new measures directly targeting criminal organizations, including a simplified definition of “criminal organization”, three new criminal organization offences separately targeting those participating in or contributing to the activities of a criminal organization, those who commit indictable offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, and an offence directed at all of the leadership levels in criminal organizations. Under these provisions, penalties range from a maximum of five years imprisonment for participation, to life imprisonment for leaders. It is important to also note that consecutive sentencing applies to all three of these offences.

Bill C-24 also improved the protection from intimidation for people who play a role in the justice system, and broadened law enforcement powers to forfeit the proceeds of crime and seize property that was used in a crime.

Finally, amendments were made to the Criminal Code in 2004 through Bill C-13 in order to enable investigators to better obtain documents or data from third parties through judicial production orders. This investigative tool is now available in respect of all criminal offences and is expected to be of particular assistance in the investigation of criminal organization offences.

In addition to the legislative measures that were passed and previously mentioned, the Government of Canada has taken major operational steps to fight organized crime.

Of particular relevance is the creation of Integrated Proceeds of Crime Units in Canada, first launched in 1996. These units are found across Canada and are staffed with federal, provincial and municipal police officers, Justice Canada Crown counsel, customs officers, federal tax investigators, and forensic accountants. They support other law enforcement units by undertaking the investigation and prosecution of the proceeds of crime aspects of organized crime.

They also support other anti-organized crime initiatives, and help to fulfill Canada's international commitments, particularly those set by the multilateral Financial Action Task Force in which Canada plays a leading role.

Canada is also working internationally to combat organized crime. In this regard, in 1997 Canada and the United States established a Cross-Border Crime Forum to strengthen cooperation and to focus law enforcement efforts on such issues as cross-border crimes, telemarketing fraud, money laundering, and high-tech crime.

In addition, Canada played a key role within the United Nations in the development of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, signed in December 2000, providing countries with a shared framework to enhance international cooperation.

It is clear that the Government of Canada has taken many deliberate and effective legislative, operational and international steps in the fight against organized crime. It is this proven commitment, giving the tools to our dedicated law enforcement and Crown prosecutors, which seeks to ensure that criminal organizations in Canada are disrupted, deterred, and dismantled.

Organized criminals commit crime predominantly for monetary benefit. These financial gains sustain these criminal groups and facilitate their growth, both in numbers and influence.

It is for this reason that I support the development of a charter compliant reverse onus in proceeds of crime cases.

With this enhancement of the law, coupled with the other existing tools outlined previously, we would be in a better position to thwart the plans of criminals motivated by material gain or profit in Canada.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think I was giving the straight talk on what in fact is in Bill C-13. I do not believe we are talking about anything that was canned.

It is very important that the member go back and look at that bill and look at the implications. Fourteen years as a maximum penalty is a significant penalty in terms of the criminal law and it really should have a deterrent effect. However until we have the opportunity to put it into play and where in fact people can react to this, I do not think that one can form the conclusion that the hon. member is forming.

Earlier the hon. member said that she did not believe that we had an effective program dealing with a drug strategy. When the cannabis reform legislation was first introduced, the government committed to spending an additional $245 million on Canada's drug strategy and a significant portion of those funds will go to the police to enhance their ability to detect and take down marijuana grow ops.

I think this is a good bill and the member ought to take another look at it.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, in looking at this question, I think we do need to look very seriously at the component parts of Bill C-17 and at what Bill C-17 represents.

I think it represents overall the widespread view that the full criminal process is not the best way to combat the use of small amounts of marijuana for personal consumption.

The potential consequences, including the loss of job opportunities and the inability to travel to some destinations, is, quite frankly, disproportionate to the offence.

The bill responds to the report of the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs in the last Parliament. Rather than easing the restrictions on simple possession of marijuana, however, the approach in Bill C-17 should lead to a more effective and more consistent enforcement regarding marijuana possession which, I must remind the member, will still remain illegal.

In any event, while media attention has been focused on the possession offence, I think we need to look at Bill C-17 for its significant change in the sentencing of those who are involved in the cultivation of marijuana, which clearly the public is very concerned about.

In the bill, it proposes that if one is cultivating between one and three plants it would be punishable by a fine of $500 or $250 for a young person. This is probably more than one would pay if the police and prosecutors bothered to lay a charge for an amount that small. More important though, if a person is growing between four and twenty-five plants, the bill proposes a maximum penalty on indictment of five years less a day and eighteen months and/or up to a $25,000 fine on summary conviction. In the case of 26 to 50 plants, the offender faces a maximum of 10 years. Where a person cultivates more than 50 plants the maximum sentence will be 14 years or double the current maximum.

The government is well aware of the problems that marijuana grow ops have been creating in our Canadian communities. For that reason, Bill C-13 contains significant guidance to the courts as to when they should impose a term of imprisonment on marijuana grow operators.

If more than three plants are involved, the court will have to give reasons for not sending the offender to jail where: first, the person used real property that belongs to a third party to commit the offence, for example a grow op is located either in a farmer's field or in a rented house; second, the offence constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children in or near the area where the offence was committed. We know that some houses have been extensively modified to become grow ops and children are living in these homes. Third, the offence constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; and last, the person set or placed or allowed to be set or placed a trap, device or other thing that was likely to cause death or bodily harm where the offence was committed.

Clearly the bill addresses both the origins of the marijuana and the use of marijuana. We think it is a very important bill. We think it will go a long way toward dealing with the problem that needs to be addressed and hopefully meeting some of the hon. member's concerns.

Points of Order

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response to a question earlier from the member for Winnipeg North I inadvertently misled the House. I indicated that Bill C-13 was introduced on September 15 when in fact the regulations were proclaimed on September 15. I want to correct the record, if I may.

Securities Industry

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Wise Persons' report and the work that has been done on that to date, the minister introduced Bill C-13 on September 15, which in fact deals with the very issues raised by the member, namely, corporate fraud. I am sure that we will therefore enjoy the hon. member's support as that bill proceeds through the House.

Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a few comments on Bill C-6, an act to establish the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and to amend or repeal certain acts.

I understand the House has had the opportunity to hear representations from the parliamentary secretary and others to ensure that the substantive matters of the bill have been brought to the fore. Based on the debate that has been held thus far in the House it appears there is substantial concurrence, notwithstanding the issue of a report stage motion dealt with at committee.

I was in the same position when a committee on which I was a member made an amendment to a bill but during report stage a motion was tabled that reversed the work of the committee. As an ordinary member of Parliament I find that a little troubling but I also understand that if a deal is not struck with regard to the disposition of the motion the full House will have the opportunity to vote. I am sure the House will deal with it appropriately.

I appreciate the situation in which hon. members who are concerned about this find themselves. I might remind members that under the rules of this place within 90 sitting days of the commencement of a new Parliament there has to be a debate involving the procedures of the House. I think this might be an interesting example that can be dealt with.

I know members wanted to seek a precedent. In fact, on Bill C-13 in the last Parliament, after about two or three years of study and consideration of perhaps 100-plus amendments proposed by members, two amendments were passed by the health committee. When the bill finally was reported back to the House there were two report stage motions to reverse the two amendments that the committee had passed. After all of that work, the committee's work was basically reduced and the bill that came to it originally was the bill that ultimately went forward.

From the standpoint of the work of committees, I tend to think committees do excellent work. I appreciate that the issues that have been raised here in debate are not so broad that there is no concern but this is an important bill that we need to get on with.

The summary of the bill basically states, to establish the department. I have often thought that since September 11 Canada has not had the need to establish this type of departmental responsibility that would require parliamentary approval. However we now have a minister who is responsible and we have established relationships with the United States.

Last evening I was very encouraged to see reasonable developments with regard to border crossings, that Canadian citizens will not be unduly delayed, at least at the one border, which I believe is the Sarnia crossing, and that this will be implemented across Canada. We do continue to play our role.

As well, in the last month we have had the opportunity to welcome some of the senior officials from the United States to have discussions with Canadian parliamentarians to discuss our important relationship with the United States as it relates to the safety and security of Canada and the United States and North America as a whole.

The bill would provide a framework in which the department will operate. It would give the department the full authority to take action on behalf of the people of Canada.

I have not heard it yet but I am not sure if there are any lingering concerns about whether or not establishing some sort of a parallel framework and the collaboration that has been going on over the last number of years has in any way compromised the sovereignty of Canada. I know that from time to time we have issues that come before this place. One will be hurtling toward us, no pun intended, being the ballistic missile defence.

This raises the question about the elements of providing emergency preparedness and the safety and security responsibilities of this new department.

Emergency preparedness is something that we can learn from the examples around the world. We know many of the risks that have resulted in some tragic situations around the world. We are doing substantive work on putting into place some of those elements to ensure that emergency preparedness is something that we can be proud that we are doing the very best possible.

I do not think there is anybody who could give a 100% guarantee that we can be protected from all risk, at all times, at all places. It is just not possible. However we must take reasonable steps. I think the minister has shown that all reasonable steps have been taken with regard to that element of the file, the emergency preparedness.

The safety and security part of it becomes a little more difficult to deal with, particularly from the standpoint of the debate that will go on with regard to what constitutes defensive measures as opposed to what could be construed or maybe manipulated to be offensive measures.

Certainly there are examples where people feel that one of the best defences is a good offence. It will be interesting as we go through the process of developing safety and security measures on behalf of Canadians. It will also be extremely important for us to communicate in plain terms to the Canadian public the important work that is being done to ensure our safety and security, certainly with regard to emergency preparedness.

I think this is the first time I have come across a bill in which a new ministry has been created. The bill also has a number of transitional provisions because, like anything, responsibilities have to be taken into account. There are changes as well to the Access to Information Act, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act, the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal Act, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Citizenship Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and it goes on. The point being that this is not a small change in the discharging of the responsibilities of the Government of Canada.

This House would also be seized with other matters. For instance, I mentioned the change in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which I believe is at committee, that deals with marijuana grow houses and the penalties related to the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Some questions have already been asked as to the impact on trade and the border activity, et cetera. It goes to the very heart of the issue here, which is that we have to ensure that emergency preparedness is in very good shape and that the safety and security issues are also in place, but not to the extent that we impair the trade relationship that we have. Over 75% of our export trade is with the United States. Traffic must keep moving but safety and security is also a priority and balancing those priorities will be the biggest challenge for the Government of Canada.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the referral to committee before second reading of Bill C-13.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-13, which has been introduced by the government. In this day and age, political discourse is often focused on the respect of human rights and freedoms, and I agree with that. We have taken part in some debates that illustrate this, the one on same sex marriage in particular.

It is also important to note that individual rights encompass individual security. In a society based on rule of law, such as ours, the right to personal security is essential. If this is to be more than merely theoretical, and to exist in reality, it is important to provide law enforcement bodies with the tools necessary to fight the crime that so often harms our communities.

The Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C-13. We feel that it will provide police officers with more effective investigative tools, which should permit them to resolve more crimes.

Members have examined this bill with care and will have realized that it makes some rather technical amendments to legislation already in place. When the bill is examined in committee, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the changes proposed represent real improvements to the existing system of DNA testing. In addition, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the RCMP has the funds to accommodate the expansion of the DNA bank this bill will bring about.

To make a small aside, it is all very fine to announce measures, measures we support, but there must be money attached to them. As hon. members are aware, the RCMP has decided—for financial reasons, or so we are told—to close detachments in numerous locations in Quebec. There has been much opposition to this, from mayors, municipal counsellors and reeves, backed up of course, as is only natural, by myself and my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois.

It does not, therefore, make any sense to talk of increasing the responsibilities, as well as the operating costs, of a police force, the RCMP, while making cuts here and there, including cutting police detachments scattered outside the urban centres.

And so I hope the government will reverse its decision to close these detachments. I believe my hon. colleague's riding of Joliette is affected by the RCMP detachment closures. I know that the mayor, municipal officials and prefect have made him aware of the situation. It is the same in Saint-Hyacinthe. I hope the RCMP will reverse its decision. If it wants to fight crime effectively, the force must be present throughout the area.

Having finished my aside, I return to Bill C-13, which takes up for the most part the provisions of Bill C-35 from the last legislature, the bill to which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has referred.

Bill C-13 amends the provisions in the Criminal Code respecting the taking of bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis and the inclusion of DNA profiles in the national DNA data bank. It also makes related amendments to the DNA Identification Act and National Defence Act.

I have five minutes left. That is a very short time to address such a technical bill. That is why we are going to examine it very seriously in committee.

Bill C-13 makes other amendments, which ought at least to be listed in the parliamentary record of debates. It adds offences to the list of designated offences in the Criminal Code for which a judge is required to make an order for the collection of a DNA sample from the offender, unless the offender can convince the court otherwise.

It adds offences to the list of designated offences for which an order for the collection of a DNA sample can be made if the prosecutor so requests and the court agrees.

It provides for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person whohas committed a designated offence but who was found not criminallyresponsible by reason of mental disorder. This ties in somewhat with the subject matter of Bill C-10, which we are also working on.

It creates new provisions for the making of DNA data bank orders against a person who committed one murder and one sexual offence at different times before June 30, 2000, when the legislation on the DNA data bank came into force.

It provides for the review of defective DNA data bank orders and for the destruction of the bodily substances taken under them.

It allows the destruction ofthe bodily substances of offenders who are finally acquitted of a designated offence.

It compels offenders to appear at a certain time and place to provide a DNA sample.

It allows for a DNA data bank order to be made after sentencing.

Finally, it makes related amendments to the National Defence Act to ensure that the military justice system remains consistent with the civilian justice system.

So, this bill proposes many things. I must say that we are somewhat uncomfortable with the retroactive provisions included in this legislation and we hope they will dissipate with the review in committee. Obviously, any retroactive provision, particularly in the criminal justice area, raises serious issues relating to rights and freedoms and to the charters, whether it is the Quebec or Canadian one. In this regard, we are anxious to hear the witnesses and experts, who will tell us whether the bill does indeed respect the charters.

We also wonder why the bill adds participation in the activities of a criminal organization to the list of secondary designated offences, that is to the list of offences for which the taking of a DNA sampling is not mandatory, but optional. We wonder why such offences were not included in the list of primary designated offences. This is an issue on which we want to get an answer as quickly as possible.

All to say this is a very technical bill and it requires a thorough study of its provisions. At this stage, the Bloc Québécois supports its referral to a committee. We will work very seriously, as we always do, to ensure that, on the one hand, enforcement agencies have the necessary tools to fight effectively criminal activities in which the public is all too often the victim, and, on the other hand—and this is important in a society such as ours—to ensure that the rights and freedoms of the accused are respected. As I said earlier, the whole issue of retroactivity will also have to be thoroughly examined.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-13. The purpose of the legislation before us today is to broaden the provisions governing the national DNA data bank.

In 1998, Bill C-3, an act representing DNA identification, was enacted. This legislation created a new statute governing the establishment and administration of a national DNA data bank and amended the Criminal Code to permit a judge to make a post-conviction DNA data bank order. These orders authorized the taking of bodily substances from a person found guilty of designated Criminal Code offences in order to include the offender's DNA profile in the national DNA data bank.

The DNA data bank, which was officially opened on July 5, 2000 here in Ottawa, is maintained by the RCMP.

The party that I represented at the time Bill C-3 was enacted was firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system by providing law enforcement agencies with the latest technological tools to quickly detect and apprehend criminals. We did not support Bill C-3 because we believed that it blatantly denied police the full use of the technology that was available at the time.

In 1998, there were literally hundreds of unsolved rapes and murders outstanding in the country. However, because Bill C-3 did not allow for the retroactive taking of samples from incarcerated criminals, other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers, these cases remained unsolved.

Fortunately, Bill C-13, the bill before us today, does expand the retroactive provisions for DNA sample collection orders.

If enacted, Bill C-13 will allow judges to order that DNA be taken from anyone convicted of one murder and one sexual offence committed at different times before the DNA data bank legislation came into force.

To illustrate the importance of DNA technology, especially involving old murder cases, and to encourage the government to expand the list of designated offenders from which retroactive samples can be taken, I would like to read a portion of an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on July 15, 2004. It states:

Sometime in the early hours of Aug. 27, 1991, Richard Mark Eastman broke into the Mississauga apartment of Muriel Holland...a 63-year-old former playright and model.

Eastman, 48, raped and strangled Holland while her 95-year-old father slept in the next room. Although Peel Region police obtained a partial thumbprint and a DNA sample from the crime scene, their investigation into this brutal attack led nowhere for a decade.

The key break in this cold case would have to wait until after June 30, 2000. Then, after years of debate and false starts, parliament proclaimed a bill that would create a national DNA data bank.

The article went on to state:

Peel Region investigators didn't know it at the time, but the timing of the bill meant they were involved in what would become a landmark case. They sent a DNA sample from Holland's rapist to the new data bank on Nov. 28, 2000. The sample was stored in a database that indexes DNA evidence obtained, but not yet identified, at crime scenes.

Separately, the DNA data bank maintains profiles of serious criminal offenders. A sample from Eastman, who had been convicted in 1995 of sexual assault, was forwarded to the data bank on May 4, 2001. Within hours, data bank scientists matched Eastman's DNA profile to the Holland case.

Two days later, Peel Region police charged Eastman with murder--making this the first homicide case that emerged as a result of a cross-match between the two main databases in Canada's DNA data bank.

I would like to point out that there would have been many more matches if in 1998 the Liberals had seen the wisdom in expanding the retroactive provisions for the DNA collection orders as recommended by our party and as recommended by the Canadian Police Association.

The Canadian Police Association recommended the list of convicted offenders, from which retroactive samples could be taken, be greatly expanded.

The CPA, with our full support, also strongly advised that DNA samples be taken at the time of arrest as opposed to the time of conviction to prevent potentially dangerous offenders from fleeing before their court date.

The CPA also expressed concern about a provision within Bill C-3, which allowed judges to exempt offenders from having a DNA sample taken if the judge believed that it would impact an individual's privacy and security.

This unnecessary and dangerous exemption has not been removed under the new legislation, nor have the other issues raised by the police officers all across the country. Those issues similarly have not been addressed in the legislation.

I would therefore suggest that the concerns raised by the Canadian police in 1998 should be raised again. Their concerns I am sure will be nothing more than dismissed by the Liberal justice minister.

On a final matter, I have serious concerns that the legislation does not address the backlog within the RCMP evidence recovery units.

In August 2003, I received some information, which I relayed to the then solicitor general, regarding the closure of the RCMP recovery units in Regina and Edmonton at the end of 2004, as well as the closure of the Halifax unit in March 2005. I expressed my concerns about these closures because of the serious and detrimental effect these closures would have on the timely examination of criminal evidence, especially DNA. My concern was based on the evaluation of the auditor general regarding the large case backlog within the RCMP laboratory system.

Since 1997, the RCMP forensic laboratories have been undergoing changes with the introduction of the DNA technology. Limited funding, insufficient resources and an increased workload due to this new technology resulted in a backlog in 2001 of 900 cases requiring DNA examination being stalled. This backlog prompted the auditor general to recommend a reorganization in order to gain increased efficiencies.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government took this to mean the closure and centralization of evidence recovery units, which will, in my opinion, complicate the process not ease the backlog.

My concerns, although never properly addressed by the solicitor general, were confirmed by a news article in the National Post on October 9, 2003 which read:

Joe Buckle, the RCMP's assistant commissioner in charge of forensic laboratory services...acknowledged, however, that the RCMP's forensic labs have not received a funding increase in the past five years.

Moreover, he did not dispute that in the first eight months of this year, 74% of the RCMP's most serious DNA cases failed to meet the Mounties' own 15-day analysis deadline.

Scientists familiar with the RCMP's six forensic labs paint a much different picture. They say the lab system is in such disarray, and the DNA case backlogs so overwhelming, that serious criminal investigations involving homicide, sexual assault and threats to national security have been delayed for months at a time, potentially jeopardizing the chances of arrests and convictions.

In closing, I reiterate that we need proper funding. Without better funding and better resources for the RCMP, the forensic labs and police agencies, we are in dire straits. We also need to make sure that we have the ability to bring forward the proper amendments that Bill C-13 needs.

Canada has to restore confidence in our justice system. We have to be able to give the resources to the police agencies. We have to build confidence that we do have a justice system that works. Unless we can make some amendments to the bill, the confidence will not be restored.

When the bill does go to committee I encourage the government to look at some very serious, workable amendments that would make the bill a better bill.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, picking up from where I left off last evening, the second change that would enhance safety is the inclusion of those individuals found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder within the DNA data bank scheme. We currently have in the House Bill C-10 which proposes important changes to the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with the mentally disordered offender.

While Parliament rightly does not submit persons who have a mental disorder conviction to imprisonment because of their diminished responsibility, we must remember that these persons have been found beyond a reasonable doubt to have done the act that constitutes the physical element of the offence. It is clear they may be very dangerous and so they are made subject to the jurisdiction of a provincial review board.

By making it possible for a judge to order that their DNA profiles be included in the DNA data bank, we may be solving crimes that they have committed in the past. As well, if they should be released and commit a crime where they leave their DNA, we will solve that crime.

Members should remember, however, that having their DNA in the data bank could be a benefit to a mentally disordered offender who has been released into the community. In the event of a crime similar to the one for which they were tried being committed near where they reside, they are likely to be suspects. However, if their DNA does not match the DNA from the crime scene, the police will know they were not involved and leave them undisturbed.

Another important change is creating a process for compelling the offender to attend at a specified time and place to provide a DNA sample. The current legislation requires that a DNA sample be taken at the time the person is convicted or as soon thereafter as is feasible. This has proven unworkable on the ground in some jurisdictions. The police cannot always have a trained officer attending at every court and so the courts have been ordering offenders to present themselves at the police station at a specified time. Unfortunately, this procedure was not foreseen by the Criminal Code so there is no express provision for issuing a warrant to arrest the person if he or she does not show up. Some offenders who should be in the data bank have not shown up and the police need the tools to make the court order effective.

Bill C-13 would permit a judge to make an order for the taking of a DNA sample at a time other than the imposing of the sentence. It also provides a warrant for the arrest of the person if the person fails to appear for that DNA sampling. As a result of consultations with the provinces, the warrant will be for the purpose of taking a sample rather than for the more usual arrest and bringing the offender back to the court that made the order. This means that an offender convicted in Toronto who skips and then is subsequently arrested in Vancouver will not have to be flown back at great expense to have the finger pricked for that test. The Vancouver police will be able to do it under the DNA data bank order.

While it is not known how many offenders have failed to show up, I understand this is a major concern for the police. We should move swiftly to fix this problem.

The most important changes proposed by Bill C-13 are the changes in the list of designated offences covered by the DNA data bank scheme. The list of designated offences is the lynchpin of this legislation. A DNA warrant can only be granted for a designated offence and the crime scene index only contains DNA found at the scene of or on the victim of a designated offence.

It is very important that the members of the House consider sending the legislation immediately to the committee so that we can put in place those issues that I have been outlining here today. They are of great concern to the police, the provinces and those of us in the House.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to recommend that Bill C-13 be referred to committee before second reading. I believe that all parties in the House are in favour of a national DNA data bank and want to make it as effective a tool as possible for law enforcement.

As of October 15, the DNA data bank has 66,080 DNA profiles entered into the convicted offender index and 17,199 entered into the crime scene index.

By comparing the DNA profiles in these indices against one another, the DNA data bank has linked 2,333 offender profiles to a crime scene profile, thereby assisting in the investigation. The DNA evidence has been vital in resolving very serious offences, including 165 murders, 391 sexual assaults and 319 armed robberies.

Members are aware that the legislation creating the DNA data bank calls for a parliamentary review within five years of the legislation coming into force; that is, by June 30 next year.

However we should not delay making needed changes that will make the DNA bank more effective. Parliament should move promptly by passing Bill C-13 to make the proposed amendments and improvements in the DNA data bank legislation to ensure the effectiveness of the legislation rather than postponing the changes until after the parliamentary review.

No one in the House can foretell when that review will be started, how long it will take or when remedial legislation will be enacted.

The bill will make significant changes to the DNA Identification Act that governs how the DNA data bank works. Although these are major changes, I will focus on those that concern the Criminal Code and those directly related to public safety.

In my view, the following are the most significant changes proposed by the bill that would contribute to protecting the safety of Canadians.

The first major change is the inclusion of the offences of indecent assault female, indecent assault male and gross indecency in the list of designated offences and in the list of sexual offences for the purposes of the retroactive DNA data bank provisions.

Although these offences have been repealed, charges can still be laid since elements of proof are often not discovered until many years after the crime.

Moreover, there are persons who should be in the data bank, that is, the DNA data bank, as a result of having committed a series of sexual offences prior to the legislation coming into force.

The Criminal Code does allow for a judge to authorize taking DNA samples from persons convicted of two or more sexual offences. This change to the definition of sexual offence would broaden the scope of the retroactive provision.

As well, Bill C-13 would now make it possible for an application to be made for a DNA sample to be taken from an offender who before the coming into force of the DNA data bank legislation in June 2000 had been convicted of one murder and one sexual offence committed at different times.

I am advised that the combination of the change to the definition of sexual offence and the inclusion of persons who have one murder and one sexual offence would make another 400 offenders eligible for inclusion in the data bank. There are currently 1,876 offenders who have been included in the data bank under the retroactive scheme.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-13, the DNA data bank legislation.

My constituents in Fleetwood--Port Kells take great interest in criminal justice issues, particularly when it comes to making the appropriate resources available to the criminal justice system.

Naturally, all parliamentarians have an interest in the legislation, after all, law enforcement agencies in Canada can only be as good as the tools with which they are provided. It is this House, through the Criminal Code and other acts, that provides the tools they need to do their critically important work.

One of the newer tools in the arsenal available to the criminal justice system is the DNA data bank, which came into force in June 2000. Bill C-13 seeks to make amendments to the Criminal Code, the DNA data bank legislation and the National Defence Act.

These changes include the following. The bill seeks to update the DNA data bank legislation by making certain changes and additions to the list of offences that require a judge to issue a DNA collection order. It would add to the list of offences where the crown may make application for a DNA collection order. It would permit DNA collection orders to be issued against a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It would expand retroactive provisions where DNA collection orders may be made in certain circumstances.

These amendments are improvements on the status quo but, unfortunately, they fall quite a bit short of the changes requested by police and provincial attorneys general.

Some of the items raised by law enforcement and our provincial colleagues include the need for a judicial order to make a DNA bank authorization for offences committed before the DNA bank came into effect in 2000. Law enforcement has also asked for the reasonable ability to collect DNA at the time charges are laid, as opposed to at the time of conviction.

It is routine for police to collect fingerprints at the time charges are laid. They are only seeking the ability to collect DNA samples as well. As there is no evidence that suggests such a practice would violate the constitution, I would urge my Liberal colleagues to consider such a course of action.

In addition, the bill does not provide for the collection of DNA at the time of conviction for all indictable offences, once again, as is the case for fingerprints.

Another problem with the bill is the ability for a convicted offender to appeal to the court in order to prevent the collection of a DNA sample. Rather than giving criminals the ability to duck the law, the law should require all convicted offenders to provide DNA samples.

The functioning of the national DNA data bank is something that all members of the House should take seriously because it is such an important tool in our criminal justice system, and yet the government does not seem to be all that enthusiastic about its own program.

One only has to look at the massive backlog in the production of DNA results to understand just how unimportant this issue is to the government. Until the government gets serious about providing the appropriate resources to support the collection and processing of DNA, any changes to the legislation are not particularly meaningful.

Without the timely production of DNA results, law enforcement agencies do not have the full use of the arsenal of tools at their disposal to bring criminals to justice and to protect our communities. It is imperative that our police forces and attorneys general be given the resources to do their jobs properly.

We ask them to protect us, our families and our communities. I know the citizens of Fleetwood—Port Kells appreciate the hard work done on our behalf by the police and the courts.

I also know that those citizens want us to make that work as effective and timely as possible. It is only fitting that we do everything in our power as parliamentarians to make certain they have everything they require.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill C-13.

I spoke before on the bill dealing with the DNA database that was introduced in the last Parliament. At that time the Conservative Party had many objections. It was not a good bill and needed more amendments. It had too many loopholes. We highlighted our concerns at that time, but the government brushed them aside. We are back at it again with a few more amendments. The government is now trying to fix it because it was not fixed back then. My colleagues have been saying the same thing. There are flaws in this legislation.

We in the Conservative Party support a DNA database. As everyone has already highlighted, it is one of the strongest tools that police enforcement agencies need to fight crime and make our streets safer. We have to give them the power and the tools that they need, and this is one of those tools. Nobody is opposing the DNA database at all. Nobody is opposing the intent of this legislation. It is high time it happened and we are glad that it is happening.

We cannot allow loopholes to take place. Things can slide out and then it becomes an ineffective tool. What is the point in making legislation with loopholes if law enforcement agencies will have difficulties to enforce it?

My esteemed friend from Yorkton--Melville highlighted his concerns about why the DNA database would not be an effective tool even though it would be available. I want to repeat what he said about the DNA database in England and about how effective the act was in the U.K. He talked about 1,700 hits on that database. I want to tell people who are listening tonight what he meant by a hit. It simply meant that the police were able to go to the database and were able to have 1,700 hits tying criminals to the crime scene. That is a very good enforcement tool for police officers.

We have forgotten the victims of crime. Instead, we have concentrated on rehabilitating and treating criminals who break the law. That is fine because that is one of the many tools we have. However, we must never forget the victims of crime. That of course takes us to the bigger issue.

Last week the Minister of Justice talked about Steven Truscott. What I want to highlight about the Steven Truscott story is the fact that we need effective tools. This case highlighted something that was wrong. This young man was sentenced to death. If I read the reports correctly, the only reason he missed the noose was because he was a young fellow and Canada did not want to execute a young person. Would that mean that if he had been around 30 years old, he probably would have been hanged? We know now that would have been a terrible miscarriage of justice. That is the reason why I am opposed to the death penalty. Mistakes cannot be made. When we go to that extreme, we cannot make a mistake because it cannot be undone.

The DNA testing tools given to our police agencies allow them to make their jobs effective. It is also meant for those who have been charged but do not want to be wrongfully convicted. That is why the police need these tools.

Let us look at what my colleague stated. He reminded us that last year the RCMP laboratory in Regina was closed down. As a matter of fact, my colleague told me that there is a shortage of 60 RCMP officers in Saskatchewan.

If we are not going to provide the tools, the people and the resources to address these issues of crime, then what is the point of bringing in legislation? It is a band-aid answer to crime. As my colleagues who have already spoken said, all police and enforcement agencies want this tool so that they can effectively do their jobs. At the end of the day, they are subject to criticism when things do not happen and they get frustrated.

I remember with great sadness when two officers from the Toronto police sex crime unit came to our caucus and made a presentation on child pornography. That was one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen in my life. Some of us could not even stand and watch what these police officers were showing. They were saying that they needed the tools to fight the heinous crime of pornography.

The government said that DNA testing would go a long way toward doing that, but what these officers and enforcement agencies were saying was that this was not sufficiently enough. I fail to understand why we do not listen to them. Of course, on the other side of the coin one has to ensure that liberty and a person's civil rights are not abused. It is not a blank cheque where the police will utilize it without checks and balances.

Let us look at the case in Saskatchewan where this young aboriginal was found frozen to death. The internal review indicated that the police officers may have over-used their force. We cannot allow this kind of thing in our society. We need to have checks and balances. In the overall scheme of things our law enforcement people need the legislative tools to fight crime. The House is where we debate. We must give them the tools so they can make our streets safe.

We have highlighted the things that are wrong with the bill. When we take it to committee, hopefully the government will listen and make amendments so that the bill can become more effective in fighting crime. I thank my colleagues who are highlighting this issue and saying that we need to make this bill stronger.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your appointment. It is nice to see you in the chair.

I am very pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act.

In 1998 Bill C-3 enacted a national DNA data bank. The data bank officially opened on July 5, 2000. Bill C-35 in May 2004 introduced minor amendments to the act and now Bill C-13 adds further amendments which still do not address the concerns that I and my colleagues have raised. I have raised them in many speeches in the past.

The bill seeks to strengthen the laws regarding DNA collection and storage. Specifically, it adds more Criminal Code offences, moving some offences from the secondary designated offences list to the primary list. It allows DNA collection from a mentally disordered criminal, expands retroactive provisions, compels an offender to provide a sample, allows an order for a DNA sample after sentencing, and of course, permits the destruction of a sample.

Looking into the background, DNA identification, if used to its full potential, could be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprints. However, police and provincial attorneys general have long argued that the legislation as enacted denied law enforcement agencies the full use of this wonderful technology.

The DNA Identification Act came into force in June 2000 and established the national DNA data bank which is operated by the RCMP. It allows judges to order the collection of DNA samples from convicted offenders and have the resulting profile stored in a convicted offenders index.

The national DNA data bank also includes a crime scene index containing profiles of DNA samples collected from crime scenes. This allows samples from various crime scenes to be compared with the convicted offenders index.

The act created two types of offences: primary and secondary. Primary designated offences are those which are the most serious, such as sexual offences, murder and manslaughter. Secondary designated offences are less serious, such as an assault or arson. Of course they are serious too but it depends on how one judges them.

For primary offences a DNA sample can be ordered by the court, unless the offender can prove it is not needed. For secondary offences a sample can be ordered if the judge believes it is needed.

Law enforcement agencies are critical of this legislation because, among other reasons, it does not allow for the taking of DNA samples at the time of charge, as fingerprints are. Also it does not permit samples to be taken retroactively from incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers.

Unfortunately while Bill C-13 offers some improvements on the original legislation, it does not address many of the concerns raised by police, the provincial attorneys general and the official opposition.

Specifically Bill C-13 does not address the requirement for a judicial order to make a data bank authorization for any offence committed before the law came into force in June 2000.

Police have also asked for the ability to collect a DNA sample at the time of charge, as is done with fingerprints, instead of upon conviction. There is no evidence or jurisprudence suggesting that such provisions would be in violation of the Constitution.

Another major flaw in the bill is that it does not provide for DNA collection upon conviction for all indictable offences, again as in the case of fingerprints.

An additional concern is the ability of a convicted offender to appeal to the court in order to prevent the collection of DNA. The DNA collection should flow automatically upon conviction. This is simply one more unnecessary impediment to effective law enforcement.

Furthermore, the DNA testing system is so backlogged that until sufficient resources are provided, any legislative changes made will not be meaningful. This legislation still does not address the issue of timely production of DNA results to bring dangerous offenders to justice and to ensure the safety of our communities. We need better tools.

For more than a decade the government has failed to provide law enforcement agencies with the tools and resources they need to effectively fight crime. In my riding of Newton—North Delta, marijuana grow ops, organized crime and gang violence are flourishing. Many murders have been committed in the vicinity and remain unsolved.

Past cuts to the RCMP by the government have only served to exacerbate matters. The Canadian Police Association says that the RCMP needs an immediate $250 million cash infusion, but news stories indicate the Liberal government is now considering another $100 million cut. It is shameful. This is just another demonstration of Liberal misplaced priorities.

What does it mean in real terms? Consider as an example Project Snowball. This massive RCMP probe into Canada's largest child pornography investigation tracked more than 2,000 Canadians, including 406 in British Columbia, among them 23 in my constituency in Surrey, suspected of possessing and distributing sexually explicit pictures of children. Remarkably, in over two years we have arrested less than 5% of those suspects. Many police forces in Canada still could not take any action, despite getting a list of suspects in January 2001. They simply do not have the resources nor the officers who are trained to do the job.

Project Snowball also underscored the lack of cooperation between the federal, provincial and municipal police forces in such major investigations. Police say that national cooperation is a nightmare, blaming a lack of resources, a lack of a coordinated national strategy, and laws that exact too light a sentence on pedophiles.

Police also need more help from the courts. They are fed up with the revolving door judicial system. Police work is frequently frustrated when officers are rearresting over and over the same criminals while they are on parole, house arrest and other largely ineffective court sanctions. That is shameful. There must be stiffer penalties for criminals, especially those with lengthy records or those who have committed violent crimes. While some criminals can be rehabilitated, others simply need to be taken off our streets. They should be behind bars.

Canadian police have a daunting task when battling child pornography. It is estimated that more than 100,000 child porn websites are on the worldwide web. This is a serious issue. I have lots of data I could share, but time is short.

Clifford Olson confessed to murdering 11 children. Around 55 women were murdered in British Columbia. All may have been saved if the DNA data bank had been established long ago and the police had more and better resources.

In conclusion, law enforcement must become a higher priority for the federal government. It is our collective responsibility as elected representatives in Parliament to make laws that have teeth. The onus is on the Liberal government to introduce meaningful legislation and accept important, meaningful amendments. So what if they come from the official opposition?

Bill C-13 does not go far enough in addressing the concerns my colleagues and I have raised. Ineffective legislation is good for nothing. This legislation must be strengthened and must be able to provide a powerful tool to fight crime in our communities.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to putting a few remarks on the record concerning Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act.

With all due respect, a lot of good things are happening with the bill. We now have the technology and science to identify criminals and to protect wrongfully charged people. We have the capacity now in the technology and science to put the record straight.

However, I want to talk about something that has not been mentioned a great deal in the debate this afternoon. We have a modus operandi out there in the justice field that talks about the rights of criminals. With all due respect, I believe everyone has the right to be heard, everyone has a right of free speech and all the rest of it. There is a problem when victims do not have the rights that they need.

In Bill C-13 we have to be very cognizant of the rights of the victim of horrendous crimes. I have seen many young women and, as a former teacher, I have counselled many young women who have been assaulted and who are afraid to come forward. They thought that no matter what they said, their perpetrator would not come to justice.

As the mother of a police officer, I have seen and felt the despondency in the police force when they knew something had happened, they knew that a crime had been committed and yet the criminal was let off the hook.

We have the best of both worlds here. Within these halls, we have the wisdom to bring forth a bill that has some teeth. We can bring forth a bill that will not only protect the victim and ensure that people who are wrongfully charged are free, but also get the people who over and over again commit the same crimes.

I talk specifically about in the province of Manitoba. Recently in the Winnipeg Free Press , the president of the Winnipeg police association talked about the morale of the police force. Now, being the mother of a police officer, I have privy to many conversations that go on at my kitchen table and in the police association. As the former critic for justice in the province of Manitoba, I was privy to many conversations with police officers who were feeling a lot of stress. Their stress came from the fact that their hands were tied when criminals reoffended and got off the hook.

Here we have a DNA bank that if properly utilized could bring these perpetrators to justice in a very common sense, realistic way. Yet it would ensure that the victims of those crimes could be reassured that coming forward, speaking out and testifying would be something they could do without feeling they were at their wits end because they did not know what would happen at the end.

I also want to read something from the Winnipeg Sun that came to my attention. This is from the Winnipeg police association president, Loren Schinkel. He said:

I think that the morale and the stressors are at a peak, certainly when it comes to what's happening right now.

[The police officers are] certainly stretched very thin. Everybody's managing because you pull together. You just hope the violence stops and that everybody can catch their breath.

We have a relatively new crime out there. It was not really widely advertised or widely talked about, and it has to do with child pornography on the Internet. We have relatively new awareness of this crime. It is a heinous crime forced on innocent victims.

The child pornography Internet situation has to be stopped. Our child protection registry is a step forward, but it is still not strong enough. We need to ensure that we do not have inadequate laws and bills. We have to ensure that we have bills that are strong and that have the real teeth to get the job done.

It is widely understood by the front line police officers that we need to have a retroactive DNA data bank. We need to have one that allows for DNA sampling at the time of being charged of the crime so the courts can move forward in a very fast, swift way, especially for the families and the victims themselves.

When we talk about rights, we have to talk about victims' rights. We have to talk about the rights of families like ours who go to work every day, who want to educate their children and who want to live in a safe and free community. This is an extremely important bill, but it is too soft. There are too many loopholes.

I have a lot of problems when people who have been charged can appeal to the courts so they do not have to give a DNA sample. If people are innocent, my question would be, why would they worry about giving a DNA sample? A DNA sample should be something they give gladly.

The DNA identification, if used to its full potential, is the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprints. When the introduction of fingerprinting came about, there was a whole revolution on the side of justice for the victims of crime.

Police and provincial attorneys have argued that the legislation, as enacted, Bill C-3 introduced in 1998, denied law enforcement the full use of this technology. When we are at a point where we have the technology and science to identify criminals and to bring them to justice, it behooves us as government officials in our great nation to ensure that this happens. One thing we are obligated to do is ensure that our communities are safe and to use, as I said earlier, the wisdom and the knowledge for the benefit of citizens across our great nation.

Bill C-3 did not allow for the taking of DNA samples at the time of charge, as are fingerprints. It did not permit samples to be taken retroactively from incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murders. One murder is one murder too many. One sex offence is one sex offence too many.

We have to support our front line police officers. We have to support the citizens who live in our communities. We have to support our victims of crime. We have to ensure that Bill C-13 has amendments that make it representative of a bill that will be effective and that brings justice to criminals who perpetrate the crimes on innocent victims.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say at the outset that from what I can understand, I think all of us in the chamber, and certainly the official opposition joins with the other parties in stating that this is a step in the right direction. I do not think there is any question of that. However, it is our role also to do a very careful analysis of legislation as it comes forward. It is our job to bring forward what we feel are constructive suggestions about legislation as it comes before the House.

Certainly Bill C-13, the bill dealing with the DNA data bank is no different in that sense. We want to have the best tools possible for our law enforcement officers across the country. We want to ensure, as some of my colleagues have said before me, that the guilty are indeed brought to justice, that they are punished, and especially with the best interests of the victims in mind, that we hold those people accountable for their crimes.

Obviously, the DNA data bank is designed for the best interests of victims and their families. It is designed to protect potential victims. It is designed to ensure that innocent people do not go to jail for crimes they did not commit. All of those things have been addressed, at least partially, by colleagues who have spoken already.

I feel very strongly that we cannot allow what I consider the legal industry, which is not to be confused with the justice system, in Canada to rob our society of a very important scientific tool. That is not to say that I am dismissing the concerns of human rights and privacy activists in connection with this legislation and the establishment of the DNA data bank. Certainly there is potential for abuse or even misuse of the DNA collection and we must take all the necessary security precautions to safeguard this very personal information. However, I believe we cannot, out of fear of potentially invading someone's privacy, throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Personally, and speaking for the constituents of Prince George--Peace River whom I have spoken to about this issue, I believe that if we are going to err on this issue, we should err on the side of holding people accountable and responsible for the crimes that they commit. Unfortunately, we believe that this legislation allows for too many loopholes that would allow a criminal to escape justice.

Average Canadians, whether they are from Prince George--Peace River up in northern British Columbia or in downtown Ottawa and anywhere between, understand this issue. When we talk to them they understand this.

To gather evidence of this, I recently mailed out a householder and provided information on this issue. I asked the constituents of Prince George--Peace River if they believed the government should expand the number and types of crimes for which a convict must provide a DNA sample. Constituents have just begun receiving this booklet over the last couple of weeks, but already the survey responses have been pouring into my mailbox. Just 5% of my constituents responded no to additional DNA testing. Ten per cent indicated they were unsure on the issue. However, 85% said yes, more criminals should be forced to provide DNA samples.

However, in Bill C-13, the bill before us today, there are far too many provisions that would allow a convict to avoid providing a DNA sample. For example, if the person committed the crime before June 2000, a judicial order would have to be sought for a DNA sample. Also, a convicted offender could always appeal to the court in order to prevent the collection of DNA. If we were to ask the people on the street about this, they do not understand it when the rights of a criminal to privacy under the charter come up against the rights of the generally accepted protection of society and the protection of the most vulnerable citizens in society as all too often we are talking about women and children in cases where it is necessary to gather DNA samples.

Police have asked for the ability to collect DNA at the time of charge, as with fingerprints. Here again we can have a debate and it is good that we have that debate. Whether it would be appropriate at the time of arrest, or whether it would be more appropriate at the time of the charge being laid or whether it would be more appropriate at the time of conviction, or whatever, we need to have a debate on this. We should not have the government proceed and allow the loopholes to exist. Lawyers would have a field day with this. By not being forced to provide a DNA sample, they could get people, who should be held accountable, off on these technicalities.

As so often happens in our legal system, and with this government, the rights and privacy of convicts and criminals seem to take precedence over the rights of victims and their families. I believe the government has to start becoming as obsessed with the compassion for victims as it seems to be with the legal rights of criminals. When I think about DNA collection, I think about what that information can do for victims in my riding and for their families who may never know what happened to their loved ones or see justice done to their killers or attackers.

If our DNA data bank were strengthened through substantive amendments to the legislation, I wonder whether investigators would be able to solve the disappearance of six teenage girls and women along what has been come known as “the highway of tears” on highway 16 between Prince George in my riding and Prince Rupert? This is a series of sad and disturbing unsolved disappearances between those two cities. Three of the girls were found murdered and three have never been found.

I wonder, and I have often thought about this, if their killer or abductors would have been found, charged and convicted by now if our legal system had enough teeth to ensure that DNA of violent criminals was on file. It is possible that their killer or killers could have been in and out of jail for other violent convictions and if DNA collection were mandatory and there was no room for loopholes, they might have been stopped. We will never know.

I am not a great fan of reality television. There seems to be such an abundance of them on television nowadays. I do not waste much time watching them. However, one show I watch, which is reality television, is something called Cold Case Files . It is extremely interesting to see how the technology has changed and how they have gone back to some of the cold cases of decades of old murders and rapes. They are solving them because of DNA. Through DNA, they have found that someone who is in prison for some other crime is accountable for some other unsolved crime.

I will end by talking a bit about the other side of the issue, and that is the wrongfully convicted. Many of them have simply given up or do not have the access to the family support. I think of the David Milgaards and Steven Truscott, who was recently in the news as he still struggles to try to clear his name, and what a proper functioning DNA data bank could do in proving people are innocent.

I believe we have the technology and the science to ensure that others do not suffer as these men have and to ensure that their victims and the victims' families do not have to endure decades long turmoil and uncertainty as well. It is not only the wrongfully convicted who suffer, it is also the their families. They know someone out there did this horrendous crime and they got away with it. They have never had to serve their time. They have never been held accountable and responsible for their actions.

I look forward to seeing the bill, hopefully, amended to put some real teeth in it and have a tool that the police and the courts can use to hold those accountable responsible for their actions and to ensure that people who have not committed crimes do not serve time for something they did not commit.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-13.

I have many concerns which some of my colleagues have raised already. In the larger context of our criminal justice system, a trend has developed over the last several years whereby the government introduces a piece of legislation which common sense would tell us would be wholly ineffective but has some merit on its face. When experts such as front line police officers, child protection advocates, and victims groups look at it and dig beneath the rhetoric a bit, we see there are some fundamental flaws. I want to touch on a couple of examples.

I would like to speak about our sex offender registry in the larger context of criminal justice. When that was first introduced, the opposition recognized some serious flaws, one being that it was not retroactive. It was a blank sheet of paper and would do nothing to protect Canadians. There was considerable public outcry about it and we were able to make some headway by advocating some changes to it. For some time the registry was not retroactive and did not have any names in it.

Another example is the child protection legislation which was recently introduced. Once again, on the same theme, this is a piece of legislation that does not close defences for the possession of child pornography. I do not know what rights we are balancing here but it seems to err on the side of protecting those in possession of the material rather than protecting society at large.

I acknowledge there are many positive aspects to Bill C-13 such as broadening the more serious offences where the onus would be on a defendant to prove why DNA samples should not be taken. That is a good move. Another positive aspect is the broadening of the total list of offences.

Seven years ago when the DNA data bank for Canada was being debated, organizations like the Canadian Police Association argued that for a data bank to be truly effective, samples would have to be taken at the time of arrest. Their pleas were largely ignored. We have to recognize where those pleas were coming from. They were coming from front line police officers, people whose job is to protect Canadians and to investigate offences, whose job is to work with crown prosecutors to ensure that we are protected. Their opinion was that it was too late to wait until a conviction.

A very real situation has been raised today. If someone has been arrested and charged and knows that if convicted, he or she would have to provide a DNA sample and knows it would positively link him or her to a crime he or she committed in the past, the chances of flight by that individual would go up exponentially.

There are literally thousands of unsolved sexual assaults, murders, and kidnappings in Canada. In all likelihood some of those will never be solved. There may be people who have been wrongfully convicted and could be exonerated if only the samples had been taken before a conviction was reached. If samples were taken at the time an individual was charged with a serious indictable offence, it would seem wholly reasonable that we would at that point require them to submit a DNA sample.

This could have the effect of linking them to an unsolved crime in the past. We have seen that one of the great benefits of a DNA data bank is it could have the effect of exonerating someone who has been wrongfully convicted. However, there is this serious shortfall.

I mentioned front line police officers. I want to quote the chief of the largest municipal police force in Canada which is that of the city of Toronto. What he said was not about the original data bank but about this new legislation that we are debating today, he said that it is not enough and it is not adequate. He went on to say:

Here in Canada we have a great deal of room to grow. It seems that whatever progress we make with respect to advances in the criminal-justice system, it is at best a piecemeal endeavour.

That seems to be a trend that we have seen in all legislation dealing with criminal matters, certainly in this session and in past sessions. On the face of it or at first blush it sounds like a good idea but when we dig a little deeper, we realize that it is not going to be as effective as it could be. I for one believe that paramountcy must be given to protection of Canadians, society and children.

I heard a lot of comment on the other side that the court is agreeable with this, that the court seems to have acknowledged this step or that the court finds this is necessary. Yes, talk to the court but we also have to talk to a family that has had a crime perpetrated against it, someone who has been assaulted, someone who has a family member who has been kidnapped or murdered. That has to take paramountcy and has to be at the forefront of our criminal justice system.

We have to ensure that those who would victimize Canadians are put behind bars and that Canadians are protected. Certainly we must do whatever we can to prevent someone from being wrongfully convicted. It is a win-win scenario by broadening the use of our DNA data bank capabilities.

Bill C-13 does not address this one serious shortfall. Further, as was the case with the sex offender registry, the DNA data bank is not retroactive. It does not include all criminals convicted of a serious criminal offence.

Thousands of unsolved crimes could continue to go unsolved. It could mean that hundreds of people who perhaps were wrongfully convicted continue to remain behind bars. We have to broaden the application. That is one thing that I would certainly argue.

It does not go far enough by not including all indictable offences as is required with fingerprinting. Fingerprinting as we know is done at the time of arrest. At one time fingerprinting was a modern miracle. It has been the staple of law enforcement and the criminal justice system for a century but now we are into a new era of DNA data banks. We need to be as proactive as possible with this and realize its full potential.

It is quite clear, if we listen to people who are on the front line and in the know, this is not what is currently being done by this legislation. We must be retroactive. We must include all indictable offences. We have to broaden the scope.

Beyond the legislative shortfalls, there is also the practical shortfalls. We have heard in recent times of the RCMP having serious shortfalls with its ability to process DNA cases. There is a huge backlog. We have to address not just the legislative but also the practical implications of this system.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-13 that proposes a number of improvements to the DNA data bank legislation, which was passed by Parliament in 1998, came into force in June 2000 and appears to be working very well. Since that time the DNA data bank has been a boon to Canadian police.

Since that time, the DNA data bank has been a boon to Canadian police. It assists law enforcement agencies in solving crimes by: linking crimes together where there are no suspects; helping to identify suspects; eliminating suspects where there is no match between crime scene DNA and the DNA profiles of convicted offenders in the national DNA data bank.

DNA evidence also has been a great benefit to the courts. We all know that there have been miscarriages of justice in the past. The courts have become more comfortable with the science behind DNA matches. They are aware that a particular DNA profile will only appear in one out of billions of persons. It is not, however, definitive. There may be an innocent explanation, but if the person's DNA has been found, for example, in or on the body of a victim of a sexual assault and that person is a stranger to the victim, there is some explaining to do. Often the DNA match results in the person pleading guilty, which saves a great deal of court time and spares the victim additional trauma.

I believe all members want to make the legislation even more effective. Bill C-13 would accomplish that goal, and members can be certain that Bill C-13 would do so in a way that would respect the charter and privacy rights of Canadians. In proposing a series of changes that come within the existing structure of the DNA data bank legislation, the government is building upon legislation that has been upheld by the courts every time that it has been challenged.

The Criminal Code establishes the process that can lead to a judicial order authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances for analysis and inclusion in the DNA data bank from persons who have been convicted of certain designated offences. The most serious offences such as murder and sexual assault are primary designated offences. Where a person has been convicted or discharged of a primary designated offence, the judge is required to make a data bank order unless the judge is satisfied that the impact on the offender's privacy and security of the person would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest, the protection of society and the proper administration of justice. The courts have consistently held that this is a very high burden for the offender to discharge, and so DNA orders for primary designated offences are almost automatic.

Secondary designated offences are less serious offences, for example assault or leaving the scene of an accident. Where a person has been convicted or discharged of a secondary designated offence, the order may be granted if the judge, on application by the Crown, is satisfied that it is in the best interests of justice to do so. In deciding whether to grant the order, the judge must consider the criminal record of the individual, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission and the impact such an order would have on the person's privacy and security of person.

The court is required to give reasons for its decision to make or to deny making a DNA data bank order. The courts have consistently found that the impact on a person's privacy and security of the person is minimal. Although DNA can reveal a great deal about a person, the DNA data bank only analyzes what is known as “junk” DNA, that is, chromosomes that do not reveal anything, like hair colour, about the person.

Moreover, the legislation has strict protections on the use of both the bodily substances and the resulting DNA profile. They can only be used for forensic DNA analysis or other uses specified in the DNA Identification Act. It is an offence to use them for any other purpose than the investigation of crimes. The DNA profiles cannot, for example, be used in any research.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which operates the national DNA data bank, has developed a system of tracking the DNA profile and the identifying information. The bodily sample that is to be analyzed and the identifying information on the offender, which is based on fingerprints, are tracked by the identical bar code. The DNA data bank keeps a sample and sends the identifying information to the RCMP's Canadian Criminal Records Information Services. The analysis is tracked by the bar code and the DNA data bank does not know who the offender is. When there is a match, it advises Criminal Records Information Services of the bar code and that service identifies the convicted offender.

With such strong protections for the offender's privacy and the great value of DNA evidence, the courts have welcomed the legislation. In Briggs, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down August 2001, the DNA legislation was found to comply with constitutional requirements. The reasoning of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Briggs has since been endorsed by several other provincial courts of appeal in Canada. The decision in Briggs dealt with many of the issues that might arise in considering the legislation and pointed out that the purpose of obtaining a DNA profile from an offender was not simply to detect further crimes committed by this offender. Rather the provisions have much broader purposes, including the following: to deter potential repeat offenders; to promote the safety of the community; to detect when a serial offender is at work; to assist in the solving of what could be called cold crimes; to streamline investigations; and to assist the innocent by early exclusion for investigative suspicion or in exonerating those who have been wrongfully convicted.

In another decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that has been widely referred to in decisions in other provinces upholding the legislation, the court held that, “In balancing the offender's right to privacy and security of the person against the state interests in obtaining the offender's DNA profile, the court must consider the following.

The legislation offers significant protections against misuse of the DNA profile information, thus minimizing an improper intrusion into the offender's privacy.

Having been convicted of a designated offence, the offender already has a reduced expectation of privacy.

In the ordinary case of an adult offender, the procedures for taking the sample have no, or at worst, a minimal impact on the security of the person.

Thus, in the case of an ordinary adult offender, there are important state interests served by the DNA data bank and few reasons based on privacy and security of the person for refusing to make the order”.

The House should be aware that, in R. v. S.A.B., decided on October 31, 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the constitutional validity of the DNA warrant scheme. It found that, “Generally, the DNA provisions appropriately balance the public interest in law enforcement and the rights of individuals to dignity, physical integrity, and to control the release of personal information about themselves”.

As the DNA data bank scheme is based on the same designated offences as the DNA warrants scheme and has many of the same safeguards, Regina v. S.A.B. provides strong support for the constitutionality of the data bank legislation.

I believe we need to have no concern about the constitutionality of Bill C-13, although the committee will undoubtedly want to hear from the experts on that point. By expanding the number of designated offences and by clarifying procedures, Bill C-13 will make the law even more effective. It will continue to be based on the same protections that have already led to its endorsement by the courts. Therefore, I urge members in the House to support the motion to refer the bill to committee.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues from all parties who have spoken in support of this important bill. The legislation is very forward looking in its intent. Overall the attempts that have been made by virtue of this newly amended bill, which has been reintroduced from the previous Parliament, are commendable. However I must say that I find some of the provisions a disappointment.

The Conservative Party hopes, with the cooperation of other members, including government members, to make an attempt at improving the legislation at committee level, which is why we support the motion to send the legislation to committee where we can hear from experts and from the stakeholders most affected, including victims, the police, representatives of the bar and the judiciary. We must try to get this right because one of the important elements of the legislation that is often overlooked is not only that the legislation can be used to convict, it can also be used to exonerate.

This is the type of technology that is extremely forward looking. It is the type of technology that would help to avoid some of the worst travesties we have seen in this country as far as wrongful convictions.

The taking of DNA is the type of forensic evidence that can prove categorically a person's presence at a crime scene. It can both convict and exonerate. The legislation falls short of the potential in allowing investigators to do their important work, to collect that type of crime scene evidence and use it, through forensic labs, to examine and present a case.

The changes that have been put forward in the bill, although they go far in a technical sense to expanding the primary and secondary list of offences that are included as far as the use of DNA, it is astounding to think that some offences have not found their way into the primary designation, including such things as robbery and child pornography. Those are changes that we accept and support, but what I fear is that some of the attempts to sing the praises and the marvels of the legislation were to distract the public away from the real issue, which is that we are not using DNA to its full potential.

Individuals, front line police officers most notably, are calling for the use and the collection of DNA at the time of charge. That level of reasonable and probable grounds has been achieved. It is much akin to the collection of a fingerprint for the purposes of analysis. DNA, let us be quite frank, is a genetic fingerprint. I have yet to hear a cogent argument that can differentiate. I understand those who are concerned about privacy and individuals who talk of the use of DNA for health related data. However, as I understand it, the information in the data bank is completely safe. It can only be accessed by those with the proper authority, those seeking a warrant.

To that end, even collecting the DNA and holding it until conviction would help avoid what I consider to be a very serious anomaly in the legislation. I will put it in very straightforward terms. Let us talk about an individual who has been connected to a serious crime on the west coast, for example, be it sexual assault, violence or murder, and the person is picked up in the province of Ontario or my own province of Nova Scotia for another unrelated offence. Knowing full well that under the parameters of the legislation the person would be compelled upon conviction to give the DNA, there is an additional incentive to run and a disincentive for the justice system to prevail.

The rationale is very straightforward and common sense. Taking that DNA at the time of charge, holding it in abeyance, not necessarily entering it immediately into the data bank for cross reference to the outstanding offence, would allow the authorities, the police, the justice system to hold on to that very critical evidence for use in a future trial.

With the number of unsolved murders and unsolved sexual assaults we know that many of those perpetrators are currently languishing in Canadian jails. This is the type of legislation that, if put in its proper application, would allow the police to solve some of those crimes, to help locate missing persons and to take preventive measures to ensure that miscarriages of justice do not occur.

The potential for the bill to enhance our justice system is good but not in its current form. The bill would not allow police to take DNA at the time of charge. The police can collect fingerprints. Other members have made reference to the fact that Great Britain, from which we have taken our lead on many important matters, such as how we govern this country, including the Parliament of Canada and the Westminster system, is currently allowing its law enforcement agents to take DNA at the time of charge.

By refusing to allow officers to do so, I would suggest strongly that we are removing a critical key for our law enforcement community in doing its job.

Former police chief Julian Fantino of Metro Toronto recently appeared at a conference of sex crime investigators. He stated:

We need to collect D.N.A. at the front end when we arrest suspects and run it through the data bank and we know how many people are serial offenders and how many offences are committed by a relatively small number of people who are aggressive and committed to committing crimes. We need to do better in using science and technologies to protect innocent victims.

I put a great deal of emphasis on Mr. Fantino and his experience. He is speaking for a lot of front line police officers when he encourages the Parliament of Canada to take this important step.

We have seen far too many vicious crimes perpetrated in this country. We know that a relatively small number, if they continue unchecked and if we continue not convicting them, continue to pose a serious threat to our communities. This is about protecting the public. The fundamental, underlying theme that we can never get away from is the deterrent. The important element of deterrence is implicit in everything we do.

Police currently can arrest an individual after matching DNA found on a victim or at a crime scene and make that link and present it to the court as the telling factor for conviction. Bill C-13 continues the listing of primary and secondary designated offences, which I would suggest we do away with entirely. We should simply merge those systems and have a single list that would require judges, upon conviction, to allow for the taking of DNA. We could still have a reverse onus provision that would allow a challenge from a defence lawyer to put forward a case as to why that DNA should not be taken.

The Conservative Party of Canada will be proposing a number of important amendments. I would suggest that these efforts, in particular, when it comes to the taking of DNA samples and the protection of our children, our children should be a huge motivating factor as to why we have to get it right in this current context. Police officers should be allowed to take DNA samples for all indictable offences at the time of the official laying of the charge and hold that in abeyance until a conviction.

As has been outlined, the bill would also require that a secondary process, a judicial hearing, take place. Having worked in the court system, both in a defence and a crown capacity, we have a massive backlog that prevents the use of proper investigative tools that will hold back our system to adequately process these cases through the courts. Lack of resources is a huge issue. By putting in place a convoluted process such as this I would suggest that we would be furthering some of the difficulties currently faced by crown prosecutors, our courts and the justice system generally.

We need resources dedicated to this data bank. We are underutilizing it now in terms of the number of entries. As many members have mentioned, thousands of entries are made on a weekly basis in Great Britain, whereas in Canada we are still languishing in that regard.

We currently have 1,700 DNA cases on a backlog in the DNA data bank. They have not been able to enter that data. It is the timeliness. If that data were entered and used in an investigation of an outstanding murder, I would suggest it would save lives. It is that dramatic.

We look forward to having this matter before the committee and to hearing from experts from all areas. At that point the Conservative Party will be putting forward what we consider to be substantive, common sense amendments to improve the bill.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion to send Bill C-13 to committee before second reading. Bill C-13 is nearly identical to Bill C-35 that was tabled in the House last May but died on the order paper. At that time all parties, while naturally reserving their position until they heard from the witnesses in committee, expressed general support for the use of DNA and favoured referring this bill to committee.

Bill C-13 contains proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act, intended to clarify and strengthen the present regime concerning the taking a bodily substances for the purposes of the national DNA data bank.

I expect the committee will be paying close attention to the proposed changes to the list of designated offences. This is appropriate and is to be expected. Indeed, the expansion of the list to include such grave offences as sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, Internet luring of a child and extortion will, I am sure, be welcomed by all members of the House.

However, I intend to focus my remarks today on those legislative amendments in the bill that will address the procedural problems with the legislation. These changes are very important. They are not glamorous, and a lot of people watching this on CPAC may find them boring, but they are welcomed by police and the courts who have to make the legislation work on the ground each and every day.

The bill responds to a series of issues that had been raised primarily by the provinces. As members know provincial crown prosecutors and police deal with this legislation in the courts each and every day. Many of these proposed changes were recommended by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada which includes representatives of the defence bar and some judges, as well as provincial and federal justice officials.

They identified three problems that had to be fixed. First, there was no method to compel the offender to attend in court at a hearing to determine whether a DNA data bank order should be made. The existing legislation contemplates that a DNA order will be made at the same time as sentences is imposed. For various reasons, that is not always possible, but there is a danger that, if the judge imposes sentence but delays consideration of whether or not to make a DNA order, the judge may actually lose jurisdiction over the accused or the offender.

Bill C-13 specifically provides the following:

The court may set a date and time for a subsequent hearing to determine whether to make the order. The court retains jurisdiction over the matter and may compel the attendance at the hearing of any person who may be subject to the order.

Second, a process was sought that would permit a judge to make a second DNA data bank order where the national DNA data bank had declined to process the first one because of a police error in completing the forms that must accompany the bodily substances submitted for analysis.

The present legislation only allows the Crown to seek another order where a DNA sample cannot be derived from the sample of bodily fluids. However, there may have been problems in filling out the forms or in the identification of the accused. It could be that the bar codes were mixed up. It is vitally important that these offenders should have their DNA profiles in the DNA data bank despite these problems.

Bill C-13 will permit an application to be made for re-sampling. As the House can appreciate, these are highly technical, but important amendments.

Finally, a way was sought to require the offender to appear for the purpose of providing a DNA sample. The legislation currently requires that a sample be taken at the time the order is made but in many cases this is not possible. The police cannot have a trained officer attending all the court houses in the land at all times in case a DNA order is made. Accordingly, Bill C-13 allows for the judge to set a time and place for the sample to be taken and it provides for a warrant to arrest the offender if he does not show up.

These are not the only procedural changes made in this legislation. There are new provisions regarding the process when an offender is ordered to provide a DNA sample, but the offender's DNA profile is already in the data bank.

As well, the legislation was originally drafted on the basis that the convicted offenders' bodily substances would be analyzed in the regions and the profiles sent to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police data bank.

In fact, it was subsequently decided to have all analysis done here in Ottawa so that there are several provisions of the Criminal Code and DNA Identification Act that require amendment to clarify that the samples of bodily substances taken in execution of an order are transmitted along with a copy of that order, or authorization, and any other materials required under regulations to the RCMP for forensic DNA analysis, and that the results of this analysis are then to be entered into the convicted offenders' index of the national DNA data bank index.

There is as well an important new procedure which is necessary to address a problem that no one could have envisaged when this legislation was originally passed; namely, the making of DNA orders when there is no authority under law to do so.

Under the Criminal Code judges have only been authorized to make DNA data bank orders against offenders convicted of a designated Criminal Code offence. A DNA data bank order authorizes the police to take samples of bodily substances from a convicted offender for the purposes of the national DNA data bank. After the samples are collected, the police forward them, along with a copy of the judge's order, to the national DNA data bank in Ottawa.

Under procedures already established by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who is responsible for the operation of this data bank, before the samples of bodily substances taken from a convicted offender are subjected to forensic DNA analysis, the DNA order, the original order issued by the judge, is examined to verify that it in fact relates to a designated offence.

Since the DNA data bank legislation came into force almost four years ago, approximately 500 DNA data bank act orders have been made against persons who, according to the information that appeared on the face of the order, do not appear to have been convicted of a designated offence. These are referred as facially defective DNA data bank act orders.

There is a need, and this is corrected in this legislation, to create a procedure to have these defective DNA bank act orders reviewed to determine whether the error, on the face of the document, is either a procedural error or a substantive error. If it is a procedural error, it can then be corrected and the bodily samples analyzed. If it is a substantive error, then the court lacks the authority to make the order and the Commissioner of the RCMP then goes on to destroy the bodily substances obtained under the faulty orders.

I want to say a few words about the procedures set out in the proposed legislation to ensure only those DNA samples that are taken in conformity with the will of Parliament are analyzed.

There would be a duty imposed on the commissioner by virtue of Bill C-13 to review the information transmitted to him, along with the DNA sample taken from a convicted offender, to ensure that the offence referred to in the DNA data bank order is a designated offence.

I understand that this bill has been discussed with the provinces and the provinces all agree. I believe it is incumbent now upon this House to refer the bill to the appropriate committee, the justice committee. At that point in time it will certainly be analyzed by all members of the committee. I urge the passing of this motion.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-13 from the perspective that we are dealing with relatively new technology and some amendments would normally cause us a good deal of concern.

DNA samples have been gathered only since 2000. It should have been done much earlier, but the current government was very slow in moving the bill through the House to final fruition. Once in place, it became quite obvious that there were some significant limitations in it, and the government is now attempting to address those. We will not know whether it has been successful until we hear from the criminal defence bar, prosecutors, some police associations and some victims' rights groups. That is why we are supportive of the legislation going to committee prior to second reading. If the government were looking for support in principle for the bill at second reading, my party would not be able to support it.

There are several points in the bill that cause us particular concern. Overall we believe the direction in which it is moving is the appropriate direction. Certain charges are being moved from the secondary list to the primary list and we believe that is appropriate.

On the other hand, we are quite concerned about the bill being made retroactive. There has been a great deal of debate in the House and across the country over this issue. Certain individuals currently in prison will be paroled shortly because they have served their entire time. It would be quite desirable for society as a whole to obtain a DNA sample from them and have it in the data bank on an ongoing basis. On the other hand, whether it is appropriate for retroactivity to apply to all people who will be released shortly still gives us some cause for concern.

It almost goes without saying that under common law, the history in England and Canada, all legislatures have been reluctant to ever pass legislation that is retroactive. That aspect of the bill will require some close attention by the justice committee when Bill C-13 gets there.

Members of the Conservative Party are concerned about when the DNA sample should be taken. We have heard from some police associations that they are pressing quite strongly for the sample to be taken, as fingerprints are, at the time the individual is charged. That is generally being done in England at this time, as opposed to other alternatives such as upon conviction, upon sentencing or after all appeals have been exhausted. Those are all possibilities. They will have to be canvassed in front of the committee which will be hearing from people who work in this area such as police associations, bar associations and, in particular, the criminal defence bar.

We know from some of the wrongful conviction cases, which have been in the news in the last few years, that DNA samples could be an excellent tool to acquit people. However, they are also quite widespread in convicting people. As I said in my opening comments, this is a new technology. I know from some of the work I did in private practice, that in the initial stages the assessment of these samples left something to be desired. Even though experts on the stand said that it was an absolute, that it was 99.99% perfect, reality was that it was not specific as we began to understand the technology better and understand what was needed to get proper assessments.

In terms of the use of the DNA data bank, we must be conscious of the fact that it is a new technology. We must be conscious of the fact that we may see somewhere down the road someone challenging its validity and its accuracy on a scientific basis. We must be very careful when we are imposing the types of pressure and the types of law on convicted criminals. We have to be very careful with that.

There are charges that are being moved, and these would be after conviction, from the secondary list up to the primary list. Those will have to be looked at closely as well, as to whether that is also all appropriate, or whether in fact there should be additional charges moved on to the primary list.

That is important because if the charge and the conviction are based on a criminal offence that falls into the primary list, the DNA sample must be ordered by the judge convicting the individual unless that person can show, for privacy or personal security reasons, why it should not be taken. That has not happened in the past. I cannot imagine it happening other than in very rare occasions in the future.

If the charge is on that primary list and the person is convicted of that charge, it is almost a certainty that the sample will be ordered and taken.

If it is on the secondary list the onus is reversed. The prosecutor in that situation must establish why the sample should be taken. The defence can argue, but the primary responsibility lies with the prosecution to establish that.

So we do have to be careful. First, have we put enough charges on the primary list? Have we put too many charges on the primary list? That has to be canvassed and again I am looking forward to the committee looking into that to some degree.

The question is the same with regard to the secondary list. Should we be adding additional charges or should we be taking some of them off that are being proposed or already on?

Bill C-13 is a relatively modest bill. The provisions that also bother us are those sections in the act that move the gathering of DNA samples under the National Defence Act in the court martial situation. I am not clear and I really do want to investigate whether the full protection of the law will be meted out under the defence act as it is under the code, both in terms of what we already have and the amendments that are being proposed. That is an additional item that has to be looked at.

Let me conclude by saying that the use of the technology is new. It has obviously been a boon to the prosecutor in a number of cases establishing proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Similarly, in a number of well known cases and a number of others that are not as well known, it has been a substantial benefit to those accused. Their defence counsel are able to establish little or no likelihood of them having been the perpetrators of the particular offence.

It is there, but it is a new technology. We need to look at it very closely. It is one of the bills that will require some expert witnesses from perhaps other jurisdictions, but certainly from the scientific and legal community in order for us to get an accurate appraisal of where this legislation should be going, and whether in fact we have achieved it with this bill or whether significant amendments will be required.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-13 to amend the Criminal Code. The battle against organized crime, or to put it more broadly, the administration of criminal evidence, has always been of great importance to the Bloc Québécois and to all my colleagues.

I cannot help but make the connection between Bill C-13, which we have before us at this time, and the very pertinent activism of the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier and other colleagues in this House. In fact, all opposition parties tabled a bill calling for the burden of proof to be reversed in the case of the proceeds of crime, once guilt has been established, of course.

In the mid-90s, a heinous crime was committed; a young girl called Tara Manning was murdered. A problem arose when it came to determining guilt. There was no provision for collecting DNA samples in order to prove that a suspect was guilty.

It was a very important time when this House acted with great diligence, because the bill in question was passed through all stages in less than 48 hours. It was proof that, when members work together, this House can act very quickly. It was also proof that, in all our deliberations, the issue of criminal law and the fight against organized crime have grown considerably in importance in recent years.

I recall that young Daniel Desrochers was murdered in 1995 in my riding of Hochelaga. At the time, there was no anti-gang legislation nor any provisions regarding organized crime, such as we have now.

I had organized a meeting between young Daniel Desrocher's mother and Allan Rock, who was then justice minister. It was not easy to achieve a balance between bringing members of large criminal organizations such as the Hells Angels, Rock Machine and Bandidos to justice and ensuring that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was respected.

The bill before us today refers directly to the national DNA data bank. I was mentioning the case of young Ms. Manning. It was after that case that we established the national DNA data bank, which the Crown may consult.

The Conservative Party of Canada's justice critic has reminded us that it is not automatic. It is true that when the Crown wishes to take a sample of a bodily substance, it must ask for a court order. In one way, this is understandable, because taking samples of bodily substances is something quite intimate.

Criminal law always involves a delicate balance between the expectation of privacy and the sound administration of justice by means of evidence. In criminal matters, there must not only be a preponderance of evidence. The same test is not found in civil law. In criminal matters, the evidence must be beyond any doubt. That is understandable.

In criminal law, when the evidence has been weighed, a sentence 10, 15, 20 or 25 years in prison may be given. It is normal and desirable that the day on which the sentence is passed, all elements of proof should be not only conclusive, but irreproachable and beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Therefore, Canada has a national DNA data bank.

Before the bill before us was presented by the Minister of Justice, a distinction had been made between primary designated offences and secondary designated offences. The Crown's responsibility differed for the two types of offence.

Primary designated offences are offences of a sexual nature, involving child pornography, procuring, and living on the avails of prostitution and juvenile prostitution. These are extremely serious and shocking offences, and our fellow citizens expect those found guilty of such offences to be heavily sentenced.

For offences under section 487.4 of the Criminal Code, the Crown could automatically request a court order for samples. The court was not as vigilant in the case of secondary designated offences. It is not that the court took these offences less seriously, but stronger arguments had to be presented in order to obtain samples for this type of offence.

I am talking about offences that are nonetheless criminal, for which criminal charges can be laid or summary proceedings taken, but the charges are less serious than charges related to sexual offences. These offences include criminal harassment, uttering threats, breaking and entering, intimidation, arson, and so on.

Bill C-13 extends the list for both categories of offence. Obviously, it links with the legislation we passed on child pornography and adds to existing offences. The bill offers something quite new. Only prosecutors will be able to request court orders. If a prosecutor, which in most cases is a crown prosecutor, wants samples of bodily substances taken in relation to the charges before the court to be submitted to the national DNA data bank, then it is up to the prosecutor to do so. Nothing will be done automatically any more.

It is understandable that bodily substances, be they hair, nails or any nasal secretion, are very important in building evidence. I need only mention a certain decision of the Supreme Court. The story goes like this. An individual was arrested for stealing a truck, charged and read his constitutional rights. He was taken in for questioning, during which he blew his nose. Without his knowledge, the prosecution collected the tissue, which was admitted in evidence and would contribute to his conviction. As it turned out, the prosecution's evidence was ruled inadmissible under section 24.2 of the Charter, because it was collected without the individual's knowledge.

This goes to show the very important a role in terms of evidence played by bodily substances through their almost unequivocal identification of offenders. The bill before us adds offences to the list of primary and secondary offences, but requires the Crown, the prosecution, not only to initiate proceedings but also to request that substances taken from an indicted offender be included in the national DNA data bank.

The Bloc Québécois is generally in favour of the bill, with a few incidental changes.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act. The purpose of this bill is to broaden the provisions governing the national DNA data bank.

However, I must say at the onset that this bill falls short of what the official opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, feels is necessary to effectively combat crime. We are joined in those concerns by members of the police right across this country.

I just heard the speech of the parliamentary secretary, indeed nothing more than wishful thinking. Unfortunately, his government is not prepared to take the steps that are necessary to take full advantage of this very important crime fighting tool.

The original legislation, Bill C-3, that created our national data bank was enacted in 1998 and officially opened July 5, 2000, and is maintained by the RCMP. This DNA identification, if used to its full potential, could be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprints.

For example, DNA played a major role in solving the Holly Jones case last year which resulted in a first degree murder conviction in June. However police, attorneys general and crown attorneys have long argued that the legislation, as enacted, denied law enforcement the full use of this technology.

Bill C-3 did not allow for the taking of DNA samples at the time of charge, as fingerprints are, and it did not permit samples to be taken retroactively from incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders, and multiple murderers. Bill C-3 did however provide potentially dangerous exemptions authorizing judges not to make orders even in situations where there have been convictions.

Although some amendments contained in Bill C-13 are improvements on the status quo, they do not raise in any substantial way and answer the concerns that have been raised by the police and the attorneys general.

Amendments contained in Bill C-13 would add several offences to the list of designated offences for which a national DNA data bank order can be made. This of course is a positive step, but it begs the question, why can this DNA data bank not include all indictable offences as is the case for fingerprints?

Such is essentially the case in Great Britain, where in England and Wales, for example, police have the power to take and retain biological samples from those charged with or informed that they will be charged with any recordable offence, which is essentially any offence which might carry a prison term. They can in fact order the taking of DNA where a police inspector has reasonable grounds to suspect the involvement of the individual in a recordable offence. The DNA sample will tend to confirm or disprove the person's involvement in a particular offence.

Police have asked for the ability to collect a DNA sample at the time of charge, as is done with fingerprints, instead of upon conviction. There is no evidence or jurisprudence suggesting that such provisions would be in violation of the Constitution.

In the United Kingdom there is legislation pending that would allow police to automatically take a biological sample from anyone arrested for a reportable offence. This would eliminate the requirement for an inspector's assessment and approval. Such approval would then be necessary only in a case where a suspect had not yet been arrested. In Britain, DNA is not only used to convict the guilty but in fact to eliminate suspects and to prove innocence.

This bill also fails to sufficiently broaden police powers to take samples from those convicted of designated offences before the DNA data bank came into force. We can have this discussion, whether DNA should be taken upon the time of charge or upon conviction; however, there is not even an automatic taking of DNA where there has been a conviction, where a person's guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Currently this is permitted only in specific circumstances such as with dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murders.

The case of James Doherty illustrates why these powers need to be broadened. In 1992 Mr. Doherty murdered two women in Courtenay, British Columbia. In 2003 the crown attorney requested that a DNA sample be collected and a judge complied, but Doherty appealed on the grounds that the murders had taken place at the same time. He was saying that because these two murders occurred as part of the same event, the current law would exclude the jurisdiction of a judge to order that.

It would seem that multiple murders must take place in different events. In effect, this is the same old Liberal theory that someone should have at least one free murder or one free sexual assault.

Our party believes that we do not get a free murder or a free sexual assault if there is evidence that could either convict or eliminate an individual as a suspect, then that DNA evidence should be taken.

An additional concern is the ability for a convicted offender to appeal to the court in order to prevent the collection of DNA. Even convicted murderers and repeat sex offenders can now request a hearing after conviction that DNA should not be taken.

The Liberals are trying to jam up the court system so that it discourages crown attorneys from actually proceeding on these kind of hearings. With respect to secondary offences, the onus is on the Crown to prove that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice to have a convicted offender give DNA. This is in the case of convicted offenders. Even when they are convicted of primary offences, murders, serious sexual assaults, there is still an ability to have a judicial hearing after conviction.

We know what is going to happen. This will clog up the justice system. This is a deliberate attempt to ensure that DNA is not used as effectively as it should be. This does not deal with any charter argument. This is simply a feeling by Liberals that convicted criminals still have these rights in order to avoid responsibility for other crimes for which they may be responsible. This is one more impediment to effective law enforcement.

A 1998 study predicted that the data bank would receive samples from an estimated 19,000 individuals a year convicted of primary offences. It also said we will get about 10% of those convicted of secondary offences. Instead it is not even meeting those goals. It is getting half of that number.

In contrast, England's database contains more than two million DNA profiles and each week 1,700 hits link suspects to crime scenes. Why do we not do that? I will tell members why. Our government is simply not interested in effective law enforcement.

The other point that I want to raise is the issue of resources. The Liberals will not resource the RCMP. For example, today the Minister of Justice announced a new drug driving law. In fact, the minister knows that RCMP officers are being taken off the highway. For example, in Manitoba, 35 of the 65 highway patrolmen are being moved out of highway patrol. It does not matter about the laws. There are no resources.

This minister knows that. Not only is the government putting forward bad laws, it is not prepared to put the resources in to support our police whether it is DNA, whether it is impaired driving, whether it is murders or whether it is rapes. It is unfortunate that the government would rather let the victims suffer than ensure that a guilty murderer or multiple sex offender is brought to justice.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct pleasure today of speaking in favour of sending Bill C-13 to committee.

The national DNA data bank is a great Canadian success story and the bill can only increase that success.

The DNA data bank brings together justice, scientific innovation and world class technology. It highlights the unique Canadian knowhow and strong Canadian leadership, reaching well beyond our borders.

The DNA data bank is about the administration of justice and the most powerful investigative tool so far discovered.

Forensic DNA analysis has revolutionized criminal investigation and proceedings. It has helped in the investigation of hundreds of serious crimes in the past few years alone. It has speeded up the investigation of some of the most difficult sexual assaults or offences involving violence that Canadian police forces have had to deal with.

More powerful than fingerprints, DNA is a silent but credible witness, helping to convict the guilty while protecting the innocent. When properly handled and profiled, it offers indisputable evidence linking a suspect with a crime.

The DNA data bank's most recent annual report, which was tabled in the House on October 21, gives us an insight into how this jewel in the Canadian criminal justice crown actually operates. The report also tells us about the history and science behind the DNA data bank. I am not going to go over all of that here today, but let me select some key highlights.

DNA is the fundamental building block for our entire genetic makeup. With the exception of identical twins, triplets and quadruplets, each person's DNA is unique. The national DNA data bank, established as a result of legislation enacted by Parliament almost six years ago, is at the forefront of forensic DNA science.

With royal assent in 1998, the RCMP committed to build a national DNA data bank and to make it operational within 18 months. The project was completed on time and under budget.

The DNA data bank is recognized worldwide for its quality of work and the professionalism of the scientists who work there. The technology that it has developed is now being snapped up by other countries.

Since it opened in June 2000, the DNA data bank has helped solve 165 murders and almost 400 sexual assault cases in communities from coast to coast to coast. It has been crucial in helping police solve over 300 armed robberies and over 1,200 break and enters. The national DNA data bank has provided critical evidence leading to convictions in nearly 2,300 serious crimes.

It is important that our legislation keep up with what we have learned from the DNA data bank's operations to date. As my colleague emphasized, this bill is a carefully crafted set of mid-course adjustments before the full parliamentary review next year. We need to ensure that the DNA data bank works as effectively as possible within the parameters set out for it in law.

In these days of biometrics and genetic cloning, any initiative that touches on personal genetic information naturally raises concerns about privacy. The nationwide consultations that contributed to the creation of the DNA data bank stressed the need to balance a suspect's right to privacy and the need to protect society by facilitating the early detection, arrest and conviction of offenders.

Indeed, Canadian parliamentarians reflected the need for this balance in the careful crafting of the legislative provisions. The legislation imposes strict procedures to govern the handling of DNA profiles and biological samples to ensure that the privacy interests are protected.

The Canadian data bank is unique in keeping strictly separate from DNA profiles any identifying information. The people working with the DNA have no way of knowing whose DNA they are dealing with or any of the background to the case. Information collected by the DNA data bank is used for law enforcement purposes only. This bill continues all of those protections.

Some members of the House will know that a national DNA data bank advisory committee oversees the operation and offers advice to the Commissioner of the RCMP. This is a unique group of experts in law, science, ethics and privacy, including a former Supreme Court of Canada judge and an assistant privacy commissioner.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved:

That Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The division stands deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 6:15 p.m.

(Bill C-13. On the Order: Government Orders:)

October 15, 2004--The Minister of Justice—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the allotted day.

Tomorrow and the first part of next week, the order of legislation will be second reading of Bill C-14, the Tlicho governance agreement, and reference before second reading of Bill C-13, the DNA data bank bill.

We will then proceed to the reference before second reading of Bill C-15, respecting the convention on migratory birds and second reading of Bill C-9, respecting a regional development agency in Quebec.

We would then turn to the reference before second reading of bills to be introduced early next week dealing with the Competition Act, first nations fiscal institutions, Telefilm, certain controlled substances, and an amendment to the Criminal Code with respect to impaired driving.

I will be discussing with the other parties the exact order of these bills. We would hope, by the end of the week, that we would be in a position to deal with report stage and third reading of Bill C-4, respecting aircraft equipment.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

On Tuesday evening there will be a take note debate on the compensation for victims of hepatitis C.

With respect to the specific question asked by the hon. member across the way, certainly it will be very forthcoming in the near future and I am sure we will also have a discussion among House leaders.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the debate on the Conservative opposition day motion.

On Friday we will debate a motion of reference before second reading of Bill C-10, the mental disorder legislation. We will then turn to a motion of reference before second reading of Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act amendments. We will then resume this debate commencing on Tuesday and follow it with second reading of Bill C-7, the parks reorganization, and Bill C-8, the public service human resources agency bill.

We would then turn to second reading of Bill C-14, the Tlicho legislation. This will be followed by reference before second reading of Bill C-13, the DNA bill, followed by Bill C-9, the Quebec regional development bill.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

On Monday, instead of a normal sitting of the House, there will be an address to both Houses by President Fox of Mexico. This will take place at 2:15 p.m.

With respect to my hon. friend's last question, that legislation will be coming forward in due course.

Criminal Code

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)