It is easier to get a conviction on this basis than with any other type of proof. Fingerprints may place somebody at the scene of the crime, but this may not be sufficient proof in itself. If there are fingerprints on a glass, there must be fingerprints elsewhere in the room. On the other hand, if there are no fingerprints, a hair sample might be found. This would allow police just as easily to continue with the investigation.
This seems to be again problematical. The situation is not clear. The situation is not clear enough to allow us to fully approve obtaining DNA samples from people.
I concur with the Privacy Commission's position in favour of the status quo, because there is yet another issue which bothers me. We don't know to whom we could confer this mandate to be the guardian of this DNA bank. Allow me to draw a comparison between the Privacy Commission and the CRTC. We can ask to have our name on a no-call list. Yet, these lists have been sold. The responsibility of managing this list has been given to government employees but they did not manage to be good guardians of that list. In whom could we place our trust? To whom could we confer this responsibility and not fear that they might be bought off to sell DNA data?
I would like to have the thoughts of Ms. Bernier as well as Ms. Campbell on that subject.