Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting both of the motions known as Group No. 6.
In Motion No. 10 the member for Crowfoot appears to be taking the biblical role of Solomon. We have heard much comment on the need of our police to take DNA samples at the time of arrest. We have heard much comment concerning the invasion of privacy and the constitutional rights of the accused. This amendment proposes to take DNA samples at the time of charge but they will not be analysed until the time of conviction.
This would satisfy our police who have been concerned about offenders skipping out through the loopholes presented by Bill C-3 without such an amendment.
During the committee review the government cited finances as a primary reason for not taking and analysing samples at the time of charge. I will not comment on the government's concern over finances as compared to the safety of its citizens because I do not need to do so under these circumstances.
This motion gets around the financial question in that the expense only occurs once a conviction is registered.
There has also been much discussion over the constitutionality of taking DNA samples from those charged. This amendment limits the application to only those charged with a designated offence and those who have previously been convicted of a designated offence.
Parliament will be indicating to our courts that we see a public policy requirement to treat these types of individuals in a much stricter fashion.
Motion No. 11 permits the taking of DNA samples from incarcerated offenders who have been convicted of a designated offence and are serving sentences of two years or more for another designated offence. This amendment broadens the scope of Bill C-3 in that it is not just limited to the offence of murder. The amendment will do much for victims. It will solve and put closure to many unsolved cases.
Why should only incarcerated murderers and sexual offenders be subject to DNA sampling? For example, if someone has been convicted of manslaughter and is serving a sentence of two or more years for another conviction of manslaughter, should we not be taking DNA to determine what other serious crimes they may have committed?
Should the victims of these other crimes not be informed that the offender has been discovered through the comparison of DNA from the sample taken with the DNA profile in the crime scene index? In that way the victim can put some sort of closure on the matter and have some peace of mind that the offender is securely incarcerated and not apt to attack again in the near future.
That concludes my comments. I urge my colleagues in this place to support this important amendment.