Mr. Speaker, I believe that if there is one comment from the last speaker that disturbs me a great deal it is that concerning our duty to Canadians.
Our real duty to Canadians regarding legislation in a judicial system is to provide legislation that will give them the utmost of safety and the utmost of protection for them to live a life in Canada without having to look over their shoulders, for them to be able to look forward to the future. I believe that this bill will be a major step in that direction, provided that Motions No. 10 and 11 pass.
Motion 10 will allow for the taking of samples at the time of charge from offenders with one previous conviction and retained for analysis on conviction. Our original amendment introduced during clause by clause review was to allow for the taking of samples from all persons charged. Since this amendment was defeated we have put forward an amended version which addresses the concerns raised by the government members of the committee.
Government members cited finance and privacy concerns as the primary reasons why they would not expand the DNA bank and allow for samples to be taken and analysed at the time of charge rather than conviction. Reform's amendment specifically addresses the issue of cost, proposing that samples be taken on charge but not analysed until conviction, therefore reducing the cost associated with the testing of samples.
As well it addresses privacy concerns and concerns regarding individuals incriminating themselves. It also satisfies the Canadian Police Association's concerns regarding offenders released on bail pending trial, i.e. skipping out. A previous speaker said that through a councillor going to a judge and pointing this out to him, bail could be denied but that is no assurance. I have seen in the last five years some very unusual cases of individuals being bailed when there was really no reason that the courts should take the chance doing so.
The police believe that if an offender is guilty of a previous offence for which they have not been charged they may not appear for their trial if they realize that on conviction their DNA sample may be compared to DNA evidence left at the scene of an unsolved crime. This amendment was recommended and thus fully supported by the Canadian Police Association.
The amendment specifies that the offender must have been convicted of one previous offence. Again this is to satisfy concerns regarding privacy and self-incriminating evidence. Government members of the committee said they would be more apt to support the taking of DNA from possible repeat offenders.
This motion goes a long way in correcting the massive flaw in Bill C-3 which is that it does not allow DNA to be taken on arrest except with a warrant. I still cannot understand why these samples cannot be taken just as fingerprints are now or as blood and urine samples are taken in suspected cases of impaired driving. I think public safety concerns are a lot more important than pure civil libertarian concerns.
I had the pleasure of playing an instrumental role back in 1995 when the first phase of the government DNA testing plan was passed. Bill C-104 allowed police to take samples without consent from individuals suspected of criminal offences, generally those involving serious violence.
The sample taken from the suspect would be matched with samples from the crime scene to determine whether the suspect had committed the specific offence being investigated. The legislation did not deal with the storage of the information or samples derived from testing. It provided a reasonable scheme to ensure that DNA samples were not taken from suspects unnecessarily.
I know the results that first phase of legislation had for Tara Manning's family. I will never forget June 20, 1995 when the justice minister said that he was prepared to introduce legislation by the end of the week for the purpose of adding DNA testing to the Criminal Code. This was a great day for victims because it provided a mechanism to answer many questions and for the police in solving crime.
Yet here we are working on phase two of the legislation and we hear arguments that a DNA sample is unduly intrusive compared to fingerprinting. I have to agree with the words of Tim Danson from the Globe and Mail :
The high court has ruled that taking DNA samples as already allowed by law is not unduly intrusive. The method of sampling consists of cutting a piece of a person's hair, rubbing a Q-tip swab inside the mouth, or taking blood by a simple pin device similar to that used by diabetics.
Further, the court has made it clear that privacy is far more affected when an individual is arrested, taken to court and forced to face the public and personal shame and humiliation that inevitably follow. Privacy interests protected by the charter of rights and freedoms relate to a reasonable expectation of privacy and not privacy at large. People who engage in criminal activity should expect some loss of privacy. Their victims certainly have. Perhaps the armchair constitutional academics should join us in the real world.
I certainly agree with that individual's statement.
With regard to Motion No. 11, which I support, it amends clause 117 regarding who samples may be taken from. It allows for the taking of DNA samples from incarcerated offenders who are serving sentences of two or more years.
During clause by clause review we proposed that samples be taken from all incarcerated offenders who had been convicted of one or more primary designated offences, serious or violent offenders. Our amendment was defeated.
Currently the bill allows the taking of DNA samples only from multiple murderers, sex offenders and designated dangerous offenders.
Given that a very small percentage of offenders commit the majority of crimes and there remains a number of unsolved crimes in this country, there is a great probability that a number of persons currently incarcerated for one offence may be responsible for many more offences. Without this amendment, the police will have many cases which remain unsolved.
I fully support this motion. However, it makes no sense to me why we have a databank that does not include samples from all convicted violent offenders. The bill as drafted now allows for samples only from multiple murderers, sex offenders and dangerous offenders. Two people who are exempt from this classification would be Clifford Olsen and Allan Legere.
I think all killers should be obliged to provide the DNA databank with samples even though they were convicted years before the bank was ever imagined. This is why this motion is so necessary and I hope government members will agree.
It is not as if we are suggesting they adopt a proposal like that from New Brunswick which has been the first to publicly press for the use of DNA samples in cases of property damage over $5,000. That day may come, but as of now I think the least we can do is test those who are serving sentences for two or more years.
Another reason for the necessity to test everyone serving two years or more is that a disproportionately small number of offenders are responsible for a disproportionately large number of crimes.
Stats Canada reports that of the approximately 23,000 offenders, 20% had served a previous federal sentence, 11% had served two previous federal sentences, 18% had served more than two federal sentences and 80% had previously been incarcerated.
The truth in these statistics is that the recidivism rate of a small number of offenders means that by taking steps to deal with this group alone would be effective in protection of the public. A recent CSC report confirms that those offenders detained for their entire sentence are less likely to recommit crimes than those released early.
By taking samples of those serving two or more years, it would not only solve many unanswered crimes, it would also send a signal that if you commit more crimes, you will get caught and you will be punished.
That is a deterrent we need to get out to the probable or possible offenders of the future. Do not do it. We will open up wide the use of DNA sampling and you will get caught and you will pay the price.
How can we refuse to accept that kind of legislation which would mean so much better safety for all Canadians throughout the land? Please support this amendment. Without it, the bill is not very good.