Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting debate on DNA. A lot of issues around DNA have caused us some concern with respect to privacy rights and issues that relate to catching very serious offenders and not allowing a repeat of the offence.
Many members who participated in this debate have serious concerns. I share those concerns, but I believe the departments of justice and the solicitor general have done a very good job in listening to members, in particular members of the Reform Party, some of whom gave very well formulated and sound opinions and some of whom were off the wall.
That being said, I know there is a serious intent to ensure greater safety and security for citizens of the country by enabling us to target people who have the potential for repeated offences of the worst kinds.
The member for Wild Rose often brings into the House examples of serious offences which need to be addressed. It is very important to ensure in some way that multiple offenders never get out there again to continue those kinds of offences.
There are people who have demonstrated patterns of recidivism which are of serious concern to all of us. The legislation and the changes that have been made to it answer the concerns placed before us in a most efficient and effective way.
We had a conversation around the amendments found in Motion No. 11. I am sure members of the Reform Party recall the discussion around designated offences. The issue of a designated offence is a very broad term. Any designated offence is an even broader term.
I recall for those people who feel we are avoiding the issues in any way, shape or form by buying into the amendment that has been suggested that if we were to suggest an acceptance of Motion No. 11 we would be bringing into the prison system and into the taking of personal DNA, which is the most precious definition of who we are as a people, something that once out there in the public can never be recovered. It is vital information. If one has committed a B and E, has stolen a car or has broken into a shop, should we in those circumstances consider taking DNA? I am not in agreement. We were not in agreement in committee.
I see the member who did a very good job in defending his position in committee. He is talking with the Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General. I am sure they would both agree that this is not such a great idea. All three of us would agree that the best move is the move that will support the bill before us. It is a good bill. It contains the kinds of protection for society we need. Therefore I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of consideration of Bill C-3.