Debates of May 4th, 1998

Dna Identification Act

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I have heard argument on both sides of the House. It would seem to me that at least at this point the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, after arguing his point, quotes that other Speakers have ruled that it is not incumbent on the government to share whatever information it has.

On the other hand, we have the parliamentary secretary saying that this information was indeed sent out in the usual fashion in order for members of parliament to get it at the same time as anyone else, the public, would be getting it.

We have the bill before us now to be debated. I want to look into this. There are a couple of small matters that I want to satisfy myself on. I will try to get back to the House before the end of the day today. We will begin the debate on this and if there is reason to abrogate a little later I will reserve that right for myself to do it.

[The Speaker]

I am ready to state the groupings with regard to Bill C-3, an act representing DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts.

There are 14 motions in amendment in the notice paper concerning the report stage of Bill C-3.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.

Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1 to 3 and 5.

Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13.

Group No. 3, Motion No. 7.

Group No. 4: Motion No. 8.

Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 9 and 14.

Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 10 and 11. Group No. 7, Motion No. 12.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The the Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to the House.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I apologize for rising but on this point I do want to bring to the House's attention that this grouping I suggest is inappropriate in the sense that Motions Nos. 1 and 2 have absolutely nothing to do and have no bearing on Motions Nos. 3 and 5. I am not suggesting they be voted on differently. My understanding is that all these motions will be voted on individually, but Motions Nos. 1 and 2 should not be in the same grouping as Nos. 3 and 5.

[The Speaker]

In reviewing this particular case in discussions with my clerks beforehand, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have been grouped for debate because they deal with privacy and with personal information. That is why we wanted to put them together. But we will separate them for the votes.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among the parties and I believe you will find consent for the following order:

That during the present debate, all report stage motions on C-3 be deemed moved and seconded and that recorded divisions be deemed requested.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to debate on the motions in Group No. 1.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 23 on page 2 with the following: “use of DNA profiles;

(b) DNA profiles are uniquely private and personal information that may be used only for purposes of identification;

(c) the improper use and disclosure of DNA profiles can lead to significant harm to the individual, including stigmatization and discrimination in areas such as employment, education, health care, reproduction and insurance;

(d) forensic DNA analysis provides information not only about an individual, but also about that individual's parents and children, thus implicating family privacy;

(e) DNA profiles are tied to reproductive decisions which are among the most private and intimate decisions that an individual can make; and

(f) safeguards for access to, collection, storage, and use of bodily substances, DNA profiles and other information contained in the national DNA data bank are needed to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves.”

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-3, in Clause 4, be amended

(a) by replacing line 12 on page 2 with the following: “use of DNA profiles,”

(b) by replacing line 23 on page 2 with the following: “Act; and

(c) because of the personal information that can be gathered through the use of DNA profiles, it is the role of the government through public agencies, to perform the tasks set out in this Act.”

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-3, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 33 on page 2 with the following:

“(2) The Commissioner shall ensure that the National DNA Data Bank Authority maintains a record of every person who accesses the national DNA data bank established under subsection (1) and any DNA profile contained in that bank.”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-3, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 6 the following:

“9.1 (1) The Privacy Commissioner shall every three years after the coming into force of section 5, carry out a complete investigation in respect of the National DNA Data Bank established under that section to ensure compliance with any provision of this Act in respect of that bank.

(2) Section 37 of the Privacy Act applies, where appropriate and with such modification as the circumstances require in respect of an investigation carried out under subsection (1).”

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today in this House to this important bill, which has required a lot of attention and a lot of work. It concerns fundamental issues in a free and democratic society.

Motion No. 1 is very simple. It aims to include criteria, a set of principles in the preamble to the bill. We must not lose sight of the function of DNA. It can be used to identify not only an individual, but his family as well. We can identify parents, find out about them, children and brothers and sisters. It is something very private. There is nothing more personal than a person's DNA.

The purpose of Motion No. 1 is very simple. It provides principles or yardsticks according to which the bill must be applied. Among other things, it states that DNA profiles may be used only for purposes of identification, and not for any other purpose. There are a number of things that can be done with DNA already, and more will be possible as the technology progresses.

We wish to avoid the improper use and disclosure of DNA profiles, for the same reason, to avoid the wrongful use of a very powerful technology.

Before passing this bill, let us set up principles for now and for the future, because it will have repercussions not just for now but also later on. As the technology evolves, the principles will be more and more defined, but the more that can be defined today the better. This is very important. So that was Motion No. 1.

Motion No. 3 is equally important. The bill was discussed in committee for hours. The motion is intended to strike a balance between protecting society, fighting crime, and protecting privacy. Let us keep in mind that these are two fundamental principles in our society, and that a balance must be struck.

Motion No. 3 concerns clause 5. It states as follows:

“(2) The Commissioner shall ensure that the National DNA Data Bank Authority maintains a record of every person who accesses the national DNA data bank established under subsection (1) and any DNA profile contained in that bank”.

This is to prevent people from consulting the bank for a just any reason, and consultations will be recorded. Abuse can be avoided by having knowledge of who consults the bank, for which individual, and how. People will hesitate to consult the bank needlessly, knowing that records are being kept.

I will now read Motion No. 5, because it is just as important:

“9.1(1) The Privacy Commissioner shall every three years after the coming into force of section 5, carry out a complete investigation in respect of the National DNA Data Bank established under that section—”

In Canada, there is a government agency called the office of the privacy commissioner, whose role is to ensure that people's privacy is respected. Therefore, why not give that government agency the power to see if the national DNA data bank is fulfilling its mandate, respecting people's privacy, and not being misused?

Keeping track of any consultation would allow the Privacy Commissioner to look at the file, to see if there were too many consultations or if these consultations were unjustified, for what reasons, and so on. In such cases, the Privacy Commissioner would have the authority to impose sanctions on those who do not respect privacy which, as we know, is an essential value in any democratic and free society.

This is what I had to say on Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in Group No.1.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, we feel that, generally speaking, the motions in Group No. 1 that were moved by the hon. member for Charlesbourg are unnecessary, because they do not add to the detailed context of the bill before us.

In general the motions presented by my hon. colleagues are actually considered unnecessary because the bill itself addresses a lot of the concerns raised.

For example the bill's purpose and principles already emphasize that the national databank is intended to help law enforcement agencies identify persons and that safeguards must be placed on the use and communication of and access to information in the databank. This is already in the bill. It is there to protect the privacy of information.

I would also like to point out to the hon. member that the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will have the jurisdiction for the administration and establishment of the databank. This will ensure that the DNA information does not fall into the wrong hands.

Also, once the bank itself is implemented it will be subject to audit by the privacy commissioner, as we discussed, who may audit it at any time rather than the three year time interval that is proposed by the hon. member.

I would now like to comment on Motion No. 1. I believe it has already been pointed out that the purpose of the national DNA databank is to help agencies, in enforcing the law, to identify, as the member indicated, only persons, and that protective measures must be taken with regard to the use and distribution of DNA data, and access to the databank, in order to protect privacy.

Current provisions in the act already deal with the problems raised by this motion. I therefore invite my colleagues to reject this motion.

I am also opposed to Motion No. 3. Although the government is in agreement with the principle that a record of every person who accesses the bank must be maintained, as the member is suggesting, I think that the point of the legislation is the identification the bank contains. The only access allowed is to an individual's identification.

Given that there are already certain safeguards in place, I can ensure the member that, in our view, the request contained in Motion No. 3 deals primarily with an administrative matter, and that the government will duly address this in the related regulations. We feel it is unnecessary to amend the bill, and this is why we are also rejecting this motion.

The final motion in this group is Motion No. 5. This motion suggests establishing a fixed time frame for examination by the privacy commissioner, but does not broaden the commissioner's authority to conduct investigations. Section 37 of the Privacy Act already authorizes the privacy commissioner to carry out investigations in respect of personal information under the control of government institutions in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of the legislation in question.

Once the national DNA data bank is in place, it will be subject to investigation by the privacy commissioner, who may, as I have pointed out, conduct an investigation at any time, rather than every three years, as called for by the member.

For these reasons, in my opinion, Group No. 1, that is Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, does not really add anything to the bill. The problems raised in these motions are already addressed in the bill as written. I therefore urge members to vote against these motions.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For clarification, Motion No. 2 in Group No. 1 is my amendment. It was not clear to me whether in fact that had been removed from this grouping or whether it was part of this grouping. If it remains a portion of this group, it would seem to me that, like my colleague from Charlesbourg, I ought to have an opportunity to speak to this prior to the debate resuming.

I am looking for some clarification.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must advise the hon. member that Motion No. 2 is in this group. Members at this stage are free to address all motions as a whole or any one of them as they wish. Is that clear?

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, my question to you is that if this is a portion of that grouping, it seems to me, and I am looking for some direction here, that I ought to speak to that motion before the other members of this House can respond.

Am I being invited to address the House on this motion?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Under the circumstances since the hon. member technically has a point, I would ask the hon. member for Crowfoot if he would be kind enough to let him speak first.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, this grouping of amendments are intended to strengthen the safeguards against misuse and abuse of DNA profiles stored in the databank.

My amendment is Motion No. 2, the (a) portion of which appears to already be accepted as it is provided in the act. I will move on to the other section. I would propose that we amend the principles of the act by placing in the following, which would be an addition to section 4:

(c) because of the personal information that can be gathered through the use of DNA profiles, it is the role of the government through public agencies, to perform the tasks set out in this act.

I proposed the amendment because we have seen in the last eight or nine years tremendous privatization by both this government and the government prior to it. Crown corporations or government agencies which were normally perceived to be within the realm of government because they performed important public functions were given to the private sector in a fiscally conservative move.

My concern is that we are setting up an agency under the RCMP that can take these DNA samples and record them. None of us has a crystal ball. None of us can be sure whether in the future either this government or another government might think the cost of maintaining a DNA databank—not the taking of the sample but the keeping of the information—is too expensive. We do not know when another fiscal conservative wave will sweep over the House—

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Soon.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

We will do all we can to build appropriate walls to keep a Conservative government from taking power.

I put forward the amendment because it would be a clear indication that only the Government of Canada through a public agency ought to store the very personal information referred to by my colleague from Charlesbourg. The reason I proposed the motion was to ensure that only the government and not private agencies, which at some point in the future may profit from the sale of such information, keep that information, keep it secure and keep it confidential for the people of Canada.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will comment on the four amendments in Group No. 1. We realize the very important nature of the bill. It has enormous tools that could potentially provide the police with the ability to solve unsolved crimes and to provide greater protection for society.

In terms of Motion No. 1, with the greatest respect, I understand the concern for the respect of privacy as a result of the taking of DNA samples. When the bill was before committee we found from witnesses that the databank contains only the profile of the DNA samples. It will only carry the profile. The profile can only compare one sample with another profile, so the privacy matter has been largely looked after.

In addition, the penalty for the misuse of DNA information is very significant. It carries two years maximum. In some of the amendments we will be discussing today it is recommended that we increase the period of two years to five years. I am convinced the privacy concerns are adequately addressed by the nature of the databank and by the penalty prescribed in the bill. Depending upon the vote of the members the penalty may be increased from two to five years. My colleagues and I have very little concern about that. As well, the privacy commissioner has the authority to review at any time the databank and its use. There are very strict and secure safeguards as far as privacy is concerned.

We can support Motion No. 2 proposed by the NDP. The amendment precludes private agencies and labs from taking samples. It creates public standards and better accuracy of testing quality. It would appease to a certain degree the concerns about privacy.

This is one area where we feel that a government agency, where standards are set by the elected representatives of the people, is in order so that the testing of a sample meets standards which have been approved by the two houses of parliament. We think this is a logical and common sense amendment and can support it.

I will move to the third motion in this grouping. We have some concern about the motion because it would eliminate subsection 2 of clause 5 of the bill. We could support it if it is not to eliminate the particular subsection which reads:

The Commissioner's duties under this Act may be performed on behalf of the Commissioner by any person authorized by the Commissioner to perform those duties.

We feel this subsection must not be struck from the bill. It should remain. Therefore we will have difficulty supporting this motion.

As to Motion No. 5, we see no reason that there should be included within the statute the demand for a three year review. I appreciate the member's concern with regard to privacy, but I believe my earlier comments and rationale cover the area of privacy.

All that goes into the databank is the profile. Anyone obtaining a profile improperly from the databank gets nothing unless it can be compared with something. I understand that not even a name will be attached to a profile. I am satisfied the privacy requirements and concerns will be adequately addressed in that area.

I also feel the privacy commissioner has the right to audit the databank at any time. He does not have to wait a three year period. Someone with a substantial basis requesting the privacy commissioner to act can mobilize the commissioner to do so. With respect to Motion No. 5 we think the privacy safeguards are in place and within the bill.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, as previous members have expressed, I am very pleased to take part in the debate.

The members previous have also indicated this is a very crucial and important piece of legislation that will certainly aid police officers and Canadians generally in their never ending fight against crime.

I want to address the motions in the order in which they appear. With respect to the first motion, which is moved by the member for Charlesbourg, although I certainly agree with the purpose for which he has brought the motion forward, I would suggest it is a motion or an amendment that is already addressed in the current form of the bill. Clause 4 of the bill is clear. Any further tinkering with this clause would only lead to potential misunderstanding, which of course could then lead to unnecessary litigation.

I find myself in the untenable position of having to agree with the government that the legitimate concerns are in fact met. Although there is always concern for misuse of this important technology, I believe the principles set out in the preamble will address that point. I certainly would not call it a pointless or irrelevant motion but simply duplicitous.

It is a very complicated bill. There can be no debate on that issue. We as members of the House, and particularly those participating in this debate, have an obligation to try to simplify where possible the legislation, not to complicate it.

Motion No. 2 was proposed by the member for Sydney—Victoria. For the reasons I previously stated I feel it may be a motion that is addressed in a more direct form in the current drafting of the bill.

It is not the principle that we disagree with but rather that the bill might become unduly complicated by making this amendment. Certainly there is evidence that this type of DNA data can and perhaps will in the future be used for other purposes.

With respect to how it will be used as it stems from this piece of legislation, safeguards are in place and sections of the bill will be addressed in other amendments which we will be debating on the floor today. It is perhaps duplicitous. Safeguards currently exist in the act. Any improper or illegal use of the DNA evidence would be addressed by existing sections of the act.

The third motion is proposed by the member for Charlesbourg with respect to the use of DNA, or how the commissioner would ensure that DNA was not being abused, is a motion that I embrace, a motion that I think is a good one.

It is aimed particularly at protecting the privacy interests of individuals. It ensures accountability and is aimed at correcting or addressing any misuse of information. It is a good motion. It is one that I hope all members of the House will consider and take seriously.

It would allow for a more complete and perhaps a more thorough investigation of the DNA databank. It is an important safeguard. As I have indicated earlier, it is a motion we should support. It would also ensure that improper use does not occur.

The fifth motion in this grouping proposed by my hon. friend in the Bloc is a motion that I believe in principle we should support. However, as has been indicated by the parliamentary secretary and the member from the Reform Party, there are provisions in existing legislation that would allow for an audit outside a defined three year period.

In essence this concern has been met. I am pleased to hear that the parliamentary secretary is supportive of that position. Therefore the legitimate concern raised by the hon. member is addressed. It is certainly there for a very crucial intent, that is to balance the protection of the public and the crucial need of law enforcement officers to use this trace evidence and DNA sample evidence for their legitimate fight against organized crime and crime generally, coupled with the need for the privacy concern interest.

We have an obligation to ensure that is what happens by the enactment of the legislation. There is a great deal of responsibility weighing upon us in that regard.

I conclude by saying that of the motions before the House in this juncture of debate, we support the last two but have some difficulty with respect to the prior two motions which appear in this grouping.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-3 at report stage as we discuss the amendments. Bill C-3 is an act respecting DNA identification.

As some of my colleagues have already mentioned, the Reform Party is fully supportive of the creation of a DNA databank and the use of that information in detecting and prosecuting those who committed crimes. However the bill has a scope that is so limited we would be unable to support it as it is. Therefore the amendments here are of some importance.

As almost anyone who is aware of this issue and the debate taking place on it will know, the official opposition is firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with a true sense of security. This is something Canadians lack. Canadians do not feel secure. They do not feel secure from those who would attack them, rob them and harm them. Nor do they feel secure in the apprehension of those who do this. They do not feel secure with regard to the prosecution and punishment of criminals.

My constituents in Cariboo—Chilcotin are greatly alarmed when they see instances of heinous and bloody crimes being committed and the evidence being thrown out on a technicality, a technicality that rests mostly on the latest thought a judge may have.

As we talk about DNA, my constituents see this as a very important tool in the detection of crime and in its prosecution.

Bill C-3, as it now stands, will provide Canadians with some sense of security but in my opinion a false sense of security. Neither my colleagues nor I can support this legislation as it now stands.

Our constituents need to be assured that those who protect us are given real tools, not imaginary tools, tools that are available to them to fight against violent offenders in society. Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces, the officials who maintain the law, the full use of DNA technology which has now become fairly readily available even though it is an expensive tool.

One wonders, when we consider the expense of using faulty or less effective means of apprehending and prosecuting criminals, whether this is a false sense of economy when we talk about the costs of using this DNA technology.

There is another point that also needs to be considered and that is the use of this technology not only for prosecution but for the defence and the freeing of those who are innocent. We have recent examples of this in Canada. There are very sad stories of people who have been in the wrong place or the right place at the wrong time and have been apprehended, charged, tried and convicted. Yet when all the evidence is on the table, these people turn out to be totally innocent. They and their families end up going through not weeks and months but years and years of a sense of betrayal by a justice system that is more interested in convicting someone in these instances than in convicting the correct person.

We are not only interested in correctly solving violent crimes but also in seeing that justice is appropriately applied to the right person.

There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides where DNA evidence has been left at the scene by the perpetrator of the crime. DNA identification now offers an unparalleled opportunity to solve many of these cases and bring these perpetrators to justice.

However, because of the government's irrational fear of violating the privacy rights of those responsible for these heinous crimes, it is intending to restrict the use of a very important technology by law enforcement officials.

Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of a DNA sample at the time of charge. It does not permit samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals other than those designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers. Bill C-3 does, however, provide a dangerous and unnecessary exemption authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a sample if they believe that in doing so the impact on the individual's privacy and security—

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but we did group these amendments by groupings. I understand the hon. member does have concerns over some of the amendments. I would ask him to address the grouping we are now studying, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. I believe right now he is speaking on Motion No. 10. Perhaps if he could group his thoughts around our groupings we might be able to get the debate under way a lot faster.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I believe the parliamentary secretary does have a point. We are discussing Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 at this point.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for that point. However, I intend to use the latitude I need to discuss these issues.

Bill C-3 does provide a dangerous and unnecessary exemption authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a sample if they believe that in doing so the impact on the individual's privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in the protection of society.

As it stands, Bill C-3 now is a hindrance to more effective law enforcement and a safer society. Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to express a willingness to place the lives and the safety of innocent people in jeopardy.

Whether by paroling violent offenders who go on to rape and murder again or by freeing convicted violent offenders through conditional sentencing or by tying our police officers hands through Bill C-3, the safety of society it would seem is a secondary issue for the Liberal government.

I know the government is a little apprehensive about the invasion of privacy and to a certain degree I am as well. Privacy is an issue I have studied. It is an issue that concerns me greatly. However, it seems there is a point when we must also take into consideration first of all the protection of society.

I feel this tool if it is to be used effectively can do this. We want to do more good than harm in getting violent offenders off the street. There has to be a balance between respecting the rights of innocent individuals and the protection of society from violent and repeat offenders.

We have to be certain that the rights of innocent individuals are not trampled on. Innocents have a right too. This must be clearly taken into consideration.

And so we see there is a fine line between infringing on the rights of the individual and one who has committed a crime, especially serious violent crimes. When someone commits a crime they have violated the societal laws and therefore should not be subject to the same rights and privileges as others in society. By their actions they have in a sense lost the right to those privileges.

I feel the government has forgotten this and that those criminals should not still enjoy the same rights and privileges as those of us who have not committed crimes, in some cases jeopardizing the safety of the rest of society as a result.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, what is privacy all about? This brings me back to a case we heard so much about in the last number of years of David Milgaard who was imprisoned for 20 some years.

David's family lived in the Snowflake area where I farmed for a number of years. People in the community always felt very strongly that David Milgaard was innocent. They knew the family and they knew what type of upbringing he had. There was always the suspicion that he had been at the wrong place at the wrong time and was blamed for an act he was not responsible for.

Had we a DNA databank and some of the information available to the police forces to double check on the evidence they had, probably David Milgaard would have been exonerated from that crime and would have been free those 22 or 23 years he was in prison.

I think society has the right to have protection and that is what government is there for, to give the type of protection from unjust prosecution.

When somebody is caught up in a crime and has violated civil or criminal law there should be a sample of DNA so that in future cases the person can either be charged or exonerated. Having the databank is not just a matter of proving people are criminal or that they were involved in the act. The databank is there to prevent people from being charged wrongly.

In comments in the previous debate the government feels this would cost too much money. It would create a bank that was too costly to manage. The gun legislation, Bill C-68, was passed in order to register guns of law-abiding citizens just to keep track of them in case some of the criminal element might pick up some of these guns and they can be traced. We have seen a number of speculative suggestions or estimates that it would cost about half a billion dollars to register all the guns of law-abiding citizens.

When we look at the databank which would serve a much bigger bank of information on catching people who have committed crime or preventing people from being prosecuted who were not involved, money seems to be an issue. It was not an issue when it came to gun registration. That does not make sense.

When looking at the hepatitis C issue it is money that seems to be what the government is hesitating to talk about. It does not want to admit that maybe it was wrong. It does not want to admit that there could have been something done to prevent the problem of poison blood. That is the same with the databank. The government is very hesitant to make the bank resourceful and to give the bank the authority to take the samples of DNA from people who are suspect of committing crimes.

If I were accused falsely of a crime I would demand that a DNA sample be taken so I could not be charged for something I was not involved in. I cannot understand why that is a matter of private information that I would not want to have in a databank controlled by the government.

Some of the amendments made by other parties concern putting safeguards into the bill in order that the DNA data information collected is not misused. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Had we a databank giving the RCMP and the investigators the information they needed in the David Milgaard or Guy Paul Morin case it would have meant a lot less stress and hardship for those families.

Will it create any stress for people who are forced to give a sample of DNA where it is protected by government and cannot become public information? There is no problem. It is the same as the tax man. When he wants to come and open up my books they are there for him to look at. If I do not give him that information he can force me to give it to him. Is it not easier to provide the information rather than forcing somebody to give that information?

It seems only logical that we should support the amendments. The bill is going in the right direction. We should support some of these amendments to guarantee safety. We should also put in amendments which will guarantee that the legislation contains all the bullets the RCMP and investigators need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is or is not guilty of a crime. It makes sense that we should give this type of protection to our ordinary citizens, whether they are law abiding or living on the edge of the law.

[An hon. member]

Did Jack not object to that?