Debates of May 4th, 1998

Dna Identification Act

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am intrigued with the subject of identification of people. Fortunately I do not have an identical twin; the world could not take two of us. There is little doubt that I am a unique individual. The DNA that would identify me is like an individual serial number that is cranked out at the time of manufacture. This identifies me as a unique person.

When my wife and I were first married we moved to a little town in Alberta. Some of my acquaintances, having come from a large city, said “How can you stand living in that town? Everyone knows what you are doing”. I said “But I am not ashamed of anything I am doing so let them know who I am”. The reason I say that is that I think it underlies the principle we are debating in this DNA bill.

Those people who have not done anything wrong want the identification process to work correctly so they are not incorrectly accused of and convicted of a crime. On the other hand, those who have done something wrong are the ones who in our little town would hide behind the shades at night and leave town so no one would know what they were doing because they were not doing things they were proud of or they could defend in the community.

Consequently when we come to identification there really is a dual question. It is that ancient question of a justice system. There are two objectives in the justice system with respect to identification of criminals. As my colleague has just stated, the overriding principle of our system ought to be the protection of law abiding citizens. Consequently what we want to do is to correctly identify those in society who are not playing by the rules. They are the ones engaging in criminal activity which endangers the life, property and safety of ourselves and our families.

What we want to do in this dual objective of identification is to correctly identify the person who has actually done the crime. The second part of that which is really the mirror image of it, is to make sure that we do not falsely identify a person. In other words, we want to identify the person who is guilty and name the person as guilty rather than innocent. On the other hand, we want to be able to demonstrate that the person who is innocent is falsely accused.

I taught mathematics and statistics for a number of years and we had in sampling for example the type A and type B errors. One error was where if one had a sample in a manufacturing process and wanted to know whether or not a batch should be approved, one error was that you let the thing slide through when in fact it should be rejected. The other error was that you rejected it when in fact it was a sample that was within the specifications.

DNA is new technology which enables us to do this. It enables us to identify individuals in a unique way. With respect to criminal activity, it is unique because individuals who commit certain crimes leave behind telltale traces of identification. It is as if I had my social insurance number on little pieces of paper and whenever I walked, every three feet one of those little pieces of paper would drop and they could be traced to see exactly where I went. Criminals leave particles of skin, hair and other parts of their bodies in various ways. Sometimes they are injured and they leave some blood. There are many different ways in which to get a unique sample that carries the serial number of the individual.

What we are talking about here is using that technology in the most efficient way so that our law enforcement people can identify correctly the people who are actually guilty and exonerate those who are not guilty.

With respect to the motions that are before us today, I would like to speak just in generalities. We need to make sure that the police have the mechanisms to ensure that the DNA samples which are collected and kept are done so in such a way that the identification process can be implemented in the most efficient way.

Consequently there is a great need to make sure that the police are able to collect samples and maintain them in a secure fashion. Certainly we also have to guard against the incorrect use of DNA as an identifier because obviously those who become aware that this is the identification that is used will soon invent ways of transplanting DNA evidence in order to implicate people who are innocent. All of those processes have to be very carefully safeguarded.

It seems that what we are talking about here is protecting the innocent and making sure that the guilty ones are the ones who are hauled on the carpet.

As I was saying in my analogy with respect to being ashamed of what one is doing, I really think that we err when we make rules favouring even the accused. I have often said that if I am accused of a crime I want the truth out if I am innocent, I really do. If there is a databank somewhere which contains the DNA identification codes of a whole bunch of different individuals and I am innocent of that for which I have been accused, I would appreciate there being a databank available so that the true culprit could be found, arrested and found to be guilty.

Frankly, I think that only those who are afraid of being caught would like to see the samples destroyed in a timely fashion. They would want to make sure that the track of identification is wiped out as quickly as possible in order to reduce the probability that they would be identified, accused and convicted of the crime.

When it comes right down to it, on behalf of law-abiding citizens of the country we want to strengthen this bill. We want to make it so strong that it actually works and works efficiently and favourably to its purpose. Those who say that we cannot do this and that they do not want to do it, to a degree I do not really care what they say. They may have their objections but what takes precedence here?

We talk so much about the rights of privacy, the rights of this and the rights of that. I sincerely ask at what stage do we say that the rights of law-abiding citizens and the rights and the protection of those citizens takes precedence over somebody having a DNA sample that maybe they should not have? That becomes secondary.

Of course I would be very concerned if somebody had my fingerprint, my DNA signature and was able to use it incorrectly against me. I want safeguards on that, there is no doubt about it. At the same time, let us not hamper our police forces and our law enforcement agencies in their ability to do their work.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to agreement made earlier today, all motions in Group No. 1 are deemed put, recorded divisions deemed requested and deemed deferred.

The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group No. 2.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-3, in Clause 9, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 5 with the following:

“the convicted offenders index shall be destroyed without delay after”

(b) by adding after line 34 on page 6 the following:

“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) also apply to information communicated under this Act that is in the possession of any Canadian laboratory or federal or provincial law enforcement agency.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-3, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 8 the following:

“(7.1) The Commission shall destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay after a forensic D.N.A. analysis of these substances is first performed under this section.”

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-3, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 24 the following:

“(2) Paragraph 487.09(1)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) the person is finally acquitted of the designated offence and any other offence in respect of the same transaction; or”

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to again have the opportunity to speak and to try to refocus the debate on the bill before us today, which is Bill C-3 and the related amendments. It is a change from talking in vague generalities.

The first amendment proposed is Motion No. 4, which talks about the destruction of information in the convicted offenders index. As it now stands, subsection 9.(1) of the bill reads as follows:

1. (1) Subject to subsection (2) and the Criminal Records Act, information in the convicted offenders index shall be kept indefinitely.

(2) Access to the following information in the convicted offenders index shall be permanently removed without delay—

It talks about permanent removal, even in cases where a conviction has been quashed, or absolute discharge given, or in the case of young offenders, but this is getting a bit more technical.

When we raised this in committee and asked why the file was not simply destroyed, instead of being permanently removed, we were told that this is complicated with computers, that they did not really know, that these were files, that it was technical, and so on. I was astonished, as were other witnesses. If we have the technological know-how and scientific knowledge to analyse DNA, which is such a tiny thing, and are able to penetrate to the very centre of human cells to identify people, I cannot believe that we are unable to destroy computer files.

It is with precisely this in mind that the Bloc Quebecois has introduced Motion No. 4. Instead of permanently removing the file and allowing it to float around somewhere in a computer bank, and not really knowing where it might end up later, let us destroy it and put an end to the problem. Let us remove the temptation to put this computerized information to an improper use later on. That was the purpose of Motion No. 4.

We did not come up with this on our own. A number of witnesses who appeared before the committee said “Hold on, now, DNA technology is so powerful and potentially so powerful that something must be done to limit temptation as much as possible”. That is Motion No. 4.

Motion No. 6 is along the same lines:

“7.(1) The Commission shall destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay after a forensic DNA analysis of these substances is first performed under this section”.

If genetic testing is done, whether on saliva, blood or hair, the desired information has to have been obtained. Why then keep the hair, saliva or blood? We already have the picture and the information required.

Once again, the purpose of this is to take away possible temptation—because that is always present—so that our bodily substances cannot be misused. Let us not forget that, when a sample is taken for analytical purposes, it is possible to have a number of pieces of information not only about the person from whom the sample came, but also about that person's family, his or her parents, children, brothers and sisters. The closer the other individual is biologically to the source of the sample, the more information can be gathered about him or her.

Motion No. 6 is, therefore, in the same vein as Motion No. 4. Let us take away the temptation, so as to avoid its use for other dubious purposes.

We now move on to the motions in Group No. 2. Motion No. 13 concerns clause 22 on page 24. This clause talks about section 487.09 of the Criminal Code and reads as follows:

Subject to subsection (2), bodily substances that are taken from a person in execution of a warrant under section 487.05 and the results of forensic DNA analysis shall be destroyed, or in the case of results in electronic form, access to those results shall be permanently removed—

I come back to what I said with respect to Motion No. 4. If we have the technology to analyse DNA and see right inside a person, why make a point of not destroying the computer file? It can be done, instead of just eliminating the link between a given individual and his data, which would float around somewhere in the bank. Let us destroy the information in the databank. Let us remove the temptation.

Let us ensure that the right to privacy is sacred and that it will be respected not just today, but in future as well. It must not be forgotten that the bill before us today will be good for five, 10, 15 or 20 years, and is only a precedent that will undoubtedly change as technology advances, and goodness knows it is advancing quickly.

Let us therefore remove the temptation and ensure that the privacy of all Canadians will be respected.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Hepatitis C.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise for a number of reasons.

First I rise in support of the Group No. 2 motions to amend Bill C-3, an act to establish a DNA databank. In speaking to those motions some things have to be clarified for those who will be listening to and reading this debate. I refer to some of the comments made earlier in the House.

There is a question everyone is interested in when we deal with this subject. It was raised at the committee on numerous occasions. My hon. colleague from Crowfoot and I had discussions about this matter. The question is what is the difference between the DNA samples and fingerprinting? We have heard various scenarios around that. It was the subject of reasoned debate and questions to many of the witnesses who came before the justice committee during the many weeks we took to examine this piece of legislation.

I have heard comments in the House today that there is no real difference, that this is the new fingerprinting technology as we move into the next millennium. But there is a clear difference and it has to be enunciated and understood. Although I have still not received the written decisions of the supreme court justices that were referred to earlier on a point of order, it is my understanding that they concur with my interpretation of the difference between fingerprinting and DNA analysis.

To put this into the simplest terms, I questioned different members of the justice department. Let me explain it this way. The taking of a DNA sample is a taking of the self. It is a taking of a piece of the person, whereas a fingerprint is an image of the person.

Perhaps even a simpler way to put it would be to say that if one thinks a crime was committed at 1313 Mockingbird Lane, one might take a photograph of that home. That is like a fingerprint. But to give the authorities the right to walk into the home and take the furniture is a completely different thing.

It is a misnomer to say, as we move with this new technology into the next millennium, that it is the same as fingerprinting. It is not. It is an intrusion into the very sense of the person, into the very being of an individual. When my colleague, the hon. member for Charlesbourg, talks about the necessity of making sure that we have safeguards, it is to protect the individual self from any intrusion by the state, by the government into a person's most fundamental being.

I think that point needed to be clarified. It is an interesting debate. It is an interesting question. As we enact this legislation and as it takes shape over the next three or four years before it comes back to this House for review, it will be interesting to see exactly how both the authorities and the courts deal with that question.

If I can move to the issue before the House, that is, the questions put by my hon. friend from the Bloc, I support them in part. I submitted myself a very similar amendment which I believe the government looked at carefully.

It was my contention that the DNA ought to be destroyed absolutely. My colleague has indicated in his amendment that the index should be destroyed without delay.

The interesting thing is that there was considerable concern among the committee members when we were told that the DNA index of an innocent person could not be destroyed absolutely. That was the question put to them. “Why do we not say that the index will be destroyed if the person is innocent?” There was a pause and then we were told “On the computer screen we cannot destroy, absolutely, that index. Fragments of it will remain, but they can't be used for anything. It is impossible for anybody to detect what it means”.

We have heard over and over again in this debate that technology is moving at a rapid pace, that we can barely keep up with the advances in science. Who is to say that if an innocent person's DNA is taken and analysed and put into the databank and traces of it remain that the technology in 10 years will not be there to take those traces and piece them together to determine what the genetic code of an individual is, whether they have a predisposition to certain illnesses, whether they ought to be insured and whether they ought to be hired for particular jobs?

I think the motion put forward by the member for Charlesbourg has some real merit. For that reason I would support Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13, all of which provide safeguards for the destruction of the DNA profiles and bodily samples.

Why should we keep those samples? My colleague asks a good question. We live in an age of media celebrity. One can only imagine how much some hair samples from the scene of the accident where the Princess of Wales was killed might fetch on the open market if they were stored in some databank in some DNA laboratory for the next 20 years. Why not destroy them? Why not ensure that privacy is protected and that people are safeguarded?

There have been some comments that the bill does not go far enough in terms of giving the police what they want. That goes to the merit and the substance of the bill and I will speak to that later on.

Today I should point out that we are only at this point debating the amendments to the bill, so I do not want to use up any more time than I have to. With regard to the amendments in Group No. 2, I can indicate my support.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the motions in Group No. 2. There are three of them and they were all put forward by the Bloc member. I appreciate his participation on the committee, as well as our hon. colleague from the NDP. They were very concerned about this particular area of the bill, that is, the privacy and the potential improper use of DNA samplings.

The question is whether these amendments are needed in order to maintain the safeguard over not only the DNA samples, but the analysis, the profile.

Motion No. 6 has to do with clause 10, paragraph (7). The beginning of it reads: “The Commissioner shall nevertheless destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay”, and then the bill gives the conditions: (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). The hon. member's motion would come in after (e) and read this way: “The Commission shall destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay after a forensic DNA analysis of these substances is first performed under this section”. It says exactly that at the beginning: “The Commissioner shall nevertheless destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay”. Why do we need the second notation to say the very same thing?

Unless I have read this wrong, or unless there is a problem in interpretation, I do not see the purpose of this particular amendment. Maybe my hon. colleagues who support the motion and who moved it can explain the rationale for this, but that provision is already there under 10(7). I do not understand the amendment and I am puzzled over it. It is the same thing with the other two amendments. I think the provisions are already there to deal with the privacy aspect.

My hon. colleague from the NDP who just spoke is concerned about privacy. It is a legitimate concern, but when we examined it in committee the expert witnesses provided very conclusive evidence that the profile of a DNA sample is useless for any other purpose. The sample itself can be used for other purposes, but the profile cannot be. It is the profile that goes into the index. If it is difficult or impossible to remove the profile from the index, what is the concern? What harm can it do? They cannot go further with the profile or do anything more than simply compare it with another profile. If there is an identification of that profile then, of course, they can identify where that sample came from.

I struggle to understand why we are so concerned about a matter when the evidence before the committee indicated a lack of concern.

There is the idea that the taking of a DNA sample is intrusive. However, we now hear that DNA can be picked up off a glass that someone drank from. It can be picked up from a Kleenex used for blowing one's nose. It can be picked up from a swab or a band-aid that might have been put on a finger. I have a band-aid on my finger because I cut myself. If I discarded this, there is my DNA sample.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of samples taken every year. For every child who is born a blood sample is taken. There are blood banks. Every time we go to the doctor to have a medical and a blood sample is taken it is stored. We have not seen any evidence of the abuse of the blood in blood banks now in existence and growing at a fantastic rate, probably faster than the DNA bank will ever grow because for every child who is born a sample is taken and every time we go to the doctor and give a blood sample it goes into a bank somewhere.

If this were a legitimate concern, that someone might have a vested interest in getting hold of these samples to do some kind of insurance check or whatever, I am sure there would be evidence of that now, and there is none.

When we talk about the threat to our privacy with regard to this bill and the powers it will give I think we should balance it with reality. The reality is that there is a huge databank now in the blood banks. We do not see abuse emerging from them that my hon. colleagues have suggested could emerge from a databank controlled by the RCMP.

There is no provision for the misuse of the samples which are now in society's databanks. In this bill we have a two-year penalty for any misuse of those samples, or the profiles. I think that the privacy of the individual who is compelled to submit a DNA sample is well guarded, certainly more so than when I went for my last physical and gave a blood sample. I do not know where that went and I have no reason to be concerned about it at this particular time.

Therefore, if I am not concerned about my sample sitting in some databank in some clinic, why should I be concerned if my sample is sitting in the RCMP databank protected by law, protected by the privacy commissioner who has the right to audit the operation of that bank at any time? Why should I be concerned when these other banks do not have those measures to protect my privacy? I have no concern that those samples I have given over my lifetime are being used improperly.

I think we are raising an issue, the justification for which does not exist. Although I respect the concerns that have been raised by my hon. colleagues and witnesses who appeared before the committee, I say show me where there is justification for this alarm or concern and certainly I will take it under consideration. But I have not seen anything to indicate that. The fact of the matter is that nothing can be drawn from a profile other than the identification factor. From the sample, yes, it can be done.

I will conclude by saying that I believe the samples should not be destroyed inasmuch as the new technology may be able to develop a better form of identification and a higher level of identification. If we can protect the samples or if we can protect the profiles surely we can provide the same protection for the samples under the act given the provisions within the act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to partake in this very important debate on this very timely and important piece of legislation.

As has been indicated by previous speakers, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Charlevoix is aimed specifically at the protection of the privacy of individuals and particularly the integrity of the test samples that may be taken by the police in the course of their investigation.

As with the previous speaker, I find myself in a position where I cannot in all conscience support this motion. It had been clearly demonstrated at the justice committee, by a professional chemist who spoke of the ability scientists would have to destroy the actual DNA profile, that this is not a possibility. The DNA profile itself is set up in such a way that it appears on a sheet with 24 other profiles. If one profile were physically removed all the other profiles would fall and it would cause a mix. I am not articulating this as well as the professor, but as I understand it is a physical impossibility to destroy the profile. I am puzzled as to the insistence of the hon. member from the Bloc that this motion be adopted.

Motion No. 4 of Group No. 2 is the first motion. For the reasons I have indicated I feel it is not appropriate that we would be quick to embrace this motion.

Motion No. 6 was moved by the hon. member from the Bloc. It speaks of the necessity of the commissioner to order without delay the destruction of stored bodily substances of a person after the forensic DNA analysis of those substances has been performed. As indicated by previous speakers, I suggest this is not a necessity and this proposed amendment in its present form would contradict the previous amendment. That is to say that section 7.1 as amended would contradict section 7 of the same clause.

The member for Charlevoix should have indicated in the amendment that there should be a deletion of section 7 if the amendment were adopted. In its present form section 7 is clear and sufficient. It would defeat the purpose if we were to do away with all the other safeguards. The safeguards are crucial to the protection of individual rights. The safeguards put specific onus on the commissioner to take into consideration certain factors as to when and where the substances and the DNA profile should be used.

It is not a section that we should tamper with at this time. I would not be supportive of this amendment for the reasons stated.

Motion No. 13 which appears in this grouping talks of the need to amend section 487.09 of the Criminal Code which speaks of the use of DNA sampling in trials or court cases where there has been an individual who has been found not criminally responsible. When a person is finally acquitted of a designated offence or any other offence with respect to the same transaction that individual would not be subject to any further review or that the DNA would never be sampled or used again.

This motion calls for the destruction of bodily substances and the removal of the DNA profile of a person found not guilty by reason of a mental disorder.

We believe it is important to continue to store and to keep this information and profile of an individual as the current law does presently provide. To destroy that information on the basis of the finding of the court would destroy the ability of the police, with the use of this sample, to establish that the individual had committed the actus reus. Whether they had formed the requisite mens rea, whether they had intended to do this act, would be a finding for the court. At least they would be able to put some finality on the investigation. They would be able to say we have the DNA profile, we have the individual who committed the act. That is an important feature that this amendment would prevent the law from doing.

Section 672 of the Criminal Code, which deals with mental orders, allows the courts to make specific findings with respect to a person's culpability and whether they have formed the intent to do so. There are provisions aimed at individuals who have been deemed to be not criminally responsible. This is not the time or the place for us to interfere with that, which is what this motion calls for. It is tampering with the safeguards that presently exist. It is not something that we should be getting into at this point.

The important amendments put forward are done so with the best of intentions. They are done so with a very clear purpose by the hon. member for Charlevoix, to address privacy concerns. Once again I am afraid that what we are in danger of doing should we accept these amendments is making this legislation unnecessarily cumbersome and more complicated than it is in its present form.

What we are hoping to do by the enactment of this important and historic piece of legislation is give police officers the necessary tools to conduct criminal investigations, particularly into very violent offences. This will help police officers to solve a great number of outstanding murders. This legislation will give those police officers a tool to get on with the very important task of solving these crimes not only for the purposes of holding people accountable for their atrocious acts but to give victims some closure. It will give the families of those who have been affected an opportunity to come to grips with what has happened. There are 600 cases in the province of British Columbia alone.

I hope the process we are embarking on today by going through this piece of legislation and looking at ways to improve it and to beef up what the intent of this legislation will help police officers to perform the important tasks they are charged with.

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

Madam Speaker, Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13 deal either with the destruction of DNA samples or information relative to the DNA databank.

Motion No. 4 introduced by the member for Charlesbourg is more or less the same motion introduced, albeit in another form perhaps, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected it on technical grounds, as several members have already pointed out.

The motion poses problems, particularly from a technical point of view because of the limits of the technology that was and will be used, because data concerning a particular offender cannot be destroyed. We have already explained the technical reason for this. The link between identifying information and the actual profile is severed. It would be like removing all the telephone numbers from a telephone book, leaving a random list of telephone numbers and people's names, with nothing to connect them. The link would be severed like that.

The second part of the same motion deals with the communication of DNA information. Once again, it is felt to be unnecessary, because clause 6 of the bill stipulates that the RCMP commissioner may communicate information in the databank only to a Canadian law enforcement agency or laboratory that the commissioner considers appropriate. This is already covered in the bill.

Motion No. 6 deals primarily with the distribution of DNA samples.

Again we have a problem. The whole basis of DNA legislation is to establish a databank. A databank cannot be established if we do not have the samples, if we destroy the samples immediately upon taking the profile and the analysis at this stage. Our committee heard numerous testimonies that the technology and the analysis advance on almost a daily if not weekly basis.

As a result, if we were to destroy the samples right after the establishment of this one databank we would be defeating the purpose of the legislation which is to establish a DNA databank that will be useful not just now but in the future.

As a consequence we would like to keep the samples. It is important to keep the samples because as technology evolves, we would have requirements at times to retest the samples. The administrative costs associated with resampling everybody would be enormous. DNA samples should be kept.

Regarding Motion No. 13, the government supports this amendment. I am of the opinion, having spoken to some of the other members, that the Reform Party and the Conservative Party do not support this amendment.

We do because Motion No. 13 would amend paragraph 47.09(1)(b) of the Criminal Code to ensure consistency with equivalent provisions as outlined in the bill currently.

Bill C-3 proposes the destruction of bodily substances of acquitted persons. Unfortunately it does not make any distinction regarding the Criminal Code between substances obtained for acquitted mentally disordered and non-mentally disordered offenders.

This motion will therefore ensure that bodily substances taken from any acquitted person are destroyed. That is why we are calling on members to support this motion.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on the second group of motions to make a few remarks.

I think the hon. member from the Bloc had the best intentions in mind when he proposed these amendments. They do not make the picture clearer as far as what we are trying to do with this bill.

I think the overriding principle of this bill should be that we protect the law-abiding citizen, that we do everything possible to give that protection to people who are affected by criminal acts.

I want to go back to about March 1995 when my son was brutally attacked in Winnipeg. He was beaten beyond recognition but hung on to life by a thin thread for a number of days.

When I phoned the police in Winnipeg to see what was being done to apprehend this person or persons who had attacked my son and a friend so brutally, they were rather at a loss. They had had a similar incident at the same place in October and a person was killed. They felt this was another incident where a gang had demanded some kind of violent act from people who wanted to be initiated and that killing a person was part of the initiation to get into that gang. I would have done anything to catch that person.

Had there been a databank available for the police to use in October, they could have at least marked the person even if they could not have apprehended the person. They could have then cross referenced that sample with the sample of the persons who attacked my son. I would have been very supportive of that.

I agree with the parliamentary secretary that we cannot try to take a piece out of a map. A map is very important to me when I travel across the country. If a destination on the map has been erased or there is a detour I did not know about, I would get lost and the map would not be of much value to me. That is the way I look at this databank. If we are going to form the bank, put some of the funding principles of the bank into the system and then erase the data samples of those who have been wrongly accused, we will run into a lot of problems.

Often the intent of the bills we pass in this House is very good but the bills do not go far enough. That is similar to when people plan trips. They have a time limit within which to get to a destination. That is the way I look at this databank. It is another tool we are being given to make sure we arrive at the destination we have been planning on over the last number of years.

Fingerprinting was a good tool. It has worked for many years. It has been used in some good investigative work. Now we have the extra tool of a DNA databank. We should make full use of it. We should use it to its best within the circumstances so that citizens and not the criminals get the protection.

We are so often worried and concerned that criminals will not have their rights. In my opinion when a criminal violates the law and he is involved in a violent act or in some act that affects society, there is a price to pay. If the databank can be used to mark this individual in a way that is not public but is there for the protection of the ordinary citizen, then it should be used to its fullest extent.

It is very important that the crime rate in Canada be brought down. Statistics show that violent crimes are continually going up. This is not just happening among the general population but with young offenders, adults and even some seniors. When I read of violent crimes by seniors I do not know whether it is old age or their attitude toward each other.

We were in the United States for a short holiday. A couple of seniors were playing cards and before the game was over they were both dead. One wonders how a couple of friends could be playing cards and get into such a furious fight that they would kill each other.

Sometimes things are overdone but in many cases when these criminal acts occur, it is a matter of the police finding out what has happened and getting to the bottom and the truth of it. If criminals are aware of the fact that there is very little chance of them escaping the law, that in itself will deter crime. It is important that we have more impact on criminals to make them realize they will be caught and will serve a penalty. That can override the few freedoms they demand because of the charter of rights. I would rather sacrifice somewhat and err on the principle of freedoms and rights than on the principle of criminality that the non-violent law-abiding ordinary citizen was not paying a price for.

It has become almost an accepted fact that someone in every family will suffer from a violent act. That is sad. Years and years ago when I was a teenager it only happened in large cities and it only happened to someone else. I hear of drive by shootings in my own little town of Altona. I hear of a murder in Miami because of the drug trade. And I found out in the last couple of weeks that one of my neighbours was gunned down because he was involved as an undercover agent for the RCMP, and there are no clues as to who did it.

I am therefore very determined that we in this House pass legislation that will make sure the criminals are apprehended. This bill is another tool for doing that. It is important that we make this bill as effective a tool as it can be to apprehend criminals. I think everyone is concerned about privacy and rights, but once people are affected by crimes and suffer through violent crimes, it becomes more important that we as lawmakers pass legislation that will protect citizens.

There are experiences in other countries where we can see how laws have affected the land. I was in the Soviet Union in 1991. I was told there were only 40 people in the city of Moscow to enforce the laws. That was scary. The government at the time had dictated law through the military regime. There had been no civil law and the government's policy of perestroika was taking place. The government did not have the laws of the land to protect law-abiding citizens. Following Soviet history in the last couple of years the criminal element has become stronger rather than weaker.

It is so very important that we give our RCMP and law enforcement officers a DNA databank that can identify people and which will not just catch criminals and ensure they were the ones involved in the criminal act but will also protect individuals who were not involved but happened to be in the wrong place. I mentioned David Milgaard earlier as an example.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this group of motions but particularly Motion No. 4 strikes at the heart of the provisions of Bill C-3.

For the people watching, Bill C-3 is an act which provides for the establishment of a national DNA databank to be maintained by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and used to assist law enforcement agencies in solving crimes. That is the overriding concern of Bill C-3.

It seems to me that this group of amendments and particularly Motion No. 4 would suggest the elimination of the DNA index which is the exact purpose behind the whole bill. I respectfully suggest that the purpose behind the motion may have been not to abuse or provide inadvertent access to the index. I can certainly respect, admire and support that intent. However, the way it is written suggests that the index itself should be eliminated. It seems to me that contradicts the very purpose and essence of Bill C-3.

The bill goes on to do some other things. It states exactly what the databank will consist of. It consists of a crime scene index containing the DNA profiles derived from bodily substances found in places associated with the commission of certain types of serious offences and a convicted offenders index containing DNA profiles obtained from persons convicted or discharged of these types of offences. This gives us a very clear indication of what exactly needs to be done here.

The purpose and intent of establishing an index is to protect both society in general and in particular a person who might have been found near the scene of the crime, who may not have perpetrated the crime but may have looked like he did the job and really did not. The evidence that comes out of comparing profiles provides a much more accurate tool for the law enforcement officers to do the job they are charged to do.

The bill goes on to state that the enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide for orders authorizing the collection of bodily substances from which DNA profiles can be derived for inclusion in the DNA databank. It also amends the Criminal Code to authorize the collection of bodily substances from offenders who meet clearly defined criteria and also are currently serving sentences. A compulsory collection is included here.

The purpose of the bill, while admirable and while moving in the right direction, does not go far enough. It suggests the right things and moves in the appropriate direction but it is clear that it does not give to the enforcement officer the freedom to use the best judgment available at the time in order to collect the necessary information and data so that a conviction might later result when comparing the various profiles.

Finally the enactment contains specific provisions for regulating the use of these bodily substances collected and the DNA profiles derived from them and the use and communication of and access to information contained in the databank.

It is precisely in this connection that we have Motion No. 4 which pertains to clause 9(2). Subclause (2) is very clear. It amends the Criminal Code in that “access to the following information in the convicted offenders index shall be permanently removed without delay after” and the conditions are spelled out.

The intent here is clearly to limit the access so that if a person has been charged with an offence and the charge does not result in a conviction, while the evidence and the profile may be in the index, which should be and will be in the index, the access to that information is cut off if there is no conviction.

Is this not exactly the kind of thing the charter of rights and freedoms is about? It wants the privacy of the individual to be safeguarded so that it is not abused by other people and so that it does not become the object of abuse and misuse by other people.

It is really significant that this provision be in the act. However the motion does not suggest access to the information. It would destroy the index itself. That is the error as I see it in this particular motion. I wonder if the member who proposed this motion actually thought about the fact that this would remove the index rather than provide the adequate safeguards for abuse or the access to information by persons who might use it for their own purposes or for misguided purposes of one kind or another.

With all due respect to the member who submitted this motion, I suggest that probably it is not the kind of motion that would serve the interests of the intent of the bill, nor would it provide for the purposes intended of a sound and adequately balanced justice system in Canada.

I want to revert now to the purpose of the DNA profile in the first place. We have had cases in Canada where individuals have been accused of committing a crime and where all the evidence points in the direction that the individual did commit the crime, but there was no conclusive evidence. It was largely circumstantial. In fact, the circumstantial evidence was so powerful that the best lawyers' and the best judges' minds were put to work on this case and the individual was convicted and incarcerated.

Then with the persistence of people moving on and on and saying we need absolute evidence that is incontrovertible so that we can say clearly this person did commit this crime, they discovered that the circumstantial evidence was not supported by more concrete evidence. What was the evidence that was used to take away the doubt in this case? It was the DNA profile.

I think it is absolutely essential if we are to have a fair and just justice system that we have a tool, the best possible tool that has been made available to us through technology and science, to identify clearly and unequivocally who the individual was. That is exactly what the DNA index is designed to do.

That is why it is so essential that the enforcement officers be able to collect those kinds of samples that will result in an accurate and indisputable profile of a person and that the profile is absolutely unique and completely distinguishable from any other person.

When that kind of operation is possible, it should not be restricted to be used in an arbitrary or capricious way. The amendments proposed in this bill in general are the good ones. They should be supported. But the bill should go further.

Motion No. 4 in my opinion does not do that. In fact, it restricts the bill even more. I recommend that we oppose this amendment and consider very carefully how we can improve the enforcement of our legal system and also make sure justice prevails, that our streets are safe and that law-abiding citizens are protected and carefully rewarded.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are speaking now to the second group of motions. I want to clearly identify for the folks at home what we are speaking to. It is Bill C-3, the national DNA databank. There are 13 motions. We are now referring to Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13.

To give a brief thumbnail sketch, one motion would basically destroy the convicted offender index. The whole purpose of the national DNA databank is to establish an index of those people who are convicted offenders.

I believe it speaks directly against the whole purpose of the bill. If the purpose of the bill is to establish a national index of convicted offenders and if Motion No. 4 proposed by a member from Bloc is to actually destroy the index, then it speaks directly against the main purpose of the bill.

There is more destruction yet. Motion No. 6 speaks to the destruction of stored bodily substances. To develop the index we need stored bodily substances. There is a debate in terms of whether once we have a profile established we need to keep the bodily substances, because once we have the profile, supposedly we have the profile.

I ask hon. members to think back with me in a bit of a tale. Imagine if previous to the discovery and the understanding of the double helix structure we had the ability to collect substances from the scene of a crime but without DNA evidencing or without being able to break things down on a DNA level and without being able to analyse bodily substances we would not be able to know whether they were the substances of that offender or criminal.

It is like we are standing on the edge of a technological cliff, on the edge of a brave new world. If we destroy these substances when the government has admitted here today that it was brought forward by chemists in committee that each day or each week advancements are being made in DNA technology, in the ability to analyse these things forensically or otherwise, we are tossing away data that will be vital in terms of the prosecution of these crimes. That is a crime in itself. That speaks to Motion No. 6. If we destroy these bodily substances when it would be easy enough to keep them on file and to bank them, all we are doing is keeping the profile as it stands right now at the simplistic level.

Far be it from me as somebody who is not a chemist but a mere politician to determine whether 10, 15 or 20 years down the road chemistry will advance or DNA analysis will have advanced to the point where the profiles can be much more expansive than what they are right now.

Motion No. 13 is with regard to once again destroying bodily substances. Here the idea is to keep it in sync with other parts of the Criminal Code in terms of destroying substances or pieces of evidence in the case of acquittal.

Once again let us think about this is terms of the victim and in terms of those who are innocent and want to be proven innocent and want to get their acquittals as opposed to those people who are actually the offenders.

Too many times we have taken into account the rights of the criminal rather than the rights of the victims in this circumstance. I am will now go over some of the arguments that have been brought forward today with regard to the second set of motions.

One of my colleagues in the Reform Party brought this up and it was very effective. The idea comes up that if one lives in a small town everybody knows what one is up to and is that not awful. Actually it is only awful if one is not very proud of what one is up to. This once again speaks to the whole idea of innocents.

If we have this national DNA databank and if substances are kept past one's acquittal and if bodily substances are kept rather than just the minuscule or whatever type of profile we are able to have at this time, never mind what we are going to have 10, 15 or 20 years down the road, the only people who have something to fear in this case are the criminals, not the innocent, for indeed they are the ones who shall be set free.

Merely it raises the question of what these people are doing if they are so worried about having a DNA databank that stays for longer than a year or for just that crime or case. The whole purpose of having the index is so that we can cross-reference these things when other crimes come up.

One of the Bloc members asked why we should keep these materials. We may need more samples to go ahead and verify a sample. Once again, I am not an expert in these things but if there are multiple clippings of hair or types of blood at a site and merely one sampling is taken then destroyed, what if there were other blood samples mixed in? We want to be able to know these things, so keeping the actual bodily substances is important.

The second point that I have already raised is to future testing. I think I would be a poor person to judge at this moment in history whether technology will change and allow us the ability to make further testing, more comprehensive testing than what we have right now.

NDP members also had a chance to speak to this set of motions. They said it was an intrusion of the self and that it was too important in terms of the intrusion of the self to allow these bodily substances and these databanks to be maintained. They said we should seriously question this. The destruction of these things in what they considered to be due process it would be the best thing to do.

I think that is part of what we are getting at here. If all we are worried about all the time is the intrusion on the actual criminal, if we are worried about in a sense how the case of the defence stands, then we are not having as a primary concern the rights of the victims rather than the rights of the criminal. In that case, when there is a rape or a murder, why are we more worried about the intrusions made on the victim than the intrusions made on the criminal in these investigations?

Too often we are concerned with the criminal legal system, not enough with the victims.

We also heard today from a Reform colleague of mine about how blood banks are far exceeding the expansion and growth than anything we could possibly be worried about at this point with DNA databanks. If that is the case we certainly have a precedent set already with the expansion of blood banks for every new infant. To collect data in the case of crimes is merely doing due diligence for law-abiding citizens who want to see injustices righted.

The Progressive Conservatives, our Tory friends in the House, also spoke to this, the member in mind having actually sat in on the justice committee. He said that according to people who presented there was great difficulty, indeed an impracticality, with regard to the destruction of DNA profiles.

Having 20 profiles on a page and trying to destroy one, and thereby in some way tampering or destroying an entire page, it is getting rid of the whole purpose of having an index. Once again, if we are going to go to this trouble, if we are to increase the effectiveness of the enforcement of law, why tamper with the index in any way? We should want to have it. It is going to help in the prosecution of crimes.

We had Liberals who spoke to this group of motions and their words were often encouraging when they said why destroy samples when technology progresses day by day or week by week. I pointed that out as well, so good on them for recognizing something that has true value. They spoke to the costs and the administration of resampling these things. We would not want to burden taxpayers with more cost and more administration. It just does not make sense.

To my Liberal colleagues across the way who wanted to cut down on the administrative costs of resampling, good on them. I only wish they kept these things in mind on more issues.

Another Reform colleague spoke to the whole idea of indexing. Trying to get rid of the index is working against the very purposes of the bill and the underlying justice we are trying to achieve.

With that I leave it to other members in the House and say that in no way can we support some of these amendments, namely Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 13. We have to stand against them.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification, and Motions 4, 6 and 13.

As I indicated during my earlier remarks, we do support the principle of this bill but think it is too filled with exceptions, loopholes and red tape to provide our peace officers with the kind of latitude they need to make this important public safety legislation actually work for victims and potential victims.

Our first and final consideration should be to give our police officers, our prosecutors, our courts and our entire justice system the kind of evidence they need to convict people guilty of serious crimes and to ensure that they do not get around conviction because of legislative loopholes which allow the destruction of important DNA evidence or prevent its collection in the first place.

I would like to make specific reference to Motion No. 4 proposed by one of my hon. colleagues from the third party. It would amend clause 9:

(a) by replacing lines 21 and 23 with the following:

“the convicted offenders index shall be destroyed without delay after”

(b) by adding after line 34 on page 6 the following:

“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) also apply to information communicated under this Act that is in the possession of any Canadian laboratory or federal or provincial law enforcement agency”.

It appears to us that this amendment would eliminate the entire index. It would be destroyed. Perhaps this is a problem in the English translation. We cannot understand why our colleagues in the third party, or any other party, would be in favour of such a sweeping amendment that would undermine one of the central purposes of the act, which is to develop an index that can be used for future reference after convictions have been established against criminals.

The current legislation makes provision for the destruction of certain parts of the evidence. It narrowly defines which elements of the index can be destroyed. Motion No. 4 makes no such distinction. Instead it opens the door to the wholesale destruction of the convicted offenders index. This is something we cannot support. It occurs to us that this motion, as the bill on a whole, tends to place too great an emphasis on the rights of the criminals as opposed to the rights of the victims, a tendency we see all too often in criminal justice legislation of this nature.

I move to Motion No. 6 in Group No. 2. The motion was made by one of our colleagues in the third party. It would amend clause 10 after line 34 to read:

“(7.1) The commission shall destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay after a forensic DNA analysis of these substances is first performed under this section”.

For forensic science purposes it is important that substances be kept as new testing techniques are developed. We cannot project what kind of advancements forensic science will make in the years to come. Fifteen, twenty or thirty years ago legislatures in this place could not reasonably expect to have ever had the kind of sophisticated DNA testing science that is now available to us, our police officers and our prosecutors. Let us not hamstring future courts, future prosecutors, future police officers and investigators from using new technology as it becomes available. Let us keep this evidence on file. Let us keep it in the index. Let us not destroy it unnecessarily.

I do not understand what leads to these kinds of amendments. Why should the objective of this legislation not be to build up as comprehensive an index of DNA evidence as we possibly can while at the same time respecting the privacy rights of individuals who are not convicted?

Let us not fill the legislation with all sorts of loopholes and measures like this one. Evidence could be destroyed given this amendment which could later be necessary to use in the conviction of a violent offender. We cannot take such a risk. One piece of evidence in this databank could be enough to save future potential victims from violent offenders. We should err on the side of a comprehensive databank which does not destroy evidence for no particularly good reason.

I will move on to the third and final motion in the Group No. 2 amendments to Bill C-3, Motion No. 13 as proposed by the same hon. member from the third party. We find this motion difficult to understand. I am not sure the hon. member understands it. Perhaps he could enlighten us further. Apparently it would seek to amend paragraph 487.091(b) of the act and replace it with the following:

“(b) the person is finally acquitted of the designated offence and any other offence in respect of the same transaction; or”

We do not see the purpose of this amendment. It seems to be a dilatory and frivolous amendment with no useful purpose. It does not strengthen the bill in terms of its ambit or coverage or the size or extent of the DNA databank. We see no reason to support this amendment and will be opposing it.

In closing I want to summarize the importance of not turning the legislation into Swiss cheese for criminal defence attorneys to allow their clients to get through the loopholes and to tie up the courts, our police officers and prosecutors in legal red tape designed by and for people who are more concerned about the rights of criminals than they are about the rights of victims.

We oppose all three of these amendments and will continue to call on our colleagues in all parties to support the kinds of amendments which would make the legislation meaningful in terms of providing a comprehensive collection of a DNA databank of convicted criminals.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk to report stage of Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification, and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts.

We are now looking at Group No. 2 which includes Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13. As my colleague has just said we oppose all three of these amendments.

The amendment indicates that the entire convicted offenders index will be destroyed. We support the bill in its intent, but changes need to be made to make sure it is an effective bill that will work for the police forces and the people of Canada, which is the most important point. When fingerprints are taken they are never destroyed. When blood type is taken upon birth it is never destroyed. Why anybody would want to do anything that would destroy an index of DNA is beyond me and the people in my party.

Motion No. 6 also put forward by the Bloc would destroy the bodily substances. It is very important, especially with the new science of today, that we do not destroy anything in our possession. There have been too many examples in the last few years of people who have been convicted on DNA evidence. Crimes have been solved after people have spent years in jail because with the new technology that has come along we have managed to prove who really committed the crime.

There is a case before the courts now where a gentleman spent a lot of his life in jail. Now somebody who was suspected at the time is now to be charged with the crime, will have to face the courts and the people, and will probably be convicted of a crime that he committed many years ago. If we had had the DNA evidence and material, the innocent person would never have gone to jail and the guilty person would have been convicted a long time ago. Certainly we have to make sure we maintain the substances taken from people. We obviously oppose Motion No. 13 which is part of this section.

When I look at the motions put forward in this section, I see that the government received some legal opinions from three former judges. We do not quite know how it hand-picked the judges. As we all know, when we are dealing with lawyers we can get an opinion from anyone we want. It depends on how much we want to pay for it and whom we want to go to. I would like to know who they were, as all three of these judges were unanimous in their decision in this case as to what can and cannot be done according to the Constitution.

I quoted Mr. Taylor, QC, in a previous talk earlier today on some other motions and I would like to quote his conclusion. He said:

It follows that I am of the opinion that legislative extension of police authority authority under Bill C-3 to sanction the taking of DNA samples without judicial warrant in the case of persons charged or arrested but not tried and convicted would be held contrary to the guarantees contained in one or more of ss. 7, 8 and 11(d) of the Charter, would not be saved by s. 1 of the Charter, and would therefore be found unconstitutional and of no force or effect under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The reference in the last line was to the Constitution Act, 1982. It gave the judges a lot more power than I believe they ever should have. I believe the Parliament of Canada should make the laws instead of the judges in the Supreme Court of Canada and the other courts in Canada.

What I find interesting about the statements that the former judge makes in this report to the government and some of the motions that are before the House is that right now blood samples are taken. Before I go into that I would like to read another conclusion by a former judge and then I can tie it together with the three motions we are talking about here. They make some very interesting points. Mr. Bisson, in his conclusion, says “I would conclude as follows: an enactment authorizing upon a person—”

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe we have quorum right now. I would like a quorum call.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We will verify that right away.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I believe we now have a quorum.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

It is now nice that we have a few Liberals in the House, including the hundreds of thousands who are listening out their in the audience.

I was quoting Judge Bisson and his conclusions. He said that therefore, the guaranteed rights of a person by the charter having been infringed, the legislation would have been invalidated because section 1 of the charter could not save such legislation, the prerequisites having not been met. There was no equation to be made between the confirmed validity of the taking of fingerprints upon arrest and the taking also upon arrest without judicial authorization of bodily samples. Fingerprinting was not a search and seizure but the taking of bodily samples was and as such should not be performed without the greatest safeguards, the first of them being judicial intervention.

This is where I totally disagree with these judges. They are taking a position that there is a difference here. When people are arrested the police take fingerprints. Their fingers are placed on a piece of dirty stuff and then pressed on a piece of paper. They are kept on record and stay there whether or not they are convicted. From then on, if they are ever arrested in the future, the fingerprints will be on file.

They talk about this being an intrusion. They can take a DNA sample by a simple Q-tip on a person's tongue. They do not have to stick a needle in and draw blood. There are lots of ways to do DNA samples. What intrusion is that in anybody's system? When people are arrested they should be happy to have that done because they will be part of the system from now on and if they ever do it again we will easily catch them.

For people to be fighting this, I just do not understand.

It is great to bring in this legislation, but let us make sure it is going to work. There are literally thousands of unsolved rape and murder cases in this country. With the DNA samples of people in prisons right now we can solve some of those crimes immediately. The police know that, the people of Canada know that, so why do we have legislation that protects these criminals instead of bringing peace of mind to parents who have lost their children? People have lost family members and we have unsolved crimes.

I go back to the case I was talking about before. That man is going to go on trial for murder while an innocent person has already served time in jail. This man will be proven guilty by DNA. If we had his DNA 15 years ago we would not have had this miscarriage of justice.

I am sure we will have a chance to talk about this over and over again before the bill is passed. It is extremely important that the government look at this bill and accept some of the amendments being put forth by the opposition. I know from talking to some members on the other side that the same feeling comes from them. We are going to keep talking about this bill until we get some proper changes before the legislation is passed in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-3. The Group No. 2 amendments deal with the disposition of DNA evidence which I will talk about.

First, I will tell a little story. A couple of years ago my constituency office was broken into at night. No one was there and no one was hurt. The next morning the police came and discovered that the television set was all that was missing. It is too bad because it was a new television set. The police dusted the place for fingerprints. They talked to us for a while and then went away. That evening a police officer came to my home with my television set in his arms. I asked him how he got it back so quickly. He replied that there had been a fresh snowfall the night before. They simply followed the footprints of the fellow to a vacant garage where he had put the television set, waited for him to return and they picked him up. I tell this story a bit facetiously.

The act states that DNA profiles are uniquely private and personal information that may be used only for purposes of identification. It strikes me that that is basically what fingerprints are about. I am really glad that fingerprints are already included in the legislation. I would hate to think what would happen if we tried to legislate and categorize footprints in the snow. I can see the problems that would exist for some of our Liberal colleagues. It might be discrimination against a person on the basis of his weight because the impression was deep in the snow. It may have been a man, a woman or a crippled person and we could tell by the way they walked. We would be discriminating against these people by using such evidence.

My concern is that in looking at the DNA issue we are looking at a means of identifying someone who has done something really bad. We need to know who that person is and call that person quite appropriately to account for what they have done. The only reason the DNA evidence is needed is for identification. It should be kept on file until that purpose is accomplished. The only reason is for identification. It is not to talk about the genetic type of the person or to talk about latent genetic defects that may exist in future generations, it is only for identification. All of these other issues are protected.

This is an important issue for Reform members. In fact in the last parliament an almost identical bill, Bill C-94, was introduced toward the end of the second session. Even though the bill was seriously flawed, our party was willing to walk with the government, to fast track it through parliament. We felt that this DNA tool was just too important for our law enforcement agencies to be without.

The amendments in Group No. 2, all proposed by the Bloc member for Charlesbourg, relate to the destruction of DNA evidence. Why would it be important to destroy DNA evidence that has been appropriately collected?

I am concerned about Motion No. 6 which states: “The Commission shall destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay after a forensic DNA analysis of these substances is first performed under this section”. Why would we destroy this evidence without delay?

The concern that comes to mind when looking at this motion may be cost. We are aware of the concern over the cost of establishing and maintaining this databank.

However, this amendment could actually increase the costs of the databank, not only the costs involved in the destruction of the evidence, but the costs of re-establishing the evidence, regaining the evidence or seeking the evidence from someone who is no longer around. What happens then?

As we are well aware, technology is expanding at a tremendous rate. As technology develops, tests and analysis change and improve. Although the DNA analysis is far more accurate than other technologies we have seen to date, in a couple of years this analysis may prove dramatically better than it is today.

In some sense, then, it seems like a waste of time and money to destroy evidence now which may be required at a later date for re-analysis.

As I think of the premature destruction of DNA materials I am concerned about the possible inaccuracies, the mistakes that could be made by a technician in analyzing the DNA evidence at hand. If the evidence is misanalyzed and then immediately destroyed, how do we recover the loss? I alluded to this earlier. This is still a relatively new technology. The tests and the analysis are not totally foolproof yet.

What happens if a technician who runs the initial tests did something wrong and, as a result, the analysis is off? What happens if the person whose sample is falsely analyzed is not in custody, is not available, cannot be found and the law enforcement agencies cannot obtain another sample?

I think it is much more cost effective and safer to keep these DNA substances in storage for a specified period of time rather than to prematurely destroy this valuable evidence.

This raises the question of why we destroy evidence that is legally, properly, appropriately gathered and is stored and maintained only for the purposes of identification. Why can this not be kept on record simply as fingerprints are today?

I cannot understand why there would need to be a move to destroy this evidence. It seems to me that it would be of benefit in two ways. First, if someone has committed a crime the evidence is there on file and can be used for identification purposes at a later date if that person reoffends. Second, if someone is apprehended this evidence could well turn out to be what is required to free an innocent person. The issue cuts both ways.

It is not only the apprehension of those who are guilty who we are concerned about, but the correct application of justice so that those who do not offend and who are apprehended and mistakenly charged may be cleared and the charges dropped.

Those people may then go about having normal lives with their families without further disruption and harm.

These are the concerns that I have. I hope to be able to speak to the other groups as they come up. I find this issue one that is interesting. It is extremely important for the maintenance of justice. We have seen time and again how people who have been incorrectly convicted and sent away to jail for long periods of time have had their names cleared with the proper use of DNA evidence.

We cannot forget this. It is too important. It is a valuable tool. We must use it as vigorously as necessary within properly prescribed limits and we must quit the nonsense of how we can avoid using it when it is needed.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a few brief comments to make. I raised some questions this morning in the debate which have not yet been answered by the government. I feel it is incumbent upon the government before we move on to answer these concerns.

Another thing that concerns me with regard to Bill C-3 and the privacy issue that the government has raised is simply this. We have raised a lot of concerns about Bill C-68, which is a bill that the Liberals passed in the last parliament. They infringed on citizens' rights with regard to privacy and so on. Now, in relation to this bill, they are raising the privacy issue for criminals.

When it was law-abiding citizens they were not concerned with privacy. Now that we are dealing with people who have been charged with major offences they say we have a privacy concern.

We can put in place legislation to protect the misuse of information that people would gather in this process, but for the government to be more concerned about privacy when it involves a criminal than when it involves a law-abiding gun owner I think is a real contradiction and something that should concern Canadians a great deal.

I think it is incumbent upon the government to explain to us why it cannot put safeguards in the bill so that the information that is gathered by the police is safeguarded.

I will review what this DNA databank would be. They would gather information, a hair sample, a saliva sample, a small amount of cells from the human body of the person who has been charged with a serious crime. They could use that to either prove the innocence or the guilt of the person. Because of technology these days we can look at these things and examine them closely. The molecules that are involved in this and the science behind it I will leave for another discussion, but the explanation is that the science is now available to use this to convict people or to declare them innocent.

We should use these new tools. The police are asking for them. We should put them in place.

I was reading the history of this. When fingerprinting was first brought in people raised all of these same concerns about privacy and about whether we should use this kind of thing. Nobody would question the use of fingerprints now. They have become a tool that we accept.

Just because it is new, using a DNA print from a person should not just be dismissed by this government. There are some very good things that can be done. The police have the ability now to use this. It would help a lot of people possibly in prison who say they are innocent to prove their innocence. It has been used already. But it will also help the police to solve a lot of crimes. They are saying it would and I think we should seriously listen to them. The government has put too many restrictions on that with what it has done and some of the amendments in this group and others address those. I think we should look at them closely.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to agreement made earlier, all motions in Group No. 2 are deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deemed deferred.

The House will now proceed to debate on Motion No. 7 in Group No. 3.

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

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-3, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 9 with the following:

“exceeding five years; or”

Madam Speaker, I am the only member with a motion in Group No. 3, so I suppose that makes it somewhat exclusive on my part.

I would like to make some general comments first. Some members of the Reform Party have commented on the importance of ensuring that police have an investigative tool. The NDP supports this wholeheartedly.

The average police officer on the street today needs every bit of assistance he or she can have to investigate the commission of a crime and do their job properly. The NDP certainly supports them in the work they do and we hope this bill with its flaws will provide police officers with some of the investigate tools they require to properly bring to justice those who have committed crimes.

I make the distinction between the accused and the criminals purposely because a couple of my colleagues in this House, the hon. members for Calgary and Calgary West, said at different times when speaking about the NDP that we wanted to put the rights of the criminals ahead of the rights of the victims. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We want to ensure that the rights of the accused are balanced in the justice system. Certain members forget that one is not a criminal when one is accused. Certain members forget that anyone in this House, including the members who have used the terminology, can be accused of the most heinous crimes. They are not criminals at that point and indeed the reason we have safeguards in the system is that many people over the years have been wrongly convicted.

As a responsible and just parliament and as a society that takes its responsibilities seriously, we ensure there is a balance, that police have the necessary investigative tools to do their job and the courts have the proper rules to ensure innocent people go free and criminals are punished.

I move to my motion which increases the penalty for someone who violates the law. The current legislation provided by the government states in section 11:

Every person who contravenes subsection 6(6) or (7), section 8 or subsection 10(3) or (5)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.

Because we recognize how important DNA information is and how private it has to be, the act provides that no person who receives a DNA profile for entry into the databank shall use it or allow it to be used other than for the purposes set out in the administration of this act.

Anyone working in the laboratory who receives the DNA analysis must keep that information confidential and can use it only in the way parliament deems it should be used. Subsection (7) goes on to say:

(7) No person shall, except in accordance with this section, communicate or allow to be communicated a DNA profile that is contained in the DNA data bank or information that is referred to in subsection (1).

What I am saying in a capsule form is that the act makes it a crime to communicate improperly any information on any person's DNA. The maximum penalty for committing that crime is two years imprisonment. My motion says we should increase that penalty to a maximum of five years. We still have a minimum penalty that can be imposed. The courts have some discretion in determining how much of a penalty could be imposed.

The reason I suggest we do that is that, once again, the taking of the DNA and the index has to be kept regulated government and properly administered by the government. Anyone who breaches that should be considered breaking the law of this House and should pay a serious penalty. This would bring home to individuals how important it is to keep that privacy.

We live in a scandalous age in some ways. We have people selling love letters of the Princess of Wales for millions of dollars. We know that a taped interview of someone speaking to a political person can fetch thousands of dollars on the open market from the tabloids. We have to recognize that this most personal information, be it mine, be it anyone's watching the House debate tonight, be it anyone's on the government side or the opposition side, is so personal and so private that any attempt to communicate it other than provided by law ought to be punishable with a severe sentence. By increasing the sentence we would be sending out that message.

It is an important issue of law and order. Let me be very clear. The New Democratic Party is concerned about the safety of people in the communities of this country, those who are concerned about crime.

We also have a concern about misinformation that gets sent out to people. It was said in debate tonight that we know, we can take as a fact, that someone in our families will at some point be assaulted or be the victim of crime. That statement was said willy-nilly without a single statistic to back it up. Many people sitting in their living rooms watching this debate because we are parliamentarians accept with some respect what we say.

[An hon. member]

They do not believe a word we say.

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

It is our obligation to rise above that cynicism and give an honest debate on the issues before this House. Statements made without facts to back them up, statements made to inflame debate, do little to convince those people that we are seriously considering the needs and the laws that have to be in place for all the people of this country.

We take the recommendation of the Canadian Police Association seriously. We take the recommendation of the privacy commissioner, who is at the other end of the spectrum, seriously. We take the recommendations of the Canadian Bar Association seriously.

As parliamentarians it is our job to weigh each of those arguments, to balance them in the needs and interests of Canadians, after a thorough, informed, intellectual exercise. We have to be very careful when we stand up and say that the rights of criminals take precedence over the rights of victims when we are talking about accused persons. This country was founded on the rule of law. The rule of law has one tenant, that you are innocent until proven guilty. That is the purpose of this legislation, to allow the police the tools to help in determining whether someone is guilty. Once that determination is made then the rights of the criminal ought not to exceed those of the victim. I make those points for the people listening tonight.

I thank the House and I ask for support for my motion.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise after my colleague in the New Democratic Party and tell him that he is not alone. His motion may be the only one in Group No. 3, but he will not be the only one supporting it, far from it.

I must first say that, after asking parliamentarians to support a number of motions I introduced earlier, in order to emphasize the importance that the House and the government must attach to privacy, I was disappointed that these motions did not receive all the support I had hoped.

Motion No. 7, however, introduced by my colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria, addresses the same principle, but from another angle that will perhaps appeal more naturally to some of the members sitting to the right of me, and perhaps even further right than that politically.

The motion calls for increasing from two to seven years the maximum sentence for individuals contravening certain provisions of the bill designed to try to keep information collected as secret as possible.

We in the Bloc Quebecois attach considerable importance to the protection of privacy. When it comes to anything to do with information, the Bloc Quebecois takes an extremely hard line. We were, for example, in favour of stiffer penalties for the destruction of information that should be accessible under access legislation. We want the greatest possible transparency, but we do not want this transparency to enable some individuals to obtain information to which they have absolutely no right.

It is important to remember that DNA reveals to us an individual's deepest secrets, his or her hair colour, and certain physical characteristics. For all we know, a few years from now, technology may make it possible to discover someone's personality. This is a very powerful tool, and it is essential that people be discouraged from using DNA data for purposes other than those set out in the bill.

It is therefore with pleasure that I support the motion introduced by my colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria. I hope that other members to my right and across the way will do the same, in order to underscore the fundamental importance of the protection of privacy in this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to partake in this debate and pleased particularly to follow my hon. friends and colleagues in the NDP and the Bloc.

I do note with some amusement that what we have here in the motion is a defence lawyer asking for more time in a sentence. I think that is telling and I think it is indicative of the intent of this motion, to emphasize the importance of protection of privacy here and to put a greater degree of flexibility before the courts to allow a judge to impose a sentence of up to five years when an individual chooses to breach this important piece of legislation by potentially misusing DNA evidence.

It is something that we in the House and hopefully the government will take very seriously and perhaps embrace the suggestion brought forward by the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.

The flexibility, the discretion it would allow is certainly very important. It is also going to be safeguarded, as the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria indicated, in the sense that a judge still has discretion. There is still the fallback position that there is the summary offence by which the crown can proceed, that coupled with the fact that the crown and the defence will always have input into the sentencing process. The judge will then be called upon to apply the sentencing principles, to ensure fairness, to ensure that it is a measured response and not a cookie cutter response, a phrase that my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia will have also heard in courtrooms.

It is there. It is implicit in the particular system we have that there is not going to be a disproportionate response.

The hon. member's motion in essence broadens the ability of judges to look at the factual scenario before them if it involves a breach of this privacy, a breach or misuse of DNA evidence. I therefore concur with his remarks. I believe it is an important motion he is bringing to the House.

It emphasizes and provides a more serious note and response to a criminal activity that would involve the criminal misuse of DNA evidence. It is important that we look at this and consider it very seriously because in bringing forward the bill we are arming the government and police with a very important tool to respond to a very important and widespread problem in Canada.

That is why we on this side of the House are encouraging the government to go all the way. I think this is going to be the emerging rallying cry about this particular piece of legislation, all the way with DNA. Let us use this to the full extent. Let us for once be on the cutting edge of the justice system. Let us move forward, not with tentative steps. With no disrespect whatsoever to the supreme court, let us not clutter our minds too much with what the supreme court will do with this piece of legislation. Let us move forward in an informed way.

We have had extensive hearings on this particular bill. Numerous witnesses have given input before the committee. Members of the policing community, members of the victims advocates groups, members of the science community who are going to be called upon to implement this bill, all of them are encouraging us to make the most of this opportunity we have at this time. This is the time for parliament to act, to do something in a positive way that is going to help the law enforcement community and significantly help satisfy those victims who feel that the justice system is failing them.

To put a point on this, we have an opportunity to reflect the serious reprisals when this legislation is breached. If a person chooses to misuse this, the hon. member's suggestion is that we should raise the ceiling to five years for an indictable offence involving the misuse of DNA technology. That sends a very clear, unequivocal message to those who would be so inclined to partake in that criminal activity. It ups the ante on the importance of ensuring that there is deterrence, that there is a significant response from the government and from the justice system when this legislation is breached.

We need to ensure that the police and Canadians at large know they have the support of parliament and know that parliament is working to protect them.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, we support this particular amendment. We support it as an important step in building a piece of legislation that is workable and that is taken very seriously by Canadians. It allows the police to get on with the very important task they are charged with, to implement and to use this tool in a significant way in their daily fight against crime.

With those remarks, I congratulate the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria, my colleague from Nova Scotia. He brings forward a very important amendment. I urge all members of this House at the time of the vote to take it very seriously, turn their minds to this suggestion and to support it. That is what should happen.