Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate and examining this bill on the DNA legislation, three questions come to mind. I would like to discuss those three questions this morning in relation to this bill.
The first question is: Why does the government persist in registering law-abiding citizens but not criminals?
The second question that I will deal with is: Why is the government refusing to allow the police to use a tool that could help them solve a lot of crimes, reduce court costs and the cost of law enforcement?
My third question is: Why are Liberals keeping innocent people in jail who could be freed if we put in place Bill C-3, this DNA databank legislation that is totally inadequate?
Let me deal with the first question. Why does the government persist in registering law-abiding citizens and not criminals? How is the government registering law-abiding citizens? Several years ago this government put in place a bill that received nationwide attention, Bill C-68; a bill that will force law-abiding gun owners to register with the government when they have never committed a crime.
The government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars going after law-abiding citizens in a huge bureaucratic scheme that its own department now says will accomplish the very opposite of what the legislation intended. Not only that, it will make criminals out of law-abiding citizens because it put the property regulation scheme into the Criminal Code of Canada and people who do not comply with it could end up in jail for one, two, five, possibly ten years for failing to comply with the government's desire to have them register.
On the other hand, we have a government that will not register criminals. People who have been charged with a crime will not, under this legislation, be required to give a little saliva, a hair or a slight skin sample to the police. They will be able to declare their rights not to let the police DNA fingerprint them.
At the present time the police can take a fingerprint from someone who has been charged with certain crimes. The Reform Party is not advocating that everybody comply with this DNA legislation, we are saying that in serious criminal offences this should be allowed.
Why does the government require law-abiding citizens who have not committed a crime or are not a threat to society—in fact the opposite could be argued—to be kept track of but not the criminal element? I do not know. I cannot understand why the government is not doing as the police request.
The police have come before the government. They have pleaded with the government that this is a very effective tool. It could reduce the costs of law enforcement greatly. It could increase the effectiveness of our criminal justice system. It could help to declare people who have not committed a crime innocent at a much earlier stage. No, the government is not interested in that kind of thing.
Is that not deplorable, Mr. Speaker? I can see that you are listening. You are as concerned as I am with the things the government requires law-abiding citizens to do but does not require criminals to do. Why does the government give the criminal more rights than the law-abiding citizen? I cannot understand that. It just blows me away.
In the gun registration scheme the legislation that is before the House will have the effect of increasing smuggling and of increasing black market trade in firearms. It is not just me who is saying that; justice department bureaucrats who have been put in place to put in that huge regulatory scheme are saying that. Why are we doing it? It is absolutely ridiculous.
On the other hand, the police are saying that if we were able to get a DNA fingerprint, which is very easily done because we have the technology, we could solve crimes a lot sooner. We could find people guilty or innocent a lot sooner which would help the police greatly in their efforts to control crime. I do not understand why this government is on the side of the criminal element.
The second question that I want to deal with is: Why is the government refusing to allow the police to use a tool that could help them solve a lot of crimes, reduce court costs and the cost of law enforcement? The argument the government has used is that there could be a lot of misuse of this information. If in fact a criminal gave a DNA fingerprint to the police, in some way or another, down the road, that information might be used in a way that would infringe on the criminal's rights.
The solution to that concern is very simple: punish the misuse of that information if it is used in a way that the government or the police do not find appropriate in solving a crime. Restrict the unethical and unlawful use of that information. That could be easily done and this government has refused to do that.
The answer to the concern that the information may be misused is very simple. We have that protection in many other areas already, so why not extend it to this? It does not make sense.
The government also argues that the courts may not approve of this legislation if we extend it to everyone who has been charged with certain crimes and if we require all of them to take a DNA fingerprint and give that fingerprint to the police. The government said it may infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of criminals.
Again the answer to that is so simple that I do not know why this government does not do it. Why not refer the matter to the courts? Ask the Supreme Court of Canada what measures would be necessary and what could be done in order to protect them. We could put that into this legislation to make sure that it complies with our charter of rights and freedoms. These answers are so simple, why do we not do it?
The third question I want to deal with is that many people have been wrongly convicted in the past 20 or 30 years. Some people have spent five, ten, fifteen, up to twenty years in prison because they were wrongfully convicted. This government allows that to continue by not adequately putting in place a DNA databank that would prevent this kind of thing from happening.
The present legislation, as it is structured, would still allow some of these people to be in prison for many years when they could be freed if we put this in place. Why does the government not put in place something that would help these innocent people be free?
In conclusion, I would appeal to the government to listen to the concerns of members of the opposition and of Canadians who want this to be put in place and, above all, to listen to the police who require this as a tool. I appeal to the government to listen and to not simply use the undemocratic means that it continues to use to ram legislation through. I ask that it consider some of the amendments that Reformers have put in place because they would strengthen the legislation and law enforcement in this country.