Madam Speaker, I will comment on the four amendments in Group No. 1. We realize the very important nature of the bill. It has enormous tools that could potentially provide the police with the ability to solve unsolved crimes and to provide greater protection for society.
In terms of Motion No. 1, with the greatest respect, I understand the concern for the respect of privacy as a result of the taking of DNA samples. When the bill was before committee we found from witnesses that the databank contains only the profile of the DNA samples. It will only carry the profile. The profile can only compare one sample with another profile, so the privacy matter has been largely looked after.
In addition, the penalty for the misuse of DNA information is very significant. It carries two years maximum. In some of the amendments we will be discussing today it is recommended that we increase the period of two years to five years. I am convinced the privacy concerns are adequately addressed by the nature of the databank and by the penalty prescribed in the bill. Depending upon the vote of the members the penalty may be increased from two to five years. My colleagues and I have very little concern about that. As well, the privacy commissioner has the authority to review at any time the databank and its use. There are very strict and secure safeguards as far as privacy is concerned.
We can support Motion No. 2 proposed by the NDP. The amendment precludes private agencies and labs from taking samples. It creates public standards and better accuracy of testing quality. It would appease to a certain degree the concerns about privacy.
This is one area where we feel that a government agency, where standards are set by the elected representatives of the people, is in order so that the testing of a sample meets standards which have been approved by the two houses of parliament. We think this is a logical and common sense amendment and can support it.
I will move to the third motion in this grouping. We have some concern about the motion because it would eliminate subsection 2 of clause 5 of the bill. We could support it if it is not to eliminate the particular subsection which reads:
The Commissioner's duties under this Act may be performed on behalf of the Commissioner by any person authorized by the Commissioner to perform those duties.
We feel this subsection must not be struck from the bill. It should remain. Therefore we will have difficulty supporting this motion.
As to Motion No. 5, we see no reason that there should be included within the statute the demand for a three year review. I appreciate the member's concern with regard to privacy, but I believe my earlier comments and rationale cover the area of privacy.
All that goes into the databank is the profile. Anyone obtaining a profile improperly from the databank gets nothing unless it can be compared with something. I understand that not even a name will be attached to a profile. I am satisfied the privacy requirements and concerns will be adequately addressed in that area.
I also feel the privacy commissioner has the right to audit the databank at any time. He does not have to wait a three year period. Someone with a substantial basis requesting the privacy commissioner to act can mobilize the commissioner to do so. With respect to Motion No. 5 we think the privacy safeguards are in place and within the bill.