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.