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.