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—”