Madam Speaker, we feel that, generally speaking, the motions in Group No. 1 that were moved by the hon. member for Charlesbourg are unnecessary, because they do not add to the detailed context of the bill before us.
In general the motions presented by my hon. colleagues are actually considered unnecessary because the bill itself addresses a lot of the concerns raised.
For example the bill's purpose and principles already emphasize that the national databank is intended to help law enforcement agencies identify persons and that safeguards must be placed on the use and communication of and access to information in the databank. This is already in the bill. It is there to protect the privacy of information.
I would also like to point out to the hon. member that the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will have the jurisdiction for the administration and establishment of the databank. This will ensure that the DNA information does not fall into the wrong hands.
Also, once the bank itself is implemented it will be subject to audit by the privacy commissioner, as we discussed, who may audit it at any time rather than the three year time interval that is proposed by the hon. member.
I would now like to comment on Motion No. 1. I believe it has already been pointed out that the purpose of the national DNA databank is to help agencies, in enforcing the law, to identify, as the member indicated, only persons, and that protective measures must be taken with regard to the use and distribution of DNA data, and access to the databank, in order to protect privacy.
Current provisions in the act already deal with the problems raised by this motion. I therefore invite my colleagues to reject this motion.
I am also opposed to Motion No. 3. Although the government is in agreement with the principle that a record of every person who accesses the bank must be maintained, as the member is suggesting, I think that the point of the legislation is the identification the bank contains. The only access allowed is to an individual's identification.
Given that there are already certain safeguards in place, I can ensure the member that, in our view, the request contained in Motion No. 3 deals primarily with an administrative matter, and that the government will duly address this in the related regulations. We feel it is unnecessary to amend the bill, and this is why we are also rejecting this motion.
The final motion in this group is Motion No. 5. This motion suggests establishing a fixed time frame for examination by the privacy commissioner, but does not broaden the commissioner's authority to conduct investigations. Section 37 of the Privacy Act already authorizes the privacy commissioner to carry out investigations in respect of personal information under the control of government institutions in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of the legislation in question.
Once the national DNA data bank is in place, it will be subject to investigation by the privacy commissioner, who may, as I have pointed out, conduct an investigation at any time, rather than every three years, as called for by the member.
For these reasons, in my opinion, Group No. 1, that is Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, does not really add anything to the bill. The problems raised in these motions are already addressed in the bill as written. I therefore urge members to vote against these motions.