Madam Speaker, Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13 deal either with the destruction of DNA samples or information relative to the DNA databank.
Motion No. 4 introduced by the member for Charlesbourg is more or less the same motion introduced, albeit in another form perhaps, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected it on technical grounds, as several members have already pointed out.
The motion poses problems, particularly from a technical point of view because of the limits of the technology that was and will be used, because data concerning a particular offender cannot be destroyed. We have already explained the technical reason for this. The link between identifying information and the actual profile is severed. It would be like removing all the telephone numbers from a telephone book, leaving a random list of telephone numbers and people's names, with nothing to connect them. The link would be severed like that.
The second part of the same motion deals with the communication of DNA information. Once again, it is felt to be unnecessary, because clause 6 of the bill stipulates that the RCMP commissioner may communicate information in the databank only to a Canadian law enforcement agency or laboratory that the commissioner considers appropriate. This is already covered in the bill.
Motion No. 6 deals primarily with the distribution of DNA samples.
Again we have a problem. The whole basis of DNA legislation is to establish a databank. A databank cannot be established if we do not have the samples, if we destroy the samples immediately upon taking the profile and the analysis at this stage. Our committee heard numerous testimonies that the technology and the analysis advance on almost a daily if not weekly basis.
As a result, if we were to destroy the samples right after the establishment of this one databank we would be defeating the purpose of the legislation which is to establish a DNA databank that will be useful not just now but in the future.
As a consequence we would like to keep the samples. It is important to keep the samples because as technology evolves, we would have requirements at times to retest the samples. The administrative costs associated with resampling everybody would be enormous. DNA samples should be kept.
Regarding Motion No. 13, the government supports this amendment. I am of the opinion, having spoken to some of the other members, that the Reform Party and the Conservative Party do not support this amendment.
We do because Motion No. 13 would amend paragraph 47.09(1)(b) of the Criminal Code to ensure consistency with equivalent provisions as outlined in the bill currently.
Bill C-3 proposes the destruction of bodily substances of acquitted persons. Unfortunately it does not make any distinction regarding the Criminal Code between substances obtained for acquitted mentally disordered and non-mentally disordered offenders.
This motion will therefore ensure that bodily substances taken from any acquitted person are destroyed. That is why we are calling on members to support this motion.