Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that many witnesses were heard. Also, as has been pointed out, we heard a lot of testimony.
I may have missed one of the meetings. Unless I stand to be corrected, I do not recall any of those witnesses asking to increase the penalty for the misuse of any information from two to five years. As I said, we heard a lot on privacy issue concerns that were generally raised, but not once did I hear any testimony from any witness asking what this motion calls for.
As a government we have been very concerned about any potential misuse. That is why from the onset we entrusted the administration, the establishment and the co-ordination of the DNA databank with one of the world's most respected police agencies, the RCMP through its commissioner. They will be entrusted with the administration and the set up of the databank. We have tried to find the proper balance between making sure that there would be no potential misuse of any information provided and to show Canadians that we are serious about DNA.
As has been pointed out, the profile can disclose much more than a fingerprint. As the member for Sydney—Victoria pointed out during committee hearings, we have a tendency to compare DNA profiles with fingerprinting. As he so aptly put it, a fingerprint is an impression of me whereas DNA is a part of me. There is a substantial fundamental difference between the two yet we often confuse the two.
I would like to caution hon. members. This amendment refers to subsections 6(6) and (7). These subsections refer to the misuse or disclosure of the contents of a profile. We are not talking about the identification of the individual to whom the profile may belong. It is similar for samples.
We are saying that if it is misused it is a very serious offence. We have tried to strike a balance. We did not consult the supreme court on everything as the critic from the Reform Party might lead us to believe. We simply said that there here is a crime. Here is the message we want to get across to Canadians, that it is serious to misuse any of this information. We simply tried to be consistent with similar offences that are established already in the criminal code.
We believe that if the government were to extend the penalty from two years to five years it would be inconsistent with similar offences in the criminal code and very excessive. To that end I ask that the hon. members vote against it for those reasons.