Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to partake in this very important debate on this very timely and important piece of legislation.
As has been indicated by previous speakers, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Charlevoix is aimed specifically at the protection of the privacy of individuals and particularly the integrity of the test samples that may be taken by the police in the course of their investigation.
As with the previous speaker, I find myself in a position where I cannot in all conscience support this motion. It had been clearly demonstrated at the justice committee, by a professional chemist who spoke of the ability scientists would have to destroy the actual DNA profile, that this is not a possibility. The DNA profile itself is set up in such a way that it appears on a sheet with 24 other profiles. If one profile were physically removed all the other profiles would fall and it would cause a mix. I am not articulating this as well as the professor, but as I understand it is a physical impossibility to destroy the profile. I am puzzled as to the insistence of the hon. member from the Bloc that this motion be adopted.
Motion No. 4 of Group No. 2 is the first motion. For the reasons I have indicated I feel it is not appropriate that we would be quick to embrace this motion.
Motion No. 6 was moved by the hon. member from the Bloc. It speaks of the necessity of the commissioner to order without delay the destruction of stored bodily substances of a person after the forensic DNA analysis of those substances has been performed. As indicated by previous speakers, I suggest this is not a necessity and this proposed amendment in its present form would contradict the previous amendment. That is to say that section 7.1 as amended would contradict section 7 of the same clause.
The member for Charlevoix should have indicated in the amendment that there should be a deletion of section 7 if the amendment were adopted. In its present form section 7 is clear and sufficient. It would defeat the purpose if we were to do away with all the other safeguards. The safeguards are crucial to the protection of individual rights. The safeguards put specific onus on the commissioner to take into consideration certain factors as to when and where the substances and the DNA profile should be used.
It is not a section that we should tamper with at this time. I would not be supportive of this amendment for the reasons stated.
Motion No. 13 which appears in this grouping talks of the need to amend section 487.09 of the Criminal Code which speaks of the use of DNA sampling in trials or court cases where there has been an individual who has been found not criminally responsible. When a person is finally acquitted of a designated offence or any other offence with respect to the same transaction that individual would not be subject to any further review or that the DNA would never be sampled or used again.
This motion calls for the destruction of bodily substances and the removal of the DNA profile of a person found not guilty by reason of a mental disorder.
We believe it is important to continue to store and to keep this information and profile of an individual as the current law does presently provide. To destroy that information on the basis of the finding of the court would destroy the ability of the police, with the use of this sample, to establish that the individual had committed the actus reus. Whether they had formed the requisite mens rea, whether they had intended to do this act, would be a finding for the court. At least they would be able to put some finality on the investigation. They would be able to say we have the DNA profile, we have the individual who committed the act. That is an important feature that this amendment would prevent the law from doing.
Section 672 of the Criminal Code, which deals with mental orders, allows the courts to make specific findings with respect to a person's culpability and whether they have formed the intent to do so. There are provisions aimed at individuals who have been deemed to be not criminally responsible. This is not the time or the place for us to interfere with that, which is what this motion calls for. It is tampering with the safeguards that presently exist. It is not something that we should be getting into at this point.
The important amendments put forward are done so with the best of intentions. They are done so with a very clear purpose by the hon. member for Charlevoix, to address privacy concerns. Once again I am afraid that what we are in danger of doing should we accept these amendments is making this legislation unnecessarily cumbersome and more complicated than it is in its present form.
What we are hoping to do by the enactment of this important and historic piece of legislation is give police officers the necessary tools to conduct criminal investigations, particularly into very violent offences. This will help police officers to solve a great number of outstanding murders. This legislation will give those police officers a tool to get on with the very important task of solving these crimes not only for the purposes of holding people accountable for their atrocious acts but to give victims some closure. It will give the families of those who have been affected an opportunity to come to grips with what has happened. There are 600 cases in the province of British Columbia alone.
I hope the process we are embarking on today by going through this piece of legislation and looking at ways to improve it and to beef up what the intent of this legislation will help police officers to perform the important tasks they are charged with.