Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-3 at report stage as we discuss the amendments. Bill C-3 is an act respecting DNA identification.
As some of my colleagues have already mentioned, the Reform Party is fully supportive of the creation of a DNA databank and the use of that information in detecting and prosecuting those who committed crimes. However the bill has a scope that is so limited we would be unable to support it as it is. Therefore the amendments here are of some importance.
As almost anyone who is aware of this issue and the debate taking place on it will know, the official opposition is firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with a true sense of security. This is something Canadians lack. Canadians do not feel secure. They do not feel secure from those who would attack them, rob them and harm them. Nor do they feel secure in the apprehension of those who do this. They do not feel secure with regard to the prosecution and punishment of criminals.
My constituents in Cariboo—Chilcotin are greatly alarmed when they see instances of heinous and bloody crimes being committed and the evidence being thrown out on a technicality, a technicality that rests mostly on the latest thought a judge may have.
As we talk about DNA, my constituents see this as a very important tool in the detection of crime and in its prosecution.
Bill C-3, as it now stands, will provide Canadians with some sense of security but in my opinion a false sense of security. Neither my colleagues nor I can support this legislation as it now stands.
Our constituents need to be assured that those who protect us are given real tools, not imaginary tools, tools that are available to them to fight against violent offenders in society. Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces, the officials who maintain the law, the full use of DNA technology which has now become fairly readily available even though it is an expensive tool.
One wonders, when we consider the expense of using faulty or less effective means of apprehending and prosecuting criminals, whether this is a false sense of economy when we talk about the costs of using this DNA technology.
There is another point that also needs to be considered and that is the use of this technology not only for prosecution but for the defence and the freeing of those who are innocent. We have recent examples of this in Canada. There are very sad stories of people who have been in the wrong place or the right place at the wrong time and have been apprehended, charged, tried and convicted. Yet when all the evidence is on the table, these people turn out to be totally innocent. They and their families end up going through not weeks and months but years and years of a sense of betrayal by a justice system that is more interested in convicting someone in these instances than in convicting the correct person.
We are not only interested in correctly solving violent crimes but also in seeing that justice is appropriately applied to the right person.
There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides where DNA evidence has been left at the scene by the perpetrator of the crime. DNA identification now offers an unparalleled opportunity to solve many of these cases and bring these perpetrators to justice.
However, because of the government's irrational fear of violating the privacy rights of those responsible for these heinous crimes, it is intending to restrict the use of a very important technology by law enforcement officials.
Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of a DNA sample at the time of charge. It does not permit samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals other than those designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers. Bill C-3 does, however, provide a dangerous and unnecessary exemption authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a sample if they believe that in doing so the impact on the individual's privacy and security—