Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-3. The Group No. 2 amendments deal with the disposition of DNA evidence which I will talk about.
First, I will tell a little story. A couple of years ago my constituency office was broken into at night. No one was there and no one was hurt. The next morning the police came and discovered that the television set was all that was missing. It is too bad because it was a new television set. The police dusted the place for fingerprints. They talked to us for a while and then went away. That evening a police officer came to my home with my television set in his arms. I asked him how he got it back so quickly. He replied that there had been a fresh snowfall the night before. They simply followed the footprints of the fellow to a vacant garage where he had put the television set, waited for him to return and they picked him up. I tell this story a bit facetiously.
The act states that DNA profiles are uniquely private and personal information that may be used only for purposes of identification. It strikes me that that is basically what fingerprints are about. I am really glad that fingerprints are already included in the legislation. I would hate to think what would happen if we tried to legislate and categorize footprints in the snow. I can see the problems that would exist for some of our Liberal colleagues. It might be discrimination against a person on the basis of his weight because the impression was deep in the snow. It may have been a man, a woman or a crippled person and we could tell by the way they walked. We would be discriminating against these people by using such evidence.
My concern is that in looking at the DNA issue we are looking at a means of identifying someone who has done something really bad. We need to know who that person is and call that person quite appropriately to account for what they have done. The only reason the DNA evidence is needed is for identification. It should be kept on file until that purpose is accomplished. The only reason is for identification. It is not to talk about the genetic type of the person or to talk about latent genetic defects that may exist in future generations, it is only for identification. All of these other issues are protected.
This is an important issue for Reform members. In fact in the last parliament an almost identical bill, Bill C-94, was introduced toward the end of the second session. Even though the bill was seriously flawed, our party was willing to walk with the government, to fast track it through parliament. We felt that this DNA tool was just too important for our law enforcement agencies to be without.
The amendments in Group No. 2, all proposed by the Bloc member for Charlesbourg, relate to the destruction of DNA evidence. Why would it be important to destroy DNA evidence that has been appropriately collected?
I am concerned about Motion No. 6 which states: “The Commission shall destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay after a forensic DNA analysis of these substances is first performed under this section”. Why would we destroy this evidence without delay?
The concern that comes to mind when looking at this motion may be cost. We are aware of the concern over the cost of establishing and maintaining this databank.
However, this amendment could actually increase the costs of the databank, not only the costs involved in the destruction of the evidence, but the costs of re-establishing the evidence, regaining the evidence or seeking the evidence from someone who is no longer around. What happens then?
As we are well aware, technology is expanding at a tremendous rate. As technology develops, tests and analysis change and improve. Although the DNA analysis is far more accurate than other technologies we have seen to date, in a couple of years this analysis may prove dramatically better than it is today.
In some sense, then, it seems like a waste of time and money to destroy evidence now which may be required at a later date for re-analysis.
As I think of the premature destruction of DNA materials I am concerned about the possible inaccuracies, the mistakes that could be made by a technician in analyzing the DNA evidence at hand. If the evidence is misanalyzed and then immediately destroyed, how do we recover the loss? I alluded to this earlier. This is still a relatively new technology. The tests and the analysis are not totally foolproof yet.
What happens if a technician who runs the initial tests did something wrong and, as a result, the analysis is off? What happens if the person whose sample is falsely analyzed is not in custody, is not available, cannot be found and the law enforcement agencies cannot obtain another sample?
I think it is much more cost effective and safer to keep these DNA substances in storage for a specified period of time rather than to prematurely destroy this valuable evidence.
This raises the question of why we destroy evidence that is legally, properly, appropriately gathered and is stored and maintained only for the purposes of identification. Why can this not be kept on record simply as fingerprints are today?
I cannot understand why there would need to be a move to destroy this evidence. It seems to me that it would be of benefit in two ways. First, if someone has committed a crime the evidence is there on file and can be used for identification purposes at a later date if that person reoffends. Second, if someone is apprehended this evidence could well turn out to be what is required to free an innocent person. The issue cuts both ways.
It is not only the apprehension of those who are guilty who we are concerned about, but the correct application of justice so that those who do not offend and who are apprehended and mistakenly charged may be cleared and the charges dropped.
Those people may then go about having normal lives with their families without further disruption and harm.
These are the concerns that I have. I hope to be able to speak to the other groups as they come up. I find this issue one that is interesting. It is extremely important for the maintenance of justice. We have seen time and again how people who have been incorrectly convicted and sent away to jail for long periods of time have had their names cleared with the proper use of DNA evidence.
We cannot forget this. It is too important. It is a valuable tool. We must use it as vigorously as necessary within properly prescribed limits and we must quit the nonsense of how we can avoid using it when it is needed.