Madam Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary make the comment that no committee witness had advocated this kind of penalty. I would ask him to note that while it may not have happened in committee there have been at least four witnesses in the House of Commons who are advocating that.
I encourage the member not to base his judgments on the legislation simply on the committee and on the witnesses. I encourage him to remember that the members of the House come here with a point of view that represents many other people as well as their own. We represent positions to the House and to the government so that they may be aware that in this instance people are very concerned about the inadequacy of the justice system in apprehending serious violent offenders who are doing great harm and great damage to individuals, to our communities and to the structure of our communities.
There is no question that the issue of the DNA testing is a very serious one. The parliamentary secretary is quite correct when he says that these profiles provide an enormous amount of very personal information.
It is extremely important that everyone realizes that within the legislation it is necessary that this information be used only for what it was intended, that is for the identification of people who have been apprehended and to help in the determination of their innocence or guilt by the evidence provided there.
There are some interesting paradoxes in the government's point of view. As I consider this issue I see how important privacy is. I would not want to diminish that importance in any way. I could also point out other instances where the importance of privacy is not nearly so important.
For example, I received a letter from a constituent who is a financial counsellor. He is concerned about information he has received from StatsCan. Now StatsCan is promoting a purchase of information from individual tax returns, about the financial situation of communities, districts and right down to the individual.
This is all based upon postal code. How could a profile be developed from a postal code? In one instance a postal code might be a large apartment building. It would not be too difficult to determine to which individuals, from the profile that StatsCan provides, it would apply in a very personal way. As members are aware, the information that comes out of a person's income tax return is pretty personal.
I want to tell of another instance of a profile based upon a postal code. When my family and I lived in Calgary we had a house on a corner of a block in that city where we had an individual postal code for that house in that city.
I did not realize at the time that by postal code profiles StatsCan could open my income tax return to financial institutions, financial advisers and anyone who cared to pay them money for the information.
My point is that there are some instances where personal privacy is very important to the government. In other instances it is not nearly so important.
I believe that Motion No. 7 is drawing attention to the importance of the private nature of this information. If it must be used for a specific purpose only and beyond that there is a heavy penalty, it draws attention to the importance of this personal information. It must be used in an appropriate way. If it is not used in an appropriate way then there are serious consequences.
I congratulate the member for Sydney—Victoria for presenting the motion. I think it is timely. I think it draws attention to a very important aspect of the bill. I notice my colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned that he is a defence attorney. Now that we have had both the prosecution and the defence speak on this issue, as well as a number of lay people like myself, we have our bases covered.
Strengthening this section to make it a more serious offence by increasing the maximum sentence for indictable offences may serve as more of a deterrent for those who may entertain some thoughts of misusing this information.