moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-3, in Clause 9, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 5 with the following:
“the convicted offenders index shall be destroyed without delay after”
(b) by adding after line 34 on page 6 the following:
“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) also apply to information communicated under this Act that is in the possession of any Canadian laboratory or federal or provincial law enforcement agency.”
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-3, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 8 the following:
“(7.1) The Commission shall destroy the stored bodily substances of a person without delay after a forensic D.N.A. analysis of these substances is first performed under this section.”
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-3, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 24 the following:
“(2) Paragraph 487.09(1)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) the person is finally acquitted of the designated offence and any other offence in respect of the same transaction; or”
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to again have the opportunity to speak and to try to refocus the debate on the bill before us today, which is Bill C-3 and the related amendments. It is a change from talking in vague generalities.
The first amendment proposed is Motion No. 4, which talks about the destruction of information in the convicted offenders index. As it now stands, subsection 9.(1) of the bill reads as follows:
- (1) Subject to subsection (2) and the Criminal Records Act, information in the convicted offenders index shall be kept indefinitely.
(2) Access to the following information in the convicted offenders index shall be permanently removed without delay—
It talks about permanent removal, even in cases where a conviction has been quashed, or absolute discharge given, or in the case of young offenders, but this is getting a bit more technical.
When we raised this in committee and asked why the file was not simply destroyed, instead of being permanently removed, we were told that this is complicated with computers, that they did not really know, that these were files, that it was technical, and so on. I was astonished, as were other witnesses. If we have the technological know-how and scientific knowledge to analyse DNA, which is such a tiny thing, and are able to penetrate to the very centre of human cells to identify people, I cannot believe that we are unable to destroy computer files.
It is with precisely this in mind that the Bloc Quebecois has introduced Motion No. 4. Instead of permanently removing the file and allowing it to float around somewhere in a computer bank, and not really knowing where it might end up later, let us destroy it and put an end to the problem. Let us remove the temptation to put this computerized information to an improper use later on. That was the purpose of Motion No. 4.
We did not come up with this on our own. A number of witnesses who appeared before the committee said “Hold on, now, DNA technology is so powerful and potentially so powerful that something must be done to limit temptation as much as possible”. That is Motion No. 4.
Motion No. 6 is along the same lines:
“7.(1) 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”.
If genetic testing is done, whether on saliva, blood or hair, the desired information has to have been obtained. Why then keep the hair, saliva or blood? We already have the picture and the information required.
Once again, the purpose of this is to take away possible temptation—because that is always present—so that our bodily substances cannot be misused. Let us not forget that, when a sample is taken for analytical purposes, it is possible to have a number of pieces of information not only about the person from whom the sample came, but also about that person's family, his or her parents, children, brothers and sisters. The closer the other individual is biologically to the source of the sample, the more information can be gathered about him or her.
Motion No. 6 is, therefore, in the same vein as Motion No. 4. Let us take away the temptation, so as to avoid its use for other dubious purposes.
We now move on to the motions in Group No. 2. Motion No. 13 concerns clause 22 on page 24. This clause talks about section 487.09 of the Criminal Code and reads as follows:
Subject to subsection (2), bodily substances that are taken from a person in execution of a warrant under section 487.05 and the results of forensic DNA analysis shall be destroyed, or in the case of results in electronic form, access to those results shall be permanently removed—
I come back to what I said with respect to Motion No. 4. If we have the technology to analyse DNA and see right inside a person, why make a point of not destroying the computer file? It can be done, instead of just eliminating the link between a given individual and his data, which would float around somewhere in the bank. Let us destroy the information in the databank. Let us remove the temptation.
Let us ensure that the right to privacy is sacred and that it will be respected not just today, but in future as well. It must not be forgotten that the bill before us today will be good for five, 10, 15 or 20 years, and is only a precedent that will undoubtedly change as technology advances, and goodness knows it is advancing quickly.
Let us therefore remove the temptation and ensure that the privacy of all Canadians will be respected.