Mr. Speaker, we are speaking now to the second group of motions. I want to clearly identify for the folks at home what we are speaking to. It is Bill C-3, the national DNA databank. There are 13 motions. We are now referring to Motions Nos. 4, 6 and 13.
To give a brief thumbnail sketch, one motion would basically destroy the convicted offender index. The whole purpose of the national DNA databank is to establish an index of those people who are convicted offenders.
I believe it speaks directly against the whole purpose of the bill. If the purpose of the bill is to establish a national index of convicted offenders and if Motion No. 4 proposed by a member from Bloc is to actually destroy the index, then it speaks directly against the main purpose of the bill.
There is more destruction yet. Motion No. 6 speaks to the destruction of stored bodily substances. To develop the index we need stored bodily substances. There is a debate in terms of whether once we have a profile established we need to keep the bodily substances, because once we have the profile, supposedly we have the profile.
I ask hon. members to think back with me in a bit of a tale. Imagine if previous to the discovery and the understanding of the double helix structure we had the ability to collect substances from the scene of a crime but without DNA evidencing or without being able to break things down on a DNA level and without being able to analyse bodily substances we would not be able to know whether they were the substances of that offender or criminal.
It is like we are standing on the edge of a technological cliff, on the edge of a brave new world. If we destroy these substances when the government has admitted here today that it was brought forward by chemists in committee that each day or each week advancements are being made in DNA technology, in the ability to analyse these things forensically or otherwise, we are tossing away data that will be vital in terms of the prosecution of these crimes. That is a crime in itself. That speaks to Motion No. 6. If we destroy these bodily substances when it would be easy enough to keep them on file and to bank them, all we are doing is keeping the profile as it stands right now at the simplistic level.
Far be it from me as somebody who is not a chemist but a mere politician to determine whether 10, 15 or 20 years down the road chemistry will advance or DNA analysis will have advanced to the point where the profiles can be much more expansive than what they are right now.
Motion No. 13 is with regard to once again destroying bodily substances. Here the idea is to keep it in sync with other parts of the Criminal Code in terms of destroying substances or pieces of evidence in the case of acquittal.
Once again let us think about this is terms of the victim and in terms of those who are innocent and want to be proven innocent and want to get their acquittals as opposed to those people who are actually the offenders.
Too many times we have taken into account the rights of the criminal rather than the rights of the victims in this circumstance. I am will now go over some of the arguments that have been brought forward today with regard to the second set of motions.
One of my colleagues in the Reform Party brought this up and it was very effective. The idea comes up that if one lives in a small town everybody knows what one is up to and is that not awful. Actually it is only awful if one is not very proud of what one is up to. This once again speaks to the whole idea of innocents.
If we have this national DNA databank and if substances are kept past one's acquittal and if bodily substances are kept rather than just the minuscule or whatever type of profile we are able to have at this time, never mind what we are going to have 10, 15 or 20 years down the road, the only people who have something to fear in this case are the criminals, not the innocent, for indeed they are the ones who shall be set free.
Merely it raises the question of what these people are doing if they are so worried about having a DNA databank that stays for longer than a year or for just that crime or case. The whole purpose of having the index is so that we can cross-reference these things when other crimes come up.
One of the Bloc members asked why we should keep these materials. We may need more samples to go ahead and verify a sample. Once again, I am not an expert in these things but if there are multiple clippings of hair or types of blood at a site and merely one sampling is taken then destroyed, what if there were other blood samples mixed in? We want to be able to know these things, so keeping the actual bodily substances is important.
The second point that I have already raised is to future testing. I think I would be a poor person to judge at this moment in history whether technology will change and allow us the ability to make further testing, more comprehensive testing than what we have right now.
NDP members also had a chance to speak to this set of motions. They said it was an intrusion of the self and that it was too important in terms of the intrusion of the self to allow these bodily substances and these databanks to be maintained. They said we should seriously question this. The destruction of these things in what they considered to be due process it would be the best thing to do.
I think that is part of what we are getting at here. If all we are worried about all the time is the intrusion on the actual criminal, if we are worried about in a sense how the case of the defence stands, then we are not having as a primary concern the rights of the victims rather than the rights of the criminal. In that case, when there is a rape or a murder, why are we more worried about the intrusions made on the victim than the intrusions made on the criminal in these investigations?
Too often we are concerned with the criminal legal system, not enough with the victims.
We also heard today from a Reform colleague of mine about how blood banks are far exceeding the expansion and growth than anything we could possibly be worried about at this point with DNA databanks. If that is the case we certainly have a precedent set already with the expansion of blood banks for every new infant. To collect data in the case of crimes is merely doing due diligence for law-abiding citizens who want to see injustices righted.
The Progressive Conservatives, our Tory friends in the House, also spoke to this, the member in mind having actually sat in on the justice committee. He said that according to people who presented there was great difficulty, indeed an impracticality, with regard to the destruction of DNA profiles.
Having 20 profiles on a page and trying to destroy one, and thereby in some way tampering or destroying an entire page, it is getting rid of the whole purpose of having an index. Once again, if we are going to go to this trouble, if we are to increase the effectiveness of the enforcement of law, why tamper with the index in any way? We should want to have it. It is going to help in the prosecution of crimes.
We had Liberals who spoke to this group of motions and their words were often encouraging when they said why destroy samples when technology progresses day by day or week by week. I pointed that out as well, so good on them for recognizing something that has true value. They spoke to the costs and the administration of resampling these things. We would not want to burden taxpayers with more cost and more administration. It just does not make sense.
To my Liberal colleagues across the way who wanted to cut down on the administrative costs of resampling, good on them. I only wish they kept these things in mind on more issues.
Another Reform colleague spoke to the whole idea of indexing. Trying to get rid of the index is working against the very purposes of the bill and the underlying justice we are trying to achieve.
With that I leave it to other members in the House and say that in no way can we support some of these amendments, namely Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 13. We have to stand against them.