Mr. Speaker, this group of motions but particularly Motion No. 4 strikes at the heart of the provisions of Bill C-3.
For the people watching, Bill C-3 is an act which provides for the establishment of a national DNA databank to be maintained by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and used to assist law enforcement agencies in solving crimes. That is the overriding concern of Bill C-3.
It seems to me that this group of amendments and particularly Motion No. 4 would suggest the elimination of the DNA index which is the exact purpose behind the whole bill. I respectfully suggest that the purpose behind the motion may have been not to abuse or provide inadvertent access to the index. I can certainly respect, admire and support that intent. However, the way it is written suggests that the index itself should be eliminated. It seems to me that contradicts the very purpose and essence of Bill C-3.
The bill goes on to do some other things. It states exactly what the databank will consist of. It consists of a crime scene index containing the DNA profiles derived from bodily substances found in places associated with the commission of certain types of serious offences and a convicted offenders index containing DNA profiles obtained from persons convicted or discharged of these types of offences. This gives us a very clear indication of what exactly needs to be done here.
The purpose and intent of establishing an index is to protect both society in general and in particular a person who might have been found near the scene of the crime, who may not have perpetrated the crime but may have looked like he did the job and really did not. The evidence that comes out of comparing profiles provides a much more accurate tool for the law enforcement officers to do the job they are charged to do.
The bill goes on to state that the enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide for orders authorizing the collection of bodily substances from which DNA profiles can be derived for inclusion in the DNA databank. It also amends the Criminal Code to authorize the collection of bodily substances from offenders who meet clearly defined criteria and also are currently serving sentences. A compulsory collection is included here.
The purpose of the bill, while admirable and while moving in the right direction, does not go far enough. It suggests the right things and moves in the appropriate direction but it is clear that it does not give to the enforcement officer the freedom to use the best judgment available at the time in order to collect the necessary information and data so that a conviction might later result when comparing the various profiles.
Finally the enactment contains specific provisions for regulating the use of these bodily substances collected and the DNA profiles derived from them and the use and communication of and access to information contained in the databank.
It is precisely in this connection that we have Motion No. 4 which pertains to clause 9(2). Subclause (2) is very clear. It amends the Criminal Code in that “access to the following information in the convicted offenders index shall be permanently removed without delay after” and the conditions are spelled out.
The intent here is clearly to limit the access so that if a person has been charged with an offence and the charge does not result in a conviction, while the evidence and the profile may be in the index, which should be and will be in the index, the access to that information is cut off if there is no conviction.
Is this not exactly the kind of thing the charter of rights and freedoms is about? It wants the privacy of the individual to be safeguarded so that it is not abused by other people and so that it does not become the object of abuse and misuse by other people.
It is really significant that this provision be in the act. However the motion does not suggest access to the information. It would destroy the index itself. That is the error as I see it in this particular motion. I wonder if the member who proposed this motion actually thought about the fact that this would remove the index rather than provide the adequate safeguards for abuse or the access to information by persons who might use it for their own purposes or for misguided purposes of one kind or another.
With all due respect to the member who submitted this motion, I suggest that probably it is not the kind of motion that would serve the interests of the intent of the bill, nor would it provide for the purposes intended of a sound and adequately balanced justice system in Canada.
I want to revert now to the purpose of the DNA profile in the first place. We have had cases in Canada where individuals have been accused of committing a crime and where all the evidence points in the direction that the individual did commit the crime, but there was no conclusive evidence. It was largely circumstantial. In fact, the circumstantial evidence was so powerful that the best lawyers' and the best judges' minds were put to work on this case and the individual was convicted and incarcerated.
Then with the persistence of people moving on and on and saying we need absolute evidence that is incontrovertible so that we can say clearly this person did commit this crime, they discovered that the circumstantial evidence was not supported by more concrete evidence. What was the evidence that was used to take away the doubt in this case? It was the DNA profile.
I think it is absolutely essential if we are to have a fair and just justice system that we have a tool, the best possible tool that has been made available to us through technology and science, to identify clearly and unequivocally who the individual was. That is exactly what the DNA index is designed to do.
That is why it is so essential that the enforcement officers be able to collect those kinds of samples that will result in an accurate and indisputable profile of a person and that the profile is absolutely unique and completely distinguishable from any other person.
When that kind of operation is possible, it should not be restricted to be used in an arbitrary or capricious way. The amendments proposed in this bill in general are the good ones. They should be supported. But the bill should go further.
Motion No. 4 in my opinion does not do that. In fact, it restricts the bill even more. I recommend that we oppose this amendment and consider very carefully how we can improve the enforcement of our legal system and also make sure justice prevails, that our streets are safe and that law-abiding citizens are protected and carefully rewarded.