Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consent of the House. I just left the reading room where we were having a familiarization program on our crime prevention initiative. I appreciate the number of representatives of your staff who are participating in that exercise. You are to be commended.
I am pleased to address the House today at third reading of Bill C-3 which provides for the establishment of Canada's national DNA databank. The DNA identification act will make Canada one of only a handful of countries in the world to have a national system of this kind. I am very pleased to say that this groundbreaking legislation is a major milestone in the government's safer communities agenda. Public safety is my priority. To that end Bill C-3 forms an important part of my commitment to Canadians.
Our intention in the legislation is to create a practical law enforcement tool for police that will stand the test of time. We have been mindful that this exercise involves a careful balancing of public safety measures on one hand and privacy rights which Canadians hold dearly on the other. In this regard we have found the right balance.
Since the bill was introduced last September members of the House have proceeded cautiously in their consideration of the legislation. I believe this approach is laudable given the scope of the issues surrounding the use and potential misuse of DNA profiles and samples as well as the legal and ethical considerations. That is the reason Bill C-3 was referred to the committee prior to second reading.
I encouraged amendments to improve it and had every expectations that we would come out of this exercise with a better bill. In my view that is exactly what has been achieved.
I will now explain how Bill C-3 was drafted, how it is to be applied, what its advantages will be, and finally how it has been improved through the efforts of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Introduction of the DNA Identification Act constitutes phase two of the government's strategy on DNA.
The introduction of the DNA identification act marked the second phase of the government's DNA strategy. The first important step involved laying out the requirements for when DNA samples could be obtained for the purpose of criminal investigation. As a result, in July 1995 amendments to the Criminal Code were passed to allow police to obtain DNA samples from suspects in criminal investigations with the use of a warrant.
That legislation provided the police with an effective tool that has helped them solve hundreds of serious crimes. It has been effective because it has been used to help eliminate suspects and secure convictions. It has been instrumental in obtaining guilty pleas, thereby sparing victims the trauma of testifying and reducing overall investigation and court costs. It has also withstood constitutional challenge.
With the DNA warrant legislation firmly in place, the government is proceeding to the next step of its DNA initiative, creating a framework for storing DNA samples and using stored DNA information in the investigation of serious criminal offences.
A national DNA databank will be an important tool to help police link a suspect with evidence left at a crime scene. The ability to store and later retrieve DNA profiles will shorten investigations and help prevent further violence by repeat offenders. This means better public safety for all Canadians.
Further, Bill C-3 will authorize police to collect DNA samples for offenders convicted of designated criminal offences. These include the most serious personal injury crimes, including homicide and sexual offence, which are likely to be associated with DNA evidence being found at the crime scene.
Samples will be analysed with the resulting profile entered into the convicted offenders index of the databank. The databank will also have a crime scene index containing DNA information retrieved from crime scenes. By having this structure profiles can be cross-referenced to find a match in the system.
The benefits of such a system are clear. Stored DNA information will enable police to more quickly identify suspects where they have no leads and identify repeat offenders across police jurisdictions. It also has the potential to deter offenders from committing future crimes as they will know that because their DNA profile is in the databank they will not be able to slip through the cracks.
Throughout the development of Bill C-3 the federal government has sought the advice and expertise of many groups and individuals, including those on the front lines.
In addition, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights held 15 witness hearings on the bill with representatives from 17 different organizations, including police associations, victims groups and legal organizations.
These consultations revealed strong support for the creation of a national DNA databank but there were also a number of concerns regarding Canadian values of privacy, public protection and individual rights guaranteed by the charter. To respond to those concerns and improve the overall effectiveness of the bill, a number of amendments have been made since the legislation was introduced last fall.
Various interest groups, including the privacy commissioner, le Barreau du Québec and the national action committee on the status of women, suggested that the bill did not contain sufficient safeguards to protect the use of DNA profiles from the samples of victims, cleared suspects and people who volunteer samples to help police.
As a result, the government brought a motion to clarify that access to the information contained in the crime scene index shall be permanently removed if it relates to a victim or person who has been eliminated as a suspect in a criminal investigation.
We heard that DNA analysis has come a long way since it was first used in the criminal justice system just 10 years ago. While the technology has matured at a swift pace, one thing remains constant. DNA has the potential to reveal much more about a person than a fingerprint. As one committee member put it, a fingerprint leaves an impression of me, DNA is a part of me.
To ensure that DNA information is safeguarded and used only for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis, the bill sets out very limited access to the databank. It prohibits any improper use of information and limits access only to those directly involved with its ongoing operation and maintenance.
To further protect the privacy of innocent persons, the bill contains a new provision specifying that access to DNA information shall be permanently removed where a person has been eliminated as a suspect.
During committee hearings on the bill we heard from several witnesses and committee members that the proposed designated offence list could be expanded to capture other serious offences for which DNA evidence might be useful.
The committee addressed this by adding infanticide to the primary list and expanding the secondary list to include dangerous and impaired driving causing bodily harm or death and a number of sexual offences.
I believe these changes will be invaluable to police and will enhance public safety. During the committee's hearings, several witnesses recommended that the retroactive scheme be expanded to include samples from not only dangerous offenders and repeat sex offenders but murderers who have killed more than once.
The government acted on this by bringing in an amendment to the bill to allow DNA to be collected retroactively from such offenders. This expansion will capture offenders like many known in Canada and will provide the police with valuable information to help solve outstanding criminal cases.
I conclude by sharing the rationale for taking samples at conviction. The police have expressed strong views that DNA samples should be taken earlier, at the time of arrest or charge.
I remind members that police already have the authority to take DNA samples at the time of arrest where they get a warrant to do so. They will continue to be able to use DNA evidence for investigative purposes in accordance with the DNA warrant scheme in place for almost three years.
The departments of justice and solicitor general consulted extensively on this issue and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights thoroughly reviewed it. The vast majority of those consulted expressed the view that taking samples after a person has been convicted will respect the rights of all Canadians under the charter.
They also shared the position that taking samples at arrest or charge could pose a very serious risk of being struck down as unconstitutional. Given that many individuals and organizations have continued to press for expanding this provision, my colleague, the Minister of Justice, sought independent legal opinion from three of Canada's most eminent justices.
Each one concluded that a proposal to take samples at the time of arrest for databanking purposes would not survive a charter challenge. Some members have brushed the legal opinions aside and have argued that the charter is simply a road block to justice.
Let me remind the hon. members that parliament's authority to legislate flows from the Constitution. The Constitution includes the charter which protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Canadians.
It is the duty of parliament to exercise its authority in a manner that respects the charter. Taking samples for the databank at the time of conviction rather than at the time of arrest or charge will not prevent police from doing their job.
It will provide police with an effective investigative tool that will allow them to do their job and ensure that the authority to use this tool will comply with our constitutional requirement as recently defined by the supreme court.
As I said earlier, we have come out of committee hearings with a stronger bill. It is the government's view that Bill C-3 is fundamentally sound.
We are confident that we have found an effective balance between the need to provide the police with the tools they need to do their job and the requirement to respect the constitutional and privacy rights of all Canadians. There is no question that the use of DNA evidence has been a significant breakthrough in the criminal justice system. But we must be mindful that it is a powerful tool and one that must be safeguarded against potential abuse. The creation of a databank that can be upheld by the courts will go a long way toward protecting Canadians from repeat violent offenders.
I urge members to support Bill C-3 so that we can proceed in creating Canada's first national DNA databank. I thank all members who have brought much to improve this bill for their participation in this exercise.