Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague said, still I have a major concern about this bill.
The principles put forward are genuine, right and straightforward. The problem with this kind of evidence is that it is hard to contradict or rebut by ordinary citizens or lawyers defending themselves. This engineering evidence is so elaborate and complicated that it has to be made by a scientific consulting firm. Such means of rebuttal are generally not available to the defence. That is the danger presented by this kind of legislation.
I am totally in favour of the principles, but we must ask the question. Recently, in Quebec, evidence was fabricated by crooked cops in the well-known case of the Matticks brothers. So, I wonder how the defence could rebut evidence like what would be required under Bill C-3 if it were dealing with, say, officers like the ones involved in the case I just referred to. That is my only concern. As for the rest, the principles, I am in favour.
I would therefore ask for reassurances concerning the tools available to an honest defence to rebut evidence made by the crown on the basis of Bill C-3.