Madam Speaker, does the member understand what is in the bill? I believe I heard him just say that the bill would allow for DNA samples to be taken at the point of the charge being made. In fact the problem with the bill is that the DNA sample, as he should know, will be taken at a time of conviction.
The reason I said red herring a couple of minutes ago is very straightforward. He was trying to make out that anybody who is held, like for example the student who was held by the RCMP at the APEC fiasco for 14 hours, would have his DNA taken. I believe the example he used was that when somebody comes into the country, perhaps through the refugee process and is being detained, the DNA sample would be taken. That is why I said his comments were a red herring.
What we are asking for, what the Canadian Police Association is asking for and what any responsible, reasonable Canadian is asking for is that the DNA sample be taken at the time of a charge, not as the member was putting forward as though there would be a DNA sample taken just because a person was taken into custody and held for a period of time.
The conclusion of his speech was quite enlightening when he referred to the concerns there are about Bill C-68. I am saying that there will not be a jackboot mentality and that the police will need some probable cause for the terribly onerous law and the provisions in Bill C-68. His justification of that is exactly the justification that we make for having the DNA sample taken at the time of charge. I believe the police forces in Canada are typically very responsible in the way they enforce the law.
For him on one side of the coin to say it is bogus, that the police will not be doing things under Bill C-68, under the so-called gun control law, and make a case for that is to make a case for our point that in this instance the samples should be taken at the time of charge.
How can the member square the round peg he has created?