Madam Speaker, over the last few months, I have followed this debate with great interest. As members of this House were told last week, Bill C-3 will help the police in a number of ways, across the country and even internationally.
Having a DNA data bank will provide police with a strong tool in its fight against crime. It will also allow Canada to be a leader in the use of DNA identification technology and to then establish a national DNA data bank.
The Solicitor General of Canada deserves to be congratulated for the caution he showed in asking that the bill be carefully reviewed by a committee of the House made up of members from all parties. Personally, I also congratulate him for involving Canadians in the process, through a public debate on the subtleties and scope of this legislation.
It is very important that Canadians be allowed to express their views and have a say in how their government operates. This is why the government held public consultations right across the country, before drafting and tabling its legislation last year. When the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights before second reading, the committee heard over 30 witnesses and diligently reviewed all the information submitted. Since it was introduced, Bill C-3 has been examined openly and transparently. It really reflects Canadians' viewpoints.
Genetic analysis is a powerful investigative tool, and the bill provides strong measures to protect against its possible abuse. The government has heard testimony from top experts, who said that genetic evidence can reveal much more about an individual than a breath sample, a finger print or even a blood sample. Given the power of genetic analyses, the issue of privacy is of considerable concern to our government. We must therefore act with the utmost care.
As regards the protection of privacy, I would like to explain what the government considers to be the problems and how Bill C-3 represents, in my opinion, a solid and balanced approach.
I would first like to raise the issue of keeping the samples. Scientists have put forward solid arguments showing that biological samples must be kept for the genetic data bank to take advantage of future technological progress.
In addition, a forensic science expert from the RCMP told the committee last March that significant progress had been made in recent years in DNA identification technology. Smaller samples, including those found in decayed matter, can now be examined.
These technological advances prove that genetic analysis is clearly one of the most active and rapidly evolving scientific areas. With developments in the technology, today's DNA profiles could become outmoded.
Bill C-3 provides therefore that samples will be kept. Canada's national DNA data bank will thus mirror the technological progress made the world over, and Canada will be able to send DNA information for medical and legal purposes to other laboratories and data banks throughout the world.
The question of who will have access to the samples and to the DNA profiles arises. Drawing on the bill passed in July 1995 on warrants authorizing samples to be taken for DNA analysis, Bill C-3 includes protective measures and provisions on these samples.
Up to now, statutory provisions on warrants have withstood all legal challenges under the charter and have provided a solid basis for the creation of the DNA data bank.
Bill C-3 therefore contains strict rules on biological sampling and DNA identification and on the retention of DNA profiles in order to protect personal information.
I repeat, personal information will be protected under this law. The RCMP will be responsible for the secure storage of all biological samples. Access to DNA profiles and samples will be limited strictly to those responsible for the operation and maintenance of the data bank.
So that information is not misused, the bill provides explicitly that only the name associated with the profile will be supplied to police authorities during criminal investigations.
The bill also makes it an offence under the Criminal Code and the DNA Identification Act to misuse any profiles or samples and provides for criminal sanctions against offenders.
The DNA data bank will respect the right to privacy of all innocent people at the crime scene or of law-abiding citizens who volunteer to provide DNA samples to the police.
In fact, the bill contains provisions for the destruction of information in the crime scene index pertaining to a victim or individual no longer considered a suspect after a police investigation.
This is an important safeguard designed to ensure that the data bank does not contain the DNA profiles of innocent people.
The bill also allows those required to give samples to state their preference as to the bodily substance to be taken.
The police must take these preferences into account, but are not in any way obliged to act on them, being required to consider other factors as well.
For instance, the Ontario Court of Justice ruled that the taking of hair samples violated charter provisions, and forensic experts said that blood was best suited to DNA analysis.
Bill C-3 accordingly leaves it up to the police to decide on the most suitable samples to be taken.
Clearly, the bill has been drafted with extreme care. The Government of Canada is convinced of its ability to strike a balance between public safety on the one hand and the protection of privacy on the other. In addition to the protective measures and sanctions set out in Bill C-3, there are other mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing that the bill will be applied in such a way as to maintain that balance.
Once the data bank is in operation, the Privacy Commissioner will be able to carry out an audit at any time. He is already authorized by the Privacy Act to monitor the use of personal information in the hands of the federal administration.
In addition, Canadian forensic laboratories are in the process of drawing up accreditation standards. Once these standards are in effect, forensic laboratories can be audited by an independent body as well, in order to guarantee compliance with internationally recognized quality assurance standards.
There are already provisions, such as those in the Privacy Act, to ensure that information, including DNA information, cannot be provided to another country unless an agreement is in place with that country. The Privacy Act also prevents personal information from being provided to another country for any purpose other than law enforcement or investigation.
When the RCMP becomes responsible for the DNA bank, its operations will have to comply with RCMP internal standards, and these, I am proud to say, are among the most stringent in the world. In addition, the RCMP works in close collaboration with a number of international groups and committees in this area, including the FBI-sponsored Technical Group on DNA Analysis Methodology which provides Canada with state of the art technology and makes it possible for our country to ensure that its standards are in line with those in effect elsewhere in the world.
I would now like to explain to you why sampling must be done at the time of sentencing, not at the time the person is arrested or charged, as some have proposed.
We have looked into this matter in great detail, both in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and as a government. During consultations on the bill, and during the committee hearings, many individuals and groups of experts told our government most emphatically that sampling at the time of arrest was problematical.
DNA identification alone rarely leads to a conviction. In fact, crime scenes do not always yield DNA evidence. A number of factors—alibis, motives, fingerprints and eyewitness statements—are taken into consideration in criminal cases. However, in the face of insistence by the police community, which asked it to consider the possibility of amending the bill, the government consulted legal experts to find out whether samples could be taken without a warrant when an arrest is made or when charges are laid without contravening the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Three eminent former justices of the courts of appeal of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia considered the matter in an independent investigation.
They unanimously upheld the government's position. Under the law, taking samples during arraignment would contravene the provisions of the charter.
I repeat, taking samples when charges are laid would contravene the provisions of the charter. In Canada, the accused is presumed innocent and must be protected from all unreasonable searches or seizures.
Let there be no doubt on this point. The government must continue to act cautiously and with forethought in this matter. We want to take the approach most favourable to all Canadians.
It serves no purpose to intrude in the personal privacy of everyone arrested, when genetic imprints may not even be necessary. There is no point pondering this question further when the legal experts have told us on many occasions that there would be too great a risk of a challenge under the charter.
Finally, we cannot endanger the establishment of a genetic data bank—whose purpose is to better serve Canadians—by being over zealous.
Sampling at sentencing will permit the effective application of legislation and protect individual rights during a criminal investigation.
Let us therefore pass a bill that will be effective rather than a text that will surely not stand up to court challenges. The police know how easily the Constitution is used to dismiss charges.
I think that all members will share my view that it is contrary to public safety to have cases thrown out on technicalities.
It is therefore up to all members to play a constructive role in creating a DNA bank that will strike a balance between protection of the public and privacy rights under the charter.
We are obviously on the right track in our fight to protect Canadians against crime. With Bill C-3, I believe that our government has struck the right balance.
I therefore have no hesitation in supporting this bill and I recommend that all my colleagues in the House do likewise.