House of Commons Hansard #128 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-3.

Topics

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-3 with mixed emotions. I say that because this bill does not go far enough in addressing the concerns of the law-abiding citizens of this country.

Since I was elected to this House in 1993 I have listened to hon. members on the other side of the House who have stood here time after time to proclaim how concerned they are about the judicial system in this country, how concerned they are about the victims of crime in this country, how they are going to work toward stopping crime in this country. Since 1993, I am sorry to say, I have seen them do absolutely nothing with regard to this.

They have come up with Bill C-3, respecting DNA. We all agree that DNA sampling is good. It has to come into play. There is no argument. But when we go through the bill and we see again our caring, sharing Liberal government on that side decide that the rights of criminals far outweigh the rights of victims, I have to wonder exactly what it is doing and how it keeps getting away with this.

I have said time and time again that the first priority of any government has to be the protection of its law-abiding citizens. I will say it again in this House. This government has no intention of supplying that. To me this bill shows it.

In this bill there is the authority to deny the taking of DNA samples from any individual if it is believed that by doing so it will impact the individual's privacy and security. This is somebody who has been picked up with regard to a crime. The government says they do not have to take this. The government says it infringes upon their constitutional right. Never mind the rights of the victims, it infringes upon this individual's rights.

If I am picked up, accused of committing a crime, and I know I am innocent, I will be the first one there to roll up my sleeve. I will let them take the hair. I will let them take fingerprints. In fact they can take fingerprints today. Is that not an infringement? They take breathalyser tests for drunk drivers. Is that not an infringement? They take blood samples today. Is that not an infringement?

I have to shake my head at the stupidity of what is going on here. The Liberals does not seem to understand. They forget the many victims who have come into this House, the many victims who have been to their offices and talked to them.

I want to speak of the concerns of the rape victims in this country who have had to sit and wait. They can sit and smile over there, but they know it is true. The victims have been to their offices to beg and plead for something to happen with regard to this DNA bill so they can go on with their lives. They want to know whether they have been infected with a disease or if there will be an impact on their families. They do not want to wait 12 months for the results. That is what this bill does not allow. This is the sharing, caring government of this country? It is a shame.

We have information from the police associations that this bill does not go far enough. It is a joke. The government gets support, the screaming and the hollering from the criminal lawyers, and it decides that maybe it can pick that up and run with it. It tries to offset this because it might be against somebody's constitutional rights.

The Liberals stand day after day to say that Canada has been voted as the best country in the world in which to live. By being here today the Liberals are pulling off a sick, sad joke on the law-abiding citizens of this country. We have seen it time after time.

We live in a democracy, a great democracy. The Liberals like to tell us about this great wondrous democracy called Canada. In this House of Commons, to which we have been sent, duly elected by people in our constituencies to represent them, we have today a thing called closure in regard to this bill. It is by the same bunch that sat over here and said they would never do what the Conservatives did when in power. That same bunch has moved time allocation and closure in this House more times than any previous government in the history of Canada. Some democracy. That is some way to look after the law-abiding taxpaying citizens of this country. They are the people who pay the government's wages and it shuts the door.

The Liberals will stand and say they do not understand how we could not vote in favour of this bill, that there is a little section in the bill that is good. There is a little section that is good, that can be covered in four words, while the remaining 36 pages are total garbage.

They want us to accept this. They would love us to stand here and sell out our principles for those three little words that are good in this bill. I absolutely refuse to do that. It is a shame that they play politics this way. Maybe it is time it changed. I think in the next election it will change because people are sick and tired of things like this coming down the tube.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Reform

Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

They can laugh all they want over there, but the time is coming. Even some of them have not agreed with this. They will go along with it because they are whipped into shape to do it. It is unbelievable.

We have a multitude of unsolved crimes in this country. We spend hundreds of millions every year trying to solve these crimes. Yet with DNA sampling, most of these crimes could be solved at a minimal expense and it would clear up a whole backlog. It would clear up our courts. It would clear up a multitude of sins that have been committed in this country. But not for this government. It would not like to see that.

Again I have to come back to whether the government's first concern is for the criminal lawyer or whether it is for the law-abiding citizens of this country. I do not think I have to ask too many people on this side of the House who it is for. They do not leave too much doubt over here. I would sincerely like the people from the other side of the House to sit down with some of these victims when they come to them.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

September 29th, 1998 / 4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Shaughnessy Cohen Liberal Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Been there, done that.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Reform

Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Yes. Been there, done that. Have you? You have not listened one little bit though, have you?

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Shaughnessy Cohen Liberal Windsor—St. Clair, ON

I read more than you do.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Reform

Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

There is absolutely no concern at all. I cannot believe it. Yet we will hear the same thing from the justice minister tomorrow about how caring she is. Although we never know over there, do we?

I just have to say that this is a disgrace.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Shaughnessy Cohen Liberal Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Madam Speaker, the self-righteous prattle is certainly coming hard and strong from the other side. I wonder if the last speaker and the other speakers from the Reform Party on this debate today have ever heard of the Constitution or the charter of rights and freedoms because there is a balance that has to be struck here.

We have struck this balance before. Recently we struck a balance with Bill C-68, which was upheld today by the Alberta Court of Appeal, in spite of Reformers telling us last week, loud and strong, that they thought it was going to fail.

This government respects the constitutional balance that has been created in this country between parliament and the courts, and it respects the fact that the charter of rights and freedoms exists to protect all Canadians, including Canadians who are accused of crimes but who have not yet been proven guilty.

This balance is seen in Bill C-3. While the debate on Bill C-3 has interested me, I must say it is about time that we see an end to it. It is time to bring this debate to close. It is time that we move to make this bill law. We know that Bill C-3 will place Canada at the forefront in the use of DNA technology in criminal investigations in the world.

Canada will become one of only a handful of countries to have a DNA data bank. We know that once that bank is in place it is going to be a major milestone in policing technology and investigative procedures.

Public safety is a priority for this government, but public safety and privacy rights have to be balanced, understood and seen to be in sync with one another. To that end, Bill C-3 is an important part of our commitment to Canadians. It is a major achievement, a significant part of our government's safer communities agenda, and safer communities, after all, are what all Canadians want.

Canadians want the police to be able to use a tool like the DNA data bank to help ensure that safe communities stay that way. However, Canadians do not want to give police powers that violate their rights to privacy and their rights pursuant to our Constitution.

The intention of this legislation is to create an effective law enforcement tool, a tool that will stand the test of time. I believe that Bill C-3, as written today, will do just that. I also believe that legislation of this kind needed to be developed very carefully and was developed very carefully. It was also studied very carefully in the justice committee last term.

It is my view that Bill C-3 balances the needs of Canadians who want public safety as their top priority with the need to take into consideration the privacy rights that Canadians value.

Criminal penalties have been included as a safeguard for any misuse or abuse of this data information bank and I do not think the Reform Party is objecting to that. However, in addition to that, the bill was drafted in accordance with Canada's Constitution. It has been drafted to ensure that the rights of all Canadians will not be infringed. It upholds one of the primary considerations in our legal system, one which I think the rhetoric today has left behind, and that is that an accused has the right to be presumed innocent and to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

Bill C-3 reflects the views of the highest court in the land which has said that the taking of DNA samples constitutes a search and seizure that requires judicial authorization. We see this in the most straightforward searches that police now conduct of homes or offices. Even for those, police must first get a warrant to search.

When asked for a bodily sample to be taken from an individual person, the importance of the court's authorization cannot be understated. A search of a person's bodily substances needs to be taken more seriously than the search of a home or an office because it involves bodily integrity and it undermines human dignity.

The supreme court has made that clear. Therefore, taking a DNA sample from a person for investigative purposes clearly demands a high standard of justification.

DNA samples taken from every suspect without a warrant, as the opposition would suggest, no matter how minor the offence not only would waste valuable law enforcement time and resources, but also would not meet the standards that have been clarified by our courts. We cannot forget the fact that police can already take a DNA sample from a person at the time of arrest or charge so long as they obtain a warrant to do so. Reform does not raise this because it does not fit its assault on the government.

The fact of the matter is that that DNA warrant legislation came in in the last parliament. It has been used very successfully in a wide range of cases. Warrants have been given upon the right grounds being ready.

The Criminal Code already provides a way of allowing police to obtain a DNA sample from a person they suspect of having committed a very serious offence, by using a DNA warrant. This provision is consistent with the charter, giving the police the assurance that their case will not later be thrown out of court. It gives individuals the assurance that indeed it is taken very seriously by police when they are about to invade someone's privacy.

Our colleagues are obviously overlooking the fact that DNA warrant legislation has been in place for three years. They are ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has commended that legislation.

DNA warrants are well used by police. They have been helping investigations tremendously. They have been used to eliminate suspects and secure convictions. They have been instrumental in obtaining guilty pleas, thereby sparing victims the trauma of testifying. They have been cost effective because they have helped to reduce overall court costs.

The DNA warrant legislation has also survived all constitutional challenges to date. It has survived those challenges because the legislation provides that judicial authorization be obtained for the collection of DNA samples.

There is no doubt that over the past few years we have made enormous progress in our efforts to contribute to a safe, just and peaceful society. The addition of forensic DNA analysis and the ability to store DNA profiles will help us target those who commit the most serious of crimes and hold them accountable.

Canadians can continue to enjoy the safety of their streets and have a sense of security knowing that police forces across the country have access to some of the most sophisticated tools worldwide, but have restraints on their actions so that they cannot violate the privacy of individuals.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-3 so that we can proceed to create Canada's first national DNA data bank.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-3.

After listening to my hon. colleague's comments, we certainly understand her concerns and the concerns of others from the government and those civil libertarians who suggest that the taking of DNA is somehow a gross infringement on people's rights and has to be taken in a very narrow definition. This is what Bill C-3 does. That is the part we actually oppose. We believe that the taking of DNA samples as defined in this bill is too restrictive.

Let us look at the larger public good. That is what we are talking about and where a great deal of disagreement concerning this bill exists between our party and the government. The government feels that the taking of DNA should be restricted to very narrow circumstances, such as multiple murderers and people who have committed sexual offences. In these cases DNA samples can only be extracted after the conviction has taken place. This does not help the police. It does not help the victims groups.

We suggest that DNA samples be taken beforehand. Why? It serves two purposes. Number one is very important in that it helps to exonerate the innocent. We have not heard much about this from the other side. It is a double edged sword. One would argue from the other side that this is restricting people's personal freedoms. We would argue that there is a larger public good here.

The larger public good refers to the protection of innocent people and the conviction of the guilty. The only thing Bill C-3 does in its current form is it helps to convict those individuals who have committed the most heinous of crimes.

The way the bill is configured, it can act as a shield behind which the guilty can hide themselves. It does little to protect the innocent. If we were more aggressive with this bill, if we were able to take DNA samples from people before they were convicted, then those DNA samples could be used to exonerate the innocent and convict the guilty. That is what we are trying to do here.

We in this party are trying to put faith back into the justice system. When we speak to Canadians, they have lost a lot of faith. It is not that they have lost faith in the Canadian police departments and the RCMP. They have a lot of faith in the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect us and keep us safe. It is in the process and the management of our justice system and the implementation of the laws of this land that the Canadian people are having less faith in all the time.

Bill C-3 could be a strong bill. Members from my party have put forth constructive suggestions, such as that the DNA be taken right from the word go, right from when a person is picked up and is suspected of having committed a crime, and that the breadth upon which the different types of offences that this can be applied to be extended beyond multiple murderers and multiple sex offenders.

Had we had this bill a few years ago and had it been appropriately applied, Clifford Olson would not have been able to kill the number of people he killed. He committed 80-odd offences before he even murdered one person. If this bill had been in place in the manner in which we would like, Clifford Olson would have been behind bars and a lot of people's lives would have been saved. A lot of families would not be enduring the pain and suffering that they endure to this day.

This bill needs a number of other amendments. The data bank that exists today is far too limited. The data bank should be formed in such a way that the information is kept a long time after the person is convicted. That does not exist in Bill C-3.

The information, if utilized, would enable the police to pick up somebody very quickly if their bodily fluids were found at the site of a crime, in which case again we would be preventing further crimes from occurring. The government somehow fails to see this. Although we understand its concerns in dealing with civil liberties, we would argue that a higher good and the greater good is the protection of innocent civilians, including those who are falsely picked up for a crime they never committed.

There is a positive side to this bill in that it can be used to protect and also release the innocent. We would not get cases such as the Guy-Paul Morin case, which has been such a tragedy for him and the Morin family.

A lot of other aspects with respect to Bill C-3 can be dealt with here. I would ask that the government listen to the police departments who would like to see the DNA data bank go forth, as we would, but in a much stronger and effective fashion.

The government needs to pursue the issue of crime prevention. The Minister of Justice to her credit recently implemented a crime prevention strategy dealing with kids from zero to six, I believe, in Edmonton. This is a head start program. I would strongly urge the government to implement our motion that was passed in May of this year calling for a national head start program.

One of the great things that one can do, and the cabinet ministers can certainly take advantage of this in their position, is to take the leadership role that is desperately needed. Although the rights and responsibilities of various areas are divided up and parcelled off among three levels of government, the federal government has the unique opportunity to call together its provincial counterparts in a number of areas, put their minds together and come to the table to develop a comprehensive plan which people across the country would benefit from.

One of those areas is in the justice area and is associated with Bill C-3. It is the national head start program. The Minister of Justice along with the Ministers of Health and HRD, can take a leadership role. They can call together their provincial counterparts here in Ottawa or anywhere in this country and look at what is already on the table with respect to early detection and crime prevention strategies. Keep what is good, throw out what is bad, use existing resources and deal with crime prevention.

This should not be done when a person is 13, 14 or 15 years of age when they may be suffering from conduct disorders, have run afoul of the law, have endured years of sexual abuse, violence or perhaps have been subjected to alcohol while in utero with resulting fetal alcohol effects. It should be done before that.

In order to have an effective crime prevention strategy, it has to start in the first eight years of life. We know scientifically that in the first eight years of life the building blocks of a normal psyche are developed. Events such as being exposed to sexual abuse, violence at home or improper nutrition damage the building blocks of a normal psyche and at adolescence it is very difficult for that child to engage appropriately with the environment. Unfortunately many run afoul of the law.

Programs such as the Moncton head start program, in which the member for Moncton has taken such a leadership role, the programs in Hawaii and the Perry Preschool Program in Michigan have clearly demonstrated that early intervention programs can be highly cost effective. On balance these programs save about $30,000 per child. They lower dependence on welfare and keep kids in school longer. They have lowered teen pregnancy rates. They can have a dramatic effect at lowering child abuse. The program in Hawaii reduced child abuse by 99% in a cost effective fashion.

With the fragmented nature of social programs in the country, the federal government has an enormous opportunity to work with its provincial counterparts to implement a provincially managed but shared funded national head start program. One message apart from what we have spoken about in Bill C-3 would be to implement the program using existing resources.

The government could do what was done in Hawaii. It could use trained volunteers and the medical community starting before a woman becomes pregnant. Trained volunteers could be used for the child at birth up to age four and the schools could be used when the child is between the ages of four and eight.

If the government did that we would have a dramatic positive effect in decreasing youth crime and in improving the social welfare for the most underprivileged in the country. It would save the taxpayer billions of dollars and provide a more secure and safe environment for all Canadians.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Bonwick Liberal Simcoe—Grey, ON

Madam Speaker, in the last 10 days I think I have heard it all.

I truly wonder if there is no depth to the rhetoric, the repetitive redundancy of the Reform Party members. They told us on the one hand last week that it is not okay to ask people to register deadly firearms. Today they tell us it is okay to take bodily fluids from a potentially innocent person. This is from one end of the spectrum to the other. I am absolutely amazed. They cite time and time again examples from the U.S. I cannot be any clearer on this. This is not the United States. It is Canada. We do things differently here.

Today I am extremely proud to stand up and show my support for Bill C-3. This is a good bill. As we have heard in the House time and time again, DNA analysis cannot be compared to a fingerprint which involves only a minor intrusion on privacy or the removal of bodily fluid. An argument that equates fingerprints with DNA is simply a flawed argument. Fingerprints only reveal an impression of a person's extremities and allow that person's identity to be confirmed.

DNA samples reveal far more. A DNA sample is a part of a person and it contains that person's genetic blueprint. Because of that important distinction, Bill C-3 ensures that DNA information is safeguarded and used only for the purposes of forensic DNA analysis. In doing so it sets out very limited and controlled access to the data bank. It prohibits any improper use of information and limits access to only those directly involved in operation and maintenance.

The opposition in the House seems to think the police have automatic rights to search and seizure. That has never been the case in Canada because Canadians place a high priority on a reasonable expectation of privacy, on security and dignity of the person, and on the right to be free from unnecessary state interference in those rights. Taking samples automatically when a suspect is charged would be constitutionally indefensible.

Not only has the government taken the advice of those who have said that the legislation to create a national DNA data bank must not infringe upon our charter of rights. We have also listened to those who have said that it is important that this legislation be put in place as soon as possible.

The bill has seen introduction and reintroduction. It has been the subject of thorough review by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, yet I hear my Reform colleagues talk about closure and time allocation. They talk about limiting their right to offer constructive criticism to the bill, yet they spend 70% of their speeches talking about time allocation rather than actually talking about Bill C-3. If they have something positive to add, why do they not add it?

The bill has been reviewed by some of Canada's most respected judges. The opposition seems to be dismissing the validity of the intense scrutiny under which Bill C-3 has been developed. We cannot lose sight of the fact of the benefits of Bill C-3 and the value it will bring as one of the most powerful investigative police tools known to date.

The Liberal government and the police community have the same objective: to provide Canadian law enforcement officials with practical and effective access to DNA technology to solve crimes and to protect the public.

A national DNA bank 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 Canadians, something that quite obviously Reform is prepared to compromise.

The DNA data bank will let police quickly identify suspects where they have been unable to do so in the past. They will be able to match profiles in the system to find repeat offenders no matter what jurisdiction they are in. Other suspects could be eliminated more quickly and the information will be stored so that police have access to it when it is needed.

Clearly the government is satisfied that Bill C-3 has been carefully drafted and on the basis of extensive consultation with various interest groups. Contrary to what we have heard in the House, taking samples for the data bank at the time of conviction will not prevent police from doing their job. Instead it will give police an effective investigative tool that will comply with our constitutional requirements as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I believe Bill C-3 is a much stronger bill as a result of the extensive consultation and debate that has taken place. As it currently stands it is the government's view that Bill C-3 is fundamentally sound. There is no question that the use of DNA evidence has been a significant breakthrough in the criminal justice system. We must not forget that we are dealing with a powerful tool and one that must be safeguarded against potential abuse.

The creation of a data bank that can be upheld in the courts will go a very long way toward protecting Canadians from violent and repeat offenders, and that is what we are here to do.

There is also no question that Bill C-3 has been and will continue to be an important priority for the government. Public safety is one of the government's top priorities. We will stand behind that commitment 100%, unlike our Reform colleagues.

I believe all parties are motivated by the same goals: to establish a national DNA data bank system that helps our law enforcement personnel protect the public. The question is how do we get there?

The government's position is prudent, responsible and ultimately the best one for Canadians. It is a position that balances the need of law enforcement to protect the public safety, the interests of human rights and the democratic values of all Canadians, something time and time again my Reform colleagues seem to lose sight of.

The legal opinion of three former justices from three different provinces are entirely consistent with the opinion of the Department of Justice and legal opinions, including legal counsel for several provinces who testified before the standing committee. The legal opinions underline the danger of including provisions in Bill C-3 which would not withstand a charter challenge. To effectively implement a DNA data bank, we need to do it right, and that is what the government is doing.

It is better to have a law that works than one that is certain to be struck down by the courts, which the Reform seems to have no regard for. I am confident that Bill C-3 finds the appropriate balance and I support it. I urge the members of the House to support Bill C-3.

Enough of party propaganda, enough of arm twisting and using special interest groups. Support it. It is a good bill. We can proceed and create one of our nation's most valuable policing investigative tools to date. This is a good bill and I am proud to stand here today to speak to it.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Reform

Gerry Ritz Reform Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise today to speak on behalf of my constituents of Battlefords—Lloydminster regarding Bill C-3, the DNA data bank.

The Reform Party continues to be firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and providing Canadians with true security in their homes. This means providing the law enforcement agencies with the latest technological tools to detect and apprehend criminals. DNA identification is certainly this type of tool. If used to its full potential, the DNA data bank could be the single most important development in fighting crime since fingerprinting.

Bill C-3, in its present form, denies police the quality tools they need to fight and solve crime. At best Bill C-3 is a half measure aimed to placate Canadians.

DNA data banks are currently in use in the United States, Great Britain and New Zealand. DNA forensic analyses have been instrumental in securing convictions in hundreds of cases in Canada and have helped in the release of wrongly convicted persons.

Bill C-3 in its current form gives law-abiding Canadians a false sense of security. The Reform Party cannot support the bill in its current form because of that. We do support the creation of a DNA data bank, but the current scope of the bill is much too limited. It seems the government would rather protect the interests of criminals over those of law-abiding citizens, not an equitable trade-off I am sure.

The government cites finances as one of the reasons why it is not willing to expand the DNA data bank and allow for samples to be taken at the time of charge rather than conviction. The Reform Party proposed that samples be taken at the time of charge and not analysed until conviction. This would have satisfied the concern of the Canadian Police Association regarding offenders who are released on bail pending trial and constitute a flight risk.

The total cost of the DNA data bank, we are told, would be in the $15 million to $18 million range. We see Bill C-68 implemented at a proposed cost of $85 million on the premise that it may save one life, The costs have now escalated to two, three, four times that. No one is sure. Again in order to save one life we are wondering why the implementation of a DNA data bank, which has proven to save lives and convict criminals in the long run, would not be a good buy.

Unlike Bill C-68 costs can be recouped. The conclusive nature of DNA evidence often results in substantial savings for police in their investigations and the courts since that investigation can be narrowed down and a trial simplified. Therefore in the long term this is a cost effective tool and a great protection to society. By analysing the DNA of all persons charged with violent offences we could have numerous samples in that data bank. We should think of the added security this would mean to Canadians.

There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides where DNA evidence has been left at the scene. DNA identification now offers us an unparalleled opportunity to solve many of these cases. They have a real opportunity to strengthen our hand-cuffed justice system and they refuse to change.

People's lives are at stake here as well as their quality of life living in safer neighbourhoods. It is interesting to note that the taking of a blood sample in the case of a suspected impaired driver does not raise much concern. In fact society applauds that policy. Why is it different, then, in the case of DNA samples left at the scene of a crime? We take blood samples for purposes of determining impairment. There is no difference.

The invasion of privacy has already taken place. The Criminal Code looks after that. Is there a difference here? I think not. The authority to take samples is already in the Criminal Code and overrules the privacy issue.

The Canadian Police Association prepared and submitted a legal opinion to the justice committee concluding that there would be no constitutional concern about taking samples at the time of charge.

We all want to fight and reduce crime and reduce the time it takes to solve a crime. We have a tremendous backlog in our courts. If the fear is over the data bank and the keeping of blood or fluid samples, we just have to look at the thousands of samples taken by doctors and nurses each day and kept in some sort of bank. These bank files are not being exploited so why would a DNA data bank constitute any more of a risk?

This is certainly a major and very important piece of legislation. The government must justify to the Canadian Police Association and Canadian voters the reasons for invoking time allocation for the seventh time to ram through a work in progress. Canadians deserve better from their elected officials.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Reform

Peter Goldring Reform Edmonton East, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-3 representing the constituents of Edmonton East.

A member earlier in the House compared data bank registering to tattooing during World War II. I thought at that time it was an outrageous comparison. How could this possibly be compared to something that evil done during the war? More likely I would compare it to the simple registering we have with our social security numbers. I think that would be a more apt comparison as a reference.

Do we need to wait for another Olson before the government gets serious and insists on a sample from all persons charged with indictable offences? The legislation is based on the false idea that DNA is useful in investigating some offences, mainly sexual, but does not help others.

The fact is that offenders like Clifford Olson commit both types of offences. He was convicted of more than 80 offences before he killed his first known victim. DNA, if taken on these previous charges, would have linked him to the first victim and led to his arrest. None of the convictions were for charges that the legislation covers. They were for theft, break and enter and armed robbery. Police and victims groups favour making the legislation more inclusive, but the government does not listen to their concerns.

Samples should be retained in the same way fingerprints are kept on file, essentially forever. Samples should be taken on charge just as with fingerprints. Collections of samples should be the same for the same offences as for fingerprinting. We should obtain DNA as routinely as we obtain fingerprints.

We take blood samples in certain cases. We utilize blood samples in the case of impaired driving and other charges. We take breath samples for liquor offences. Taking breath samples is a permanent record because the result of being over in the test will go on a permanent record.

We must make the best use of this tool but the Liberal bill is unduly restrictive. It costs only $50 to $60 to get a sample into the database. This is a drop in the bucket when compared to the costs, even the estimated costs, of what the gun registration program is expected to be.

Obtaining DNA is not an onerous process and involves no real invasion of the privacy of the person. It can come from saliva or from a single hair or a drop of blood. DNA identification does not endanger privacy since the information is just a series of numbers and tells nothing about the person's health or mental capabilities.

DNA can also exonerate a person suspected of a crime. I think that point is one of the most important. It can clear those who are falsely accused. It can clear them quickly and clear the air forever. It will absolutely clear the person of having something hanging over his head of which he has been accused and the thinking that he just may possibly be guilty.

The bottom line is really the most important and it is that DNA has the potential to assist the police in their work and to save lives. It is a tool of today. It is a tool that certainly is used internationally in many countries. It is a tool as important as fingerprinting was when fingerprinting was first started and possibly is more descriptive than fingerprinting.

DNA is a tool that is useful. It is a tool police departments want. It is a tool that will be good for Canadians and I believe it is a tool that we must have now for all Canadians.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is the House ready for the question?

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The vote will be deferred until 5.15 today.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House is now through with debate and so I suggest you seek unanimous consent that the House suspend until the calling of the vote.

Dna Identification ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is that agreed?