Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system and to providing Canadians with a true sense of security. This includes strengthening our law enforcement agencies by providing them with the latest technological tools to quickly detect and apprehend the perpetrators of the most violent crimes in society today.
DNA identification is that kind of tool. If it is used to its full potential, the DNA databank could be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprints. To deny our police the full use of this technology in their fight against crime, as Bill C-3 in its present form does, is reprehensible and unacceptable because it maintains an unnecessary level of risk to the lives and safety of our citizens.
Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification, if passed unamended would provide Canadians with a false sense of security. Therefore the Reform Party cannot support this inadequate piece of legislation. The Reform Party fully supports the creation of the DNA databank. We do not however support the limited scope of Bill C-3.
Bill C-3 does not grant our police forces full use of the DNA technology so readily at their disposal, a tool that would help close hundreds of unsolved murders and rapes with the enormous potential to save lives by removing the predators from our streets.
Bill C-3 does not allow for the taking of a DNA sample at the time of charge. It does not permit samples to be taken from incarcerated criminals other than designated dangerous offenders, multiple sex offenders and multiple murderers. Bill C-3 does however provide a dangerous and unnecessary exemption authorizing judges not to issue warrants for the taking of a sample if they believe in doing so the impact on the individual's privacy and security would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest and the protection of society.
There are hundreds of unsolved assaults, rapes and homicides where DNA evidence has been left at the scene by the perpetrator. DNA identification now offers an unparalleled opportunity to solve many of these cases and bring the perpetrators to justice. However, because of the government's irrational fear of violating the privacy rights of those responsible for heinous crimes, it is restricting the use of this very important technology by our law enforcement.
As it stands now Bill C-3 is a hindrance to more effective law enforcement and a safer society. Those responsible for shaping our justice system continue to express a willingness to place the lives and safety of innocent people in jeopardy. Whether by paroling violent offenders who go on to rape and murder again, or by freeing convicted violent offenders through conditional sentencing, or by tying our police officers' hands through Bill C-3, the safety of society is a secondary issue to the Liberal government.
In the newspaper this morning the solicitor general was quoted as saying that we have a terrible problem in Canada with terrorists and people who are here causing real problems. He is to get a lot of police work going to try to solve this problem. He should talk to his colleague in immigration who is letting them come through the border because of poor laws that have been set up. We listened to a supreme court which allows in people who come to our border saying they are refugees. Then we find out later they are terrorists. The bill is the same type of thing as that.
We have a bill that will not do the job. Our party will oppose Motion No. 1. We think it is an unnecessary amendment.
We support Motion No. 2, which is an NDP motion. The amendment precludes private agencies and labs from taking samples. It creates public standards and better accuracy in testing quality. The government should look at this amendment.
We oppose Motion No. 3 which is supposed to safeguard against wrong people assessing the DNA databank. We oppose Motion No. 4 which indicates that the entire convicted offenders index will be destroyed. There may have been a problem with the English translation of this amendment. We oppose Motion No. 5 because we believe there is no need for a three year review.
The Conservative House leader raised the issue of legal opinions sought by the government on the bill. I wonder if we could find out where the government picked the justices from to get opinions. I know there are other opinions within the legal profession that certainly disagree with the three opinions obtained by the government with regard to the issue of blood alcohol sampling comparison.
I will read from page 6, section (b) of the report by the hon. Martin R. Taylor, QC, who says:
The scheme established by s. 254 of the Code governing the taking of samples from drivers for alcohol and drug analysis is directed to the acquisition and preservation of evidence of a particularly perishable kind from those who are actually engaged in the dangerous business of controlling vehicles.
There is no authority under this part of the Criminal Code for the compulsory taking of samples except in the case of persons physically or mentally unable to consent, for which judicial warrant is required under s. 256. But it must be recognized that a police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that the ability of a person to control a vehicle has been impaired by consumption of alcohol or a drug can coerce the person's consent to provide a breath or blood sample, because failure to comply with a proper request for such a sample in itself constitutes a criminal offence.
The s. 254 scheme contemplates the taking of samples of bodily substances without warrant under such coercion of law as may, for practical purposes, be equated with compulsion, and has, in my opinion, more in common with the proposed extension of authority under Bill C-3 to warrantless compulsory taking of bodily substances for DNA testing from accused persons than does the fingerprinting scheme authorized by the Identification of Criminals Act.
There is, however, an important distinction to be drawn from the context of the Charter. The constitutionality of the Criminal Code s. 254 scheme for drug and alcohol testing of breath and blood samples rests on the unique nature of problems associated with drinking and driving. There is obvious need to obtain blood samples promptly both for the purpose of preventing continuing breach of the law and to secure evidence which would otherwise be lost with effluxion of time. The courts, would not, in my opinion, equate compulsory taking of DNA samples without warrant, in the context of the Charter, with the taking of breath or blood samples under coercion of law from drivers suspected of impairment. I say this because personal DNA characteristics do not change with time, and the taking of DNA samples cannot be expected to result in the termination of offences in progress.
I do not believe that either of the comparisons mentioned would be regarded by the courts as persuasive in answering the present question.
Those were the comments of a former judge whose legal opinion was sought. He said that DNA could not be taken from a person who was charged. Yet we could take blood samples if the person were suspected of drinking.
Are we being told that if we take a blood sample from a person caught driving while drunk and can match the DNA with six rapes or six murders that have taken place we will not be able to charge the person because we obtained the evidence illegally?
I am not a lawyer, but it seems that is where we are with this. We have to make sure to protect ourselves. We have to make sure that people caught for crimes will serve for those crimes and that we do not have all the loopholes. The public is frustrated with today's laws, with the number of cases overthrown in the courts because of so-called abuse of people's rights. It seems the criminals are getting all the rights and the victims have no rights at all. Bill C-3, although it is a good start, does not include enough.
A gentleman spoke to our caucus a few weeks ago. He was the chief of police in a major city in Ontario. He pointed out very strongly that there had to be more in the DNA bill. We had to make sure that people who were in prison and were already convicted of crimes had their DNA put on the record. He assured us that if that were the case they would solve literally hundreds of murders, rapes and major crimes in the country.
Once crimes have been committed and the criminals are serving time in jail, they should have no right that says their DNA cannot be taken and put on the record, because their right not to have it there has been violated by them. Many people think we all should have DNA taken at birth so there are good records of everybody.
Surely the government can make sure the criminals in the land have their DNA on record so if they commit other crimes they will be caught. Certainly it has some feeling for solving all those crimes across the nation that have been committed by making the right amendments to the bill.
