Hon. Brent Cotter moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I have the honour of presenting to the chamber the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report on Bill S-231, which began consideration before our committee before December 13, 2023. Our report came to the Senate on December 13, 2023. This constitutes my brief speech with respect to the committee report. I want to thank the chair of the committee, Senator Jaffer, for making this opportunity available to me.

The bill, sponsored by Senator Carignan, is entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act and the DNA Identification Act.” The short title of the bill, which better conveys its import, is “Increasing the identification of criminals through the use of DNA Act.”

Generally speaking, the bill proposes legislation that amends a series of laws — the laws I have just mentioned — so that the collection of DNA from people convicted of serious criminal offences and people found not guilty on account of mental disorder would be expanded in terms of the categories of persons and offences where DNA can be collected and placed in the DNA data bank.

The bill would also expand, in limited circumstances, the ability of investigative police agencies to obtain information with respect to investigations under way in what are known as familial searches. This is when there was not a direct match between the DNA found in an investigation and a person whose DNA profile is in the data bank, but there shows a match with a person who has a genetic affiliation to the person whose DNA is in the bank. These are known as familial searches. The bill was substantially amended at committee. In a moment, I will highlight these amendments.

Your committee met on four occasions to consider the bill, beginning on November 9, 2023. There was one committee meeting for a clause-by-clause study, which was held on December 7, 2023.

Three amendments proposed at committee were adopted, and four clauses of the bill were defeated. The key changes to Bill S-231 are as follows:

First, clause 3 of the bill regarding mandatory DNA orders was defeated.

The Criminal Code currently requires a defendant to provide a DNA sample where they have been convicted of or received a discharge for what are known as “primary designated offences.” Primary designated offences are serious offences under the Criminal Code, including several sexual offences, murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery and others.

A court also has the discretion in these circumstances to order a defendant to provide a DNA sample where they have been convicted, discharged or found not criminally responsible in cases of what are known as “secondary designated offences.”

Clause 3 of the original bill would have amended the Criminal Code to require a DNA order following conviction, discharge or a finding of not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder for any primary or secondary designated offence, with some exceptions.

The committee removed this clause from the bill, leaving the Criminal Code unchanged with respect to the authority of the courts to either have the power to or make a requirement to issue these DNA orders.

Second, clause 4 of the bill, which is the timing for such orders, was also defeated.

Clause 4 of the original bill set out the timelines during which a court would have been required to make a mandatory DNA order. This clause was connected to and followed the proposed amendments under clause 3, about which I have spoken.

The committee — by majority — removed this clause from Bill S-231.

A third clause related to what are known as “familial DNA searches” was also defeated.

Clause 18 of the bill would have amended the DNA Identification Act to allow familial searches of the National DNA Data Bank in certain limited circumstances. This would have enabled a search of the National DNA Data Bank for a DNA profile that could identify a biological relative of the person whose DNA was in the data bank.

The committee — as I say — removed this clause from the bill.

Fourth, clause 20 deals with amendments related to destroying DNA profiles contained in the convicted offenders index of the data bank if the person is acquitted of the charges tied to the original DNA order, and if the accused had no other findings of guilt, discharges or findings of not criminally responsible for a designated offence that could have triggered a DNA order originally. The committee amended this clause to remove references to findings of not criminally responsible.

The result of this amendment is that an individual who has been acquitted of a designated offence may request that their DNA profile be removed from the data bank despite a separate finding of being not criminally responsible for another designated offence.

Finally, in terms of major amendments, clause 24 of the bill requires that the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness report on the advisability of taking a DNA sample on the same basis as fingerprints taken under the Identification of Criminals Act. The committee amended this clause to require that such a report proceed, and should include specific analysis of the inculpatory and exculpatory effects toward the liability or the absence of liability that DNA sampling might have on Indigenous, Black and racialized populations.

I think it’s fair to say — and I’m about to conclude — the committee has conducted serious and often spirited consideration of the bill, and was assisted greatly by the 17 witnesses who appeared before the committee. On the committee’s behalf, I want to extend our thanks to the witnesses who met with the committee.

I would like to make two final observations — if I may — which are a little more personal than the committee report. I think it’s fair to say that committee members did not oppose the use of DNA for investigative purposes. However, a majority of the committee was concerned about the specific situations where the capture and use of DNA would be expanded by this bill, leading to clauses that were uncomfortable for them, and leading to their defeat or amendment.

I anticipate that members of the Senate, members of the committee and its sponsor, Senator Carignan, will expand on these bare-bones comments during the Senate’s study of this report. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-220, An Act to amend the Languages Skills Act (Governor General).