Bill C-279 (Historical)

An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes)

This enactment amends the DNA Identification Act to provide for the establishment of a human remains index and a missing persons index to help law enforcement agencies search for and identify persons reported missing.

[Sue O'Sullivan, Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, dear committee members, good afternoon.

Thank you for inviting me today to discuss Bill C-43, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament, as it relates to the DNA Identification Act.

I would like to begin by providing you with a very brief overview of my office and its mandate. We were created in 2007. The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime helps victims in two main ways: individually and collectively. We help victims individually by speaking with them every day, answering their questions, and addressing their complaints. We help victims collectively by reviewing important issues and making recommendations to the federal government on how to improve its laws, policies, or programs to better support victims of crime.

The proposed amendments to the DNA Identification Act and the attached federal funding would create a national DNA missing persons index. This would supplement the work of the RCMP's National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains by enabling the collection and matching of DNA profiles from missing persons and unidentified remains to other DNA profiles. The creation of a DNA missing persons index is not the final answer, but it does provide another important tool in the tool box for investigators and coroners in locating missing persons or identifying human remains.

Since my appointment, I have had the opportunity to speak with victims and victims groups. They have a sincere and determined hope that the ability to match the DNA of missing persons to that of unidentified human remains would alleviate the suffering that the families of missing persons endure. Not knowing what has happened to a loved one is an overwhelming burden, a burden which is often accompanied by the unrelenting feeling that more could be done to try to locate their loved ones. For this reason, my office has on numerous occasions made recommendations to the Government of Canada that the development of these indices be given a high priority and that jurisdictional issues be resolved on an urgent basis.

Throughout the years, I have seen considerable support for the creation of a national missing persons index from the Canadian public, law enforcement, victims groups, parliamentarians, and various levels of government. ln 2005, the Department of Public Safety released a public consultation paper on the missing persons index. The following year, federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for justice agreed in principle to the concept of a missing persons index and directed an intergovernmental working group to resolve the ongoing concerns.

ln 2007, this committee, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, expressed its support in principle for Bill C-279, an act to amend the DNA Identification Act, and recommended that the government introduce legislation to establish a missing persons index. The government accepted this recommendation, but little progress was achieved over the following two years.

Following a statutory review of the DNA Identification Act, in June 2009 the committee, along with the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, recommended the creation a missing persons index and a victims index. For our part the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime made recommendations in 2009, 2011, and again in 2013, that the development of a missing persons index and an unidentified human remains index be a priority for the Government of Canada. ln addition to strong Parliamentary support for the creation of a missing persons index, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution in 2012 that also urged the federal government to move forward with creation of the indexes.

ln Canada, as we're aware, there is currently no capacity at a national level to compare and match the DNA of existing unidentified remains against the DNA of missing persons or their close relatives. This legislation will add five new indices to the National DNA Data Bank which could be used by provincial and municipal law enforcement agencies to investigate cases involving missing persons and unidentified remains. The capacity to compare the DNA profiles of missing persons to unidentified remains ultimately strengthens law enforcement's investigative capacity by providing a tool for comparison across Canada.

While I am very pleased by the changes in the DNA Identification Act that are proposed in this budget bill, there are important implementation and operational considerations for victims that I would like to highlight.

Once the missing persons index and other indices are created, it will be important to ensure that victims receive clear and consistent information with regard to the following: the purposes of collecting DNA information from a victim or a family member and how it will be stored and used; the retention period of the DNA profiles; the process for withdrawing a voluntary DNA sample from the database; the notification process if a match is found, particularly if a match means a death notification for a family; a point of contact for family members regarding information and updates; and all victims across Canada be provided with the same choices and options with respect to their involvement with these indices.

Most of the contact with victims will likely occur with provincial and municipal law enforcement agencies or contracted RCMP. I therefore encourage the Government of Canada to work with the provinces and territories so that the proper resources are available to ensure that victims have equal access to the indices and understand how they work.

ln conclusion, I fully support the amendments proposed in this bill regarding the creation of a national DNA indices of missing persons and unidentified human remains. Victims deserve to know what has happened to their loved ones. The missing persons index and unidentified human remains index are additional tools that we can use to provide answers to some of those families. It is time to move ahead with its implementation.

I thank you for your time and welcome any questions you may have.

Bill C-377—Income Tax Act

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a different point of order. I want to recognize and commend my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley on a very well referenced and articulated point of order. I hope I can only match that. I assure the House I will surpass him on the aspect of brevity.

I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-377, an act to amend the income tax act (requirements for labour organizations). Although my colleagues from the NDP have also risen on this matter, I am not convinced the arguments they put forward have been complete in terms of substance. As such, I want to offer further points on this matter for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.

I submit that Bill C-377's provisions to provide for reporting and public disclosure of certain financial transactions and administrative practices of labour organizations envisages a new function and purpose within the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA. As such, the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation that authorizes CRA's current spending are being altered so that a new and distinct authorization for spending is being permanently created, which will therefore require a royal recommendation.

Past Speakers have ruled that legislation imposing additional functions on bodies funded by public money, if the functions are substantially different from their existing functions, will require a royal recommendation.

I believe that Bill C-377 will require royal recommendation for two reasons. First, the bill creates a new purpose for CRA in terms of a public reporting function that has no obligatory ties to taxation under the Income Tax Act. The bill would follow up on this additional purpose by creating what the CRA characterizes as “a comprehensive system that includes electronic processing, validations, and automatic posting to the CRA Web site”.

The Income Tax Act is concerned with the taxation of individuals, organizations and businesses. Any reporting requirements imposed on individuals and organizations are directly tied to their tax obligation or the exemption of these obligations. For example, charities can only keep their tax exempt status and donors only receive a tax receipt if the charity meets reporting requirements.

The Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for applying and interpreting the Income Tax Act in this regard. The primary goal of the agency, as Canada's tax administrator, is to ensure that taxpayers comply with their tax obligations and that Canada's tax base is protected. I want to stress that again: tax obligation.

Bill C-377 is strictly a function of publicly reporting information on one specific group of individuals, in this case labour organizations and labour trusts, outside of any direct obligations that those organizations or their members must have under the Income Tax Act. Given that it would create an additional purpose and new program requirements that would amend the Income Tax Act and modify the purpose of the CRA, the result is a new expenditure. The bill should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to a Speaker's ruling in the other place on February 27, 1991 on pages 2262 through 2264 of the Journals regarding Bill S-18, an act to further the aspirations of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The Speaker found that provisions imposing additional functions on bodies funded by public money, if the functions are substantially different from their existing functions, require royal recommendation.

The member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale and the government will no doubt argue that because labour organizations receive a public benefit, as charities do, they should be required to report as charities do.

The simple rebuttal to this argument is the fact that the reporting requirement for charities is based on a tax obligation. A charity must publicly report information in order to keep the tax exempt status it receives and the preferential tax treatment its donors enjoy. This will simply not be the case with labour organizations under Bill C-377.

To further disprove this counter-argument, I think we need to look no further than the first incarnation of Bill C-377, which was Bill C-317. The bill tied the reporting function of labour organizations to the enjoyment of the tax exempt status offered to them in paragraph (k) of subsection 149(1) of the Income Tax Act. Labour organizations not in compliance with the financial disclosure requirements outlined in Bill C-317 would lose their tax exempt status. Bill C-317 also sought to effect the tax treatment of union members if their union did not comply with its requirements by not allowing union dues to be tax deductible.

In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-317, which was delivered on my birthday of November 4, 2011, and found on pages 2984 to 2986 of the Debates, you said that Bill C-317 had not respected the rules of the Standing Orders because to remove a tax exemption was in effect to raise taxes, which would require a ways and means motion, which the bill did not have.

Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, disallowed that and forced the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale to remove the parts of the bill that tied the reporting requirements to the enjoyment of tax exempt status by labour organizations and tax deductibility of dues by their members. In doing so, there is no longer any direct tie or connection to taxation or benefits received by labour organizations or their members. Labour organizations or trusts who fail to comply with the requirements of Bill C-377 will not lose their tax exempt status and their members will not lose the tax deductibility of their dues.

Bill C-377 solely becomes a simple public reporting function, which is a new function of the Income Tax Act and a new purpose for the CRA in its capacity to administer the act. As such, it should require a royal recommendation.

The second issue I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, has to do with how Bill C-377 regulates the internal affairs of unions and their relationships with their members. In essence, this is a de facto labour relations function that is completely new for CRA and duplicates the function of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Bill C-377 is modelled on a United States reporting regulation for American unions that falls under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. This act legislates labour relations. It promotes labour union and labour management transparency through reporting and disclosure requirements for labour unions and their officials. This act is administered by the Office of Labor-Management Standards within the United States Department of Labor, not the Internal Revenue Service.

The reporting requirements in Bill C-377 were copied from the reporting requirements of the most detailed and onerous reporting form from the Office of Labor-Management Standards, Form LM-2. Specifically, the bill copies the revisions to the reporting regulations that were introduced on January 21, 2009, by the U.S. Department of Labor and later rescinded on October 13, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I will provide you with a copy of the final rule for both actions, which was posted on the U.S. Federal Register, so you can see how this legislation is a copy of the U.S. labour relations regulations.

The Disclosure Act of 1959 requires the public disclosure of union financial reports. In fact, the public disclosure is through an online, searchable database known as the electronic labor organization reporting system, the same type of electronic system proposed by the bill.

Bill C-377 is, in effect, a replication of U.S. labor relations law and regulations, specifically the department of labor regulations for the labor-management reporting and disclosure act of 1959.

The Canada Labour Code currently includes a section that deals with union financial transparency and accountability. It requires unions to disclose financial statements to members on request, or to the Industrial Relations Board to enable members to view that information. Part of their function is to regulate labour organizations.

The finance committee received a number of submissions on this bill. One submission was from Le Syndicat de professionnelles et professionnels du gouvernement du Québec. It included a legal opinion that argued that the bill was concerning labour relations. Although the argument was for an entirely different matter, I believe the substance concerning labour relations was sound, and it would be of assistance to you, Mr. Speaker, in your decision.

The predominant purpose of this bill, as promoted by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, is to increase the transparency and accountability of labour organizations. During second reading, the member stated:

With the passage of the bill, the public would be empowered to gauge the effectiveness, financial integrity and health of any labour union.

The bill's summary states:

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to require that labour organizations provide financial information to the Minister for public disclosure.

The degree of detailed information this bill requires is far broader in scope than any other requirement on any other entity that is publicly disclosed by the government. This is clearly an attempt to monitor and regulate the activities of labour organizations. This is especially clear when the bill requires the detailed time and expenditures that labour organizations spend on non-labour relations activities, such as political activities and lobbying.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to a previous Speaker's ruling on October 20, 2006, and found on page 4039 of the Debates regarding Bill C-286, An Act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act (protection of spouses whose life is in danger) The bill proposed to expand the witness protection program to include persons whose lives were in danger because of acts committed against them by their spouses. The Speaker explained that the bill proposed:

...a protection that does not currently exist under the witness protection program. In doing so, the bill proposes to carry out an entirely new function.

As a new function, such an activity is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation. ... New functions or activities must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

The government and the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale may argue that the function proposed by Bill C-377 is the same function the CRA performs with respect to Charities Directorate or other tax exempt organizations. Although it is true that the processes and infrastructure required may be similar, the function and purpose for those processes are very much different.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the Speaker's ruling on November 8, 2006, and found on pages 4905 and 4906 of the Debates regarding Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes). I believe the particulars on this issue have a lot of similarities in the case at hand and would deny this counter-argument.

Bill C-279 would have created a new purpose for the DNA Identification Act and established new indices in the DNA data bank, similar in context to the new database that would be created under this bill for unions. The Speaker explained there was an addition of a new purpose to the DNA Identification Act which was to identify missing persons via their DNA profiles. Again, this is similar to Bill C-377 that wishes to impose reporting requirements on another tax exempt organization under section 114 of the Income Tax Act.

In that ruling, the Speaker stated, “Amending legislation that proposes a distinctly new purpose must be accompanied by a further royal recommendation”. The Speaker's ruling on Bill C-279 clearly shows that just because a process, in that case the collecting of the DNA, and the infrastructure needed, meaning a database, are the same as the current function of an act, it is still considered a new function and purpose that gives rise to the requirement of a royal recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, whether you look at the detailed requirements of the bill, its summary, the testimony of government witnesses who spoke about how this would regulate unions or just read the statements made by the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, clearly regulating labour relations is the dominant nature of this bill. No such labour relations function exists at the CRA currently. Therefore, this bill would create a new purpose, a new function and/or an activity at CRA that would require a royal recommendation.

Unlike its failed predecessor Bill C-317, the reporting requirements and the public disclosure imposed by Bill C-377 in no way is linked to the imposition or levitation of taxes, levies or tariffs. Instead, this bill seeks to use the powers of the Income Tax Act to solely provide public information that would constitute a new function or activity. In addition, the bill would clearly create a new labour relations function at the CRA that not only does not exist presently but duplicates this function that is already happening at the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Because this bill would create a new function and purpose at the CRA, I respectfully submit that Bill C-377 should require a royal recommendation.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, you're the Minister of Public Safety and you said that some of the work our committee has undertaken, since this review that you felt should have been done, is trivial and of a partisan nature. I'm wondering which work our committee has dealt with in the last two and one-half years that you would consider trivial. Is it Bill C-3, to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act? Is it our work on contraband tobacco, the witness protection program, the study of security issues concerning the Minister of Foreign Affairs, our taser study, agri-chemicals and agri-retail, arming of the CBSA officers? Is it Bill C-12, regarding emergency management? Is it Bill C-279, DNA identification? I could go on.

It has been significant work that this parliamentary committee has dealt with, none of which has been trivial, all of which may be partisan to some degree. But I would argue that it is unfair for you to assess this committee's work as either trivial or partisan.

Because I know you can run out the clock with that statement I want to ask you: were you aware that our committee was in the final process of finishing our report, and actually we changed our agenda, when you introduced this legislation on June 1 so you would not take advantage of our interest and expertise in this area?

It was not one year away, as you just suggested in your testimony.

DNA Identification Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes) is withdrawn.

(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on Bill C-279 many significant facts have been stated. There are nearly 100,000 missing persons in Canada every year. Over 6,000 missing person cases are currently unresolved, with an addition of over 450 new cases per year.

There are over 15,000 samples of unidentified DNA recovered from crime scenes across this country currently stored in the RCMP's national DNA data bank here in Ottawa.

As well, there are hundreds of sets of unidentified DNA from Jane and John Does found in morgues across Canada.

Given the need for a DNA data bank and the widespread support from Canadians, law enforcement professionals, the provincial and territorial governments, a DNA database for missing persons housed within the national DNA data bank is on the horizon. Bill C-279 helps make that possible.

The public safety committee recently studied Bill C-279 and referred it back to this House. The committee recognized our need for a national missing persons index, an MPI data bank, as soon as possible, and supported my bill in principle, but recognized that more work needs to be done.

That work is being done and experts will be back in the fall to testify before the committee.

I am happy to tell this House that the Minister of Public Safety himself has expressed interest in looking into this concept as a possible future government bill.

Members from all parties have acknowledged their support and the support in principle from their respective parties.

Canada is the DNA leader. It is known for pushing the technology, how it handles DNA, and how it will handle a DNA data bank. We should support Canada's commitment as a leader in DNA and set a great example for other countries to follow.

I would like to thank Lindsey's mother, Judy Peterson, for inspiring this bill and the Minister of Natural Resources who has worked tirelessly on this issue before I took it over.

Bill C-279 may not exist after today, but the concept will and I will continue to work hard with our government to make this happen. At this time I would seek the withdrawal of my bill, Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling--Devils Lake Diversion Project

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Earlier today, the hon. member for Winnipeg North requested an emergency debate on the Devils Lake diversion pursuant to Standing Order 52.

The Speaker took the request under advisement and has asked me to inform the House that having considered the request, he has concluded that it meets the requirements of the Standing Order.

Accordingly, to give members an opportunity to prepare for the debate, it will be scheduled for Thursday, June 14, 2007, at the completion of debate on government orders, but in any event no later than 9 p.m. pursuant to special order adopted earlier today.

It being 5:20 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, I now invite the hon. member for Burlington to address the House concerning Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes).

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Public Safety and National Security

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be presenting two reports. First, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, November 22, 2006, the committee has considered Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes), and agreed on Tuesday, April 24, 2007, to report it with amendments.

Second, I also have the honour to present the committee's ninth report, concerning the subject matter of Bill C-279. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

I would like to read for members two brief excerpts from the ninth report. The first states:

The Committee in principle fully supports the intention underlying Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes), and believes that the necessary steps must be taken, either by amending the DNA Identification Act or by providing for the establishment of a DNA human remains index and a DNA missing persons index, to help law enforcement agencies to search for and identify persons reported missing.

Although we have deleted the clauses in the bill, we fully support the bill.

We conclude by recommending:

--that the Government consider the advisability of bringing in the legislation necessary to establish missing persons indexes after the completion of federal-provincial-territorial discussions on its implementation.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Roy Cullen]

Thank you, Mr. Wappel.

That's going to wrap it up. I should point out that Interpol estimates about 5% to 7% of world trade is now counterfeit goods. In fact, I was just in Europe at the Council of Europe, where they are doing a lot of work on this and trying to elevate the importance of it. The studies there are saying it's 7% to 10% of world trade that's now in counterfeit goods.

Nonetheless, I want to thank all the witnesses for coming. Of course, as the name of this committee would suggest, we're focused primarily on public safety and national security, and I note that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology is beginning some work, and I think they will delve, I'm sure, looking at their witness list, more into the piracy issues, as they do not affect us directly at public health and safety.

I have a request, Mr. Geist. You had mentioned the RCMP report Project Sham, I think it was called. We didn't hear about that from the RCMP, to my recollection, and I think you accessed it through Access to Information? If you could make a copy of that report available to the committee, we'd much appreciate it. It would be quicker to do it that way.

Thank you again, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to pause now for about two minutes, and then we have to come back in camera to deal with the item on the agenda, Bill C-279. I don't think it should take too long.

Thank you very much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We are now going to proceed with the clause-by-clause of Bill C-279, the DNA Identification Act. The bill has five clauses. The normal procedure here is to have a discussion and then vote on each of these.

Do we want to have any discussion before I call for clause 1 to carry?

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Greg Yost]

I won't go into the financial end of it, because I'm on the legal issues committee and we have no mandate on the finances. I rather suspect that will be an interesting issue when we get further down the road.

Basically, Bill C-240 was in the House and Bill C-279 was in the House, and when we did the consultation, the support was for a national one run by the RCMP. That's what we've been focusing on. If the federal government passed amendments to the DNA Identification Act or a separate missing persons data bank act with these kinds of safeguards and consents, etc., then the provinces would be under no obligation to make use of it. It would just be a service there for them to use if they wished. The higher your fee for service, the less likely they are to take advantage of it, I would imagine.

[Greg Yost]

I assure you that those are the kinds of issues that we have dealt with.

The question of the person who doesn't want to be identified is one that is an operational issue, if I can put it that way. We always think of this in terms of Judy Peterson's missing child, a young child, and obviously the parents have a major interest. One of the problems is that an awful lot of missing persons reports are of a different nature entirely. Probably the biggest example is Project KARE, which you have heard of, where they gather the DNA from the sex trade workers. They actually wouldn't fit into Bill C-279. The police are not a relative so they have no right to upload it, and that's one of the issues, if it's to be a useful tool for the police, that we have to deal with.

My understanding is that in other jurisdictions that have these the police protocols have.... You find a person three years later who's disappeared at age 16 and you ask, why did you leave? There may be allegations of abuse. There can be all kinds of things that go in a completely different direction. The normal thing is that an adult is not going to be forcefully, if I can put it that way, identified to the person who reported them.

Those are difficult issues that would require police protocols. The operational side was dealing with that more than the legal side. We were aware of that issue.

The one that's probably bothered us the most is the privacy and charter implications surrounding the person. It's been uploaded in a normal way and sometime later it's a case of--I don't know if we can call it this--good news, bad news. We have good news: your child is alive. We have bad news: we think your child is involved as a killer out in Kingston, or something like that. That would be difficult.

The view of--I'll say this--the federal Department of Justice, because some of the provinces are not quite as convinced as we are, is that if the police have obtained information in an appropriate manner, and they would have done this in accordance with the legislation that's provided to them, and if this leads them to something else that they're entitled to follow--if I can use an analogy, the parents show up with a picture of the child, and for whatever reason it's recognized as the picture taken off a closed-circuit camera while a robbery was under way--the police would have, we believe, the right to follow that up. But it's very important that you inform the person who's uploading it and that this be the right person who has some genuine interest in it, that there is this possibility, that it could happen, and you ask, “Do you want us to check the crime scene index or not?” If they say no, you could cut it out.

Ron knows the way these things are operated in other jurisdictions because he deals with them all the time. But I understand that this kind of “fill out the form with which one you want checked” is what's used in other countries.

[Karen Sallows, Director, Strategic Coordinator, Research and Evaluation Division, Department of Public Safety]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hello. I am the Director of the Strategic Coordination, Research and Evaluation Division at Public Safety Canada. I am the one in the department in charge of the Missing Persons Index file, the MPI. I appear before you as such.

I would like to introduce two of my colleagues who have been working on this file for several years. There is, first of all, Mr. Ronald Fourney, Director of National Services and Research at Forensic Science and Identification Services in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Mr. Greg Yost, Counsel at the Criminal Law Policy Section in the Department of Justice. We will be pleased to answer your questions on this subject.

However, I would like to start with a presentation outlining the context of the Missing Persons Index initiative and its progress.

Most view a national MPI as creating the capability to allow the DNA profile of a missing person or close biological relative to be compared to the DNA profiles derived from found unidentified human remains from jurisdictions across Canada. Coroners and police in Canada can use many other forensic and investigative tools, including a specialized index on CPIC, the national computer system used by all police. Local authorities sometimes do use DNA technology locally for identification or to assist in missing persons cases, but there is no centralized or standard way for DNA-based comparisons to be made across jurisdictions and no common approach by authorities.

As you may know, the possibility of establishing a missing persons index was raised briefly in 1994 and again in 1996 as part of public consultations related to what is now the DNA Identification Act, for which the Minister of Public Safety is responsible. More recently, Judy Peterson of British Columbia--whose daughter, Lindsey, has been missing for many years--proposed an MPI in response to the 2002 Department of Justice public consultations on the operation of the DNA data bank legislation, and of course there have been previous private members' bills on the subject.

In the fall of 2003, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for Justice ordered an FPT working group on this Missing Persons Index to be set up. They also asked officials to review issues raised by the establishment of a national index primarily for humanitarian reasons.

I chair the FPT working group on the Missing Persons Index but I am here as a federal public servant. I will provide an overview of the work undertaken by the group over the last several years and sum up the work accomplished and the anticipated timelines. However, since a large amount of information was provided on a confidential basis during the discussions in the working group, I am not in a position to divulge the individual positions of the various jurisdictions at this stage.

The mandate of the FPT working group is to assess matters related to the extent of the Index as well as privacy issues, legal, operational and financial aspects, and to undertake public consultations, to recommend potential models, and to provide support to the ministers and deputy ministers responsible for Justice with regard to setting up an MPI and related decisions.

The public consultation was completed in summer 2005. There were 150 respondents from the general public, police associations, several police services, provincial governments, missing persons organizations, and some bar associations. Detailed results from the consultation are available for the standing committee's examination. But in a nutshell, the results indicated strong support for a national MPI managed by the RCMP.

Also, as part of the consultation process, the FPT working group discussed the issues and challenges the proposal raises with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the national DNA data bank advisory committee, Mr. Gary Lunn, and Mrs. Peterson.

I should note that letters of support from concerned citizens who support the creation of a national MPI are received on an ongoing basis by the Department of Public Safety. This remains an issue that is close to the hearts of many Canadians, especially those who are in the unfortunate situation of knowing someone who is missing.

In November 2005, following the consultation results, FPT ministers confirmed their commitment to develop options. They directed officials to conduct detailed work on the cost, privacy, and legal implications. An overarching principle in developing an MPI model was to do no harm to the existing criminal law regime.

Three subcommittees were formed.

The missing persons definition subcommittee reviewed the resources and police procedures that already exist and focused on what guidelines would be required to ensure the most effective management of missing persons cases when these profiles were included in a national MPI.

The legal, administrative, and privacy issues subcommittee focused its research on analyzing the various legal issues involved in an MPI. These included issues such as the implications of cross-matching the MPI with the national DNA data bank's criminal indexes; informed consent; legislative jurisdiction; legal guarantees relating to analysis, retention, use, and destruction of biological samples and DNA profiles; and so on. Mr. Yost co-chaired that group.

The cost and funding formula subcommittee looked at factors that would affect costs and operations. More specifically, the subcommittee assessed the operational procedures you would need to put in place to provide law enforcement officials with access to a national MPI service. It also looked at how this would work in conjunction with existing procedures. The RCMP and Dr. Fourney have been very helpful with this work.

The FPT working group has been active in addressing and resolving a number of issues, many of which have arisen in the debates on Bill C-279. The discussions have coalesced around a number of elements. A national system operated by the RCMP as part of national police services and established largely by the federal government--this is similar to the national DNA data bank--would have the same advantage of having both high numbers of profiles and geographic impact. Provinces and territories could participate on a voluntary basis. In other words, they would be able to choose to gather DNA samples and upload the profiles according to established common criteria, for example, after exhausting other investigative or identification methods.

A missing person could be broadly defined in any legislation, but participants would use regulations and agreed upon guidelines to allow for local flexibility and best common practices.

The MPI would most likely have three separate indexes containing DNA profiles that could be cross-matched among themselves and potentially with existing criminal DNA indexes. The first of these would be human remains from unidentified human remains. The second would be personal effects of missing persons, voluntarily supplied, but using guidelines and verification practices. Third would be relatives of missing persons, voluntarily supplied, with measures to ensure active and informed consent.

Any advisory or oversight body would need to recognize differentiated federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdiction and roles.

If coroners identify human remains through a missing persons index, this finding could be used to establish death for provincial and territorial purposes and would deal with related issues, such as inheritance, insurance, and so on.

An assessment would need to be made of corresponding legislative changes respecting provincial and territorial police and coroner legislation that may be needed.

The working group has made significant progress with regard to jurisdictional issues and consent issues. This keys on both the consent given by any individual involved in a missing persons case and the jurisdictional responsibilities exercised by the originating province or territory. Again, almost all missing persons cases originate through a report to police or when found human remains are given into the control of a provincial or territorial coroner.

It is hoped that recommendations can be made for a legal framework for a national MPI that is flexible enough to deal with these important concerns, which have direct relevance to the prospect of cross-matching the MPI indexes with the existing criminal law indexes. Through informed consent, individuals could be able to control cross-checking of their profiles, provided for MPI purposes, with any of the existing criminal indexes in the national DNA data bank. The originating jurisdiction could also determine the degree of cross-matching it would permit.

Let me quickly note that there is other FPT work under way respecting missing women in particular. Established in February 2006, the mandate of the FPT missing women's working group is to consider issues associated with the effective identification, investigation, and prosecution of cases involving serial killers who target persons living a high-risk lifestyle, including but not limited to the sex trade. They are looking at strategies to protect persons who have a high likelihood of being victimized by these predators. The results of the working group will be in the form of recommendations to FPT deputy ministers responsible for justice. We liaise closely with this group where the potential use of DNA arises in discussions.

A word perhaps on the scale of the situation for missing persons in Canada. As I believe you may know, there are currently between 500 and 600 sets of unidentified human remains in Canada. While there are approximately 100,000 missing persons reports made to police each year, most cases are resolved quickly. For example, it is estimated that approximately 95% of missing persons are located, or the case is otherwise resolved, within 30 days. Approximately 6,000 ongoing missing persons cases are recorded on CPIC, and each year about 420 cases of people missing at least one year are added to this number. Therefore, we know there is a need to build a system that can deal with ongoing cases and with the existing historical group of 6,000 cases.

I should note that the indications are that the raw numbers of actual hits or matches from any MPI may be very low, especially in comparison to the number of matches we're getting for the national DNA data bank. As well, experience from the United States indicates the investigative value to law enforcement MPI matches may be somewhat smaller than is often assumed. However, in the humanitarian sense, any match to human remains or any help in advancing an MPI case is of great value to the family concerned and can assist law enforcement officials and coroners who are working with these families.

California is probably the best example in that its population is close to that of Canada. The California missing persons DNA program has resulted in very few cold hits in which unidentified remains were linked directly to a profile uploaded to the central system. The majority of other hits in the California system, which assists in the identification of about 71 unidentified persons, were what is called “warm identifications”, where DNA was used to confirm what was already suspected. Sixteen of the warm identifications were classified as homicides, 30 were unknown undetermined circumstances--many could be homicides--and 24 of the remaining identifications died of natural causes, suicide, vehicle accidents, etc.

In general terms, this endeavour would be similar to building the national DNA data bank. While the science and experience exists already, there are costs for development and implementation and a need to ensure the participation of the provinces and territories in using similar processes and techniques to conduct the DNA analysis and ensure privacy and security is protected. With this in mind, the working group has intensified its work on an operational model in costing and is trying to work toward final cost estimates to be part of the final presentation to FPT ministers.

I can illustrate for you some of the factors that will determine overall costs. Three of the major cost factors are related to the minimum number of days that could elapse after a person has been reported missing before DNA samples are collected and sent for analysis; the scientific process or processes selected to analyze DNA samples; and which forensic laboratory or laboratories to use, whether government run or private labs or a combination of both.

In March 2007, a business process mapping exercise was completed, which has produced a proposed structure and an operational model, identified jurisdictional responsibilities and coordination of operations between agencies, and provided information that will lead to a more precise cost model to assist in determining how to implement and run this initiative. These results in this timeline are consistent with the direction and timelines given to the working group by FPT deputy ministers at their January 2007 meeting in Toronto. The working group plans to present its findings to the FPT associate deputy minister committee on policing issues in Calgary on May 23, 2007, and make a final report to deputy ministers in June 2007 in Yellowknife. These deputy ministers would consider the report and its specific recommendations that would be presented to ministers at their fall 2007 meeting.

Again, while I cannot speak for the views of provincial and territorial partners, I can tell the committee that there has been very good participation, cooperation, and goodwill from jurisdictions throughout the process. There are considerable policy challenges and choices, but again, there is considerable goodwill and momentum.

Thank you. We'd be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

This is the 39th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Today we are dealing with Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes).

We'd like to welcome our witnesses to the committee. We have Ms. Karen Sallows, the director of research and evaluation and strategic coordinator for the Department of Public Safety; Mr. Ronald Fourney, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and Mr. Greg Yost, from the Department of Justice. Welcome to you all.

You are all welcome to make opening remarks.

My information is that Ms. Sallows is prepared to begin. Please go ahead.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'd be happy to answer any questions and comments. You may want to call on staff to answer any questions too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. I want to thank the committee members for being here.

I'll try to be relatively quick, because I understand bells are going to happen, and we have votes.

There is a fair amount of history around Bill C-279 and the issue. I just want to take a couple of minutes, briefly, to talk about what we're trying to accomplish with these DNA indices.

First of all, let me thank everyone who's worked on this with me. The RCMP have been supportive, as have the Ontario Provincial Police. My own force in Halton have consulted with me. There have been a number of groups who have come to see me in support of it: victims' rights groups, a native women's group, and of course Ms. Judy Peterson, who many years ago started this process. She has a missing daughter—her first name is Lindsey—and she is looking for the Government of Canada to move forward on an index process that helps find missing persons in Canada.

There are about 7,000 missing persons in Canada at the present time. There are a number of different indices that already exist. There is the index that exists for DNA at crime scenes. One example I like to use is that until very recently you had to go to every morgue in the country to see if one of your loved ones was there. This bill is very important in helping bring closure to families who have had missing persons for a number of years.

On the good side, the OPP, for example, in Ontario, who are very supportive of this bill, have just introduced a process by which they're taking pictures of people in morgues and putting them on the Internet and then people may be able to identify them visually. But it would be much more efficient and much more effective—and they agree—if we used the information that now exists and the technology.

Canada has been a leader in DNA, and we have another bill in front of the House, a government bill on this particular topic on using DNA in criminal investigations. All I was looking for was support for using the same technology to be able to identify people who have been missing for many years.

There had been a number of issues, Mr. Chairman, and a number of them have been resolved. For example, there has been a discussion about the definition of a missing person. Is it six days? Is it six weeks? For my bill's purposes, we were hoping for a discussion today, and I was going to look for the committee to support that it be a year. The vast majority, 80%, of missing persons are found within a year. So it would be a smaller component that would fall under that definition, and that would narrow the scope of the missing person we're looking for and the scope of the work that the law enforcement groups would be doing.

But let's talk about the facts. First of all, I appreciate everyone who's spoken to this bill so far in the House. All parties have spoken to it of course, and I've had basic support in principle—that's why I'm here—from all parties. The Bloc had some issues with jurisdiction, which we were working on, but this concept has been around for a number of years, and the Honourable Ms. Barnes has pointed out to us that it's been kicking around while we have been trying to get the right mix.

The fact of the matter is that we need to work with our federal, provincial, and territorial partners. The minister has been bringing this forward at the FPT meetings over the last couple of years. There hasn't been a complete solution. I think we thought we would, by this time, have a complete solution on jurisdictional items and on a number of definitions. But the ministry has indicated to me that is not the case yet. It's not completely finalized, but they are continuing to work on it, because I think all of us agree that at the end of the day—I know it is a bit of a partisan place—atrying to help families resolve missing persons in their families and bringing closure to them is not a partisan issue.

I appreciate the party support that I've gotten from all sides of the House, and I do appreciate the work that the ministry has been doing on this. Unfortunately, that has not been completed yet, and the bill will likely—it's up to committee what they do with it—not be able to proceed at this point until that work is done.

Mr. Chairman, those are my opening remarks. We'll continue to work on this issue as long as I am honoured as being a member of Parliament.

I'm willing to answer any questions people may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'll bring this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, meeting number 37. Today we are dealing with the order of reference of Wednesday, November 22, 2006, Bill C-279, an act to amend the DNA Identification Act, establishment of indexes.

We would like to welcome to this committee member of Parliament Mike Wallace. Mr. Wallace, are you prepared to give us a presentation?

The House resumed from November 9, consideration of the motion that Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

DNA Identification Act

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased tonight to speak on Bill C-279 to amend the DNA Identification Act. It is certainly a worthy initiative and one which I will say right off the bat should go to committee for further study.

I am somewhat surprised, however, in reading the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety that the government has not seen fit to be supportive, particularly in terms of an initiative started by this side of the House prior to the last election.

It is important for Canadians to understand that over 100,000 people go missing every year in this country. Six thousand missing persons cases are currently unresolved. Another 450 come online annually.

There are 15,000 samples of unidentified DNA recovered from crime scenes across this country and currently stored in the RCMP's National DNA Data Bank in Ottawa. As well, there are hundreds of unidentified John Does and Jane Does in morgues across this country.

As members know, I am sure, there are current restrictions in terms of dealing with DNA under the DNA Identification Act. It is impossible to match DNA to those thousands of missing persons in the country currently. Given the need for a missing persons index and a DNA Data Bank and the widespread support of Canadians, law enforcement professionals, the provinces and territorial governments, DNA indices for missing persons should be created.

This is obviously an inter-jurisdictional issue. There often will be local law enforcement people at a crime scene and there often will be a provincial coroner involved in these cases, obviously, and therefore those are the kinds of issues that I believe are worthy of examination at the committee level. I think this is important. I think it is something that we should be moving forward on. Clearly there are some issues, which some members have already identified, with regard to this proposal, but I do not think that they should block the movement of this bill to committee.

One of the purposes of a committee is obviously to do more in depth work. I congratulate the mover, the member for Burlington, for the fact that this needs to have a hearing. We need to get in the experts and the witnesses and look at it. I would hope that members of the government, particularly the minister, also will look favourably on this proposal.

Amendments from the committee clearly would need to identify, for example, federal-provincial jurisdictions. The federal government of course has jurisdiction in terms of the Criminal Code, but in terms of cooperation with the provinces and the territories we established a National DNA Data Bank that is used for criminal investigations, as we have just heard from some hon. members.

The creation of this national DNA MPI, or missing persons index, would reassure families of missing persons that current and future unidentified individuals will be checked on a voluntary basis across the country. Missing persons investigations, as I have said, are led by local police forces and of course we have provincial coroners who have jurisdiction over unidentified human remains. Barring an interprovincial or international element in the disappearance of the person who has been found, the matter would be one of local concern and therefore would be within provincial jurisdiction.

I believe that this is certainly a commendable and worthy idea to move forward. We need to deal with the fact that there are many families in this country who clearly are agonizing over whether or not a loved one is in fact deceased. A way to help that clearly is to have this type of legislation in place. I think it would be helpful.

Again, I urge all members to support this bill going to committee, where a good examination of the legislation can be done.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak, in the second hour of debate, to Bill C-279, an act to amend the DNA Identification Act.

I am pleased the Government of Canada is committed to tackling crime and to ensuring its law enforcement officers have the tools and resources needed to do their jobs. I am proud that the government also remains committed to working in collaboration with provincial and territorial partners to develop effective tools to fight crime.

The bill proposed by the hon. member for Burlington suggests that the new index be added to the National DNA Data Bank. The new index would be used to hold the DNA profiles of both missing persons and unidentified human remains.

The bill proposes that these profiles should be cross-checked against each other and against the convicted offender and crime scene indices. The purpose of the cross-check would be to identify human remains. The government fully understands the principles behind this private member's bill. We are also sympathetic to the issues it raises.

DNA is an incredibly valuable tool for law enforcement. It is understandable that it could be seen as a way to aid in the investigation of missing persons. If we were to create a missing person index, we would be aiding a humanitarian aspect to the DNA data bank.

The question we must address, and one of the reasons why I have risen today in the House to be part of this debate, is should the National DNA Data Bank be used not only to help solve serious crimes, but also for compassionate and humanitarian reasons, to help solve often lengthy and emotionally charged missing persons cases?

I will give my hon. members in the House some background about how the Government of Canada already uses DNA to fight crime in our country. Here is some data for context.

There are currently between 500 and 600 sets of unidentified human remains in Canada. Approximately 100,000 missing person reports are made to police each and every year. Most cases are resolved quickly. I was pleased to learn that an estimated 95% of missing persons are located within 30 days. However, there are approximately 6,000 ongoing missing person cases recorded on the Canadian police information centre. Each year about 420 cases of people who have been missing for at least one year are added to this number.

My hon. colleagues may be wondering what the Government of Canada's role is in this issue.

First, officials from various federal departments are working with their counterparts in the provinces and territories to identify areas that can be improved in the National DNA Data Bank. Second, the RCMP operates the National DNA Data Bank on behalf of the Canadian law enforcement organizations.

Furthermore, there is federal legislation in place under the DNA Identification Act and further related provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada. DNA is used to solve crimes, assist police investigations by matching DNA profiles from individuals contained in two National DNA Data Bank indexes: the crime scene index and the convicted offender index. Related laboratory analysis of samples is done at the RCMP operated laboratories and in the provincial laboratories of Ontario and Quebec.

The addition of the missing persons index has been a work in progress for a number of years now. Let me provide a bit of background on its development.

It was during public consultations that proceeded the passage of the DNA Information Act in 1998 that the possibility of establishing a DNA missing person index was first raised. It was considered that such a national index would allow the DNA profile of a missing person or close biological relative to be compared to the DNA of found, unidentified human remains from jurisdictions across Canada. It was stated that a match could provide family members with confirmation of the death of a missing loved one and could assist with such issues as inheritance and insurance.

In 2003 the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice directed officials to further explore the issues involved in the possible creation of a national, principally humanitarian missing persons index.

In mid-2005, a federal, provincial and territorial working group on the missing persons index conducted consultations that revealed broad support among the public for a national missing persons index that would be managed by the RCMP.

During the same year federal, provincial and territorial ministers confirmed their continue commitment to developing options for an effective nationally, principally humanitarian missing persons index that would fit within the existing criminal law regime. They directed officials to complete their work by examining the cost, the privacy and the legal implications of a missing persons index. These officials were tasked to bring forward recommendations.

Federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice met in October to review the recent progress of the working group. Ministers noted that the work was well advanced and directed the working group to focus on outstanding issues relating to cross-matching, jurisdiction and cost. At the time provincial and territorial ministers indicated their support for the establishment of a missing persons index, but expressed some concern about the proposals in Bill C-279.

Ministers agreed in principle to the concept of a missing persons index and directed the FPT working group to work to resolve key ongoing concerns and report back to FPT deputy ministers at their next meeting in January 2007. Both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice agreed to bring forward FPT concerns on a missing persons index and parliamentary discussions of Bill C-279. It seems sensible to encourage any committee hearings to consider hearing from provincial and territorial authorities as witnesses.

Speaking of today's proposal, this brings me to our current examination of this option to help fight crime. As it is proposed, Bill C-279 would amend the DNA Identification Act by creating within the National DNA Data Bank new DNA indices of missing persons and unidentified human remains.

As I noted earlier, the proposed bill also adds to the principles of the act the goal of bringing relief and comfort to relatives of missing persons. It proposes the new indices should be cross-checked both against each other and against the criminal indices maintained by the National DNA Data Bank. This process would help identify found human remains.

The government has identified legal concerns with this use of the DNA data bank. The creation of a missing persons index raises certain jurisdictional, legal and privacy issues as well as jurisdictional and financial questions about which the government would provide the resources to proceed with such an initiative.

The government understands that there may be public support for a national DNA missing persons index program and that there is a chance that it could help law enforcement agencies solve missing persons cases. We also understand this could bring about relief and comfort to the relatives of loved ones of missing persons. However, if this use of the DNA were developed as a tool with which to fight crime, we must consider the implications on the privacy of Canadians.

I would also note that further analysis of Bill C-279 has revealed that other legal concerns would also need to be addressed before the bill was adopted.

This is a worthy initiative. The government is studying ways to ease the emotional burden of Canadian families with loved ones who go missing. We are reviewing the proposal with our colleagues in the provinces and territories. As of this debate, we still need more time to study the matter to see how adding a new index to the DNA data bank can be done effectively in the interest of public safety.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill today, and I applaud the member for Burlington for bringing this debate and discussion forward.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about this private member's bill, Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes).

The summary says:

This enactment amends the DNA Identification Act to provide for the establishment of a human remains index and a missing persons index to help law enforcement agencies search for and identify persons reported missing.

Hon. members know the effort that the Bloc Québécois makes to defend the interests of Quebeckers and, at the same time, defend areas of provincial jurisdiction. Once again, this House is debating this sort of bill. I will read a comment made by an analyst with the Parliament of Canada about Bill C-240, which was introduced during the previous Parliament and covered the same ground as Bill C-279, which is before us today. The analyst told us that the bill introduced by the member in question—who shall remain nameless—was ultra vires Parliament, because it concerned a local area of jurisdiction.

That means simply that this bill does not come under federal jurisdiction.

We can talk and talk in this House, but the government always turns a deaf ear. Before, it was the Liberals; now, it is the Conservatives. The government is always ready to encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction. It is no wonder so many Quebeckers want to leave Canada and form their own country, Quebec. We are sick and tired of this constant interference. We are tired of investing time, money and energy in areas that do not come under federal jurisdiction. In fact, 23%, 24% or 25% of the money comes from Quebeckers.

The federal government has enough problems with its own areas of jurisdiction, as we can attest. Since the Conservative government was elected, we have watched it invest in the army, in arms, in law and order. The Criminal Code is a federal responsibility. The government has enough problems with its own areas of jurisdiction. It should let the provinces pass their own legislation and their own regulations in their own areas of jurisdiction.

As I said, the Bloc Québécois did not say that, it was a researcher from the Library of Parliament who said that this bill does not come under federal jurisdiction.

Earlier, my Liberal colleague openly admitted that there was a problem with jurisdiction. When there is a problem with jurisdiction, you do not table such a bill. It is simple. That avoids debates and, in the opinion of his colleagues, would avoid giving the Bloc Québécois a reason to argue. Too often, in this Parliament, we are right. In the case of this bill, we find quite simply that this is not a matter falling under federal jurisdiction.

It is not that there are not some good debates. Solving the fiscal imbalance is a good debate. It is a debate that we should have in this Parliament. We would be pleased to have members from the other parties table private members' bills in order to deal with the fiscal imbalance. Some would say that they cannot table such bills because they entail expenditures and therefore require royal recommendation.

However, this small bill, C-279, also requires royal recommendation given that it entails expenditures to create an index. When fellow members table bills requiring royal recommendation,they know that entails expenses and requires additional authorization. That also means that it requires supplementary budgets and that it is not a sure thing that it will be adopted. That is what it means.

Thus, the members should work on solving the problem of Quebeckers, namely the fiscal imbalance. The Bloc Québécois has never hidden the fact that the amount needed to resolve the fiscal imbalance is $3.9 billion. It is that simple. Any colleague from the other parties can table a private member's bill and ask for resolution of the fiscal imbalance, which is $3.9 billion for Quebec and some $12 billion for all of Canada. They would be helping one another out, they would be helping the citizens of their provinces and, at the same time, would perhaps ease some of the tension that exists between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Members will have gathered from what I said that the Bloc Québécois will oppose Bill C-279. The reason for that is quite simple: the establishment of a registry for DNA identification or the establishment of indexes do not fall under federal jurisdiction; it is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

We are very respectful of the Constitution of Canada. As members know, Quebec has not signed the new Constitution. The ROC, the rest of Canada, gave itself a Constitution and cannot even abide by it. It is no wonder that Quebec did not sign it: that document was unacceptable to the people of Quebec.

I hope that everyone has noted the Bloc Québécois' desire to clarify its position. The Bloc Québecois is finding increasingly intolerable the introduction of bills having to do with areas of provincial jurisdiction. So, this is a nice, friendly warning to our colleagues and friends from other Canadian provinces: they have to respect provincial jurisdictions in the private members' bills they introduce.

I will repeat to make sure that it is clear. I am not the one saying this, because I am repeating what the analyst from the Library of Parliament said about Bill C-240, which was identical to Bill C-279. The analyst said that Bill C-240 was ultra vires the powers of Parliament as it would deal with a matter of local concern. The same is therefore true of Bill C-279, and that is why we have not requested any specific analysis from the Library of Parliament staff. We already had their analysis on Bill C-240.

So, it will come as no surprise to the hon. member who introduced Bill C-279 that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against that bill. I realize that this may sound persnickety and that the Bloc Québécois may appear to be fussy about this point. But if we want each level of government, both the federal government and the provinces, to have their jurisdictions respected, the first thing to do is to read the Constitution over. It is all set out very clearly in there. It was very clear to the analyst, and I hope it will be very clear as well to my hon. colleagues, that Bill C-279 does not fall under federal jurisdiction.

This brings me to the issue of the federal government's jurisdiction. As we know, some money was spent and more will be spent in the future. We can also see that this Conservative government, guided by its right-wing republican conservative vision, is investing a lot of money in the military and in defence material. Of course we cannot blame the government for doing that, because this area comes under its jurisdiction. The federal government is responsible for looking after the army. I think the Conservative government has clearly understood that, and this is why Canada is investing increasingly more in this area.

The problem is that we do not have debates in this House on the kind of armed forces that we want. When missions are sent to Afghanistan, there is no debate in the House, and the government does not seek the advice of hon. members. For example, when we go to Kenya to represent the Government of Canada and talk about the environment, as is the case now, there is no debate. Yet, the Bloc Québécois asked for a debate. The leader of our party rose in this House and asked the Prime Minister for a true debate, so that we can at last state our position to the Minister of the Environment, who will arrive in Kenya without the Canadian government's position.

This is not the first time the Government of Canada does not have a position. When the Liberals were in power, they did not have one either. The problem is, some might say we were lucky because at least they showed up. It is true that the current Conservative government has often been absent from major international meetings and during international talks.

I see that I have only one minute remaining, so I will wrap things up.

So Canada will show up in Kenya with empty pockets and empty hands because the Canadian government does not have a position and does not want to respect the Kyoto protocol. Obviously, the Conservative government is on the oil company payroll. This probably comes as no surprise to the people who watch and listen to what goes on in this House—they know the Conservative government is under the oil companies' collective thumb.

I doubt this is news to anyone. However, given the serious global warming problem we are facing, it is time to set aside our personal interests, take into account the common good and stand up for the best interests of all Quebeckers and Canadians who want the federal government to have a real agenda to meet the Kyoto protocol targets, rather than pass bills like C-279.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes).

I want to congratulate the member for Burlington for bringing this forward. If I guess right, he probably inherited this from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, perhaps in a somewhat different form. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is now the Minister of Natural Resources. My colleague, the hon. member for Burlington, has picked up this important initiative and I congratulate him for doing that.

I worked with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in the previous Parliament to get this bill enacted. The federal Liberal government at the time was supportive of developing a missing persons index and in fact launched a public consultation process that was completed last year. There are some issues the member knows about, none of which I believe are insurmountable, and I think we need to move toward a missing persons index.

There are some issues around privacy and jurisdiction along with some technical issues, and that is why the government at the time launched the public consultation process. That was completed last year. It was taken to the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice in November 2005. There were further working groups established and I believe it is on the agenda for the meeting coming up in November 2006, if my knowledge is right.

The officials were asked to look at various issues around cost, privacy, legal implications and to bring forward recommendations. Perhaps this bill has all the answers in it, that I do not know. I suspect not. The processes may be somewhat out of sync, but there are ways to deal with that. It is a very worthwhile initiative.

We definitely empathize with those who have relatives or friends who have gone missing. It is a horrible thing to have to go through. We know this happens with some frequency. A lot of people go missing and are subsequently located. The number, for example, of long term missing persons in Canada is less than 5,000 and an average of 270 new long term cases are recorded each year.

The Canadian Police Information Centre currently records a total of 286 partial sets of unidentified human remains. It is a challenge to find a match. People who are missing perhaps could be linked back to a crime scene or some other event with a DNA match. In the case of a person who is deceased, it would bring closure to that case and at least allow people to get on with their lives. They would know their missing relative or friend was located at a crime scene and that is the end of it.

There are, though, other situations where, for example, young people leave home and disappear. In some cases it may be because of some mischievous event. It might be a voluntary move on a person's part to leave home to travel and go under the radar. It raises some privacy issues with respect to DNA.

In a case such as that the relatives would be approached or there would be some interaction with relatives to identify DNA through personal belongings, et cetera. What happens, for example, if relatives themselves are involved in a crime? Do they have any privacy rights? If it is a deceased person, it is fairly straightforward, but if the police are able to match the DNA of a missing person with the DNA of a person at a crime scene who was either at large or convicted or a victim, what privacy rights would that person have?

Maybe they do not want to know about their families anymore for various reasons. There can be a lot of things that go on in families and for whatever reason, they might not want to be associated with their families anymore. What obligations and responsibilities come into play then? Those rules would have to be laid out very clearly and that is not always simple. It is surmountable, but it is not always simple.

There are also issues around jurisdiction. We never like to get bogged down with which jurisdiction has the responsibility, but the fact is that our Constitution lays out certain responsibilities. With respect to criminal law, the federal government has that responsibility; civil law and property rights are provincial. When we are talking about missing persons, that normally comes up in the context of local police work, and until such time as there is some criminality attached to it, or there is a suspicion that there is a crime involved, it is a local issue. These matters are dealt with often by local police and every province and jurisdiction has a different approach with respect to the DNA. That is why it is clearly appropriate for the federal government to be talking with the provinces and the territories to make an assessment of what is being done currently and what could be done with the National DNA Data Bank.

It is interesting to note that not all DNA is collected and kept in the National DNA Data Bank. We might have a missing person's DNA but we would not have necessarily all the DNA in the DNA Data Bank. In fact the last Parliament passed laws that reduced the judicial discretion in terms of feeding DNA to the DNA Data Bank. In this Parliament, there were further enhancements to that so that for major crimes, serious crimes, there is no discretion with respect to the DNA passing to the National DNA Data Bank. It is only applicable at this point, even with those changes, to the most heinous and serious of crimes, such as rape, murder and the like. There is currently no process for systematically gathering and comparing the DNA samples. That is an issue that has to be dealt with.

The consultation paper that involved a number of Canadians sought to get some views from experts and other interested parties on how one could put together this kind of missing person's index. That report is in and in a moment I will go through some of the findings and recommendations that came out of that consultation process.

There are different approaches to the privacy issues. We need to have a good debate around that.

There are different ways of structuring a missing person's index. It could be run at the provincial level and coordinated at the National DNA Data Bank level. It could be run at the National DNA Data Bank level and fed by the provinces and the territories.

There are issues like that which need to be worked on. In fact, this consultation process identified a number of different options for the government to look at and for the provincial, territorial and federal ministers to look at.

I am hoping that we make some progress. I hope that the member can take this to committee and somehow harmonize it with this consultation process and bring it into play, because we need it. It is an important tool that we could all use.

The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-279--DNA Identification Act--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am ready now to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House Leader and Minister for Democratic Reform concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation on Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes) standing in the name of the member for Burlington.

I would like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for having raised this issue.

In his intervention, the hon. parliamentary secretary pointed out that clause 2 amends the purpose clause of the DNA Identification Act to include the identifying of missing persons as one of the purposes for maintaining the data bank. He noted that in fulfilment of this purpose, clause 4 creates two new indexes in the data bank, one related to unidentified human remains and one related to missing persons.

In concluding his remarks, he stated that the addition of this new purpose to the act would require significant new expenditures by the government.

I have reviewed Bill C-279 in light of the parliamentary secretary's point of order and I am in agreement with his analysis of the financial impact of the bill. As I have reminded the House on a number of occasions in the current session, funds may only be appropriated by Parliament for purposes covered by a royal recommendation, as explicitly stated in Standing Order 79(1). Amending legislation that proposes a distinctly new purpose must be accompanied by a further royal recommendation.

I will decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

The debate is currently on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

DNA Identification Act

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 100,000 missing persons in Canada every year. Over 6,000 missing person cases are currently unresolved with an addition of over 450 coming online annually.

There are currently 15,000 samples of unidentified DNA recovered from crime scenes across the country currently stored in the RCMP's national DNA databank in Ottawa. As well, there are hundreds and hundreds of unidentified Jane and John Does in morgues all across the country.

Restrictions to the current DNA Identification Act make it impossible to match DNA to those thousands of missing persons in the country. Given the need for an MPI, or missing persons index, a DNA databank, and the widespread support from Canadians, law enforcement professionals, the provinces and territorial governments, DNA indices for missing persons should be created as soon as possible.

Bill C-279 amends the DNA Identification Act to provide for the establishment of a number of indices to help law enforcement agencies search for and identify persons reported missing. We must help families bring closure to the disappearance of their loved ones.

I would like to explain how Bill C-279 would work. Coroners and police use a variety of methods to identify human remains. These include: dental records, fingerprints and hair samples. In some cases DNA technology is used on a local basis and often on a case-by-case basis. This is not systematic by any stretch of the imagination and it does not use a comprehensive database. Jurisdictions cannot easily work together on human remains cases.

Currently, there are about 500 sets of unidentified human remains in Canada. Approximately 100,000 missing person reports are made to the police each year. Most cases are resolved quickly. About 6,000 are ongoing cases of missing persons and that continues to grow annually and it grows exponentially.

The federal government has jurisdiction over the Criminal Code. In cooperation with the provinces and territories, it has established the national DNA databank that is used for criminal investigations as we just heard. I want to use the same type of technology to help families finally find their missing loved ones.

A national DNA MPI, or missing persons index, would reassure families of missing persons that current and future unidentified found remains can be checked on a voluntary basis across the country.

Many stakeholders also believe that an MPI might also be of assistance in certain ongoing criminal investigations while still being consistent with the humanitarian principle of an MPI.

I would like to highlight some of the key elements of Bill C-279. A number of new DNA indices would be created to help find missing persons. The provinces and the territories have been working over the summer to help develop a new MPI regime.

The bill provides for a full cross-checking between all profiles held in the MPI and those held in existing crime scene indices and a new human remains index. Bill C-279 proposes to incorporate an MPI into the current provisions of the current DNA Identification Act.

I will be frank. Some amendments are needed and I am willing to work with the committee of the House of Commons to make that happen. For instance, I have had feedback that we need to better identify the definition of what a missing person is and I am more than willing to work on that.

The use of a police report that actually starts the process is not identified in the act and needs to be there. Finally, another piece is the role of the RCMP Commissioner which is defined in the act but needs further clarification, and at committee I am more than willing to work on this issue.

All amendments through the committee will bring clarity to the issue of federal-provincial jurisdiction.

At present, the national DNA bank enables electronic matching between and within two indices: the convicted offenders index, which is basically DNA of those who have been found guilty and convicted of designated offences; and the crime scene index, which is really important to my MPI as it contains the DNA profiles found at crime scenes. They are kept at the data bank and are there for use for my MPI cross-checking.

The national DNA data bank has been a major success in improving public safety. Close to 6,000 matches have been made that have either solved or assisted police in investigations of serious offences. There are about 130,000 profiles in the national DNA data bank at present.

In late 2003, federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers mandated a working group to explore and recommend options for a national MPI. A core principle was to do no harm to the existing criminal law DNA regime. All agreed that an MPI would require provincial and territorial support and participation to be effective.

The federal, provincial and territorial working group significantly advanced this work through public consultations and focused on legal and privacy issues, definitions, and costs. Specialized consultations were held with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the National DNA Data Bank Advisory Committee, the ministries of justice and public safety, and other key stakeholders.

In recent months, the working group has formulated its discussions around my bill, Bill C-279. It is preparing a report to the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice at their meeting to be held in Newfoundland early in October. Bill C-279 will be an important part of the agenda at that meeting.

Here are what my expectations are.

I envision a national system operated by the RCMP, established by the federal government with the support of the provinces and the territories. Their participation would likely be on a voluntary basis.

Missing persons would be broadly defined in the legislation. Working with our provincial and territorial partners, we would use regulations and guidelines that would allow for local flexibility and best practices in all areas of this country.

MPIs, missing person indices, containing DNA profiles would also be created. These indices would include those of human remains and personal effects from missing persons. If someone's son or daughter went missing and there were hair samples in combs or brushes, those types of things could be used in an index. In addition, we could use family DNA, so if it is a brother, sister, daughter or son, DNA could be provided that is close enough for matching purposes.

These indices would allow for selective and strategic cross-matching among all the indices, all the MPIs, and the other DNA indices that already exist.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, on this file. He started this process in 2003 and has been a great leader for me in terms of helping me understand the process and the issues and bring this bill to the House today. I appreciate all the efforts he and his staff have made on my behalf. He has affectionately named this bill Lindsey's law, after Ms. Peterson's daughter, Lindsey. Ms. Peterson is from British Columbia, his home riding.

Lindsey was a 14 year old when she disappeared while walking home down a rural road near Courtenay on Vancouver Island. She had planned to meet her friends, and like many other teenagers who live in rural communities with limited bus service, she decided to hitchhike. What should have been a 10 minute ride has turned into a 13 year nightmare because the blond-haired, green-eyed teenager never made it to where she was going.

Since that day, Lindsey's mother, Judy Peterson, has struggled with the questions that surrounded her daughter's disappearance. Ms. Peterson hoped answers about Lindsey's fate could be found through DNA matching, but her hopes have been put on hold until Canada's DNA legislation catches up with technology.

The importance of DNA identification has gained widespread media attention. Ms. Peterson has personally worked very hard to lobby government for changes to the DNA legislation.

I also have a Lindsey. Unfortunately for us, one time she went missing. It was the worst few hours of my life when my young daughter was missing. The reason I took up this bill was to make sure that it did not happen to me again, or to any other family in this country. I cannot imagine the grief of someone who is missing a family member year after year after year.

We have the technology. We have the ability to make it happen. We are sent here to make a difference for Canadians. This is the type of bill that would make a difference to everybody's life across this country.

In closing, the amendments for the use of the proposed indices can be easily put in place. Canada is a DNA leader and it is time to put our technology to use. Lindsey's law is the next logical step. It is time.

Given the need for a DNA data bank and the widespread support from Canadians, law enforcement professionals, provincial governments, territorial governments, a DNA data bank for missing persons should be created as soon as possible. It would bring closure to families of missing persons. It would help law enforcement professionals do a better job. It would reflect Parliament's commitment to families who have been missing loved ones for far too long.

I ask for everyone's support on my private member's bill. I am willing to work very hard at committee to make the changes that are necessary to put this into place.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On May 31, 2006 you invited members to comment on whether Bill C-279 would require a royal recommendation.

Without commenting on the merits of this private member's bill, I would appreciate your consideration on whether this bill requires a royal recommendation, since the bill proposes the creation of two new indices and modifies the purposes of the existing act.

The Speaker has previously ruled that the creation of a new office or purpose involves new costs, and therefore bills proposing such new offices or purposes require royal recommendations.

On November 22, 2004 your Honour ruled that a royal recommendation would be required for Bill C-243, an Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (establishment of the Office of Victims Ombudsman of Canada). In that ruling, you noted that:

--this bill would create the position of victims ombudsman of Canada, with remuneration for such officers and employees as are necessary to perform the functions and duties. It is abundantly clear that this legislative initiative would authorize the spending of public funds.

Similarly, on June 13, 2005 the Chair indicated:

Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation.

The purpose of the existing DNA Identification Act is to help law enforcement agencies identify persons alleged to have committed designated offences. I would note that this Act was accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Section 3 of Bill C-279 would add an additional purpose, which is to identify missing persons via their DNA profiles.

Section 4 of Bill C-279 would follow-up on this additional purpose by requiring the establishment of two new indices under the national DNA databank to be administered by the databank commissioner.

Given that it would create an addition purpose and new program requirements which would modify the purpose of the DNA Identification Act, and result in significant new expenditures, the bill should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

moved that Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-279, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a bill today that would amend the DNA Identification Act to provide for the establishment of a human remains index and a missing persons index to help law enforcement agencies search for and identify persons who are reported missing.

This is a very important service to the families of those people who are missing from Burlington and from across the country.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)