Evidence of meeting #39 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I'd like to raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I see at my place a letter from the Privacy Commissioner setting out some viewpoints about the clauses that we're studying today. However, I noted that the Privacy Commissioner is not appearing. I would make two comments. One is that if an invited witness seriously wants their views considered, they ought to be here to answer questions and to defend their viewpoints. The other is I would point out that the Privacy Commissioner is an officer of this Parliament and I'd like to know the circumstances behind his failure to appear, because it seems to me to be a disrespect to the committee, at the very least, that he's failing to be here.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
You've made obviously a very, very strong point. Is there any further discussion on Ms. Ablonczy's point before the chair asks for some direction on it?
Yes, Mr. Easter.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Sorry I'm late, and I just caught the last of it. I think the thrust was that the Privacy Commissioner was asked and didn't come. I do think that's a serious issue. I would agree with Diane on it. When the committee invites people, we do have the right, as you would know, Mr. Chair, if we wanted to, to subpoena witnesses. I would hope we wouldn't have to go that far, but it's customary and I think it's proper for a committee to invite especially parliamentary officers, and they should have an excellent reason for not being here, in my view.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Obviously the chair can take the will and the concerns of the committee and direct a letter to the Privacy Commissioner expressing our deep concern on this issue. Beyond that, if the chair wishes and/or the committee wishes to take any different direction regarding either rescheduling or asking for further explanation beyond simply echoing our concerns, the chair would have to have some direction from the committee.
Is that fine at this point? Then the chair will obviously write a letter of concern.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I don't want to take any more time on this. I just want to raise it.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
We will now go to our meeting, and the first hour of witness testimony followed by questioning. Obviously, we have an abbreviated meeting and we do have votes very shortly. We do apologize in advance. Gentlemen, we would ask you to keep your comments as short as possible, and then we will try to get as much time in as possible for Qs and As, with the understanding that if we are called to vote, we will suspend, but we will reconvene as soon as the votes are finished.
We have before us as witnesses today from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Peter Henschel, deputy commissioner, specialized policing services; Ron Fourney, director of science and strategic partnerships, forensic science and identification services; and Sean Jorgensen, director, strategic policy and integration, specialized policing services. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Trevor Bhupsingh, director general, law enforcement and border strategies directorate.
Gentlemen, I apologize if I did not pronounce your names correctly. You can certainly correct me at any time.
We'll take your opening comments. You have up to 10 minutes, preferably much shorter if at all possible. Thank you very kindly.
Mr. Henschel, you're first.
3:45 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner Peter Henschel Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Thank you, and good afternoon.
I would like to provide you with a brief overview of the proposed legislative amendments and explain the five new indices that would be created. I also want to describe how those indices would support the investigation of missing persons and unidentified human remains, and strengthen the current DNA regime in Canada.
Proclaimed in 2000, the DNA Identification Act governs the national use of DNA for criminal purposes and enabled the creation of the National DNA Data Bank, or NDDB.
The DNA Identification Act created two indices: the convicted offender index, comprised of DNA profiles taken from offenders convicted of a designated offence, and the crime scene index, comprised of unknown DNA profiles derived from biological material found at crime scenes. The use of DNA has contributed significantly to criminal investigations. In Canada, the NDDB has assisted investigations of over 2,200 murders, 3,800 sexual assaults, and 24,000 other designated offences.
Other countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, use DNA identification to support investigations of missing persons and unidentified human remains. This is not currently possible in Canada. Since the establishment of the National DNA Data Bank, there have been a number of calls for the creation of a national DNA-based missing persons' index that could assist investigators in finding missing persons and identifying human remains.
Notably, committees of both the House of Commons and the Senate recommended the creation of a DNA-based missing persons index following their reviews of the DNA Identification Act in 2009 and 2010. These recommendations were echoed by the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women and the B.C. Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.
This past spring, budget 2014 announced $8.1 million over five years beginning in 2016-17 to specifically create a DNA-based missing persons index. Since then, consultations on proposed options for legislative amendments were undertaken with a number of stakeholders, including provincial and territorial policy-makers, coroners and medical examiners, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National DNA Data Bank Advisory Committee, as well as a preliminary engagement with the Native Women's Association of Canada.
Stakeholders generally supported the creation of a DNA-based missing persons index. Feedback provided through these consultations informed the development of a number of safeguards in the legislation which I will address in a moment.
Bill C-43, economic action plan 2014 act, No. 2, proposes amendments to the DNA Identification Act that would expand the use of DNA identification to support the investigations of missing persons and unidentified remains by creating three new indices.
The first is the missing persons index comprised of DNA profiles of missing persons developed from personal effects, such as a toothbrush or an article of clothing.
The second is the human remains index comprised of DNA profiles from found human remains.
The third is the relatives of the missing index, comprised of DNA profiles voluntarily submitted by close relatives of the missing, and used to either confirm the DNA profile of the missing persons, or to compare against the human remains index.
To ensure the most effective use of these new indices, the missing persons and human remains indices would be compared to approximately 400,000 unique DNA profiles in the convicted offenders and crime scene indices. Comparison against the crime scene index would help to place a missing person at a crime scene at a particular time, thereby providing vital clues to the missing person investigator. Comparison against the convicted offender index could help to link found human remains to a specific convicted offender.
In addition to the changes to support the investigation of missing persons and unidentified human remains, the proposed legislative amendments would also strengthen the existing operations of the National DNA Data Bank.
Currently, the act does not permit the use of a victim's DNA to support criminal investigations, nor does it permit the use of DNA from relevant individuals who may wish to volunteer their DNA to further an investigation. To address these issues, the legislation would create two additional indices. The victims index would be comprised of DNA profiles from the victims of crime. These profiles would be uploaded in a number of circumstances including when a victim may voluntarily provide a sample. The victims of crime index will help police identify serial offenders and link crime scenes.
The voluntary donors index would be comprised of DNA profiles, voluntarily submitted by any person other than a victim, to advance a criminal, missing persons, or unidentified remains investigation. This index will be used primarily to exclude individuals from an investigation.
I would also like to note that the proposed legislation does not provide any new authorities to police to compel the collection of DNA from individuals. The proposed legislation would make retention provisions for offenders who have received either a conditional or an absolute discharge consistent with retention provisions for sentenced offenders. This change would address situations where the National DNA Data Bank may be retaining DNA profiles when it should not, or destroying profiles when they should be retained.
Finally, the proposed amendments would allow the RCMP to share DNA information related to missing persons or identified remains with foreign governments or international agencies. Consistent with current practices, this sharing would occur on a case-by-case basis and be governed by strict international agreements to protect the privacy and security of Canadians.
I would now like to explain the measures in the legislation to ensure the proper use of the new indices and the privacy safeguards in place.
First, it would remain a criminal offence for anybody to use or communicate any DNA information for a purpose other than what is specifically stated in the act.
Second, a two-factor legislated threshold would require investigators of missing person cases to demonstrate to the RCMP before a DNA profile is added to the data bank that there are reasonable grounds to suspect DNA analysis will assist in an ongoing investigation, and that other investigatory techniques have been tried and failed, or exigent circumstances exist.
Third, in the event that a DNA profile of a missing person links to a profile from a crime scene, the RCMP would communicate this information to investigators for humanitarian purposes only. Should a criminal investigator wish to use information derived from such a match to further a criminal investigation, that investigator must have reasonable grounds to suspect this information would assist in the investigation or prosecution of a designated offence.
Fourth, recognizing that the relatives of the missing persons index, the victims index, and voluntary donors index would be populated with voluntarily provided profiles, a number of consent provisions have been included in the legislation. To submit a DNA profile of any of the relatives of those on the missing persons index, the victims index, or the voluntary donors index, informed consent must be obtained. Anyone volunteering a DNA profile may withdraw their consent at anytime requiring its removal from the National DNA Data Bank.
Finally, the RCMP will remove profiles after a period specified in regulation unless the investigating agency confirms that DNA profiles remain associated with an ongoing investigation and that informed consent has not been withdrawn.
Operationally, this legislation will leverage the existing work of two program areas within the RCMP: the National DNA Data Bank and the National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains.
Funding identified in budget 2014 will be used to create and maintain the infrastructure within the RCMP to operate the new humanitarian indices, so as to provide investigators with technical and scientific support and ensure the national coordination of information.
Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My colleagues and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Mr. Henschel.
Colleagues, obviously we're going to have to make a decision. We're going to run out of time within a very few minutes and we're not going to have time to hear the full testimony from our witnesses. By the time we do return, we'll be well past their time and will have limited time for the second hour of witnesses.
At this particular point we have heard one testimony. We have a copy of the written statement that has been distributed to you. The Chair would suggest that we hear further testimony until the time goes and if there's any further opportunity for the witnesses to provide any written documentation to this committee, it would be accepted.
At the end of our time, they would be excused as we would be well into the second hour and it would be shameful to bring our witnesses back here to sit and not even have an opportunity to participate in the second hour.
Does the Chair have agreement to proceed in that manner?
3:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
There are some questions that we would like to raise. How do we get answers to some of these questions? That is the problem.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Mr. Easter, I certainly understand your concerns and share them, but the bells are now ringing, sir, and I have to give some direction to our witnesses.
We already have a limited time that we'll be cutting into for the second hour of witnesses, of which we will probably only have 15 to 20 minutes. We obviously cannot do both. We will probably not even have time to question the second witnesses.
The Chair is stuck with that dilemma, and I don't see—
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
At this particular point the bells are going.
With the concurrence of the committee, we will excuse our witnesses.
Thank you very kindly. We do sincerely apologize.
If you have an opportunity to present us with a brief, as we have from Mr. Henschel, and any comment that you would like to make before this committee, it would be duly received.
The meeting is suspended.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
We are reconvened.
We welcome our guests today. From the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, we have Sue O'Sullivan, the federal ombudsman for the victims of crime. Also, we have by video conference from Vancouver, Judy Peterson. Welcome to both of our guests.
Ms. James, on a point of order.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Given the fact that we missed some of this committee meeting and the fact that the votes are now going to be at 5:45, I'm going to seek unanimous consent to extend the meeting for this second half to 5:45. The witnesses would be here until 5:30 and then we would allot 15 minutes at the end.
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very kindly and thank you for the courtesy.
To our witnesses, we apologize for being late, but we've obviously had a delay in Parliament because of our voting procedures and processes, which happens here every now and then, sometimes too frequently, some people say, but we are now back.
We will hear opening statements. I realize you have up to 10 minutes, but the Chair would certainly appreciate, as I know our committee members do because we are a little short of time, if you would try to abbreviate them down to five, if at all possible.
We will now go to our witnesses for an opening statement and we will follow with Qs and As. The Chair will have a look at the time and would maybe suggest to our committee that instead of seven and five, we would drop down to five and two. I will leave that for you to deliberate between now and then. By the time we get to that, I think we will have the time. That should get us a little closer to having a little bit more involvement.
Ms O'Sullivan, would you make your opening statement, please.
4:50 p.m.
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.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Ms. O'Sullivan.
Ms. Peterson, welcome. You have the floor.
4:55 p.m.
Judy Peterson As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and honourable members, for the opportunity to present on this important matter.
I'm here today as the mother of a missing child. My 14-year-old daughter, Lindsey Jill Nicholls, vanished in August 1993. For the past 15 years I have been working to have DNA profiles of missing persons and unidentified human remains included in the National DNA Data Bank.
I know that you've heard from technical and legal experts on this issue, so my presentation today will focus on trying to give you an insight from the perspective of a searching mother. I'll provide a few details of the investigation into Lindsey's disappearance, explain how I first got involved, touch on some privacy issues, and clarify why it is so critical to me that Lindsey's DNA be compared to those in the crime scene index.
Lindsey was last seen walking down a rural road in Comox Valley, and was presumed to be hitchhiking when she disappeared. She simply vanished, and the file is classified as foul play suspected.
The investigation has included thousands of hours of RCMP effort, including two full file reviews by the major crimes unit. The Missing Children Society of Canada sent investigators and launched several poster campaigns. There have been dozens of local and national media events over the years, including coverage by W5, Canada AM,Chatelaine,Reader's Digest, and most recently, 16x9.
When Lindsey had been missing for about five years, I contacted the RCMP requesting that her DNA be put into the National DNA Data Bank in case her remains were found. It was a painful decision, and it felt as though I was giving up hope, but I knew it was time to get it done. When I was told that a missing persons DNA data bank did not exist in Canada, I was horrified. All I could think about was: What if her remains had been found? I would never know.
The RCMP investigator at the time heard my anxiety and contacted individual coroners across the country to make sure that they were aware of Lindsey's particulars. He was able to tell me that they reported back to him that there were no remains that they thought were a close match, but I couldn't get it out of my mind. I didn't know how they could say that. Maybe the remains were not a full skeleton, or they didn't have the capacity to do the testing, and what if her remains were found the next week or the next year?
With the case into her disappearance going cold, I felt as though the only way I could search for her was through DNA, and I began lobbying in earnest. What was so frustrating to me was that I spoke to hundreds of people about my lobby, and every single person thought the same thing that I did: they all thought that Canada already did this type of comparison.
I'm sure it's obvious why the families of the missing need the humanitarian aspect of this legislation, comparing human remains with the missing. I know that we will start to get some matches once things are loaded, and family members will start to get the answers, but what often isn't so obvious is why I believe it's so critical to search for Lindsey in the crime scene index.
If Lindsey was abducted and murdered, I believe it was done by someone who had done this before. Media coverage and rewards are only effective in cases where more than one person knows what happened, and these types of child serial murderers don't tell their friends.
When a serial murderer is arrested, and the crime scene is profiled and loaded into the crime scene index, it may be possible to identify other victims, and then the investigation into their disappearance can start. The only way to do that is to compare the DNA of the missing.
As an example, some years ago there was a murder near Merritt, B.C. The perpetrator had hidden the body of a young girl in the woods. The police, I believe, leaked the information that they new where the body was and then followed him when he drove out to move the body. What if a forensic analysis had been done of the trunk of his car? What if he had put Lindsey or some other young girl in the same trunk?
My contention is that Lindsey's DNA could well be within the crime scene index. If her DNA was found in the trunk of that car, in someone's basement, or at the Pickton pig farm, we would know what happened to her, and there would likely be an additional murder charge.
What I'm saying is, what if the only remains of Lindsey are in the crime scene index? Then that comparison would be for humanitarian purposes as well. Keeping her murderer in jail for an additional term may save someone else's child from the same fate.
I'd like to try to touch on privacy issues. So many times over the years I've heard people say, “What if someone wants to be missing? What if there's an abused spouse?”, and those types of scenarios. I can only say that, if an abused spouse tries to disappear, unless an unidentifiable body part of her is found by a coroner and placed into the missing persons index, MPI, the legislation would never find her. There would be nothing to match. If Lindsey's in Toronto working at McDonald's or working in Vancouver's downtown eastside, this data bank will not find her.
I've also heard people take issue with the privacy of people at a crime scene who may not be a victim. Maybe they don't want to be found either. My answer to that is, by the time the profile is submitted and matched, they're certainly not going to be at the crime scene. If this information did help to find them, the police would simply tell the family that they had located the person, but the person did not want to make contact with the family. That's exactly what happens now if they find someone who does not want to be found. If a person who they do find is the murderer, then he should be found and identified.
Regarding international searches, I understand it would be done on a case-by-case basis as it is done now, with the difference being that the DNA would be ready as required. I can tell you from my perspective that it would be far less painful for the families. Twice I have had an investigator from the United States contact the RCMP about Lindsey's case. The first one requested dental records, and the second one requested DNA. If we had had her DNA profile ready to send, we would have significantly reduced that excruciating waiting period.
I can't even begin to explain to you what it means for me to have this legislation tabled and to have this opportunity to speak to the committee. I once heard a coroner speak about this issue and he said, “A missing person's really a national disaster. It's just that it's a disaster that happens over time.”
I've watched many news stories about Canada sending forensic teams to identify remains in foreign countries. I submit to you that our missing persons deserve to be identified and our families deserve answers. If the link to the crime scene index provides the identity of a serial murderer as well, then the victim and family may also get justice, and our country will be a safer place.
Remember that Lindsey is one of the thousands of missing loved ones. Each one has a desperately searching family like ours whose lives have been devastated first by the loss and then compounded by the unknown. This is the time to move forward with this legislation and provide us all with the comfort of knowing that we would know if our loved one is found.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.