Public Safety Committee on Nov. 19th, 2014

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes. Good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Please feel free to come forward, sir.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

While they're coming forward, I'm wondering whether this is something the parliamentary secretary can take back. In the questions and answers provided by the department, no funding is provided to provinces or to local jurisdictions or municipalities to cover the costs of the expanded DNA data bank. On that, I'm wondering, the provinces will be responsible for the costs of the creation of the DNA profiles for missing persons and unidentified human remains.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Briefly, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Are we confident the provinces will do that? How do we force them to do it—it's a federal law—if we're not providing the funding for the provinces to get it done?

My question for the RCMP is related to some of the other labs in the country that are not the normal labs. Will they also be involved in the collecting of DNA?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Just a brief response from the RCMP, please, to tie in as far as the preparation and involvement of other labs in the country is concerned.

[Sean Jorgensen, Director, Strategic Policy and Integration, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Certainly. Under the proposal, the RCMP will be given the resources it requires to set up the infrastructure and to support the indices. You're aware that the provinces and territories, as part of their normal investigation, will be asked to pay for the DNA analysis.

That DNA analysis could come to the RCMP in a number of ways. For example, Ontario and Quebec, which have their own public laboratories, may choose to do the humanitarian-related DNA analysis themselves. That would be up to them.

The RCMP is going to be working with Public Works to identify private sector laboratories to which the provinces and territories may submit DNA analysis, and that would then be submitted to the NDDB.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you very much, Mr. Easter. Your time is well over.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, we need to allot up to 50 minutes at the end to respond back to the finance committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Yes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Time goes fast.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We are already there. According to the routine motions, yes, the chair has missed that point.

We will have to call our testimony at this point, and we will then go back to the motion before the....

At this point the chair, on behalf of all of the committee, would like to express not only our gratitude but certainly also our condolences. As you can see from the line of questioning and the concerns of the committee today, you should be a little reassured that there is some pretty significant drive across the political spectrum. We're very hopeful we can bring this to fruition for you at some particular point.

The witnesses will now be excused.

Thank you.

[Judy Peterson]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I have two quick points, if I may, just a quick little housekeeping detail.

We're a little short following our budget for a witness. We need another $2,500 to ensure we're looked after for today and going forward.

Could I have a motion to accept that?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very kindly.

Now the chair needs some direction as to reporting back to the finance committee.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm hoping everybody is in agreement. I'm going to put forward this motion:

That the Chair of the Committee send a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance stating that this Committee has achieved the objective that it set, and that this Committee has no amendments to propose to clauses No. 232 to No. 249 of Bill C-43, C-43, A Second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very kindly. We've heard the motion.

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

What I'd like to ask is that the committee append to that report the letter from the Privacy Commissioner that raises a couple of points which might lead the committee to consider amendments which we do not have time to do here today. I'm not sure procedurally how to do that, so I guess I move that that letter have attached to it the letter we received today from the Privacy Commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, we understand that. Of course, there was concern already registered earlier to do with the fact that we did not have the Privacy Commissioner here, so should his evidence even be considered to be accepted by the committee without his personal attendance? Of course, that is up to the committee to decide where we're going to move on your motion. So I will throw this back to the government for a response.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you. I think that would be out of normal procedure, because we're not appending any other things that were handed in, or speeches specifically. I would disagree with appending anything. I think we need to have the Chair respond to the finance committee and I'd like the motion to stand as is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to support the parliamentary secretary's motion, but I think the discussion and the kind of box we're shows the difficulty of putting legislation in a budget bill that really should have been on its own, where this committee would do its full work on it and maybe make amendments accordingly. If the Privacy Commissioner has a problem, there might need to be an amendment made, but we're not in that position as a committee when it's really this committee, in my view, that should have dealt with a separate piece of legislation on this. Be that as it may, that's the position we're in and I'm willing to support the motion and let it move ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Is there any further conversation?

Yes, Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I have one comment. I think we owe it to Judy Peterson to just get on with it. She didn't have any objection. She didn't complain that it was in a budget bill. She didn't complain about all that. Let's simply get the damn thing done. It's been around since 2000 and all this political bickering isn't going to get it through, so let's just do it.