Justice Committee on Feb. 27th, 2007

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to separate again, just so I can respond to the question, the convicted offender index and the crime scene index.

We estimated that changes to the legislation would increase the number of submissions to the convicted offender index by about 10,000 samples a year. The data bank was actually built back in 2000 for a much larger capacity than we're presently seeing. And our analysis indicated that within the data bank itself, we could certainly absorb those 10,000 extra samples without seeing any impact or any increase in the amount of time it would take to do the samples or any increase in the turnaround time. In other words, the data bank has sufficient capacity to handle the convicted offender samples.

The concern we had was with the crime scene index samples. Our conservative estimate is that the legislation will increase the potential sample intake by about 42%. We've built a business case, which we have presented to our colleagues in Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, PSEPC, that outlines our estimated needs of about $15 million for the first year, with an ongoing $7 million for the other years. That would take care of the sample increase coming in as a result of Bill C-18.

We recognize that there is a capacity gap that exists right now. I've discussed this with my colleagues within the RCMP, and the senior executive committee of the RCMP will release funding to Forensic Laboratory Services on April 1 this year so we can bridge that capacity gap in anticipation of further samples coming in because of Bill C-18.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I'm relatively new here, but the point is that there have been concerns. There's a letter—and maybe it was just politics, I don't know—about a backlog in 2005. So before there's going to be increased traffic to your facility, can you assure me, as a new person, that the issue, or the phantom of the backlog, has been completely addressed and settled, and can we assure the Canadian public that there's no backlog in DNA testing?

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

Our estimate of what the impact of Bill C-18 will be on the labs is exactly that. It's an estimate based on past conviction rates. We feel that our estimate was fairly robust; however, it doesn't anticipate potential changes in municipal priorities or provincial priorities, or even a shift in federal priorities that could increase the types of cases we see coming in. For example, if Calgary PD decided they wanted to make break and enter a priority and they were going to try to resolve those crimes, we would likely see a spike in those types of cases coming in that we hadn't anticipated up front.

With regard to the idea of a backlog impacting the system, I explained previously that I think we will always have a capacity issue, because since 1989 when we introduced DNA we have seen steady increases all the time for demand for that particular technology. I believe it's prudent for us to ensure that the resources that we are spending on it are expended in the most efficient and effective manner possible. That's ensuring that we address the most serious cases first. Our goal is to ensure that we respond to the police in the most timely fashion possible on those serious cases.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I want to know if there's a backlog now. It seemed to me a relatively simple question.

But thank you anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

So what you're saying is that it's an ongoing pressure on the system to expand, Mr. Buckle?

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

Yes, that's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I think most of the things that I was going to talk about have already been discussed.

DNA is the greatest thing that's happened in terms of crime fighting in history. Is that correct?

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

I think since the introduction of fingerprints, it probably has made the most significant impact in the forensic role, yes.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I'm just curious about the fingerprint index. Let's say Mr. Murphy is hard up for cash and he decides he's going to break into a place and steal some money, and they took his fingerprints. Are his fingerprints on file somewhere?

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

If he was arrested and his fingerprints were taken, yes, they would be retained in the fingerprint database in the system.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

A lot of us have fingerprints on file from identification when we were in high school and they had an identification program, and they go on file somewhere; or when you become a father, both you and the mother have fingerprints taken for identification purposes, and they're kept on file somewhere. What I'm driving at is that when you have something that is so effective in solving crime and exonerating innocent people, something that has become very important, it should be broadened as much as possible.

I'd like to hear Mr. Bird expand a little bit on one comment I heard that I certainly agree with. The precursor crimes that lead to worse crimes in the future seem to be the majority of crimes. They're not quite so serious at this point in time, but we know what they lead to in the future. I'm thinking of the recent law that we're discussing in regard to animal abuse. It's a well-known fact that if a person heinously attacks and kills an animal for the fun of it, eventually they end up in jail for committing the same kind of violence against humans.

Isn't there a real advantage to taking on some of these precursor crimes and saying we are going to start banking DNA, not only to get more arrests but as a preventative measure, a deterrent measure? We are actually here not only to legislate laws to take care of the guilty, but to do everything we can to prevent. Wouldn't that be effective? Or am I living in dreamland?

[David Bird]

Perhaps I can respond to that.

I think I would suggest to the committee that you look back at the testimony received from witnesses during the consideration of Bill C-13. I was here when you heard from Dr. Chris Maguire of forensic services in the U.K. system. He talked about their experience in concentrating their DNA data bank collection for crime scenes and offenders related to break and enters, robberies, and car thefts. Through their statistics they were able to show the progression from lesser offences to more serious offences. By concentrating resources on those types of offences, they were able to reduce crime rates in the municipalities or the regions where they were concentrating on those kinds of offences.

So they did a number of studies on the effectiveness of that kind of work. I understand the State of Florida DNA data bank did similar kinds of studies, and Dr. David Koffman, who you also heard from, I believe, was able to confirm the same kind of results. By concentrating on those lesser offences, they were able to solve the more serious cases--cases concerning the instances of sexual assaults particularly, but also other serious crimes that were linked to the lesser offences.

I understand the data bank itself has now been able to link and solve a number of very serious offences by doing work on break and enters particularly. There is a very high correlation here, with links between break and enters and more serious crimes, such as murders and rapes.

But they can give you those statistics directly, I think.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

So based on that, based on the statistics we have before us and on the studies we've seen, it's safe for me to assume that if we opened up the door in a broader sense, we could reduce and prevent a lot of crime.

Am I wrong there?

[David Bird]

No, I don't disagree with that, sir.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Then I would suggest we don't balk at expanding this technology. We shouldn't hesitate. I think we should go at it. Let's do it. Isn't that what we're all about, fighting crime, preventing crime? Isn't that what we're all about?

I think the cost of crime is far greater than the cost of what we'll be spending on expanding technology that's the best you could ever imagine. I hope we move forward on this kind of thing. We're always so afraid that we're going to infringe on somebody's personal rights. And I don't want to do that either, but at the same time, we might be able to stop a lot of things from happening.

I can't help but believe in my own mind that if a person who has committed a crime is informed that he's now going to be entered into a DNA bank--unfortunately for him, but because of his actions, he's brought that on--then it will act as a deterrent. Jail evidently doesn't work. A lot of people don't think it works. I happen to think it does work to some extent, but I think that kind of possibility with the DNA bank is a deterrent.

So I applaud your work, gentlemen. I just hope that any government in power in this country has the wisdom to understand that what you're doing is for the good and the safety of all Canadians and doesn't hesitate to support it.

That's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

I don't know if any of the witnesses wanted to comment on that. No?

Mr. Brown, you're the only one who has not asked a question. Do you have any questions to put to the witnesses?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Yes, just a brief one.

I know that one of the concerns raised by the CBA had to do with clause 8 of Bill C-18, about expanding the list. I just wondered if you felt that the list was expanded adequately enough or if there was any value to their criticism.

I've noticed that the trend for the CBA is they seem to criticize any piece of justice legislation that tends to move toward curtailing the rights of criminals. I wanted to look at it from the converse perspective, from the other side, to see whether there's any reason to consider expanding this list further.

Does clause 8 encompass enough? Or what are your thoughts on their concerns about largely that clause?

[David Bird]

I think the Department of Justice could probably deal with this matter more directly in terms of their analysis of the justification of expanding the DNA regime. But my understanding is that it has been reviewed and that it would withstand scrutiny for charter analysis, that it's reasonable to expand the regime in the way that the committee has put forward, and that current case law that the Supreme Court of Canada has brought down suggests that the regime potentially may be changed in the future.

But again, that was not within the scope of the bill that you see before you. So it's a hypothetical issue, and I would assume that this would be addressed by Parliament during its five-year review, as to whether or not the regime should be changed through a major expansion. What offences and what kind of regime would be followed would be for that discussion. A full analysis should be done at that time of the potential charter and justifiable reasons, and perhaps the Canadian Bar Association may have further submissions to be made about the potential offences that would be considered at that time.

Before us today we have only this bill, and the considerations with regard to those impacts are all we have looked at. If we're going to look at a further expansion, then I think we'd have to take that, and look at it for those purposes at the time. But if the committee chooses to put those things forward, I guess we'd have to look at the benefits that would flow from it in terms of the potential for public safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. And I do this in a constructive way.

Mr. Brown, in his opening remarks, purported to attribute to the Canadian Bar Association a particular position. He didn't quote them, but he attributed a position that may or may not be accurate.

Because we're all protected around here from libel and slander actions, just in case we make mistakes, I just wanted the record to be clear that it's possible that the Canadian Bar Association may be a witness here, but I think, for all of us, we should avoid attributing positions to persons and groups unless we're quoting directly from the record, and allow them the benefit of dealing with these issues straight up. I just feel that since the Canadian Bar Association is a frequent witness here, assisting Parliament in its work, we ought not to cavalierly label them as taking a position. Unless, of course, it is a quote and they've taken that position publicly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Brown, were you referring to the brief?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Yes, Mr. Hanger, and I'm not sure if Mr. Lee has had the occasion to read the letter from the CBA, but it was dated February 23 and sent to all members of the committee. What I attribute to them was on page 3 of the letter. So when you get a chance, I'm sure you can read it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you for that clarification.

Mr. Moore.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Brown may wish to read in that portion of the letter. But Mr. Brown's words clearly said that the Canadian Bar Association took a certain view with the respect to the rights of criminals, and I don't remember reading that in the document from the CBA.