Public Safety Committee on April 28th, 2009

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

Thank you very much for coming this morning, gentlemen. I think it's a learning curve for us all.

I'd like to pick up on the questioning with regard to the certainty of a DNA sample that equates to a person. It sort of leads me into two areas that the three centres would deal with.

The first is fingerprints. We relied heavily on fingerprints in the past. I wonder if you would be able to relate the certainty of a fingerprint, once it matches, once you have the requisite indices, which are 11 or 12, I believe, to the DNA and the indices that indicate that this DNA belongs to that individual--the more indices, the more the accuracy. I would equate that to fingerprints. I would like you to talk about that and then about the scientific theory that either one could belong to a person other than the person who gave either that fingerprint or that DNA sample. For the folks out there, some would say that it is possible that you could get a good sample and it would be analyzed, and it might not belong to that person. However, I think the world of science says that it's extremely highly unlikely.

I wonder if you could equate the fingerprint to DNA and make that analysis, because we now accept fingerprints completely, because the science has been proven. But DNA is new in its evidentiary submission to courts, and we sometimes doubt anything new.

Either of the two gentlemen from the centres or Ms. Séguin can answer.

[Dr. Raymond Prime]

I can start, because there's some irony in what you've just said. In the U.S., there's a National Academy of Sciences report that has been tabled recently in which they are criticizing American laboratories in particular, and also criticizing fingerprint science because it's not as good as DNA and hasn't been approached with the scientific rigour of DNA. So there's some irony in what you say there, because we are being faced with those challenges.

But it's two different things. For the fingerprint you're looking at, you're trying to find a match to another image and then comparing the two images together. In DNA, you have your matching numbers. You've generated a profile that you can create numbers for to compare, and you're saying that this number exactly matches this number to the extent of the comparisons you have. Then you go on to evaluate the significance of that match and the chance of finding another randomly selected individual who will have that match.

I'll ask John to go into the specifics.

[Jonathan Newman]

I think Ray summarized it quite well. Fingerprints are different from DNA inasmuch as your fingerprint is not an inherited characteristic. You can't look at your parents, for example, and look at your own fingerprint and see similarities between the two.

DNA is an inheritable component passed down from parents to offspring. We look at components within the DNA, which Ray has referred to as numbers, and we can reference those numbers to the general population and see how common or how rare it is that each of the components occur. Then, by looking at a number of different components, we build up an increasingly detailed picture of the profile and address the significance of the match through the comparison to databases that tell us the frequency of the individual components or how common or rare each of the individual components is.

For fingerprints, we're simply looking at, as Ray has described, the two prints, the known and the unknown, and asking the question: are they exactly the same and do they match or not? If they match, then that's determined to be an identification. With DNA, because people are related, if two profiles match or are exactly the same, the components of the profile and how many components make up the profile will determine how rare that profile is in the general population. That can't be done with fingerprints.

[Diane Séguin]

For instance, in the case of a random match, if five genetic components are analyzed and we have two individuals identified, we need to look at additional genetic components. The greater the number tested the easier it is to discriminate between two individuals. Two individuals may possess five identical genetic components but by looking at a number of other components, it is possible to distinguish between the two.

Therefore, the greater the number of loci analyzed, and some are identical in 13 loci, for instance, the closer we get, through statistical calculations, to a profile fitting these 13 loci, which would be one person out of 600 billion which could possess these 13 identical genetic loci.

You can determine frequency, within the population... It is very rare to find an individual with the same profile as another. When looking at five genetic loci, there could be one out of three million individuals, for instance, who could have a corresponding profile. If we analyze additional genetic loci, we can discriminate further.

Technology evolves, we do an increasing number of genetic loci, and we arrive at results which allow us to discriminate with near certainty between two individuals.

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

Thank you.

To make it as simple as possible, we want to get the bad guy. DNA gives you, when it relates to an identified person, or in other words, the suspect.... In our courts, along with other evidence, if the suspect's fingerprints match the scene, that's generally the bad guy, the person who did it. Would it be correct to say that a DNA match to the person who's at the scene in the samples taken from the scene is not only as good as a fingerprint--if I go back to Mr. Prime's reference to the American science community--but actually better? Or at least it's as good, but probably it's better. Is that a good statement to make?

[Frédérick Laberge]

It is a method for identifying individuals. That said, even if we find fingerprints or DNA, the genetic profile of an individual at a crime scene, all we can say is that the individual was at the crime scene, not necessarily that he or she is guilty.

It is an investigative tool, just as fingerprints are an investigative tool for police officers.

One investigative element, combined with others, allows us to draw links and eventually to charge someone.

[Yves Dufour]

In Quebec, there is the case of William Fyfe, a serial killer who admitted to eight or nine murders. The first time he was arrested it was on the basis of a fingerprint found on a door frame.

However, all other evidence that arose afterwards to convict him was DNA evidence. For instance, there was DNA found inside of a ring which belonged to a woman he had killed, which had been brought to his mother's house in Barrie, Ontario. Police officers had managed to get ahold of this ring and identify the victim.

That said, at first he was arrested on the basis of his fingerprints on a door frame. Afterwards, DNA allowed for links to be made to the other murders which followed.

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

Thank you.

I always look for best practices. On Canada's DNA data bank and our advancement in the field of forensic science, is there a country we can look to and learn from that is more advanced than ours, or are we as advanced in the use of DNA analysis and its acceptability in our courts as any country?

[Jonathan Newman]

We can all learn from each other. I don't think there's a single jurisdiction that is seen as being the Holy Grail of forensic DNA analysis. There are things to be learned from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, whether it's between the Centre of Forensic Sciences and the RCMP in Quebec, or the Centre of Forensic Sciences and the FBI, or Quebec and the Forensic Science Service in the U.K. There are differences between jurisdictions.

But I have had consultations with colleagues in other jurisdictions, and Canada is at the forefront of the application of this technology in support of the justice system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We'll have to wrap it up there.

Mr. Oliphant, please.

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

Thank you all for being here today.

The best part of being an MP is that we meet people who know so much more about something than we do, and you have all contributed.

Mr. Newman, I want to thank you for your comments on science. I have been trying to get it out forever in my life that science is more of an art than people think. That was very important.

I want to return to the resources question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but given the current legislative framework, I'm hearing that we are already maxed out in the resources we have to do what has to be done, given the current list of designated offences. If we increase the number of designated offences or take away judicial discretion, we will overburden the system. That's in my head.

Following on Mr. Newman's last comments, there are different standards and technologies around the world, and as technology changes it doesn't necessarily reduce the cost. In fact, it could increase the cost of doing your work, so you either need more resources to do your work or you have to find a different way of doing it.

I'm wondering whether you think we should be doing more work, or doing what we do now, only better. Are there ways we can do this work with the same resources or simply more resources?

[Jonathan Newman]

It's a combination of both, and Dr. Prime alluded to this. As laboratory practitioners we are always looking for ways to work faster and more efficiently, but ultimately there's a limit to our ability to do the work.

With the advent of Bill C-18, 1,500 additional cases are predicted, which is an increase of about one-third of our caseload. We are just not able to utilize new technology or changes in the way we do the work to keep up with the ever-increasing demand for this work. The police want us to do more cases faster. We survey our police contributors every year, and that has been a consistent message since the use of DNA came into the courts. They want more and they want it faster.

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

And I would suspect Quebec and Canada have a similar answer?

[Frédérick Laberge]

Absolutely, but in Quebec, and also in Ontario, a great number of technical improvements have been made to create economies of scale.

Since the year 2000, our unit costs have decreased considerably. However, because we have far more requests, the cost is obviously greater.

That said, we are not looking at an inordinate amount of additional funding to get up to date. These are not exorbitant amounts.

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

Does either Ontario or Quebec use private labs for its overflow work?

[Dr. Raymond Prime]

The short answer to that is no.

[Frédérick Laberge]

No.

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

So unlike the RCMP, which has a contract with a private lab, Maxxam, you don't do that.

[Dr. Raymond Prime]

That is correct.

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

What is your opinion on privatization and feeding your highly sensitive work out to private companies?

[Frédérick Laberge]

We are rather reluctant in that respect because this is a very specialized area of expertise, which we have mastered. And, at the end of the day, if it was opened up to the private sector, there would be a risk of losing this expertise. That is our position.

Given our high volume, we believe we should be in a position to have effective government labs which could adequately fulfil this mandate without turning to the private sector.

[Yves Dufour]

If we were to turn to the private sector, there would be costs. The private sector does not operate free of charge. So, the amounts which would have to...

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

They have to be paid and get profit, so it's actually--

[Yves Dufour]

Exactly.

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

That would be my concern about privatization, so I will be working hard to make sure we don't privatize this work anymore.

I have 20 seconds, so I just want to talk about education and research and development. Governments of a certain ilk--no names mentioned--do not like to spend money on research and development. Other governments like to foster research and development. This seems to be an area in which Canada could have a competitive advantage--to actually develop technology and export it to the world. Do you think we have the capacity for that?