Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence for March 18, 2010
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 10:36 a.m. to examine the provisions and operation of the DNA Identification Act (S.C. 1998, c. 37).
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
[Translation]
We are continuing our study of the DNA Identification Act, which came into effect in 2000. We began our study and review of this bill last year. We will continue our work this year, pursuant to a Senate order adopted on March 16.
[English]
This morning we have the great privilege of hearing expert witnesses from the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services of the Government of Ontario, Mr. Anthony Tessarolo, Director, Centre of Forensic Sciences; and Mr. Jonathan Newman, Deputy Director, Centre of Forensic Sciences.
[Translation]
From Quebec, we will be hearing from Mr. Bob Dufour, Director General, and Mr. Frédérick Laberge, Director, Biology and Administration, from the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale.
If I understood correctly, you have agreed that Mr. Dufour will begin and then we will hear from Mr. Tessarolo. Mr. Dufour, welcome to the Senate.
Bob Dufour, Director General, Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale: Thank you very much. Madam Chair, the document I will be reading was written by the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale. It provides information on issues that, according to Quebec representatives in the field of forensic science, could be of interest to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
In 1914, the Quebec government created the first forensic laboratory in North America, located in Montreal. Today, the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale is under the responsibility of Quebec's Ministry of Public Safety, and is an unprecedented example of a modern forensic laboratory. Our disciplines include toxicology, biology and DNA; counterfeiting and forensic document analysis; chemistry; fires and explosions; ballistics; electrical and computer engineering; forensic pathology; and gaming equipment certification.
The laboratory's mission is to provide objective expertise in forensic science to support and further the administration of justice and police and legal investigations.
Ontario and Quebec are the only provinces in Canada with forensic laboratory facilities that perform their own DNA analysis. The other provinces and territories send their DNA work to the Forensic Laboratory Services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The laboratory is responsible for analyzing biological samples collected by the police from crime scenes on Quebec soil.
The resulting DNA profiles are uploaded to the National DNA Data Bank Crime Scene Index for comparison with the Convicted Offenders Index and other DNA samples in the Crime Scene Index.
The laboratory is the only organization authorized to supplement the Crime Scene Index with DNA samples connected from crime scenes in Quebec.
DNA orders for offenders convicted by Quebec courts of law are executed by the Quebec police force. The samples are then sent directly to the National DNA Data Bank for biological analysis and to be added to the Convicted Offenders Index.
The laboratory is not involved in updating the Convicted Offenders Index.
The laboratory spends $5.7 million a year, including fixed costs, and has 50 full-time employees at its disposal to meet its DNA analysis mandate.
Despite its extremely limited resources, as of March 30, 2009, the laboratory had provided more than 15,674 DNA profiles to the Crime Scene Index, which represents more than 32.6 per cent of the total number of 48,227 profiles.
As of the same date, Ontario had contributed more than 18,898 DNA profiles, which represents 39.1 per cent of the total, while the RCMP laboratories contributed 13,655 profiles, accounting for 28.3 per cent of the total.
As a result of negotiations on the creation of the NDDB and the role Quebec would play in this national program, it was agreed that the federal government would help offset the additional costs generated by the new NDDB-related activities.
Since August 1999, Quebec has signed two Biology Casework Analysis Agreements to contribute to the NDDB's Crime Scene Index.
The first agreement, signed on August 12, 1999, was for three years, April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2002. It provided for automatic renewal with the same conditions for a one-year term or until a new agreement could be reached, in accordance with the renewal clause. The expiry of this first agreement was extended to March 31, 2003.
The terms of this agreement stipulated the federal government would reimburse Quebec 20 per cent of the average cost of DNA profiles completed by the laboratory. In September of 1999, an accounting firm established that the average cost of a DNA profile was $2,645. Therefore, the federal government's contribution would be $529 a profile, namely, 20 per cent of $2,645.
In 2004, a second agreement was signed for a three-year period, April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2006, including an automatic renewal for the 2006-07 year.
Under this agreement, Canada agreed to reimburse Quebec $771.76 for each DNA profile completed by the laboratory for a designated offence under section 487.04 of the Criminal Code, up to a maximum of 11,311 profiles.
This $771.76 amount represents 23.3 per cent of the average eligible cost to process a DNA profile.
On March 31, 2007, the laboratory had fulfilled all its obligations with regard to the second agreement.
Since that date, the Quebec government has been trying to negotiate adequate long-term funding to continue its vital contribution to the NDDB.
The federal government and the Quebec government signed an interim cost-sharing agreement in July 2008 to extend the funding for biology casework analysis until a new long-term agreement was reached. The federal government agreed to contribute $2.3 million in both the 2007-08 and 2008-09 fiscal years.
The negotiations for the long-term agreement are particularly difficult, because the federal government has so far refused to honour the financial commitment it made in the previous agreement. At the same time, the laboratory's workload increased with the passing of new federal laws, C-13 and C-18, on January 1, 2008. Quebec is expecting to see an increase of more than 1,500 DNA profiles per year, without any additional funding. A new building, new equipment and more resources are necessary to meet the demand this new legislation creates. This issue has been brought to the attention of the federal government again and again.
In April 2008, the federal government revived the federal-provincial-territorial working group on DNA to develop a work plan to renew the Biology Casework Analysis Agreements with the provinces and territories.
A work plan proposal was presented to the deputy ministers of Justice and Public Safety at the federal-provincial-territorial levels in June 2008.
The proposed work plan included the following steps: a short-term work plan of 6-12 months aiming to establish the real cost of DNA analysis, as well as the current capacity of the laboratories, and to evaluate the increased workload as a result of Bills C-13 and C-18.
In addition, a long-term work plan of 18 to 24 months aimed to examine the way international partners use DNA profiles, maximize the efficiency of this technology in the judicial system and its related costs, and evaluate the various cost-sharing and service delivery models.
Quebec objected on the ground that it had accepted the 2007-09 interim agreement on the condition that serious negotiations take place in 2008-09 and that it could not afford to wait a further two years at the same level of funding. Quebec also pointed out the national scope of the program and Ontario and Quebec's essential contributions to the NDDB, given that together they have provided more than 72 per cent of the DNA profiles in the NDDB's Crime Scene Index.
In August 2008, the federal government commissioned Service Conseil Canada to undertake a study of the costs and capacities of the three Canadian laboratories: the Laboratoire des sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale, the Centre of Forensic Sciences and the RCMP's Forensic Laboratory Services.
This study was supposed to have served as a basis for negotiating a new funding agreement for biological casework analysis. The report was scheduled to be tabled at the end of December 2008 and it was tabled on November 30, 2009. You have copies of the report that we left with the clerk for your information.
This document presents the cost capacity as well as the biological casework analysis capacity of forensic laboratories in Canada.
At this time, no other negotiations are underway to reach an agreement on biology casework analysis funding.
At the same time, the federal government made biology casework analysis agreements with the other provinces and territories that use the RCMP's Forensic Laboratory Services.
I will now discuss Quebec's position vis-à-vis the NDDB. Since the NDDB was established, more than 11,500 matches have been made, thereby helping police solve crimes.
The success of this program completely depends on supplementing and updating the Convicted Offenders Index and the Crime Scene Index.
Quebec, by way of the laboratory, actively contributes to developing the NDDB. To date, 32 per cent of the DNA profiles uploaded to the NDDB Crime Scene Index have come from the laboratory.
This contribution could be even more significant if the federal government were to provide funding for the analysis of all DNA profiles requested by the Quebec police in the course of their criminal investigations.
Because of inadequate funding, the laboratory is currently unable to process DNA analyses for the offences detailed under Bills C-13 and C-18. As a result, the NDDB's usefulness is seriously hampered.
In order to resolve this situation and optimize the performance of the NDDB, the federal government must assume a greater responsibility for funding this national program by granting the funds necessary to process all forensic DNA profiles for designated offences, taking into account the increased demand created by Bills C-13 and C-18 and the current backlog of DNA profiles in Canadian laboratories.
Yesterday, we received a copy of an order that was adopted by the Quebec cabinet. I am going to read it to you because it is only one page in length:
Order regarding the approval of the Biology Casework Analysis Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec.
It states:
Since the provisions of the DNA Identification Act (S.C. 1998, c. 37) came into effect in 2000, Canadian police forces have benefited from the services of the National DNA Data Bank. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is responsible for the funding and administration of the NDDB.
The NDDB has two indices, the Convicted Offenders Index and the Crime Scene Index. The Convicted Offenders Index contains the genetic profiles of offenders, profiles that can help law enforcement agencies identify the alleged authors of various crimes and provide them with investigative leads. The Crime Scene Index contains DNA information from unresolved crime scenes. Samples in this index come from eight forensic laboratories in Canada, namely six RCMP laboratories, the laboratory located in Ontario and the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale du Québec.
Canadian police forces use the NDDB primarily to improve the administration of justice by identifying the perpetrators of serious crimes and exonerating individuals who are innocent.
In order to finance DNA casework files, an agreement approved under Order No. 702-2008 of June 25, 2008 was made between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec for the period of April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2009.
The Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec negotiated a new agreement for the period of April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010, which included the same financial terms and conditions as the previous agreement.
Under this agreement, Canada was to pay Quebec a lump sum payment in the amount of $2,277,953 in 2009-10 to cover the cost of biology casework analysis.
In exchange for Canada's financial contribution, Quebec committed, in particular, to submit to the National DNA Data Bank, all completed DNA identification profiles for designated offences as defined in the Criminal Code, for fiscal year 2009-10, which met the criteria of the Crime Scene Index, as defined in the DNA Identification Act.
During the course of the negotiations, Quebec pointed out that the federal contribution under the current agreement was inadequate since it had remained at the same level since 2006 and did not reflect the increased number of biology casework analysis files that had to be processed by the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale further to the creation of new designated offences under new federal legislation.
In 2008, Public Safety Canada asked a committee to assess the impact of these new legislative provisions. The findings disclosed in Quebec further to this assessment revealed that the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale clearly had inadequate capacity to fulfil the obligations of the new legislative provisions and confirmed, as a result, the need to significantly increase resources earmarked for this purpose. Quebec is therefore prepared to renew the terms of the 2007-09 agreement for fiscal year 2009-10, but is asking the federal government to quickly begin negotiations for a new long-term agreement that will reflect the increased number of biology casework analysis files processed by the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale retroactive to fiscal year 2008-09.
And the ministerial recommendation:
We are therefore recommending to the cabinet that it approve the attached order in council regarding the approval of the Agreement on Biology Casework Analysis between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec, the text of which substantially conforms with the one attached to this recommendation.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Dufour. I would ask you to submit this document to the clerk so that we will have copies.
[English]
Anthony Tessarolo, Director, Centre of Forensic Sciences, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Government of Ontario: Good morning, honourable senators. My name is Anthony Tessarolo and I am the Director of the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto. I would like to introduce Mr. Jonathan Newman to my left. He is the Deputy Director of the Centre of Forensic Sciences, in charge of scientific services.
Thank you for the opportunity today to speak to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the provisions and operation of the DNA Identification Act.
In Ontario, the Centre of Forensic Sciences, or CFS, provides services to law enforcement officers, Crown attorneys, coroners, pathologists and other official investigative agencies. We accept cases from defence counsel in some circumstances and are one of only a few government labs in North America to do so.
The CFS is a strong supporter of the National DNA Data Bank. The provisions of the DNA Identification Act as they relate to forensic DNA testing have, through our work, assisted with solving crimes, exonerating the innocent and preventing the people of Ontario from becoming victims of serious crime. However, the Centre of Forensic Sciences could do even more.
A recent study completed by government consulting services confirmed that our laboratory is currently operating at capacity. This means that we are unable to process a large number of cases where DNA and the National DNA Data Bank could be utilized to solve crimes.
I would like to tell you a bit about our service. Ontario police agencies collect evidence at a crime scene and submit the items to our laboratory. The types of items submitted to us range from swabs of bodily fluids to articles of furniture and vehicles. The challenge to the forensic scientist is to first find the biological sample before any testing for DNA can occur. This is a labour-intensive process which becomes a rate-limiting step and limits our capacity to do the testing. When appropriate samples are located, DNA profiles are developed and uploaded to the National DNA Data Bank.
I would like to emphasize that, while interconnected, there is a clear distinction between the work we do and that of the National DNA Data Bank in Ottawa. The operational laboratories of Ontario, Quebec and the RCMP are users of the DNA data bank and integral contributors to the Crime Scene Index. We are essential parts of the partnership, for without us there would be nothing with which to compare offender profiles.
I would like to address three questions in relation to the DNA Identification Act and the National DNA Data Bank. First, does the DNA data bank work? Second, could we do more? Third, can it be improved?
Does it work? The answer clearly is yes. The key element to the success of the data bank is the number of hits between a convicted offender profile and a crime scene profile that provide investigative leads. However, you must remember that when a crime scene profile is uploaded, it is automatically searched against all profiles in the data bank and will be perpetually searched against all new profiles. The data bank can do what is not humanly possible by constantly surveying crime scene and offender profiles from across the country, ensuring that each case is under investigation independent of what police are investigating with traditional resources.
I would like to share with you two examples of how the use of the data bank has assisted investigations in Ontario. The first example demonstrates how the data bank is used to eliminate suspects and focus on an investigation.
Ten-year-old Holly Jones disappeared from her Toronto neighbourhood. Her remains were discovered in Lake Ontario. During the ensuing investigation, the people of Toronto were anxious for the safety of other children, and the police had more than 1,600 telephone tips to investigate. A DNA profile was obtained from under the child's fingernails and compared against the Convicted Offender Index. No hit was obtained.
The often-unrecognized value of the DNA data bank is that at the push of a button thousands of potential suspects can be eliminated. This can save countless police resources and ensure that innocent people are not unnecessarily detained.
Ultimately, a suspect was identified and charged in this matter. Clearly, his identification as a contributor of the DNA profile was the key that led to his decision to plead guilty. This is an example of the impact of DNA on the court system and one of many cases in which the accused, when faced with DNA evidence, offers a guilty plea, saving money by eliminating a trial and relieving others of the trauma of the criminal trial process.
In 2008, Bills C-13 and C-18 made changes that allowed the use of the DNA data bank to assist in the investigation of new offences. My second example demonstrates how these changes are impacting the operational laboratories and creating new pressures on us.
York Regional Police seized 49 kilograms of ecstasy and other drug paraphernalia valued at several million dollars. From 11 items accepted for testing at the lab, four different DNA profiles were uploaded to the Crime Scene Index. The investigation continued and resulted in a guilty plea with a significant nine-and-a-half-year sentence. Furthermore, one of the DNA profiles hit to a crime scene sample from an unsolved 2005 attempted murder, so the investigation continues. The drug lab was directly linked to organized crime with international connections.
As a result of the changes brought about by Bills C-13 and C-18, the police can expect to use DNA evidence for additional offences. However, because of capacity issues, we are unable to provide DNA testing routinely in drug cases even though it is cost-effective to do so.
Could we do more? Our capacity to provide DNA testing services in support of investigations is limited only by the available resources. If we are to take full advantage of the provisions of the current DNA Identification Act, then we need more resources because we are at capacity. The government consulting services analysis and supporting research demonstrates that meeting the additional demand related to Bills C-13 and C-18 will require Ontario to increase capacity by approximately two thirds over current levels.
Before the data bank, crimes such as break and enters, or B and Es, had little hope of being solved. These high-volume crimes are very important to ordinary citizens and contribute significant numbers of profiles to the data bank and increase its effectiveness. You may be interested to know that when a police officer provides a sample from a B and E, one in three profiles generated links directly to an offender or to another crime scene.
Can the system be improved? Again, the answer is yes. You may have heard that other jurisdictions are including all arrestees in their data bank and of the issues surrounding this. You have also heard that Canada's system, which requires judicial intervention to include a convicted offender's profile, is falling short in the number of profiles that could be included.
None of these is an issue for us as scientists to advocate. However, we can state the obvious. The more samples included in the data bank, the more useful it will be. We can reinforce from our experience the need to include in the data bank DNA profiles from victims. Also, we are aware of instances where suspects who are regularly sampled and excluded in sexual assault investigations are willing to volunteer a sample for the data bank.
We know there has been consideration of a missing persons index, or MPI, and that it would have some value to police and coroners in their investigations if it were implemented on a national basis. An MPI can be wide-ranging, costly and probably of value in only a limited number of cases. However, there would be some value in considering a more limited approach, noting that current DNA technology is capable of extracting nuclear DNA from samples that can be obtained from found unidentified human remains.
In conclusion, the importance of DNA testing was recognized by the federal government and the provinces, and legislation was enacted that created the National DNA Data Bank. This partnership between good science and good legislation has served forensic science well. It has allowed the Centre of Forensic Sciences to advance our mandate of science for justice in support of the administration of justice and public safety programs for the citizens of Ontario.
The Chair: Those were both fascinating presentation.
Senator Wallace: To educate all of us a bit more on the partnership that exists between the laboratories in Ontario, Quebec and the RCMP and how that dovetails into the National DNA Data Bank, I take it that standard practices and criteria for the technologies must be used by each of those labs. Is a consistent standard followed, monitored and audited from time to time? Am I correct I saying that?
Mr. Tessarolo: Yes, you are. A number of different elements form part of the answer to your question.
First, as individual operational labs, internal quality assurance are processes in place. Standards must be adhered to, and internal and external audits are conducted to ensure adherence and compliance with those standards.
In addition, a partnership exists amongst the operational labs and the RCMP with respect to DNA testing. That is primarily done through a scientific working group on DNA analysis and methods, in which the RCMP, the Quebec lab and we at the Centre of Forensic Sciences participate. That forum, that group, allows for technical and scientific discussions to be advanced with the intent of creating standards and opportunities to optimize the process to ensure that we are indeed interpreting profiles in a similar manner and that the quality of those profiles as they are advanced and forwarded to the data bank are common and well founded.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Dufour, is that the experience as well in Quebec? Would your practices differ at all from those in Ontario that Mr. Tessarolo just described?
[Translation]
Mr. Dufour: No, not at all. These are more or less the same standards, the same techniques that we use. In addition, in Quebec, we are in the process of obtaining our ISO 17025 quality-assurance accreditation as well as accreditation as a scientific laboratory and, in addition, we have begun the process to be accredited as a forensic laboratory.
This is therefore a standard that was established by the RCMP and which is referred to as the CAN-P-1578.
So we had outside assessments done last summer and fall. Everything went very well. We are waiting for the accreditations early this year. We are also in frequent contact with the Ontario laboratory and the RCMP laboratory regarding techniques and procedures.
[English]
Senator Wallace: Obviously, the reliability of the DNA data work is critical. It affects lives in a very significant way. I am sure you always have an eye on what is happening in other jurisdictions around the world that are involved in work similar to yours. You are always, I would assume, looking at best practices worldwide in terms of the technologies you employ and the practices you use.
Given what you have seen in other countries, if you wanted to implement changes in your province that would improve your circumstances, would you act on that unilaterally in your own province, or would it require an agreement within the partnership of the three laboratories and the data bank before any of those external influences would change your practices or technologies?
Mr. Tessarolo: That is an excellent question. In terms of the practices, there are a number of opportunities, through benchmarking and liaising with other jurisdictions, to identify improvements to processes. Those improvements may not involve changes in technology. It may simply be the manner in which tests are conducted or the order in which evidence might be examined.
Every laboratory will have their own processes in place for validating and assessing new techniques. There must be a clear awareness of any limitations associated with a change in a technique in an effort to understand the sensitivities and elements around accuracy and precision. That process is called validation.
That information is exactly the sort of information brought to the table at the discussions of the scientific working group so that it can be shared with other laboratories in the hopes of finding a best practice outcome.
When it comes to the technology itself, there is an agreed-upon standard in the type and number of locations of DNA, for instance, which we test and for which the results can be contributed to the National DNA Data Bank. That is more or less fixed. It cannot be changed without full partnership and consultation.
In terms of internal processes and improvements that can be achieved by each lab, each lab is entitled to undertake that on their own and is encouraged to share with the others.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Dufour, would you care to comment from Quebec's perspective?
[Translation]
Frédérick Laberge, Director, Biology and Administration, Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale: Information forwarded to the National DNA Data Bank must comply with certain standards. The three Canadian laboratories have the same standards and use the same technologies. In Quebec, we create new technologies and we monitor the technological advances made world-wide, particularly in Europe, in order to keep up to date. The National DNA Data Bank serves as a hub for technologies since there are more than 150,000 DNA profiles in these indices. Changing the technology may be complicated, because the information would have to be converted.
[English]
Senator Wallace: Within your laboratories, have any audits of your work been critical of the practices that are followed or suggested that they are in need of improvement?
For example, I noticed that the Ontario Auditor General made a series of recommendations in 2007 concerning the Ontario lab. It seemed most of them dealt with turnaround time. I saw nothing that indicated a criticism of the reliability of the practices that have been followed. Have any suggestions or recommendations been made that practices be changed in order to ensure reliability of the results that originate from the labs.
[Translation]
Mr. Laberge: From a technological standpoint, we contribute to a quality-assurance program, and this program is structured more on an internal level. It is subject to accreditation. We have internationally-recognized ISO-1025 accreditation and, in addition, CAN-P-1578 accreditation, which is the Canadian forensic science standard. So we comply with these standards, which guarantee the quality of our techniques and technologies from the scientific standpoint. As far as administration is concerned, as far as timelines or performance is concerned, the laboratory has not been assessed by an outside party, but we are working very hard to reduce timelines and improve the process. Unfortunately, we would need additional resources and efforts to achieve further progress.
[English]
Mr. Tessarolo: Senator, as you indicated, the Auditor General of Ontario conducted an audit on the Centre of Forensic Sciences and reported in 2007. He made five recommendations with respect to the processes within the organization.
One area that he commented on but did not make a recommendation was with respect to quality. He indicated that he was confident good practices and high quality were in place and that the clients of the Centre of Forensic Sciences were also very confident in the quality of work that was conducted. He felt that there were no appropriate recommendations to be made in that area.
Senator Runciman: Does Ontario have ISO accreditation now?
Mr. Tessarolo: Yes, it does.
Senator Runciman: One of the things I noticed in a report — I think it was one of the auditor's reports — is that when turnaround times were reviewed, B and Es were excluded. I am assuming that is because there is a considerable wait time prior to analysis being completed on B and Es. Is that the case?
Mr. Tessarolo: No. B and Es are excluded because of the fact that they are relatively simple cases, typically one or two items. We can process them rapidly. As such, if we included them with other data, they might skew it.
Senator Runciman: You talked about the additional demand that has been placed on you by both provinces with respect to Bill C-13 and Bill C-18 which would require you to increase your capacity by approximately two thirds. Since the legislation has broadened the scope, is there an obligation on the provinces in this regard?
Mr. Tessarolo: That is an interesting question. The legislation speaks to the addition of 172 eligible offences for which evidence collected pursuant to the investigation of those cases could be examined and DNA profiles generated from that could be added to the data bank. However, the question of whether we are mandated to conduct work in that area is more of a policy question rather than a scientific question, and I am not certain I can answer it.
Senator Runciman: Yesterday, representatives of the RCMP appeared before the committee. I was curious about the provinces that are policed by the RCMP with respect to the kinds of services you provide across Canada. I think the figure was $3.9 million that the other provinces and territories contribute or pay for those services. It sounded like a pretty good deal to me. The RCMP's response to that was, "Well, we have an arrangement with Quebec and Ontario where we provide them with payments to offset a degree of their costs." We have heard from both of you that the offset is not meeting your needs.
I would like to hear from both of you on this point. Let's compare apples to apples. If we look at the $3.9-million chargeback, if you will, to other jurisdictions and compare it with the funds flowing to you to compensate you to some degree, how does that hit you? What are the contrasts? As well, there is a question of fairness to the taxpayers of your two provinces.
Mr. Tessarolo: I will make one distinction with respect to funding. The funding that you referred to, the portion that Mr. Dufour described, the 20 per cent of the costs that are portioned back to the province, that is for work conducted prior to the changes in legislation. The request for additional funding that came out of the government consulting services contract is for additional work as a result of the latest addition of 172 offences. I see it as two separate entities.
Senator Runciman: I was talking about the application of the chargeback for services to other provinces versus the kind of compensation you receive. Is it appropriate if you look at that bigger picture?
[Translation]
Mr. Dufour: That is not the same thing. It is not the same type of financing. With respect to the financing I referred to earlier, the three-year agreement plus the one-year renewal where we were to have delivered 11,231 files at a cost of $8.3 million, represented the equivalent of 3,500 files per year at a cost of approximately $771 per file. The adoption of Bills C-13 and C-18 resulted in an increase in workload for us, Ontario and the RCMP, assessed at being approximately 1,000 to 1,500 additional files. Public Safety Canada did an evaluation of the costs, additional personnel and budget required to implement Bills C-13 and C-18 because the scope of the work was broadened and more files were being submitted. According to this assessment, we need 35 additional people, more equipment and money, representing, in all, $3.9 million.
The funding for the RCMP laboratories in the other provinces and the laboratories in Quebec and Ontario is different. The provinces pay Ontario for the biological analyses.
The RCMP pays the Ontario and Quebec laboratories, because we have laboratories whereas the other provinces do not. They use the RCMP laboratory. Funding is not done in the same way. We have the equipment, a laboratory and staff and everything we need to do the analyses. The agreement at a rate of $771 per file was based on the fact that the more files there were in the data bank, the more money it got. Ontario and Quebec provide 72 per cent of the files in the National DNA Data Bank. The funding for the provinces and the funding for Quebec and Ontario are two separate things.
[English]
Senator Runciman: I think it was the federal Auditor General who spoke about turnaround times and referenced private labs in Great Britain. I gather Great Britain is covered as a nation by a private-sector provider. Their turnaround times a couple of years ago were dramatically better than what we are experiencing. Was an analysis ever done by your various organizations with respect to why that was occurring?
Mr. Tessarolo: What you described was also referenced by the Ontario Auditor General in his report on the Centre of Forensic Sciences. In fact, he used the same data.
There are some market differences between how forensic science is conducted in the United Kingdom, for instance, as compared to Canada. The U.K. has a fully private system right now, which has some benefits and also some concerns.
To give you more detail, I will pass this over to Mr. Newman, who has some direct experience with the British system.
Jonathan Newman, Deputy Director, Centre of Forensic Sciences, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Government of Ontario: You can probably tell by my accent that I have some prior experience. In fact, I started my career in forensic science at a Scotland Yard laboratory in London, England, and I came to Canada just before the laboratory was absorbed into a private system called the Forensic Science Service.
In discussing with our colleagues and trying to compare and contrast the forensic DNA operations in Canada and the U.K., if I could put it as succinctly as possible, the U.K. has a larger operation. The funding available for forensic DNA testing in the U.K. is much greater than it is here. The number of scientists involved in forensic DNA testing is much greater in the U.K. than it is here.
Ultimately, the funding for the testing, although it is paid to the private laboratory system to generate the DNA profiles, originates from the Home Office, from the government, through their funding of police agencies, who then go on to pay for forensic DNA analysis. Essentially, the reason they can turn around samples faster than we can in Canada is because there is a greater investment in forensic DNA testing than there is in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Laberge: We visited the FSS in 2007. At that time period they were able to process one million analyses but were in fact doing nearly 600,000 per year. They have an overcapacity. Indeed, they have substantial resources for doing the analyses, which enables them to reduce the timelines significantly.
As far as we are concerned, the Service Canada study revealed that neither Quebec nor Ontario has this capacity; the RCMP does not even have this capacity.
Mr. Dufour: You need to understand that England does not have the same laws. As the document states, the people whose DNA is in the data banks represent 5.7 per cent of the population. England may be the country with the most people in their data banks. In Canada, we have 0.7 or 0.8 per cent. So we are talking about a very different approach which has been accepted by the people.
Let us take the example of an individual who has been exonerated of a charge. In this case, this individual's file would be withdrawn from the data bank because of the charters. There, it would be kept. They charge and the paying client wants to obtain results quickly.
Senator Carignan: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I have seen the quality of the laboratory facilities in Quebec. I see that the Government of Canada cost and capacity review analyses include comparative studies for each of the samples from each of the laboratories.
According to this study, Quebec has the lowest cost per sample, but the processing time is also longer. We read in the conclusions that Quebec is running at optimum efficiency as far as providing services is concerned. You talked about underfunding. How much money should the Government of Canada pay Quebec to compensate for this underfunding? What are the main investments that you would make in order to optimize laboratory services?
Yesterday, we heard witnesses from the RCMP state that they were about to install new sequencers which should increase productivity significantly. Is this a type of equipment that the laboratory is thinking about installing?
Mr. Laberge: All of that is outlined in the cost and capacity review. This was done in 2008, and it was estimated that 3.9 million additional dollars were required for the operational budgets. At present, in Quebec, we spend approximately $6 million on DNA. With an additional $3.9 million, we would be able to significantly reduce our timelines, and thereby fulfil the requirements of Bills C-13 and C-18, which came into effect on January 1, 2008.
With regard to equipment — sequencers and automation — there would nevertheless be an additional capital budget of nearly $870,000. Much work has been done in the area of automation. All our operations are automated, which has resulted in significant improvements in how we are doing. Technologically we are at full capacity, we would have to double such technology in order to see better results. So, for Quebec, we would be able to catch up with approximately $10 million.
As Mr. Dufour said earlier, this involves additional staff. Technically speaking, we are able to do things, by adding a few technicians. However, we need experts to analyze the results. People are needed because this cannot be automated. That is where we need to invest in order to process more files.
Senator Carignan: In your opinion, what amount from the federal government would be fair compensation? I understand that this is the overall budget for the lab that you are tabling with the president of Treasury Board.
Mr. Laberge: Bills C-13 and C-18 will bring approximately 11,000 new analyses for Quebec, at a minimum. Quebec's position is that 100 per cent of this should be funded.
Senator Carignan: For new applications?
Mr. Laberge: Yes.
Mr. Dufour: In addition to the costs we have just mentioned, there is the issue of square footage, because this will require more space. Often in public administrations, we hear the expression "growing from within." For our part, we have reached the maximum. If there are 35 more people coming to work in biology, this will require additional space. We have already undertaken steps to do this. We have developed a business plan for the lab, based on 3 years, 5 years or 10 years, to understand our outlook. This business plan was developed with investigators, with legal identity services staff, crown prosecutors and coroners. Over a three-year period, if we want to provide the services we are mandated to provide, we would need at least 60 more individuals to do so within the time frame set out, meaning within 90 days. Clearly, it is a question of square footage. We are talking about 2,100 square metres to be able to have room for all these people. We have undertaken steps with the Department of Public Safety to find the square footage we are talking about.
Senator Carignan: My last question is for both witnesses. If you had to identify amendments to be made to the current legislation, what would the priority be? For example the exchange of samples, the expansion of the range of samples taken, the addition of victims or human body parts, or a reduction in red tape or judges' orders? What main elements would you target in order to improve efficiency, not necessarily within the lab, but in identifying the guilty?
Mr. Laberge: At present, we have expanded the designated offences through Bills C-13 and C-18. What might possibly improve things would be not making a distinction. All offences under the Criminal Code could be subject to this. Not try to distinguish between a so-called primary offence, whereby a sampling is automatically ordered, and a so-called secondary offence, whereby the judge will decide whether to order a sample or not. Already, this would increase the number of individuals found guilty of such crimes. This would be put on the Convicted Offenders Index.
If you increase the numbers in the Convicted Offenders Index, the bank's performance should follow. Naturally, for the Crime Scene Index, all the profiles brought to us by investigators would have to be entered and all those files processed, even for minor offences and breaking and entering. We believe it is important to do this because we might be able to solve a serious crime such as a murder based on an offence of breaking and entering. Furthermore, we have very concrete examples of this with the murders of Denise Morelle and Natasha Cournoyer where the murderer was identified based on data that we had at the lab and also in the National DNA Data Bank. So it is quite a powerful tool. Trying to put as much data as possible into these banks should be a goal.
[English]
Mr. Tessarolo: Many of the initiatives that have been discussed benefit investigations. From a scientific perspective, they provide more opportunities to benefit the investigation.
I can think of a couple of examples that, from a scientist's perspective, might be of the greatest benefit. One is a missing persons index, which, from a scientific perspective, is a tool that we do not have available to us presently to assist with investigations. However, it is a request that often comes to us. We can examine evidence and generate profiles, but we do not have a mechanism to establish that association from an electronic standpoint.
To a certain degree, we become victims of our own success with respect to the use of the DNA data bank. The more profiles we upload, the more hits we observe. The management of the information generated as a result of that identification of a hit can be rather cumbersome. Informing all of the appropriate parties to liaise with the National DNA Data Bank in order to obtain the appropriate information that then must be fed back to the investigators has a large administrative impact on the operational labs.
As we add more profiles and do more work, we generate more hits, which creates more of a burden. That is more of an administrative issue, but it is another opportunity for improvement.
Mr. Newman: I speak as a scientist and from a scientific perspective. I know you have heard previously from Dr. Ron Fourney. We have been involved on the scientific side of the development of the data bank over many years. As a scientist, it is disappointing that, through legislation and funding, we have not been able to overcome those hurdles so as to allow scientists to provide to the citizens of Canada the ability to identify found unidentified human remains. It is disappointing because it is certainly possible scientifically. The technology has been available for many years. It is unfortunate that the legislators and the funders have not been able to get it done.
The Chair: If I correctly recall previous testimony before this committee, bringing in the legal ability to do profiles of unidentified human remains would probably not be enormously taxing in terms of capacity and the number of cases. However, we might be talking of significant capacity with regard to a missing persons index.
I am assuming that when you talk about the ideal world of what you would like to be able to do, you are assuming that the money would be made available. You are not sitting here and telling us that magically we can do more things with the money now available, even though we cannot do all the things we are supposed to be doing now. Am I interpreting you correctly?
Mr. Tessarolo: You are absolutely correct.
[Translation]
The Chair: And you, Mr. Laberge?
Mr. Laberge: We are at maximum capacity. We cannot go beyond that. In Quebec, we receive approximately 6,000 files for analysis and we can get through 3,000 to 3,500. We are not able to process the rest given our current resources.
Mr. Dufour: We process the emergencies, and in the meantime the other files sit there, but investigators may need them for other kinds of investigations that they are conducting. Perhaps this would lead to crimes being solved; but for now, we are not able to process them.
The Chair: Senator Carignan, have you finished?
Senator Carignan: Yes.
[English]
Senator Baker: Before I get to my question, I have to congratulate all of you in that you are constantly, it appears, before court to give testimony in relation to your work, and rather extensive cross-examination results. It is interesting to read all of those cases. It strikes me that the increase in the number of designated offences leads to an increase in the availability of all of you for court proceedings. It must be time-consuming because you have to be available for the original examination and then you must remain on the premises to be available for recall or cross-examination.
I do not know if you want to comment on that, but it is quite remarkable. Of course, your own expertise is constantly being examined under a microscope.
We passed Bill C-13 and Bill C-18 several years ago. Under those bills, as I recall, there were additional designated offences. The law now stipulates a whole list of offences, and it is continually being added to. Am I hearing correctly that a law that we passed and came into effect several years ago is not being implemented because of a lack of financial resources? Am I hearing this right?
Mr. Newman: Yes.
Senator Baker: I am.
Mr. Tessarolo: We have had to make a very difficult decision. It is a challenging decision, senator, but we have taken a strategic approach with it in that we are focused on providing the best quality service and the most timely service that we can on the cases that we already have, primarily around homicides, attempted murders and sexual assaults. Our fear about adding other offences and cases without appropriate funding to support them is that our performance regarding those other very serious offences will wane. We cannot afford to have that happen. I do not think the people of the province of Ontario want that to happen. I know the investigators do not want that to happen, so we have been very strategic in the way we move forward.
We have not said that we will not accept any cases of the new offences. We have said, "Please bring those forward to us and we will evaluate them." Where there is a clear issue of public safety, we will certainly take them. We have in fact looked at the number of requests we have received for those additional cases. On average, we are still taking in about 50 per cent of them. However, we are looking at them very closely because we are cognizant of the impact they may have on the performance of the other cases we are bound to complete as well.
Senator Baker: Just a minute now. The law was passed. In laying down a sentence at the very end of a robbery case or one of assault with a weapon, a judge must be guided by the requirements of section so-and-so of the Criminal Code. We can list them all off because we sat here and we passed the legislation. If a judge is now saying, "I order that a DNA analysis be done," are you telling me that you do not do it? Is that what you are saying?
[Translation]
Mr. Laberge: When a court orders us to process a file, we do so; we are required to do so. But frequently, the files wait so long that once the court case gets underway, the lab has to give those files priority, because they were not processed before the case got to court. This can cause problems. Our average timeframe at present is 11 months for a typical file. That said, we give priority to important files such as murders or sexual assaults; we try to work within a much shorter timeframe.
However, as I mentioned, we receive so many files that there are minor files that we do not process and, as a result, this information does not get included in the index, information that might help us to solve other crimes. So the bank's performance is greatly reduced because of this situation.
[English]
Senator Baker: Are you saying that you prioritize the designated offences within that list? You are nodding your head "yes." We passed a law that says there are designated offences; there was no prioritization in the list we gave you that was passed into law. How do you prioritize it?
[Translation]
Mr. Laberge: There are other criteria. Naturally, the seriousness of the crime is an essential criterion; as well as what is brought to us at the lab. We can have a very fragmented file: there is no potential suspect, we do not have a reference; we have samples that, at first sight, seem difficult to analyze, that kind of thing.
Files are evaluated in order to be able to give them priority. The main criterion is the gravity of the crime.
[English]
Senator Baker: What about drug trafficking? Is that lower down the list? It is? That is what I thought.
I have no further questions. This information is fascinating.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: If I understand correctly, the lab provides private analysis services. Does the one conflict with the other? Where do you find the time to do private work?
Mr. Laberge: In fact, the lab has been an autonomous service unit since 1996. The agreement states that it can sell accessory services — and I want to be clear that these are accessory services to the private sector. But with regard to DNA, we do not offer this privately because we are overloaded. Forget about that, we are not doing that. We do not have the extra capacity to sell.
The Chair: On the contrary, am I correct?
Mr. Laberge: Absolutely.
Senator Joyal: Thank you and welcome Mr. Tessarolo and Mr. Dufour.
[English]
What is more disturbing in relation to Bill C-13 and Bill C-18 is the DNA Forensic Laboratory Services Cost and Capacity Review final report. You are probably aware of that report, which was published by Public Works and Government Services Canada. It is dated November 30, 2009, so it is a recent report. The Executive Summary states:
The objective of the review was to determine the level of future capacity and associated costs to meet the projected demand, with a focus on anticipated increases related to DNA case work analysis from the new Bill C13 . . . and Bill C18 . . . which were fully implemented in January 2008. It should be noted that neither the review of the funding agreements nor an examination of the current funding formulas were within the scope of this review.
From that report, I conclude that there is no solution to the problem that each of you raised in terms of future capacity to meet the objectives of Bill C-13 and Bill C-18. Even the government does not seem to be preoccupied with the objective of solving the capacity problem to address Bill C-13 and Bill C-18 because it was outside the scope of their review.
[Translation]
Mr. Laberge: I would like to remind you that there are still meetings on DNA between the federal government, the provinces and territories. In 2008, there was some concern about where the program funding would come from. The working group looked at the possibility of a pilot project under Public Safety Canada. One of the steps in the plan was to examine the costs and the capacity related to the analyses of bodily substances — a step completed by November 2009. This step determined the level of additional resources for each of the three labs in order for them to meet their obligations under Bills C-13 and C-18.
I also know that the Government of Canada has just allocated $14 million over two years for DNA. I do not know whether this amount is available for this program.
Senator Joyal: As you know, the legislative process is above all a slow process, particularly under a minority government. What concerns me is the fact that the government is proposing a bill that has an immediate impact on the operation of both your services, but that in practice, we expect to see the bill pass before seeing the implications of the changes to be made to give effect to the bill. It is like the left hand does not know what the right hand will do.
Mr. Laberge: I can tell you that the Government of Canada intends to make administrative changes with regard to DNA in order to include more designated offences. Pre-consultations are underway in light of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons.
So there is a desire to go even further, but the financial resources issue has never been raised.
Mr. Dufour: One of the other issues refers to what senator Joyal said, which is that even if the funding is in place, when we hire someone to analyze bodily substances, that person can have an undergraduate degree and — and I think that it is the same for the lab in Toronto as well as the RCMP lab — a master's or a PhD, it still takes approximately a year and a half of training before that person can do what we call "signing off on the file," meaning going and defending it in court —
Senator Joyal: Certify the file?
Mr. Dufour: More than certify it, senator Joyal, it also means going before the court as a witness —
Senator Joyal: As an expert?
Mr. Dufour: — as an expert witness and being challenged by defence lawyers. So, if the government decided to invest x amount of money in DNA and they told us that Ontario was getting x amount, Quebec the same, we would then need to hire staff. We are talking about a government service, so it is a much longer process, it is different from the private sector. Once we have our staff in place, we need to train them. We are talking about a year and a half to two years before the person can really operate autonomously, effectively, and be able to work.
There is real anticipation. People must not be misled. We are not entitled to make mistakes when we go before the courts, because we can prove someone guilty and we can also set them free. We cannot afford to make mistakes.
People are often trained on the job, in the labs. During their training, our employees handle fewer files. There is a domino effect when a decision has not yet been made. So, for us, we are talking about the long term.
Senator Joyal: Since this is the purpose of our meeting here today, over the next few hours, what recommendations should be put in our report in order to address the issue of such delays? They are ultimately almost beyond your control. What should we recommend in order that the implementation of bills that have already been passed be more effective, bills that are having an impact on how your services are operating?
Mr. Dufour: It would be to give us the money we are asking for. Negotiations are underway between the Governments of Quebec and Canada, this is at the deputy minister level now. And we would like the agreement that we are asking for to be completed as soon as possible.
Because, ultimately, what we want is the tools to do our job. We are not responsible for policies, or programs, or managing legislation. We are providing services, we provide legal expertise. Ontario does so, we do so and the RCMP does so. It is often said, in organizations, that human and financial resources are important, but this is not always spelled out. Sometimes scientific advancements can be important. There are some and we use them. We have computerized and automated our services, but ultimately, we will always need human beings, analysts to be able to provide the analysis.
In this case, given the work that we do, we feel that human and financial resources have a real impact.
So I believe that the priority would be to move forward on the agreements, and, in the long term, not just for two or three years, and being obliged to renegotiate.
Senator Joyal: What strikes me with regard to the figures that you have provided is that the agreements are good for two years and then renewed for one year. At present your agreement has almost expired.
Mr. Dufour: It will expire on March 31.
Senator Joyal: Based on your figures —
Mr. Laberge: Currently we have no funding.
Mr. Dufour: We have no funding for next year. There is no plan. So we are talking about a five-year agreement, whereby we could relax, hire staff, specialists, start working, organize our lab, purchase equipment, buy the square footage. So you see, we still have a lot of work to do in order to ensure that our work is more effective and efficient.
Mr. Laberge: In conclusion, we are victims of our own success. The DNA program is a good one. The Ontario labs have said so and no doubt the RCMP said so yesterday. It is an excellent program, and it is also a major reform of forensic science. Everyone around the world is using it. Increasingly, police officers want to have this kind of evidence in their files, even minor ones.
It is a very effective program. In Canada, as a result of a lack of resources, we are not putting enough in our indexes. There is not enough data being put in the Crime Scene Index or the Convicted Offenders Index. In any case, in Quebec, I can tell you that the number of convicted offenders on the Convicted Offenders Index is not significant. And we have not included all the individuals who have committed designated offences or crimes on those indexes. If we had, the National DNA Data Bank would have a better performance or provide better results.
All this could be done at a relatively minimal cost. We are not asking for billions of dollars. We are talking here, for Quebec and Ontario, about $7 million or $8 million a year in order to rectify this situation.
[English]
Senator Joyal: Mr. Tessarolo, would you concur with the answers given by your colleagues from Quebec?
Mr. Tessarolo: Yes, senator, and I will echo a couple of the comments that Mr. Laberge and Mr. Dufour mentioned. The program is an excellent one. We are taking full advantage of it and our clients are well supported by it. However, as I said in my opening comments, we can do more.
In terms of our own responsibilities as managers and as a laboratory, we have a responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure we are using those funds appropriately and that we are continually looking to improve our processes to ensure they are as effective and efficient as possible. There is clear support in the government consulting services report for the need for more funding. The timeliness of the provision of that funding is as important to us in the laboratory as the timeliness of our reports is to our clients.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Mr. Dufour, you heard Mr. Tessarolo who told us that the Auditor General of Ontario is currently looking at how the Ontario bank is operating.
Yesterday, Mr. Henschel from the RCMP told us that the Auditor General, in following up on his preliminary 2007 report went back and updated his report this year. Have you been subject to an audit or an evaluation by the Auditor General of Quebec?
Mr. Dufour: Yes, we have already been in contact with the Quebec Auditor General, but I think that he was looking at minor elements such as delays and customer service. Surveys have been done on several occasions. There have been discussion groups. We have worked mainly at that level, there has not been an assessment by the Auditor General on the technology and science as such.
Senator Joyal: Quality management was a fundamental issue in the Auditor General's 2007 report.
[English]
Mr. Tessarolo, I do not know if quality management issues are being looked at by Ontario's Auditor General, but this committee is certainly preoccupied with it because quality management is the key to the reliability of your work.
Mr. Tessarolo: Yes, it was a focus of the original audit by the Auditor General. However, in his report, he indicated that he was satisfied with the high quality of the work conducted in our laboratory. As such, he made no recommendations with respect to quality.
[Translation]
Mr. Dufour: With regard to the clients we serve, an inside survey was done in 2004-05, but in 2006-07, the services of Léger Marketing were retained for a scientific poll with 707 of our clients. This was a phone survey lasting about 20 minutes and included a number of questions. It was not just about checking yes or no.
According to the Léger Marketing pollster, our client satisfaction rate was over 82 per cent or 83 per cent. In his estimation this was an exceptionally high rate for the quality of services provided.
Discussions with professionals, the simplification of terminology, the availability of our people were all looked at and the only negative issue that came up concerned deadlines. Now, I do not know of any lab that does not have a problem with deadlines. All labs have problems meeting deadlines.
As Mr. Laberge told you earlier, we have really been victims of our own success. In the early 2000s, we were talking about 1,000 files per year and now 10 years later, we are talking about 6,000 files. It is not the same thing! In that time, staff has not multiplied by six. Perhaps we do not need either to multiply our number of employees by six, but we still need an increase.
Senator Boisvenu: I want to come back to the issue of missing people. This is a major concern for me, I will tell you why in a moment. I spoke about this issue yesterday with representatives from the RCMP. You know, for families who have a loved one who has disappeared, the missing persons index does not make it an ideal world but rather a desirable world. I said yesterday: In Canada, between 600 and 1,000 people disappear each year without a trace. For the most part, these are suspicious or criminal disappearances. One out of six missing persons cases in Canada is resolved. This means that as many as five murders are not solved. Worse still: five criminals are still on the loose and could take someone else. So a missing persons index would be a proactive step in my opinion because there is no criminal investigation but rather the investigation of a disappearance and other crimes that could be committed by the same individual who is still on the loose.
When we say there are between 600 and 1,000 missing persons cases every year, do you think, Mr. Tessarolo, that if we were to add 600 to 1,000 DNA files, or the files of relatives, because often we do collect DNA from parents to add to the data bank, would that be a realistic workload, bearing in mind that there would obviously be adequate resources to do this?
Mr. Laberge: With respect to missing persons, indeed, ideally we would have a national DNA data base. You refer to 1,000 cases per year. One could suppose that the majority of these would be of a criminal nature.
Senator Boisvenu: That would mean that 65,000 people per year disappear in Canada; 95 per cent are runaways; 5 per cent will never be found, so that adds up to approximately 1,000 people.
Mr. Laberge: Ideally there should be a national missing persons index to help us draw comparisons. I can assure you, Senator Boisvenu, that anytime new information is provided to us, we crosscheck it against human remains and profiles. For missing persons, we have the parents' profiles. We focus greatly on missing minors.
In fact, a working group was struck to look into the issue of how to determine what exactly a missing person is. Because sometimes people want to go missing. Sometimes these people may be over the age of 18. How far do we go? That is a major concern.
But obviously, for the laboratory and for the Government of Quebec, a missing persons index would still be useful for criminal offences, because the National DNA Data Bank is focused on criminal investigations.
Mr. Dufour: Mr. Laberge referred to work that we had done with the other provinces and the federal government with respect to the missing persons index. We certainly worked on that file for two or three years. There were legal and constitutional matters that arose. Was the index going to serve humanitarian or criminal investigation purposes? Quebec's position at the time was that it had to be for humanitarian purposes. Other provinces and the RCMP said that it should be for criminal investigation purposes. That is the type of question that was being raised. What is the definition of a missing person? Is it after 30 days, 90 days, 6 months, a year?
Indeed, 95 per cent of missing people are found quickly. Some of those people wanted to go missing.
Three subcommittees worked on the legal issue. The Government of Quebec was working on it, one of our lawyers, Annie-Claude Bergeron, was as well, and there were people from the federal government. A study was also carried out on the costs of this type of index. I recall that towards the end of our work, a four-day simulation was undertaken and Diane Séguin, a biologist in our laboratory, took part in the simulation. It was estimated that the cost of an index solely for missing persons would hover around the $18-million to $20-million mark. Obviously, the issue was to determine who would pay for this: the federal government or the provinces? Afterwards, we never heard of this index again.
Senator Boisvenu, I want to assure you that we have worked on this. We have documentation to that effect because we have attended all of the meetings. We have all of the reports of the subcommittees that worked on this issue and we provide you with documentation.
At our lab, part of the index houses that information, and Dr. Dorion, an odontologist, would like to have this type of index which would include all ante mortem files for missing persons so that when an individual is found, there would be points of comparison for identification.
The Chair: Our committee would be interested in obtaining these documents, if you do not mind, Mr. Dufour.
When you referred to costs of $18 million to $20 million, were those capital costs, annual costs or something else?
Mr. Dufour: Yes, capital costs, the costs to establish a missing persons index. One subcommittee looked into legal impacts, and one into costs. This one determined that if we were to create such an index, the cost would be approximately the amount I quoted.
Senator Boisvenu: You know that currently barely 42 per cent of individuals convicted of sex crimes are on file, but this number is expected to reach 100 per cent.
Senator Joyal: Given the legal issues arising when adults disappear and their responsibility in that regard, would it not be advisable to at least post missing persons under the age of 18 who are still under their parents' supervision?
Mr. Laberge: Absolutely, but you would not have a great number of people in that index. Nevertheless, the cost of such an index would not be enormous.
[English]
Senator Watt: My questions are to the Quebec representatives. I would like to try to zero in on the issue of DNA. What is your working relationship with the part of Quebec called Nunavik, which has a regional police force in addition to the provincial police force? Is there any link or association with the institution that you represent in dealing with that part of the province?
[Translation]
Mr. Laberge: Absolutely. Aboriginal police forces send us their forensic examinations as do the other police forces in Quebec. When the Sûreté du Québec is involved it will forward files on DNA or other forensic examinations to us.
[English]
Senator Watt: That responsibility is still within the QPP and not the original police force, if I understand correctly.
[Translation]
Mr. Laberge: In the Quebec region, we do receive some, yes.
[English]
Senator Watt: You basically highlighted the fact that you are at your limit in being able to take on more responsibility because funds are not available. If such information is available, perhaps you could enlighten this committee. What is the extra cost that you have identified flowing from the northern portion of Quebec covering the James Bay and Nunavik regions, both the Inuit and the Cree?
[Translation]
Mr. Dufour: We are responsible for these files. Our members often have to testify in Nunavik and throughout the North on murder or sex assault cases. These cases are treated in the same way as all other files concerning residents of Quebec.
Mr. Laberge: In the same priority sequence.
Mr. Dufour: Exactly.
[English]
Senator Watt: Do you have any idea of the increased costs since you have taken on that responsibility? We are talking about a span of 30 years.
[Translation]
Mr. Laberge: It has always been a part of our budget. We process all files brought by Quebec police officers over the entire territory of Quebec. There are no specific related analyses in your sector, but we do prioritize these cases as we do others and ensure the same quality of service. With respect to DNA, if we wanted to complete all cases, we would need an additional $4 million for the province of Quebec, not only for Aboriginals.
[English]
Senator Watt: Is that $4 million more for the whole of Quebec?
Mr. Dufour: Yes.
Senator Watt: You do not have the necessary breakdown at this point.
[Translation]
Mr. Dufour: Not really.
Mr. Laberge: It would however be possible to know how many files we receive and process coming from that region. We have all of the statistics.
The Chair: If you could send them to us, it would be useful for the work of our committee.
Mr. Laberge: I will do that for DNA as well as for the other examinations.
[English]
Senator Watt: In terms of taking on samples from individuals, do you need to have a certain set of qualifications to be able to do that? In other words, do you have to be trained and is there money associated with that?
The Chair: Are you asking simply about taking a sample?
Senator Watt: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Laberge: There are several types of samples. Those that we collect at a crime scene are generally collected by police investigators and the FIS.
Mr. Dufour: With respect to the first type of sample, forensic identification officials working with police forces receive one week of lab training every three or four months. Moreover, biologists provide one-week training sessions to new recruits at the forensic identification services, leading to a diploma certifying that they are professionally qualified to collect samples for our work.
Mr. Laberge: The second type of sample is used as a reference after a warrant or order was issued by the courts to collect a sample from an individual. It is the responsibility of forensic identification police forces to do this minor work. It simply involves tracking down the individual. The police forces are responsible for doing this work.
[English]
Senator Lang: Mr. Tessarolo, it is not clear to me if you presently have an agreement with the Government of Canada, unlike Quebec.
Mr. Tessarolo: We have a biology case work analysis agreement that expires at the end of this month.
Senator Lang: Am I to conclude that since the system of agreements has come into place, Ontario has satisfied itself with two- or three-year agreements and then renegotiated?
Mr. Tessarolo: We have.
Senator Lang: My other question concerns me as a taxpayer. Like some other committee members around the table, I have been a cabinet minister and I know there are always requests for more money. It is always easy to ask for more money. In the brief time I have been here, we have heard that new technology is being put in place with the RCMP lab that will greatly increase its efficiency. Obviously, the time and effort put into testing samples will be much less. I assume that technology would be available to your labs as well.
If we do these analyses with a much quicker turnaround, it will obviously lessen the load elsewhere in the system to some degree. There must be savings involved. From the point of view of either Quebec or Ontario, have you examined how much savings there would be to offset the need to look at further cases?
Mr. Tessarolo: The addition of the technology is primarily to assist with the addition of new work rather than to deal with existing work. We are at capacity. As such, if we were able to take advantage of automation or new technology, it would help us keep in stride with those increased demands for more work.
Our annual allocation for biology is $8 million. We also add about $1 million per year on average, which is dedicated directly to refreshing technology or purchasing new technology. Therefore, it already exists, to a certain extent.
We are advocating for more of that, first, in order to handle more cases and, second, to continue to improve on the turnaround times we are experiencing right now. I have never had a complaint from a police client who suggested we got the work to them too quickly. We have had complaints from the other side of that.
The additional resources would be greatly desired, but their primary benefit would be in having the capacity to deal with more work.
Are you all right with that assessment, Mr. Newman?
Mr. Newman: Yes, I agree with Mr. Tessarolo. The technology improves certain parts of the process — the actual testing method itself to get to a DNA profile. We do not have the technology yet to find in a vehicle the millimetre-size stain that can be subjected to that robotic technology. A person is still required to examine in fine detail the actual vehicle itself.
At the other end, in terms of preparing, presenting information and being an expert witness in court, we certainly do not have the technology to replace the person in court. Senator Baker eloquently made the case for people. We need scientists to manage the cases, to work with the technology and, ultimately, to present themselves as expert witnesses to explain the results. People are the biggest cost.
[Translation]
Mr. Laberge: I can assure you that we in Quebec have the smallest operational budget for DNA, compared to the other two Canadian labs. We have had to use much imagination and creativity to try to streamline our operations. Each dollar that was invested was used optimally and if you read the cost assessment you will see that the cost of the lab in Quebec was minimal in comparison with the other two labs; for a host of reasons, but mainly because of the fact that we did not have much of a budget. That is the reason why we had to use some imagination to provide our services at a lesser cost.
That said, we still have to maintain a level of quality; to dip below this minimal budget would be risky. Additional needs are amply justified and minimal. They are not an exaggeration at all.
Mr. Dufour: The budget request mainly focuses on the hiring of individuals who would be qualified to carry out examinations, to testify, as well as to finalize examinations.
We have robots, but not many; there are far more of them in Ontario and at the RCMP. It helps us save some time in doing the work, but at the end of the day, you always need human beings to do the analyses and to testify. It is true that we have automated analysis and that that speeds things up a lot for us. However, there comes a time when, in the bottleneck, we need professionals to finalize the analyses and testify before the courts. That is the area where budgets would be allocated.
[English]
Senator Lang: This leads me into another area. If the government decided to go in this direction, are there private labs in either one of your jurisdictions that could modify what they do to supplement the work of your organizations?
Mr. Tessarolo: In Ontario, there are currently three private DNA testing labs of which I am aware. One of those three is a new organization not yet offering actual testing services. They are only offering consulting at this point. The other two I understand do provide a range of testing in DNA. I am not entirely familiar with the level to which they could offset our work. I do understand that one of those two does have a contractual relationship with the RCMP for the provision of testing. I do not know to what extent they are engaged in that regard.
[Translation]
Mr. Laberge: In Quebec, there is a laboratory that could do this type of analysis. That said, it is not our preference. I am deeply convinced that it would cost far more to deal with these people rather than to do it in-house, given the actual costs today in Quebec.
Mr. Dufour: On the other hand, with private labs, the issue of the chain of possession of the evidence arises, as does that of having the lab accredited by our organization. They would have to have the same level as we do, be ISO 17025-certified and have a CAN-P-1578 accreditation.
Even if they were to provide technical services like the analyses, at the end of the day you need analysts to analyze cases, and it would come back to us. So, when the chain of possession of evidence issue arises, it can cause a host of legal problems.
[English]
The Chair: We have a couple of senators who want to put questions to witnesses on a second round. However, before I turn to them, I wanted to ask you about the news we have been seeing recently concerning synthetic, artificial DNA. Is it a problem? Is it real? Are you looking into it? If it is a potential problem, how do we guard against it? Are there techniques to determine what is real and what has been created in a lab somewhere?
Mr. Tessarolo: I will ask Mr. Newman to respond on behalf of the CFS.
Mr. Newman: A forensic science journal recently published research conducted by a private scientific testing lab in Israel, I believe. They used fairly sophisticated molecular biological techniques to, as they described, synthesize DNA. Knowing a profile, they were able to actually recreate that profile and create a sample that they could then use to fake DNA.
Does it cause us a concern? As scientists, of course we are aware that DNA can be made. One of the central premises of molecular biology and cloning technology is that you can actually construct DNA. Awareness is good. This is an interesting piece of scientific research.
The other side to that paper was that the company also had a proof of concept that they could detect the fake DNA they had made. I take it that their endeavour in this regard was to identify this as a problem and to develop a solution that they could sell to Mr. Tessarolo, me and Mr. Dufour.
In terms of its impact on crimes, I would have difficulty accepting that there would be sophisticated criminals who would have access to the type of laboratory required to create fake DNA in order to confound police investigators. A far simpler method available to criminals has already been tried: Get a sample of DNA from someone else, and as you go into the crime scene, leave the cigarette butt at there.
In that regard, the criminal justice system has a dependence on the police investigator to employ routine police investigative techniques to evaluate all of the information in conducting an investigation and to evaluate the DNA result in the context of all the other information they receive during the course of the investigation. DNA only forms one piece of the puzzle.
Mr. Tessarolo: Our scientists are fully aware of the article. They are fully aware of the concept of fake DNA, if you will, and they find it interesting as well. However, they are also aware enough to understand its implication in the workplace and its limitations in that regard.
Senator Wallace: I am interested in the question raised by Senator Lang about private labs that are involved in DNA analysis and understanding the work they do now and how that could impact our system in the future. Could you identify for us, or perhaps send to us later, the names and key contacts of those labs? There was at least one in Ontario and the same in Quebec.
I appreciate the comments about maintaining the integrity of the system and the requirement for qualifications and standards. I thought the senator's question was interesting, so if you could provide that information, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Tessarolo: Absolutely, senator.
I would add that we cannot really make any judgment with respect to the quality of private labs. Presumably they require accreditation, just as a public lab does. As such, if they were to adhere to those standards, the expectation would be that they would also provide a high-quality result.
When it comes to private testing, other considerations may be relevant. For example, in addition to the interests of a private organization, what would happen to DNA data that was collected in the event that a private sector lab ceased to function because it went out of business or was taken over? There are considerations we do not have to worry about in the public sector, but they may be of interest around this table.
Senator Wallace: Obviously you do have thoughts as to how private labs could or could not work in the system. If we were to explore that, your thoughts or concerns or issues would be very useful in helping us to determine what we should be thinking about and where we should be cautioned. It would be much appreciated if you could provide that to us later in writing.
Mr. Tessarolo: We would be happy to.
The Chair: The way to provide that information, as with the other documents we discussed earlier, is to forward everything to the clerk of the committee who will then ensure that all senators receive it.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I have always thought that some expenses were not really expenses at all, and that in fact they could even lead to cost savings elsewhere. DNA is a good example of this. You said earlier on that it could also lead to people responding to their charges. Do you have any studies and statistics on the rate of increase in responding to charges when there is DNA evidence in a case, so that we may see the savings in terms of trial costs?
Mr. Laberge: Unfortunately not, it is very difficult to obtain. However, we are almost sure there is cost efficiency there, that many people, to avoid going to trial, end up pleading guilty. These cases exist and in the end lead to great cost savings within the legal system. I would like to get back to testimony before the courts. We are referring to testifying in court and to our professionals.
Since DNA has been used on a regular basis, the number of appearances to testify has decreased proportionally. An expert's report is recognized as a matter of course without his having to testify in court that it is indeed his analysis and without his having to set out the results. There are few challenges to that. This certainly points to improved efficiency in terms of the legal system.
Mr. Dufour: When we did our business plan, there were coroners, crown attorneys, investigators and people from forensic identification services, the SIJ or Service d'identité judiciaire. With respect to DNA the investigators are unable to provide figures. But when they investigate and tell people that they have DNA evidence, people confess far more quickly. Suspects see that work has been done that is very convincing and this helps criminal investigations along. We do not really have statistics on this. However, testimony from investigators indicates to us that there is something to it.
[English]
Mr. Tessarolo: That is an excellent question and one that has been discussed quite recently. In fact, that question was asked of us at our own provincial standing committee on public accounts. What is the value of DNA? Can you put a monetary value on it in the sense of how it has saved money in the rest of the justice system through policing, court costs or something else? As my colleagues from Quebec mentioned, it is very difficult to calculate.
There are a number of anecdotal examples where clearly there is a rationale related to where money was saved, and I provided an example of that in my opening address. I am aware of a study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice in the U.S. They looked specifically at high-volume crimes and results from a number of different jurisdictions. The one I can remember relates to Colorado, although Mr. Newman reminds me it was not in Colorado alone. They were able to demonstrate a significant savings in terms of policing costs and court costs as a result of what we anecdotally know as early guilty pleas and a reduction in the need to further investigate cases by pursuing other potential suspects. Unfortunately I do not have those studies with me, but they are relatively recent. It is a very hot topic in this area.
Mr. Newman: I am not sure if you actually need a large-scale study. Consider the amount of money that we are talking about to fund a laboratory, and compare that against the amount of money that might be involved in a single investigation that Mr. Tessarolo has described. That was the Holly Jones investigation in Toronto where the first part of the investigation was entirely predicated on DNA. There was DNA under the fingernails of the deceased. In the early stages of the investigation the police had over 100 officers involved. Once the individual was identified through DNA, the investigation was scaled right back to about half a dozen officers. Imagine the cost savings that occurred there.
Add to that the fact that it was recognized by both investigators and the Crown attorney that Mr. Briere pled guilty largely as a result of the DNA evidence recovered from the victim and from his home. Imagine the savings of not having to conduct a first-degree murder trial that costs thousands of dollars per day. That one case alone is probably giving us half the funding for a year that we are looking for.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Could you possibly track down that study and send us a copy of it?
[English]
Mr. Tessarolo: Absolutely, senator. I will include that with the information Senator Wallace has requested.
The Chair: Sending it to the clerk of the committee is the most efficient way to ensure that everyone receives it, not just the senator who very cleverly put the question.
Senator Joyal: According to the INTERPOL agreement that Canada has entered into, Canada is requested to provide DNA results. I understand that in the last few years there would have been about 481 or 486 requests. When such a request is put to Canada and the DNA results come from one of your labs, are you informed as to the nature of the request and that it has been made?
[Translation]
The same question goes to you, Mr. Dufour.
Mr. Dufour: The RCMP.
Mr. Laberge: If we have a case that is international in nature, the RCMP will liaise with international partners. In the past, there have been cases where we identified murder suspects in Florida, Quebec and in Ontario. That is the type of example that I have seen, four, five and six years ago. Obviously, these types of exchanges occur regularly on an international scale. When we need to have these exchanges, that is how we proceed.
Senator Joyal: But are you informed of the fact when there has been a request from a foreign police force?
Mr. Laberge: If it concerns us, yes.
Senator Joyal: You are automatically informed of this?
Mr. Laberge: Yes.
[English]
Senator Joyal: Do you have the same answer?
Mr. Newman: Yes, we are involved in the process of data sharing through the INTERPOL agreement, and it goes in two directions.
If there is a case in Ontario where a DNA profile from a crime scene leads investigators to feel that the perpetrator could be from a jurisdiction outside of Canada, they make the request for the INTERPOL search through the laboratory. There is a pro forma that the investigator fills out. We complete the scientific portion of that, with a DNA profile, and that is forwarded to the National DNA Data Bank in Ottawa, which then facilitates the search through INTERPOL and the contact back to the original investigating officer.
From a jurisdiction outside of Canada such as the U.K. where the reverse is true and they have a crime scene sample that they wish to have compared through Canada, we, as a laboratory, will only be advised if that sample hits to a crime scene sample generated from a crime in Ontario.
Senator Joyal: You would not be in a position to refuse such a request.
Mr. Newman: A request from an investigator in Ontario?
Senator Joyal: Yes.
Mr. Newman: No, we would not refuse the request. We are the interface between the investigator and the National DNA Data Bank. The reason we are there is because we are the source of the profile.
Senator Joyal: The sample material.
Mr. Newman: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: I suppose the same applies to you?
Mr. Laberge: Exactly the same thing applies.
[English]
The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you all very much. It has been an extremely interesting and informative session. We are very grateful to you. You really have made a difference in our work, and we do appreciate it.
Colleagues, our next meeting will be Wednesday next in this room at 4:15, or when the Senate rises. The list of witnesses will be forwarded to you before then.
(The committee adjourned.)