Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 23 - Evidence - November 5, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 5, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:12 p.m. to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 5, 7, 17, 20, and 24 of Part 4 of Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. TOPIC: Divisions 17 and 20
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I'm Kelvin Ogilvie from Nova Scotia and chair of the committee. I invite colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Merchant: Hello, everyone, I'm Pana Merchant, senator from Saskatchewan.
Senator Cordy: I'm Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
Senator Chaput: Maria Chaput from Manitoba.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nancy Ruth from Toronto.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: Before I welcome witnesses, I note for the record that we are dealing with the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 17 to 20, Part 4 of Bill C-43. As you can see, we have a host of witnesses with us today.
I will introduce them by pairs in the order in which I understand we have agreed that they will present.
From Public Safety Canada, we have Trevor Bhupsingh, Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate; and Caroline Fobes, Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel, Legal Services.
I understand, Mr. Bhupsingh you will make the presentation.
[Translation]
Trevor Bhupsingh, Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate, Public Safety Canada: Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak about Bill C-43.
Since the establishment of the National DNA Data Bank in 2000, there have been a number of calls for the creation of a national DNA-based missing persons index that could assist investigators in finding missing persons and identifying human remains.
[English]
At the forefront of these calls for a missing persons index have been families, including parents such as Judy Peterson, who look to a missing persons index as a compassionate or humanitarian initiative that may offer them some sense of closure regarding the fate of their missing loved one. In addition to previous private members' bills and public petitions, Senate and House of Commons committees have also called for the creation of a DNA-based missing persons index in their respective reviews of the DNA Identification Act. The creation of a missing persons index was also amongst the recommendations of the Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, as well as the B.C. Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, in light of the disproportionate number of missing and murdered Aboriginal women in Canada. The government has taken action to better respond to cases of missing persons in Canada.
For example, in 2010, $25 million over five years was committed to address cases of missing and murdered people. Through this initiative, the RCMP established the National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains to support law enforcement, medical examiners and chief coroners with missing persons and unidentified remains cases.
Further commitment was expressed through Budget 2014, which announced $8.1 million over five years beginning in 2016-17 for the creation of a DNA-based missing persons index. Following this announcement, Public Safety Canada in collaboration with the RCMP developed proposals to establish a DNA-based missing persons index. The intent of the missing persons index is to provide law enforcement, coroners and examiners with a new national tool to resolve cases of missing persons and unidentified remains.
Throughout the spring and summer of 2014, consultations were undertaken with a number of stakeholders to review the draft proposals to create a missing persons index. Key stakeholders included provincial and territorial policy- makers, coroners, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and other members of the law enforcement community, the National DNA Data Bank Advisory Committee, and initial discussions with the Native Women's Association of Canada. These consultations were helpful in informing the development of options for the creation of a missing persons index.
General findings from the consultations included stakeholders acknowledging the need for a missing persons index and expressing their support, along with many stakeholders in the law enforcement community indicating that they currently use DNA analysis in missing persons investigations and that these existing practices would benefit from a new national DNA-based tool.
The proposed legislative amendments outlined in the bill before you are meant to help bring closure to families of missing persons. This is achieved by expanding the DNA Identification Act to include a new humanitarian application of the National DNA Data Bank through the creation of three new indices: the DNA-based missing persons index, which would contain the DNA profiles of biological material found on personal effects of missing persons; the human remains index, which would contain DNA profiles derived from unidentified remains; and the relatives of the missing index, which would contain DNA profiles from family members of missing persons to help confirm the DNA profile of the missing person.
I will leave it to my learned colleagues from the RCMP, Assistant Commissioner Bidal and Mr. Fourney, to explain fully how these new indices will be operationalized. Through this bill, it is anticipated that police will have added tools to help solve cases of missing persons or unidentified human remains, or to assist in ongoing investigations.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon, and I look forward to assisting with your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Just before I welcome the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I remind everyone that following presentations I will open the floor to questions.
With that, I turn to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, François Bidal, who is Assistant Commissioner, Forensic Science and Identification Services; and with him is Dr. Ron Fourney, Director, Science and Strategic Partnerships, Forensic Science and Identification Services.
I understand, Mr. Bidal, that you will be making the presentation.
[Translation]
François Bidal, Assistant Commissioner, Forensic Science and Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Senators, I would like to provide you with a brief overview of the proposed legislation, describe the five new indices that would be created, and explain how those indices would support the investigations of missing persons and unidentified remains, as well as strengthen the current DNA identification regime in Canada.
[English]
Proclaimed in 2000, the DNA Identification Act governs the national use of DNA for criminal purposes and enabled the creation of the National DNA Data Bank, or, as we call it, the NDDB.
The DNA Identification Act created two indices: the convicted offenders index, composed of DNA profiles taken from offenders convicted of a designated offence, and the crime scene index, composed of unknown DNA profiles derived from biological material found at crime scenes.
The use of DNA has contributed significantly to criminal investigations. In Canada, the NDDB has assisted in the investigations of over 2,200 murders, 3,800 sexual assaults, and 24,000 other designated offences.
[Translation]
Other countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, use DNA identification to support investigations of missing persons and unidentified remains. It is currently not possible to use the data bank for this purpose.
[English]
The proposed amendments to the DNA Identification Act would expand the use of DNA identification to support the investigations of missing persons and unidentified remains by creating three new indices. The first is the missing persons index, composed of DNA profiles of missing persons developed from personal effects, such as a toothbrush or an article of clothing.
The second is the human remains index, composed of DNA profiles from found human remains.
The third is the relatives of the missing index, composed of DNA profiles voluntarily submitted by close relatives of the missing and used to either confirm the DNA profile of the missing persons or to compare against the human remains index.
To ensure the most effective use of these new indices, the missing persons and human remains indices would be compared to the approximately 400,000 unique DNA profiles and the convicted offenders and crime scene indices.
I would like to highlight at this point that the DNA profiles in the relatives of the missing index would not be compared to the criminal indices. The use of these profiles would only be compared to the missing persons or human remains indices.
[Translation]
The proposed legislation would also strengthen the existing operations of the National DNA Data Bank.
[English]
Currently, the act does not permit the use of a victim's DNA to support criminal investigations, nor does it permit the use of DNA from relevant individuals who may wish to volunteer their DNA to further an investigation.
To address these issues, the legislation would create two additional indices. The victims index would be composed of DNA profiles from victims of crime. These profiles would be uploaded in a number of circumstances, including when a victim may voluntarily provide such a sample.
The victims of crime index will help police identify serial offenders and to link crime scenes. The voluntary donors index would be composed of DNA profiles, voluntarily submitted by any person other than a victim to advance a criminal, missing persons, or unidentified remains investigation. This index will be used primarily to exclude individuals from an investigation.
Finally, the proposed legislation would make retention provisions for offenders who have received either a conditional or absolute discharge consistent with retention provisions for sentenced offenders. This change would address situations where the RCMP may be retaining DNA profiles when it should not, or destroying profiles when they should be retained.
[Translation]
I would now like to explain the measures in the legislation to ensure the proper use of the new indices and the privacy safeguards in place.
[English]
First, it would remain a criminal offence for anyone to use or to communicate any DNA information for a purpose other than what is specifically stated in the act.
Second, a two-factor legal threshold would be created requiring investigators of missing persons cases to demonstrate to the RCMP before a DNA profile is added to the data bank that there are reasonable grounds to suspect DNA analysis will assist in an ongoing investigation, and that other investigatory techniques have been tried and failed, or in exigent circumstances.
Third, in the event that a DNA profile of a missing person links to a profile from a crime scene, the RCMP would communicate this information to investigators for humanitarian purposes only.
Should a criminal investigator wish to use information derived from such a match to further a criminal investigation, that investigator must have reasonable grounds to suspect this information would assist in the investigation or prosecution of a designated offence.
Fourth, recognizing that relatives of the missing index, the victims index and the voluntary donors index would be populated with voluntarily provided profiles, a number of consent provisions have been included in the legislation. To submit a DNA profile to any of the relatives of the missing index, the victims index or the voluntary donor index, informed consent must be obtained. Anyone volunteering a DNA profile may withdraw their consent at any time, requiring its removal from the National DNA Data Bank.
Finally, the RCMP will fix a retention term to remove profiles unless the investigating agency confirms with the RCMP that submitted DNA profiles remain associated with an ongoing investigation and that informed consent has not been withdrawn.
Operationally, this legislation will leverage the existing work of two program areas within the RCMP: the National DNA Data Bank and the National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains.
[Translation]
Funding identified in Budget 2014 will be used to create and maintain the infrastructure within the RCMP to operate the five new indices and to provide to investigators technical and scientific support and national coordination of information.
[English]
Neither the NDDB nor the RCMP's national forensic laboratory will conduct DNA analysis on behalf of police, coroners or medical examiners for missing persons or unidentified remains investigations. Rather, the RCMP will work with Public Works and Government Services Canada in the coming months to identify private sector laboratories that provinces and territories can use to conduct humanitarian-related DNA analysis.
Thank you for this opportunity.
The Chair: I will now turn to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. We have Dan Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada; and Carman Baggaley, Senior Strategic Policy Advisor.
I understand, Mr. Therrien, that you will be making the presentation.
[Translation]
Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the invitation to present our views on Bill C-43.
I am joined today by Carman Baggaley, Senior Policy Analyst.
The amendments before you serve two purposes. The first is a humanitarian purpose to support investigations in finding missing persons and identifying human remains. The second purpose is to provide new tools for criminal investigations and therefore law enforcement.
As mentioned, the bill proposes to fulfil these two purposes by creating five new DNA-based indices.
I certainly agree that society is well served by locating missing persons and identifying human remains, and that creating a national DNA data bank is a reasonable way of achieving these objectives. I also understand that the National DNA Data Bank serves an important and valuable law enforcement function.
Having said that, I have some reservations about the way in which the bill comingles these two distinct and very different purposes. In particular, I have some concerns about the extent to which the bill permits the cross-matching of the proposed new indices designed to locate missing persons and the existing crime scene and convicted offender indices that serve law enforcement purposes.
When families provide the personal effects of the missing person or their own biological samples, they are doing so for humanitarian purposes, to either find a missing person or identify human remains. Their wishes should be respected and further uses of the derived profiles for law enforcement purposes should be prohibited or strictly limited.
The bill recognizes that the profiles of relatives can only be used for humanitarian purposes; they can only be compared to the missing persons and human remains indices. I believe the use of the profiles of missing persons should be similarly restricted.
The bill would allow comparison of the profiles of missing persons and human remains against the crime scene and convicted offender indices, raising the possibility that this matching could link a missing person to a crime scene or to a convicted offender.
Furthermore, the bill would allow information about these matches to be used to investigate a designated offence if the law enforcement agency has reasonable grounds to suspect that the information would assist in the investigation or prosecution of the offence.
[English]
Using information collected for one purpose — to identify remains — for another purpose, such as linking the DNA of a missing person to a crime scene would violate the principle that personal information should only be used for the purpose for which it was collected.
If, nonetheless, a decision is made to allow the profiles of missing persons to be matched against a crime scene index and any matches used for law enforcement purposes, the relative who provided the personal effect of the missing person should be informed of and consent to this matching.
We also have concerns about the amendments to the act that would increase information sharing with foreign states or international organizations. The bill would allow a foreign state or international organization to send a profile to the NDDB that can be compared not only against the criminal offender index and the crime scene index, as is the case at present, but also against the missing persons index and the human remains index. In addition, the commissioner of the RCMP would be able to send profiles from the missing persons and the human remains indices to a foreign state or international organization.
This would appear to open the door to a possible match of a foreign crime scene profile with a Canadian missing person profile, implicating the missing person in a foreign crime. Or, conversely, this could implicate a missing foreign person in a Canadian crime. The decision to share this information is discretionary on the part of the Commissioner of the RCMP, but it does raise the possibility of sharing information about these types of matches.
Given the concerns we have expressed about using missing person profiles for law enforcement purposes, and given that on two previous occasions Senate committees reviewing the DNA Identification Act have raised concerns about the possibility of sharing information with a foreign state with respect to an offence that may not be an offence under Canadian law, I would urge that the proposed amendments to increase international sharing be removed from the bill.
I would welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you all very much.
Senator Seidman: I'd like to try to understand more about the infrastructure and how all this will be created. It sounds like there are many partners involved. I'm not sure if that's really the fact here.
Mr. Bidal and Mr. Bhupsingh, both of you spoke about Budget 2014 and monies that are being used to create an infrastructure — in your case, Mr. Bidal, an infrastructure within the RCMP. I don't know how involved Public Safety is.
How are we going to ensure that adequate resources are provided in order to implement what are five new indices, or some such thing? It's a formidable task in some aspects. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs published its report in 2010 and addressed the matter and said that there were many challenging issues, some of them logistical.
I wouldn't mind hearing about how this is going to happen, how you see it rolling out, what the time frame is, what the resources could be.
Mr. Bidal: As you have heard from my colleague, Trevor, there are budget allocations which we currently have for the foundational pieces of both the National Centre for Missing Persons as well as the national DNA data bank. That infrastructure is currently in place.
For the incremental services that we are being asked to consider, the allocations which are projected in Budget 2014 would be sufficient for us to provide the services to support the new indices as they are presented today in the proposed legislation.
We currently have an allocation for the foundational piece. Incremental to that, in order to be able to deliver on the services as they relate to the missing persons indices, as I described them earlier, what is projected to be allocated as a result of the 2014 budget, that envelope would be sufficient for us to support the indices as proposed.
Senator Seidman: You say in your presentation that the funding identified in Budget 2014 will be used to create and maintain the infrastructure within the RCMP to operate the five new indices and to provide to investigators technical and scientific support and national coordination of information.
Mr. Bidal: There are incremental resources required in order to provide those new indices. That is what is proposed in Budget 2014, and that is what I'm saying, from an RCMP perspective, is sufficient to deliver both within the National Centre for Missing Persons, which is where we receive the data. That's where the police interaction occurs with investigators and coroners in respective jurisdictions. The other piece is the national DNA data bank where the new indices would be physically located, and the scientific infrastructure we need for that, the funds proposed in Budget 2014, are sufficient to build those indices and the support personnel we need to maintain those.
Senator Seidman: There is support personnel involved with this.
Mr. Bidal: Yes.
Senator Seidman: You will have that capacity?
Mr. Bidal: Indeed.
Senator Seidman: You said that in the coming months you are going to identify private sector laboratories which provinces and territories can use to conduct this DNA analysis.
When using the private facilities, how are you going to assure that certain levels of privacy and accountability are maintained?
Ron Fourney, Director, Science and Strategic Partnerships, Forensic Science and Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: The use of private forensic laboratories has been in place for a number of years. On occasion, our own RCMP laboratory used a private forensic lab for assistance. The science and technology that is applicable for missing persons will be the same science and technology that a private forensic laboratory would have. They would also follow the same quality assurance requirements — what we would call the ISO17025 — which is the testing for analytical laboratories, as well as the additional forensic component KP1578. All of these are in place: the structure, the process, and the same scientific currency of exchange, which is using the same technologies that we would have.
To specifically address privacy and security, to assist police forces, many of these laboratories already engage in analysis that might fall outside of one of the public forensic laboratories. They're already doing this. They have to provide the requisite level of privacy and security associated with these samples.
When it comes to DNA identification assistance, many of them do paternity testing, work with Immigration Canada and other federal agencies. What's important is that many of the processes in place will address what we will require. In terms of our own structure, we intend to do a technical audit of these laboratories, ahead of time, in order to pre-clear them.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I would like to start by congratulating Public Safety Canada. I listened to your presentation and three points really stood out in my mind.
You said that you gave consideration to the recommendations made in subsequent reports. You also indicated that you consulted with organizations and that Public Safety Canada works with the RCMP.
I must admit that those are three positive points that often give us a better chance of success.
However, here you are with several indices, several profiles and a fairly comprehensive data bank.
I have one concern about the privacy safeguards in place. In your view, will the exchange of information be sufficiently protected? If that is the case, how will it be protected?
[English]
Mr. Bhupsingh: I think you are right. When we started to develop this proposal, we were trying to balance a number of different interests: the humanitarian interest around trying to solve some of these cases, and protecting very private information. In this piece of legislation, we have tried to introduce a number of different measures, which will help to balance that. Also, it will help to mitigate the privacy concerns that my colleague, the Privacy Commissioner — and others — have mentioned.
We have created some legislative thresholds for when the DNA profiles may be added to the missing persons index. My colleague from the RCMP mentioned the threshold that we are using in this particular initiative.
We are also implementing some regulations to ensure that DNA profiles are regularly reviewed, retained and destroyed, consistent with privacy requirements, as they stand now.
Lastly, we are creating some legislative thresholds for when the information from the MPI may be used in criminal investigations. My colleague from the RCMP mentioned that this will be discretionary and used in very limited circumstances.
Senator Chaput: When you talk about implementing regulations, are they already developed, or are you waiting for this to go through and then you will develop them?
Mr. Bhupsingh: We are implementing regulations, so they're not created yet. They're in development. This particular proposal has been in development for quite some time. There have been calls for a missing persons index for a number of years. We are fairly far along in implementing these and we are ready to implement the regulations when, and if, this bill is passed.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Why have they not been included in the bill? Some divisions of the bill have the regulations and some do not.
Why have you not included the regulations so that we can have a good idea of how you are going to protect the information?
[English]
Mr. Bhupsingh: I will let my legal colleague talk about the drafting of the legislation and why I don't think we were quite ready to include the regulations as part of the bill.
The Chair: We understand that regulations are normally developed after the passage of the bill, so we won't go into that. That is a standard practice with regard to legislation. You don't have the regulations ready, and if this bill passes, they will then be developed; is that correct?
Mr. Bhupsingh: That's correct, chair.
The Chair: Is that okay for you?
Senator Chaput: Yes, it is just that sometimes with bills the regulations are included and other times they are not. That's why I asked the question.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Mr. Bidal, I wanted to ask you about the voluntariness of these three new databases. Can you repeat for me which are voluntary and which are not?
Mr. Bidal: The voluntary indices would include the victims index, the voluntary donors index, and the relatives of the missing persons index.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If someone is missing and you ask the family, or whoever, for a toothbrush or an article of clothing, then do they have to give it to you?
Mr. Bidal: No.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Then tell me how it works.
Mr. Bidal: They can't be compelled to provide that because the purpose of this is humanitarian. In the case that you have just described, the frontline investigator would be asking the family if they wish to provide articles, such as a toothbrush or clothing. From this, we could develop a DNA sample and the DNA profile of the missing person, which as a consequence could be uploaded to the index.
Senator Nancy Ruth: From the research and consultation that you have done with various groups, are you are confident that this will happen?
Mr. Bidal: In many cases, it would because the families want to explore every means, so they can identify or find their loved one.
Senator Merchant: I will follow on from that question because of the voluntary aspect. Do you think the most troublesome characters, which you would like to get the DNA from — maybe the very people that may be reluctant to provide this to you, because of the implications of it being in a data bank — might worry about other things that this could be used for?
Mr. Bidal: That could very well be. That is why it is accompanied by this informed consent. That person is clearly placed in a position where they're able to consider the consequence or the repercussions of providing that sample. Once that person provides informed consent, they're also free to withdraw that consent. Essentially, they're in control of whether that profile is in the data bank. They have done so in an informed way, and then they're also in control of whether they choose at any time to withdraw that from the particular index.
Senator Merchant: There is always a mistrust of handing over something — not always, but often. With what Mr. Therrien said, why do you feel it is important to disclose this information to a foreign country? Why is that part of the bill? Should there be an amendment in that case?
Mr. Bidal: Some people go missing internationally; therefore, we have to have the tools in place for humanitarian reasons to identify those persons if the investigation takes us beyond the borders of Canada. There are agreements in place for us to do so, and we respect, of course, the legality of those agreements in terms of how that information is exchanged. If we were to exchange information with another country, it would happen under the authority of legislation.
The Chair: Mr. Bidal, following that question, is it included in the full explanation to the potential donor of the DNA that it could possibly be used in other jurisdictions?
Mr. Fourney: Yes, in the informed consent. It is very important that the donor or the individual involved knows fully what the ramifications would be. I might add that we're paralleling our system to other existing programs that have been successful, such as in the U.S.
Mr. Therrien: I agree certainly with the humanitarian objectives of the creation of these indices. I would add that there are many useful safeguards in this proposed legislation. However, I feel compelled to say that when we're referring to information being provided voluntarily with consent, this is true for some banks and indices but not all indices. I would like the committee to pay attention to that. For instance, if someone is missing and their relatives provide their own DNA to identify potentially the missing person, it's done on a voluntary basis, and that consent can be withdrawn, as was explained. Presumably, that is because the proposed legislation recognizes the humanitarian purpose of the actions of the relative in providing their DNA.
When we're dealing with a missing person, that person is not there to give consent. A relative will be asked to provide some personal effects of the missing person. I am not sure that the relative at that point is informed that the information will be used not only for humanitarian purposes, i.e. to find the relative, but may be used — and I agree there are safeguards and thresholds — to associate the missing person to a crime as an offender; but I am not sure about that.
The committee should reflect on the difference in treatment between the information of the relative, which is used only for humanitarian purposes, and the information provided about the missing person by a relative, which may be used for criminal investigative purposes.
The Chair: Mr. Bidal, with regard to the relative authorizing the use of the missing person's DNA, is the relative fully informed of the circumstances including checking against the fingerprints at the presumed crime scene and so on?
Mr. Fourney: Yes, the informed consent will have that taken into account.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for the presentation. I understand that the DNA of people will be placed in the database; is that right? How do you compare this bill with legislation in other countries like the U.S. or UK? Is it advanced or what do you think?
Mr. Fourney: First, the group involved with forensic DNA comparisons work well together all over the world. We have conferences and we certainly have interactive working groups, such as the Scientific Working Group for DNA Analysis Methods hosted by my colleagues in the U.S. The good news is that we are all speaking from the same voice and using the same technology. It is not a situation where we compare apples and oranges. It is always apples and apples.
Second, we are very fortunate to employ a technology for maintaining DNA profiles and matching called Combined DNA Index System, CODIS. In Canada when we first entered into the development of our national databank in 1999, we were in a quandary as to how to do this searching and matching. We were fortunate to work with our colleagues in the U.S. and at the Department of Justice, through the FBI, who provided CODIS at no cost to any law enforcement agency in the world.
We're one of 42 countries that use the exact same method of comparison and matching. I might add that it has a built-in security encryption component as well. In the National DNA Databank, the only people who have access to the matching comparison amongst our indices are those who actually work in the databank.
We would use CODIS to communicate a match back to our colleagues in Canada. When it goes outside Canada, we have a memorandum of agreement established through Interpol that allows us to use what we call the I-27 backbone, which is a secure encrypted backbone, and a prescribed method. We are very circumspect with what information we provide and what we can send out.
Each country is in control of what they send out and what they can provide for information, based on their respective legislation.
Senator Cordy: It is unfortunate that these amendments relating to missing persons indices are buried in a budget bill of 460 pages; but that's not anything you are responsible for.
Mr. Therrien, you expressed concerns about the sharing of information with foreign states and that the RCMP commissioner could send the information to foreign states or we could get requests from foreign states. Could you express your concerns relating to privacy on that?
Mr. Therrien: My concerns in that regard are consistent with the comment that I made in relation to not confusing the humanitarian purpose with the law enforcement purpose, even domestically.
The recommendation I make for the exchange of information internationally is simply a consequence of what I advise you to consider, which is to treat differently humanitarian and law enforcement purposes.
Senator Cordy: So there is not a cross-pollination, if we can use that phrase?
Mr. Therrien: That's correct.
Senator Cordy: Mr. Bidal, when you were speaking about the legal threshold, you spoke about reasonable grounds to suspect that DNA analysis would assist in an ongoing investigation. What would be the definition of ''reasonable grounds''?
Mr. Bidal: I'll defer that to my legal colleague, Ms. Fobes.
Caroline Fobes, Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel, Legal Services, Public Safety Canada: We have to contrast ''reasonable grounds to suspect'' with ''reasonable grounds to believe.'' ''Reasonable grounds to suspect'' is when you're in the realm of possibility, not yet probability. There is a suspicion or you have enough evidence grounded in fact — so not a generalized grounding but grounded in fact — relating to the specific case that there is potential or in the realm of possibility that this may assist in the investigation, whether it be criminal or a missing persons investigation.
Senator Cordy: Would a family actually approach you to use DNA in the investigation? Would that be likely to happen?
Mr. Bidal: That conversation would occur between the front-line police officer doing the investigation and the family before it would get to us. Really that's where that discussion would occur.
Of note as well, as I mentioned, we would use this as a last resort in terms of DNA. We would rely on that police service to ensure they have exhausted all other investigational avenues before considering DNA. In many cases we would not have DNA. We would have them rely on those other investigational techniques.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for coming. I'm going to go back to the labs and independent testing. I would like to be reassured that you're choosing the labs or working with provinces. How many are there? Will there be 11 or 12 labs, or how many? Are they going to be regularly assessed for following protocols and so forth?
Mr. Fourney: There are currently three private forensic laboratories operating in Canada. All three are accredited, and all three use the exact same technologies.
In terms of how we would set this up from a missing persons perspective, we would most likely at the beginning obviously visit their site, do a review, a technical audit, assessment and make sure everything is in order with regard to how they would perform this analysis.
This is how we would normally do it currently. We provide them almost like a blind proficiency test associated with what kind of results they would get with the technology before we do anything. They'll have to pass all of those rigorous controls and conditions.
Following this, if they've passed that and a police client for instance engages them for a missing person, we will receive their raw data sets associated with the analysis. In other words, it's not a simple number that comes in but it will be all their controls, their negative and positive controls, the safeguards they put in place and if there is anything unusual with the particular DNA profile. We would have that information in front of us to do that assessment.
In fact, in many ways the assessment will be done twice: it will be done at the private forensic laboratory and then we have a team of experts ourselves before we will even upload that into the national data bank or missing persons registry.
The other thing you have to keep in mind is each time we do that it adds another ability to review a program, but we would follow up with a site audit most likely once a year as well, to engage with a collection of a series of files we would pull at random to review and ensure that everything is going accordingly. This is not unlike a clinical facility, for instance in a hospital setting, where they would do something similar.
Senator Stewart Olsen: That's reassuring.
Could you tell me the process? The police would collect the DNA, presumably, and then do they send it to you and you then send it to the lab? How does it get from the local police into this data bank?
Mr. Fourney: Some of this is in the works as we're planning, but if we view how it has worked in other agencies or other places, the first contact for any missing person investigation is the police. For us, from a missing persons perspective, it would go to the National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains. They'll have that consultation with what we call the principal investigator, which could be a coroner and a police client as well.
If it's ascertained at that time that there is enough information that they should pursue DNA, they'll be given the go-ahead to go and pursue it, and they'll have to use one of these accredited, reviewed — the process will occur and the DNA information will be sent to us.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you very much.
Senator Seth: Thank you for coming. A lot of things have been answered because I'm the last on the list, and I'm sorry for arriving late.
You have said that the proposed amendment to the DNA Identification Act would expand the use of DNA identification to support an investigation of missing persons and identify remains by creating three new indices. You have created three new indices, from what I see.
This last part I'm not quite sure I understood. To ensure the most effective use of these new indices, the missing persons and human remains indices would be compared to the approximately 400,000 unique DNA profiles in the convicted offenders and crime scene indices. Could you give more detail about what this means?
Mr. Bidal: By way of example, there are often links between crime scenes. If we're not in possession, by way of example, of the victim's DNA, then we would not otherwise be able to make a link between crime scenes.
It would be not be uncommon for a suspect to carry the DNA from one scene and then bring the DNA of the victim to another scene or to his residence or to have an article of clothing from the victim — sometimes referred to as a trophy — which he takes from that scene and he may use at another scene.
By way of example, having the victim's DNA profile available to us and being able to compare the victim's DNA to multiple crime scenes would, as an aid to the investigator, be able to link those crime scenes and that would provide the investigator an investigative lead that he or she may not otherwise be able to obtain.
Senator Seth: Thank you. Will this DNA database be used for anything else besides crime-solving purposes, or do you use it for scientific research or anything?
Mr. Fourney: No. In fact, the original legislation passed in 2000, receiving Royal Assent, was very circumspect with ''for law enforcement purposes'' and there were a bunch of measures in place to respect that, including a criminal penalty associated with improper use.
When we expand this, the same thing will hold for the new indices. They are specifically there for either humanitarian reasons or criminal investigations. We do not do any research on these people or statistical analysis beyond that, knowing what kind of a match was made with regard to a particular crime scene.
No, to answer your question, there is no nefarious database behind the scenes here.
The Chair: Before I go to Senator Seidman for the last question, I would like to ask one question that has not come up to this point.
In the case of missing persons, there are persons who go missing deliberately. Am I correct in interpreting the legislation such that if a missing person is found they have the right not to be found, assuming there is no criminal or other issue outstanding?
Mr. Bidal: Or age issue if you're speaking of a child who is a ward.
The Chair: As long as they can make that decision themselves.
Mr. Bidal: That's right. That would be communicated back. If they chose to, by way of example, give the investigator — we're talking about the investigator — permission to communicate their status to whomever — in policing terms we say ''complaining'' — reported them missing, then that could be communicated to the fact of their status, that they're alive and well. If they chose to not even have their status communicated but that the police were in a position to know that they are okay, the investigation would be closed. The individuals who would have reported that would simply be informed that no further action would be taken with respect to this missing person, and potentially the profile of that person as a missing person, their DNA, would be removed because they are no longer missing.
Senator Seidman: If I might go back, Mr. Bidal, I think it was you who mentioned this, or it could have been Mr. Bhupsingh. One concern expressed by Mr. Therrien has to do with sharing information with a foreign state with respect to an offence that may not be an offence under Canadian law.
You did tell us that families will get informed information, they will sign informed consent regarding supplying DNA, and that it will be shared with foreign states; is that correct? That kind of informed consent will be made.
Mr. Bidal: It would be part of the consent, yes.
Senator Seidman: What about this issue, though, that you could be sharing information with a foreign state with respect to an offence that isn't an offence under Canadian law?
Mr. Bidal: I don't know if my colleague would like to speak to that.
Ms. Fobes: I have not seen an arrangement or an MOU between Canada and a foreign state or between an organization and Canada such as the RCMP and a foreign state. I can't speak to the contents. I would assume that the MOU would deal with those kinds of situations. Probably we would need to take a look and I don't know if my colleagues have one in mind or have seen one that they could speak to.
Mr. Fourney: I might add to that. First, there's a technical component as well as the legal one. From the technical point of view, as it occurs right now, we have an international agreement, an MOU associated with the current database. The only thing that Canada sends out, for instance, are DNA profiles found at a crime scene. In the event that we had a missing person component, we would expect that would have to be linked to a missing person file associated with the request.
Each time an exchange occurs, it's done on a case-by-case basis. It's important that we respect the privacy and security of the information that is going out, as well as coming in. I might add that we've had some fairly significant matches internationally, not very many of them, but each time it has gone through a rigorous review process through a number of connections associated with how we would exchange this information.
Ms. Fobes: I want to note that in the bill we also state that the arrangements must be done in accordance with regulations. There is another component to that.
The Chair: Thank you all very much for the clarity of your responses to the thoroughness of the questions of my colleagues.
In our next session, we are dealing with Division 20 of Bill C-43, Part 4.
We have two witnesses before us today, by video conference. I will introduce them as I invite them to speak. From the Province of British Columbia, we have Dr. Perry Kendall, who is the Provincial Health Officer.
Dr. Kendall, I invite you to make your presentation.
Dr. Perry Kendall, Provincial Health Officer, Province of British Columbia: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, for the opportunity to present on this important matter.
I thought I would start by outlining my credentials as a witness. I am a specialist in community medicine and I have focused on and been fully engaged in the practice of public health medicine since 1978.
In 1998 I was appointed as the British Columbia representative to the federal-provincial-territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health and Health Security, otherwise known as the ACPHHS. I was British Columbia's public health lead during the SARS outbreak in 2003, and following the publication of the Naylor report that was fairly critical of Canada's public health infrastructure and capacity, I co-chaired an advisory committee with an associate deputy minister from Health Canada that actually made recommendations that led to the formation of the Pan-Canadian Public Health Network and the Network Council.
At about that same time, as a result of the Naylor commission, the Government of Canada, in response to the recommendations of the Naylor report, created the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the position of the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, as its head with the status of a deputy minister. I was a panellist for the competition for the first Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, which was awarded to Dr. David Butler-Jones.
Subsequently, I was the first provincial-territorial co-chair of the Pan-Canadian Public Health Network Council from 2005 until 2010. Dr. Butler-Jones was the federal co-chair of the council.
During the H1N1 pandemic of 2009 to 2010, Dr. Butler-Jones and I co-chaired the special advisory committee that directed and coordinated the H1N1 pandemic response and reported to the conference of deputy ministers.
I would say that the decision to have the Public Health Agency led by the Chief Public Health Officer with a deputy level position was deliberately made. It came after careful consideration of the alternative organizational options including the one before you, which proposes an agency president with deputy status and has the Chief Public Health Officer as an officer of the agency with advisory functions.
I have reviewed this proposal and I have discussed it with a number of public health colleagues who, like me, have a lengthy institutional memory of working with Health Canada prior to SARS, during SARS and during H1N1, and working with the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada.
We are actually unanimous in advising you not to proceed with this amendment.
In our view, it will significantly weaken the agency and the position and the influence of the Chief Public Health Officer and his or her independence. The move seems retrograde to us and ignores the lessons of the past.
My comments are not intended in any way as a reflection upon Dr. Gregory Taylor or Ms. Outhwaite, both individuals for whom I have great respect and whose integrity we do not for one minute question. What concerns us is that if and when either of these individuals is replaced there is no guarantee that public health matters or priorities will take precedence over administrative or other priorities.
We do not want Canada to return to the SARS era of divided command and control, yet I and my colleagues I have consulted with feel this is exactly where this proposal may take us. I thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Kendall. I will now go to the Public Health Agency of Canada and Dr. Gregory Taylor, Chief Public Health Officer.
I would normally have invited the department to speak first, but because of technology, I took the liberty of going to our external witness first.
It is for that reason that I took that order. Now I invite you, Dr. Taylor, to make your presentation.
[Translation]
Dr. Gregory Taylor, Chief Public Health Officer, Public Health Agency of Canada: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about my role with the Public Health Agency of Canada and about the changes to the act that governs the agency.
I am very pleased that I was appointed Chief Public Health Officer of Canada on September 24. I am proud that the government is putting its faith in me.
[English]
On behalf of Canadians, I will continue to work to ensure that the Public Health Agency of Canada continues to be a world leader in public health. To get us to the next step in our evolution, changes are needed.
The Minister of Health, the associate deputy minister and I all believe that enhancement of the agency's internal management capacity is prudent. Division 20 of Bill C-43 represents well-advised, strategic adjustments to the Public Health Agency of Canada Act and reflects a major step forward for the agency.
Currently, the Chief Public Health Officer, or CPHO, plays a dual role as Canada's lead professional and the deputy head of the agency. Both require considerable time and attention.
The creation of a position of president will allow the agency to better manage both its public service and public health responsibilities.
The president will be the deputy head of the agency and will manage the agency's day-to-day operations. This adjustment will allow the CPHO to focus on providing excellent public health advice, communicating with Canadians and working closely with provinces and territories to maintain a robust public health system in Canada.
The president will assume some of the management responsibilities currently assigned to the CPHO, including accountabilities for finance, audit, evaluation, staffing, official languages, and access to information and privacy — all important functions which also merit the attention of a senior leader.
The changes make good management sense.
Effectively within the agency we have been working in this time of management structure since 2012, when the associate deputy minister and I separated out the roles and responsibilities of the CPHO on an interim basis. The more time we spent in that structure, the more it became apparent that it was the right change to make.
This is the change I strongly support.
I come to this from a unique perspective. I started my medical career as an MD in a private, small-city practice. I experienced first-hand the challenges of holding two jobs, on the one side helping patients improve their health, while in essence managing a business on the other with the constant tension between the two. Like many family physicians, I handled medical emergencies through long and irregular hours, while keeping up with administration, leases, billing and insurance.
As a specialist in public health, I have held a series of progressive leadership positions in the Government of Canada for almost 20 years. I have seen a substantial increase in the skills required to lead both national public health issues and manage a public sector organization.
The role of the CPHO as Canada's lead public health professional has grown over the decade, and so, too, has the business of the agency, which now has over 2,000 employees across the country and an operating budget of over $600 million.
Given that evolution, the CPHO position should now be able to focus on a specific job: moving forward on public health issues like infectious and chronic diseases and interacting with multiple key players including the Canadian public.
Meanwhile, it is clear to me that a focused, dedicated agency president will bring steady and strategic management and corporate leadership to a strong and dynamic organization.
I'm very proud of the agency's development and maturation. I have been with the agency even before its inception.
Once a branch of Health Canada, now a world-leading organization in its own right, the agency has helped bring public health to the forefront of Canada's landscape.
I have seen public health brought out of the shadows to become daily priorities for ministers and deputies federally, provincially and territorially.
I've seen an incredible evolution in the way our country thinks about and acts on health issues since the days of SARS and Walkerton. I've seen greatly increased public expectations of our work and a clear need to increase our global connections.
Over its first 10 years, the agency has faced many high-profile challenges, from the dangers of outbreaks such as H1N1 and Ebola to helping Canadians deal with non-communicable diseases and conditions like obesity.
Today, we have reached a new stage in the maturity of our organization.
Mr. Chair, senators, to allow the agency to move forward on these priorities for all Canadians, I strongly support Division 20 of Bill C-43 that will amend the Public Health Agency of Canada Act.
The associate deputy minister and I are committed to our shared goal of leading a world-class public health institute. We believe this management change will foster, support and sustain efforts to improve the health of Canadians.
Thank you for inviting me to speak today.
The Chair: Thank you both.
Senator Seidman: Dr. Taylor, it's my understanding that as Chief Public Health Officer you have the authority, under section 11 of the act, to delegate any of your powers, duties and functions to an officer of the agency.
Why do you feel it's important to separate and create a new position of president?
Dr. Taylor: You can delegate the authority but you can't delegate the accountability. I still have to be responsible for all the myriad of things that go on in the agency, whether you have delegated the authority or not. That means you have to be on top and know what's going on and participate in all those conversations and decisions because ultimately you're accountable.
Senator Seidman: I don't have to go any further than that. I understand responsibility and accountability is important.
Dr. Kendall, it's my understanding that in provinces and territories, I think even in B.C., the position of Chief Medical Officer of Health and the head of the organization itself — in other words, the administrative role — has been separated, as it has been in countries like the United Kingdom and Australia. I'd like to know why you present to us a dire picture of the repercussions of returning to the Dark Ages if we do this.
Dr. Kendall: I understand and sympathize with the management complexities that Dr. Taylor has outlined. I think there are alternative models that allow public health to be the priority, the leader and to be on first.
I will address what happens in B.C. subsequently, but I think this reorganization is potentially very dependent on the relationships between the deputy minister and the Chief Public Health Officer.
In B.C., the roles are separate, as you have correctly pointed out. The role works here because of the personal relationships between the two individuals. Structurally there is no guarantee that if the government wished to put in a different assistant deputy minister, I would be severely crippled or have a real difficulty in fulfilling the role.
Somebody coming in to replace me with a new ADM, if the organizations did not support that, if the personal relationships did not support that, functionally the organization in B.C. is dependent on their relationship, the unstated, unwritten relationship between the two senior people, the ADM and myself as a provincial health officer. I think that's a flaw in the organization.
If I were to redesign this, I would design it so I was actually the head of the public health functions, and I would have an ADM, a chief administrative officer or a chief operating officer who reported to me and was responsible for more of the organizational, administrative functions.
Senator Seidman: Countries like the UK and Australia, for example, have a similar structure in their public health agencies, and you have managed to do this somehow successfully in B.C. Can you point to a country or region that has tried this and demonstrated some kind of weakness?
I'm looking for an example here. Can you give us an example of a country that does this and has landed in trouble for some reason?
Dr. Kendall: No, I can't, but there are a number of provinces across this country where the organizational structure has not supported the public health leadership and where the system has broken down. I won't get into personal names; I would rather not do that.
If you were to ask colleagues across the country, they could point to two or three jurisdictions where this relationship has been dysfunctional.
Canada had it right in 2005 when they created the agency, and I worry that now you are creating the potential for it not to be right and for it to become dysfunctional.
Senator Seidman: I won't go further except to say it's too bad you don't have the same confidence in Canada as you do in B.C., since you're doing it very successfully there. Thank you.
Dr. Kendall: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Dr. Kendall, you suggested that having a president would weaken the agency and that there would be a lack of independence from government, from the minister. Would you expand on that a little bit?
Dr. Kendall: I think having an independent Chief Public Health Officer with the resources to do what he or she feels is appropriate under the mandate that they are given enables the public health priorities to lead. Obviously, one is always working within the policies and the politics of the day and responsible to the minister. It has proven over the years, since the Public Health Agency was put in place, to be a very credible, effective relationship.
As I say, I have consulted with a number of my colleagues with long institutional memory going back to the late 1990s, and we actually are concerned that this proposed change could, in fact, sideline the Chief Public Health Officer who may or may not in the future have access to the resources he or she should ideally have.
Senator Cordy: Dr. Taylor, congratulations on your appointment as the Chief Public Health Officer. We were very pleased to see that the position was filled, and by somebody with experience.
You explained quite clearly where you would see the lines of responsibility for the president and for the Chief Public Health Officer, but that isn't part of this amendment. Would this be in regulations or would it just be done within the agency itself as to what would be the lines for each individual?
Dr. Taylor: My understanding is this is done with the agency. I don't believe there are regulations on that one. I'm not a parliamentarian in terms of the legal issues. The key with this change is both the president and the CPHO have access to the minister or report to the minister. As CPHO I have unfettered access to the minister and provide advice directly to the minister, and at the same time speak to Canadians and provide advice in terms of how the president best meets the needs going on.
As Dr. Kendall pointed out, it depends on the relationships that are built. I would like to propose that, from the federal level, the relationships are absolutely key in terms of how public health works.
We have very little authority to do what we want in Canada, other than the Quarantine Act and perhaps a small regulatory piece over the laboratory. Those relationships are absolutely fundamental, the relationships that the Chief Public Health Officer has with other chief public health officers, with the rest of the country, et cetera. Whoever has that job has to have a good relationship with the president, absolutely, and have access.
If there is debate clearly between the two, the way to resolve that is going to the minister. If there's something that the CPHO needs to have done, effective resources need to be there, obviously it is in the best interests of both to make sure this works as dedicated professionals. But the way to resolve that is to go to the minister and say, ''I can't get this done. I don't have the appropriate resources for me.''
Clearly it's in the best interests of the president to ensure that we have this discussion to make sure that the appropriate resources are available.
Senator Cordy: Who would be the communicator with the public? When we had H1N1, it was reassuring to the public that it was the same person.
Dr. Taylor: Clearly the CPHO. Communicating to the public is the role. It's not the role of the president.
Senator Cordy: It would be one person?
Dr. Taylor: It would be one person. It would be me.
Senator Seth: Thank you for the information. I see here two posts: one is the president and CEO and the other is chief medical officer.
Division 20 says that the appointment and amount of remuneration would be made by order of the Governor-in- Council and the president will hold the post for five years. How much would the annual income be for the president and for the chief medical officer? What will be the difference? How is it going to work?
The Chair: We are not to get into personnel contracts and terms of remuneration.
Senator Seth: I cannot ask?
The Chair: You can ask, but it's not appropriate for us to get into personnel files with regard to remuneration.
Senator Seth: My question is will it increase the budget? How efficiently will we work, having two people? Will it make a lot of difference, and how?
The Chair: Is there sufficient budget to handle both positions?
Dr. Taylor: Yes. Currently there are both positions. Currently it's the CPHO with an associate deputy minister reporting to the CPHO. With the elevation of the associate to president there would be a small increase. I don't know the salary structures of the deputies at the DM levels, but there would be a small increase within that. Those two positions currently are there.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for your presentations, gentlemen. My question may have been asked, but now you will have two positions: Chief Public Health Officer and president. How will the Chief Public Health Officer be able to communicate with their provincial counterparts? Will it be affected at all?
Dr. Taylor: The communication with counterparts will continue. In fact, it allows me more time to be able to effectively communicate with them on an ongoing basis.
Right now, for example, as Dr. Kendall alluded to, when we had H1N1 we set up SAC, a combination of the Public Health Network council and the Council of Chief Medical Officers of Health. Currently I co-chair the council and I'm a participant in the CCMOH, which is chaired by one of the provinces.
We've reformulated SAC again because of the Ebola situation. Currently it meets twice a week, every Tuesday and Wednesday, and I have multiple conversations in between with the chief medical officers to find out what's going on, keep online and respond. If we have a potential or suspected Ebola case, I oftentimes get called. I get called in the middle of the night sometimes to communicate with them directly.
If anything, this will allow me to focus more on those communications with the provinces and territories.
Senator Enverga: Since you are currently the CPHO, are you the one who proposed this new bill or new position?
Dr. Taylor: No, the bill came from the government. I provided advice.
Senator Merchant: Thank you, doctors. Let's take the example of Ebola, because you've mentioned that. Let's say there is a case of Ebola in Canada. How would this work to your satisfaction or perhaps to Dr. Kendall's dissatisfaction? How would this bill alter what you would like to see happening, Dr. Kendall? How would this work, exactly?
Dr. Taylor: That's a really good question, because we've been functioning like this for quite some time. The Ebola situation has been around for months. Currently, I focus on the content side of it. I focus on connecting with the WHO. I focus on connecting with the CDC, provinces, the content, what we're doing. What Krista has been doing is focusing on how we best move this through government processes. We have been to cabinet a few times now. In terms of getting ready for cabinet, working with PCO, ensuring the communications within the government are consistent, she's focusing on that side. The president's job is to provide the internal policy perspectives. My job is the content, and we put these together.
It has been a very effective team, I think, when we are preparing for cabinet and going to cabinet. She knows the government work; she knows the processes; she has the relationships. She has a relationship with all the deputies across government as well as relationships with other deputies in Canada and can facilitate that movement.
I provide the content and we go to cabinet meetings. I will address and answer questions on a content perspective, so it is working very well.
Your question about the first case of Ebola, we have been working through that for quite some time in our minds. What typically happens now, if the provinces get a case of a suspect Ebola, in the first little while they have been calling me directly. We have more lines now, I get woken up in the middle of the night, but if they really suspect it's a case I'll likely get called early on and the agency will be informed very early, before any of the blood tests are done. Some of our provinces are capable of doing tests themselves, preliminary testing, but they will send a sample to their own labs as well as to our lab in Winnipeg.
We have a little bit of lead time with that. If there's a strong suspect, which hasn't happened yet, we have to be prepared to talk to Canadians very quickly, because it's a matter of hours before the province has either a positive or negative.
If there's a positive-negative preliminary, given the social structures and social media right now, our conversations have been that we need to be going to the public at that time instead of waiting for the confirmatory tests, which will take quite some time.
As we get ready to communicate, as we get ready to treat, we can do the multiple preparedness we have had to do that; there are a lot of other things going on in the background. Do we have the appropriate resources at the agency? Do we need to move people around? Do we need to be talking to PCO, alerting the Prime Minister's Office, and all that stuff on the inside?
The two of us will be working in teamwork. We do that now. We oftentimes are here very late. It's having to focus at the same time and allowing us to do exactly what you have suggested to adequately respond.
Dr. Kendall: There are a couple of pieces to your question, and one is, having sat at the tables where the federal- provincial-territorial deputies and the ministers met and talked to each other, there is a clear distinction between deputy talking to deputy and Chief Public Health Officer or provincial health officer speaking to a deputy.
There is a rank, and rank matters. I'm a little concerned that the Chief Public Health Officer does not have a deputy status to make him or her equal to the deputies around the table. It makes a difference.
The other thing is, I have no problem in believing, obviously, that everything should function well and is functioning well during an outbreak situation where the eyes of the nation are on the capital and how this issue is being managed. I'm more concerned, I would say, between the inter-outbreak periods of time when business has to go on and public health needs to be strengthened and needs to be strengthened on an ongoing basis.
I would worry potentially. As I mentioned, I'm not casting any aspirations on the current incumbents but the potential for that focus on building a strong public health infrastructure in between outbreaks could be weakened by an organizational change.
Senator Merchant: Do you feel that one person is higher on the ladder than the other and this will create a problem, Dr. Taylor?
Dr. Taylor: In the current construct, we're equals. It's going to be adopted. We're equals, so we're equal at the same level. I do get invited to some of the deputy meetings, and the minister invited me to co-host a meeting we had two weeks ago with all the health ministers across the country, where I gave presentations and was questioned by and provided comments to all the health ministers.
I have been doing several press conferences with the minister directly, and so I get invited to those tables on an ongoing basis. My primary focus, clearly, from a professional perspective, is the chief medical officers of health. I make sure I attend those. That is both the CCMOH and the Public Health Network Council, which is the policy table. But I'm fluid. I get to do a lot of different things and I'm with the deputies and ministers directly as needed.
The Chair: Dr. Taylor, with regard to this, this committee does have some experience with the Chief Public Health Officer and we did review Canada's response to the H1N1 pandemic and got a good sense of the overall issues and questions. It is certainly obvious to us that any change in the structure, it is important for us to pay attention and make sure that it strengthens the response capability and builds for the future.
As I look at the chart here, and you have reinforced it, the two positions have equal access to the minister, and in the areas of most importance the minister is going to be on the hot seat immediately, my guess is with regard to some of the issues that Dr. Kendall legitimately raises in terms of concern of working relationship. We're talking at the federal level here. I will leave it at that. We're speaking at the federal level, which is under the glare of the nation with regard to significant issues.
I also echo my colleague who referred to how pleased we are to actually see the position filled now, and identify in reviewing the progress we have made from SARS to H1N1. It was clear we still had room to grow in this area and it is such an important area that we need to continue to operate.
Many of us on the committee were very pleased to see the position filled in this regard and are looking forward to how this proceeds. The committee will have to make its own decisions as to how it recommends with regard to this issue, but I want to thank you both for clearly outlining the concerns and what are seen as the potential and likelihood of this development moving forward to benefit Canadians.
On behalf of the committee, I thank you both.
(The committee adjourned.)