Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue No. 14 - Evidence - October 26, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 26, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 4:17 p.m., to continue its study on matters pertaining to delays in Canada's criminal justice system and to review the roles of the Government of Canada and Parliament in addressing such delays.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon and welcome colleagues, invited guests and members of the general public.
Members, earlier this year the Senate authorized the committee to examine and report on matters pertaining to delays in Canada's criminal justice system and to review the roles of the Government of Canada and Parliament in addressing such delays. This is our twenty-fifth meeting on this study.
We are pleased to have with us today, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, François Bidal, Assistant Commissioner, Forensic Science and Identification Services; Chief Superintendent Brendan Heffernan, Director General, Canadian Criminal Real Time Identification Services; and Ron Fourney, Director, Science and Strategic Partnerships, Forensic Science and Identification Services.
We also have an individual from Public Safety Canada here to help answer questions the committee may have: Evan Travers, Acting Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate.
Unfortunately, these witnesses are only able to be with us for an hour. I think most of you are also aware that the witnesses we had confirmed for the second hour had to cancel, so we will be ending a little bit early today.
Gentlemen, thank you all for being here. Commissioner Bidal, the floor is yours.
François Bidal, Assistant Commissioner, Forensic Science and Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you, honourable senators. It is a pleasure to be invited to speak to you today.
[Translation]
The RCMP's National Police Services is the largest provider of specialized investigational support services, assisting over 500 law enforcement and criminal justice agencies across Canada and internationally. It has a long and proud history of supporting Canada's law enforcement community with increasingly sophisticated and reliable services in areas such as forensic analyses of criminal evidence, criminal records information, identification services, technological support, enhanced learning opportunities and coordination of information and intelligence sharing to advance criminal investigations.
[English]
Forensic Science and Identification Services is an integral part of the National Police Service, providing high quality and timely investigative support services for front-line policing through forensic science services, crime scene forensic identification, fingerprint identification, criminal record repositories, and the National DNA Data Bank. In the context of your study on the delays in the justice system, I would like to elaborate briefly on some of the services provided by FS&IS.
FS&IS provides expertise in the forensic analysis of exhibits from criminal investigations and maintains the National DNA Data Bank.
DNA analysis has become one of the most important tools available to an investigator to assist in solving crimes such as murders, sexual assaults, and other crimes of violence.
The DNA profile obtained from biological samples left at a crime scene or on a victim can be used to link a suspect to a crime, eliminate a suspect, link crimes and/or, when searched against the National DNA Data Bank, identify an unknown suspect.
Over the past several years, the RCMP's national forensic laboratory services, in consultation with clients and stakeholders, have transformed its forensic investigation process. It has developed a streamlined and interactive approach that ensures that relevant forensic evidence is identified and analyzed in a timely manner, based on clear needs. We work closely with law enforcement agencies on a daily basis, and I am pleased to say that the current average turnaround time for biology services or DNA is 40 days for routine cases and 11 days for priority cases.
[Translation]
The National DNA Databank assists law enforcement agencies to identify persons alleged to have committed specific designated offences. It operates independently from the National Forensic Laboratory Services.
[English]
The National DNA Data Bank comprises two indices, the Convicted Offender Index, populated with DNA profiles from offenders convicted of designated offences, and the Crime Scene Index, composed of DNA profiles from crime scenes and populated by the RCMP Forensic Science and Identification Services, the Centre of Forensic Sciences, in Ontario, and Le Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale du Québec.
Based on the existence of a match between a crime scene DNA profile and profiles in the National DNA Data Bank, law enforcement agencies are able to identify and eliminate suspects. Since its inception in June 2000, there have been more than 47,000 investigations assisted by the DNA databank.
The RCMP's FS&IS also provides national fingerprint identification and criminal record services to law enforcement, criminal justice agencies and other organizations and private sector entities across Canada and internationally. The RCMP's national fingerprint identification and criminal record services are based on two RCMP National Police Services — the Canadian Criminal Real Time Identification Services, known as CCRTIS, which maintains the National Repository of Criminal Records, and the Canadian Police Information Centre, which maintains a national police information-sharing system, linking criminal justice and law enforcement partners across Canada and internationally. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the roles of CPIC and CCRTIS for this committee.
[Translation]
The CPIC System is an integrated, automated central repository of operational law enforcement information which allows for immediate storage and retrieval of current information on crimes and criminals. Administered by the RCMP on behalf of the Canadian law enforcement community, it is the only national information-sharing system that links criminal justice and law enforcement partners across Canada and internationally. The information contained in the data banks originates from law enforcement and public safety partners and is owned by the contributing agency.
[English]
One of the CPIC databanks is the identification databank commonly referred to as the RCMP National Repository of Criminal Records, which contains criminal-record data based on fingerprints obtained pursuant to the Identification of Criminals Act. Maintained by the RCMP, the national repository is a database of approximately 4.25 million criminal records. More than 600,000 criminal-record files are updated and maintained annually by CCRTIS.
Historically, the national criminal-records system relied on paper-based records, which involve manual and labour- intensive processes. Coupled with the rise in criminal-record updates and demand for access, the RCMP faced an ever- increasing backlog in criminal records awaiting updates.
In response, the Government of Canada invested over $140 million in the Real Time Identification Crown Project to automate Canada's fingerprint identification system. With this new technology, the RCMP is now able to make positive identifications of crime scene fingerprints that would not have been possible with paper-based methods. It has reduced processing times for both criminal and non-criminal justice fingerprint submissions from weeks and months to days, hours and, in most cases, minutes.
The RCMP is building on the success of the Real Time Identification Project and is implementing significant business process modifications, which will result in a fully automated criminal-records program. Since 2015, all police contributing agencies are submitting fingerprints electronically to CCRTIS, using electronic fingerprint capture devices. In April 2016, national implementation of the Criminal Justice Information Modernization project began, which introduced electronic disposition reporting from contributing policing agencies. This project has represented a further $40 million investment.
The benefits of these electronic submissions include quicker criminal record update times, which will contribute to improved officer and public safety as criminal record information will be available in real time. Through standardization, the CJIM system will significantly improve the timeliness by which a prosecutor and the criminal justice agencies across Canada can access up-to-date information relating to offender records.
As criminal records are a shared law-enforcement responsibility in Canada, the success of the CJIM project is dependent on Canadian police services' full implementation of, and access to, the new system. The RCMP continues to work with our policing partners to access the new system and fully automate criminal records by 2018. In the interim, the RCMP has implemented measures to address risks associated with the criminal records backlog. Based on engagement with federal, provincial and territorial police and justice officials, the RCMP prioritizes updates for high- risk and prolific offenders, DNA files and crime scene identifications.
Further, since 2013, it has offered a streamlined service for Crown attorneys and police services to expedite requests for criminal-record information in support of judicial processes, such as sentencing decisions and parole board hearings. These initiatives ensure that the most serious criminal records are updated immediately.
[Translation]
I thank you for having invited us and for this opportunity to speak to you today. I would be pleased to respond to any questions.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Travers, did you have something before we get to questions?
Evan Travers, Acting Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate, Public Safety Canada: I wanted to say that, unfortunately, we don't have an opening statement for you, but I'm prepared to answer questions with regard to our biology casework analysis agreements with the Governments of Ontario and Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you. We will move to questions now, beginning with the committee's deputy chair, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Mr. Fourney, you appeared before the Senate committee and the house committee back in 2009, didn't you? I don't recall the other witnesses at that time. I do recall when you appeared before the committee that you estimated that the uploading to the DNA Data Bank for the Convicted Offender Index would increase by about 100,000 a year. Do you recall making that estimate?
Ron Fourney, Director, Science and Strategic Partnerships, Forensic Science and Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: I don't recall that particular estimate, no.
Senator Baker: Okay. It was given.
What is the main problem with the Convicted Offenders Index, that it has been growing slowly and over the years it appears as if the numbers have been decreasing per year rather than increasing? This is a shock to some committee members. The committee recommended the automatic uploading of DNA for designated offences; that's what we recommended.
How do you account for this decrease in the number of cases being uploaded?
Mr. Fourney: In terms of the actual numbers that we're dealing with right now, there are two components to the work that is actually before the national data bank. One is the convicted offenders samples coming in, and then there is another set based on endorsements, where this offender had been before the courts, was found guilty and the sample is already placed inside the national data bank.
We're seeing now that roughly about 46 per cent of our workload coming in is actually recidivism based on endorsements. For instance, this year we will probably have between 25,000 and 27,000 samples coming in. A great deal of the work we do would be associated with the endorsement.
Senator Baker: You said 27,000?
Mr. Fourney: I would think —
Senator Baker: It's been decreasing. It was 27,000 in 2011; it's down to 19,000 in 2015-16, according to the annual report.
Mr. Fourney: If you add the endorsements and the total number of convicted offenders, it's around 40,000.
Senator Baker: This is not as effective as we had recommended. What is the problem? Is the problem that there is no automatic uploading for designated offences?
Mr. Fourney: For the mandatory designated offences, there would be. There is a certain number —
Senator Baker: What is the problem, though?
Mr. Fourney: I can't tell you why the samples aren't coming in.
Senator Baker: You can't?
Mr. Fourney: No.
Senator Baker: Mr. Chair, I don't know if the witnesses could suggest to us somebody who might know.
Do you have a guess as to why they aren't coming in?
Mr. Fourney: In terms of the samples that are obtained, it's based on court orders, and we have to ask for that under certain types of generic offences — the secondaries. The only compulsory primaries — only those samples that are coming in automatically.
So I think there are a number of instances where it could be a situation where the Crown doesn't ask for a sample, for instance, or the court doesn't decide to give a sample.
Senator Baker: We recommended it should be mandatory.
Mr. Fourney: I believe in your recommendation from the 2010 report that was one of your recommendations.
Senator Baker: That's right. It hasn't been done.
Mr. Fourney: You would have to ask my colleagues in the Department of Justice and other groups dealing with that.
Senator Baker: Mr. Chair, I think that's a pretty important point.
Senator McIntyre: Gentlemen, thank you for being here today and speaking to us on issues pertaining to DNA evidence, forensic courtroom scene analysis and criminal record databases, and how they contribute to delays in criminal proceedings.
I have a couple of questions.
What kind of information is registered in CPIC? Is it limited to indictable offences and summary offence convictions? What about breach of probation, breach of parole, administration of justice warrants offences, conditional or absolute discharges pursuant to section 730 of the code? Does a record suspension or pardon granted pursuant to the code appear in CPIC?
Mr. Bidal: CPIC contains four essential data banks — different areas to gather information.
The identification of criminal records is prescriptive for conviction. Convictions are entered pursuant to offences that are prescribed, either hybrid offences or indictable offences. But there are other areas in CPIC where you would find information related to anyone who is charged for any offence. A policing agency can enter a person into the system as being charged, not convicted, for any offence. There are other data banks that are investigative data banks that are used specifically to record investigation information that policing agencies may want to share among themselves. But in relation to a person being charged for a particular offence, that information is not restricted in any way. Where you might find restrictions are with respect to the criminal records that are entered into the system.
Senator McIntyre: Is the information contained in CPIC shared with other partners? I'm talking about government agencies, and ministries of foreign governments and their agencies?
Mr. Bidal: The information is shared with law enforcement agencies in Canada, by category. There are what we call category one, two and three agencies. For the police, there is essentially no restriction. When we share information with other countries, there are strict rules around how that occurs. For example, in the U.S., we have a memorandum of cooperation in which only law enforcement agencies that have — it essentially mirrors how we share information in Canada. A policing agency in Canada would have full access like a policing agency in Canada would. But the information, internationally, is restricted, based on the role of a particular agency. It's not flat out access to everything.
Senator McIntyre: Does CPIC have access to foreign criminal records databases?
Mr. Bidal: We have links to foreign criminal databases that give us access to some information.
Senator Jaffer: I would like to clarify something, just to understand. On the second page of your presentation, you talked about having 47,000 investigations assisted by DNA. How many requests were made, do you know? I understand you did 47,000 investigations, but how many were you asked to do?
Mr. Bidal: There would be many more than that. The 47,000 were actually cases where there was a link between DNA at a crime scene and a hit to a holding in the National DNA Data Bank — a confirmed hit in a finding. But with the role of DNA in investigations, you would have much more than that.
In some cases, we might not have a hit to the data bank, but we will retain that profile in the Crime Scene Index and it might be a subsequent offence where we will have success. The number of requests outnumbers the successful hits in relation to DNA.
Senator Jaffer: From the time you get the request to the time the investigation is done, how long is that, on average?
Mr. Bidal: As I put in my opening remarks, our average for routine cases for DNA is 40 days. For priority cases, it's 11 days. What I did not mention in my opening remarks is that we have an unadvertised urgent case process. Now we're talking about a case of a serial offender at large, or there is an imminent risk. We turned one case around in 28 hours. But that is very labour intensive. It's the equivalent of if we were running an assembly line for cars, shutting down the entire assembly line to build one car. We do it rarely, but where there's a public safety risk that warrants that, we will do that.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for sharing that. But if children are involved or something like that, is there a jumping of the line?
Mr. Bidal: That is what I'm describing in terms of urgent cases. When a police officer has an investigation, we have a triage centre, a forensic assessment centre. A discussion occurs between that police officer and our forensic assessment centre, and we'll determine the urgency of that case and turn that case around in a way that meets the investigative needs of that particular police officer.
Senator Jaffer: In the study we are doing, sometimes the CPIC information is not there, or the prosecutor has not given it to the judge. In fact, our chair has a bill on that.
What is the holdup? When I read this it seems so clear that people can access it. Why doesn't the court get this information sometimes? Because that leads to delays.
Mr. Bidal: Sometimes it's a question of communication. The criminal justice system is a big machine. I know that in terms of some things I've described, to do things more expeditiously, I've been before federal, provincial and territorial heads of prosecution, written to police chiefs, provided letters so all Crown attorneys can be familiar with it.
What I updated on in terms of updating a criminal record for sentencing, the safeguard we have built into our system for that, when someone goes for sentencing in court, the police officer would have to go into the system and do what we call a "query criminal record.'' We have built into the system a response where as soon as he or she does that, the second line they see after "Royal Canadian Mounted Police'' is "If this is for sentencing, let us know and we'll update the file.'' We built that as a safety net to ensure that no sentencing occurs without having an up-to-date criminal record.
Senator Jaffer: What if it's for bail?
Mr. Bidal: A bail hearing is a different scenario. In many cases for a bail hearing, the information that's admissible is not only restricted to a conviction; therefore, police officers will know that the best way to get information would be in the record management system. They would have access to all of the information, including convictions that may not have already been entered. The record management system is where they would get the most appropriate reference to information.
Senator White: Thank you very much to all of you for being here today. I want to talk specifically about the National Police Services and funding challenges. The 2003 National Police Services saw a deficit at year-end and started having to draw on funding from the RCMP directly to prop up the National Police Services, which provides services to all police agencies in one way or another.
Can you update us as to what your deficit was in the last fiscal year and how much you're drawing down from the general revenue of the RCMP to support National Police Services?
Mr. Bidal: We went through a couple of exercises to attempt to contain and segregate National Police Services' costs and have them retained within the National Police Services. I don't have the figures with me today, Senator White, but to the best of my knowledge, we did not draw upon federal funds for the National Police Services in the last fiscal year. We found economies within National Police Services to live within those means.
In terms of being able to balance the books within National Police Services has been the negotiation of a new biology casework agreement with the provinces, which has allowed us to have a greater contribution from the provinces, in particular for biology services. To my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected, we did not draw upon federal funds in the last fiscal year.
Senator White: We were reading recently, and not surprisingly we have been hearing for a number of years the number of resources that are being pushed out to national security cases, I take it from organized crime, but I'm sure from elsewhere. Have any resources been drawn down from the National Police Services to support the national security interests, and if so, what number?
Mr. Bidal: I can only speak about my area because National Police Services goes beyond FS&IS. I wouldn't be able to speak to technical operations. Within Forensic Science and Identification Services, we have not taken resources from my program for national security. We've supported national security investigations by virtue of what we do, and by virtue of the fact that the RCMP is a client of National Police Services as well; but we haven't taken resources from NPS to go to national security.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Our study is on matters pertaining to delays in the criminal justice system. In your presentation, answers or comments, I did not hear any reference to police service delays in making data available to the attorneys who need to have access to it to make their representations before the courts. In the last page of your presentation, I believe I understood that you hope to have access to the new system to computerize all criminal records by 2018.
To your knowledge, are there or have there been any delays in providing the data you keep which could have had an impact on proceedings? In other words, were people are forced to adjourn proceedings because they had not received the information you have?
Mr. Bidal: I am not aware of any specific cases where there was an adjournment or a postponement because of delays. Our objective is to show that we do face delays, but that we are working on computerizing some of our processes in order to ensure that our part, our contribution to an investigation or a trial is not the cause of an unacceptable delay. That is what I tried to demonstrate. It is certain that in police work, in investigations, in the judicial system, all delays are unacceptable. We are trying to find ways to improve our services daily, without compromising science or the rigour of scientific systems and the rigour of criminal files. We want things to be up to date. Our leeway is zero. However, we want to do so while ensuring that we will not add to existing delays in the criminal justice system. That is what I was trying to demonstrate to the committee.
Senator Joyal: In current practice, there are types of information you do not provide immediately because your system is not completely computerized. In other words, people who are entitled to access do not have access directly, and they are forced to go through a triage system, to use a trendy word.
To what extent can these delays be eliminated or at least reduced through the use of modern technology?
Mr. Bidal: That is an excellent question. In the two examples I gave, regarding the computerization of criminal records, we recognized that the manual system was unacceptable, if not archaic. It took months and months to do an update. With the computerized system we will go from months to a few minutes to update a criminal record. However, there will be an integration period for that system.
By 2018, all police forces in Canada will be able to update these files using computers. They will do this themselves. When a person is convicted by a court, they will be able to make the decision and have the necessary time to enter the data in a computer. The file will be updated in two minutes.
That is our objective. In the meantime, until 2018, when all of the police forces will be able to do so, the system is a mixture of the two. We still have a manual process and we accepted the famous backlog of the police community to help them update the data. There is a transition period. In the meantime, we are going to update files on violent, sexual and armed criminal offences. We have established lists of repeat offenders in consultation with attorneys in order to minimize risks involving records.
The same thing applies, more or less, to laboratories. We do research to ensure that we use techniques that are quick, efficient and scientifically rigorous. DNA techniques are evolving almost daily.
In the interim, I don't want to give you the impression that everything is rosy, but without exaggeration, we are on the road to success. All of the police forces have accepted the two techniques we use. It is just a matter of knowing how long it will take us to implement them.
Senator Boisvenu: Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for your presentation. My questions will be in the same vein as Senator Baker's. When we adopted the bill in 2012 that extended the mandatory registration of all sex offenders, Quebec registrations were at 70 per cent. Judges made the decision as to whom to register at the time. This year, we are at 72 per cent.
Why did we adopt this law, if the result in Quebec is about the same as it was when judges made the decision to register someone or not? Today, registration is mandatory, and yet we have the same statistics. This means that 30 per cent of sexual predators are not included in the registry.
Do you discuss this amongst yourselves and with the other provinces, because the statistics vary from one province another? I understand that it is a matter of resources, like for the Parthenais detention centre, among others, because registrations used to be done there. If Quebec does not provide sufficient resources, we will fall behind. According to the statistics, certain provinces are at 90 per cent, others at 60 per cent.
What is the point of the laws adopted in the federal Parliament if the provinces do not make the necessary efforts to register these people?
Mr. Bidal: We can accept what falls under our purview. It is not our role to influence the criminal justice system as to decisions following what was ordered or not. That is their responsibility. There is also a direct correlation between the quantity of data we have and the number of positive results. As we receive the results, we enter the data. The positive ones speak for themselves.
Senator Boisvenu: In Quebec, the number of trials that are deferred affects resources. For instance, Sûreté du Québec police officers who go to court are paid overtime hours. When the trial is deferred, they go back home. During that time, they cannot be assigned to patrols or security work.
Is the RCMP affected by this same issue of criminal trials being deferred to other dates, with the same consequences as the Sûreté du Québec?
Mr. Bidal: This is outside of my area of responsibility now. In general, going by my past experience, obviously trials being deferred have an impact on daily work.
Senator Boisvenu: Is the number of these postponed trials increasing or decreasing?
Mr. Bidal: I am not in a position to comment on that because of my current responsibilities.
Senator Boisvenu: The government passed a law last year authorizing the provinces to release the names of sexual predators at high risk for reoffending. Quebec is one of the only provinces that does not do this because of a directive issued to police officers by the Minister of Public Security. Should the decision to release information on sexual predators not belong to the federal government when the sentence is over two years, and to provincial governments if it is less than that? Currently this decision, whatever the length of the sentence, is made by the provincial government.
Mr. Bidal: This is a question for the Minister of Justice.
Senator Boisvenu: Any release falls under the responsibility of the Parole Board, that is to say of the prison system and not the Department of Justice, but the Department of Public Safety.
Mr. Bidal: This is not within my area of responsibility.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Mr. Bidal. When I was a police officer, I often used CPIC, and their data were relatively up to date. Science helps police officers, but it does not necessarily accelerate the judicial process.
There is a lot of talk about modernization and new work methods for police officers, so as to facilitate their work and maximize results. When it comes to the judicial system, things sometimes take longer, as Senator Boisvenu mentioned about the court houses, among other things. As police officers, we are aware of delays caused by postponements or any other reasons.
Do you think there could be technical, computer or visual means to simplify the process that would allow police officers to communicate information to the court without having to go there, while preserving the defendants' right to a defence? In other words, could there not be some way of making the work easier for police officers? Rather than having the police officer go to court to talk about a chain of evidence, technical means could be used to prove it. This would reduce delays.
I don't know if other police forces elsewhere in the world do that. We met police forces from different provinces that are implementing new technological methods. These technologies mean that police officers do not have to go on site, they lose less time, and this reduces the amount of overtime as well. This also accelerates the judicial process. As a police organization, do you think such means could be put in place?
Mr. Bidal: There are certain means we use, especially when it comes to how specialists record testimony. For example, rather than having these people come to court, we provide evidence on video. We make greater use of technology. I have sent people to symposiums where judges got together to present these new perspectives. We have our perspective, and the court and the judicial system have theirs. There is certainly a happy medium to be found to ensure that a new technology complies with judicial rules in a trial or other process. In certain cases, we recognize that this can be complex. Just as technology can simplify certain things, it can also make them more complicated. With DNA, we always have to be mindful of respecting privacy. The more we use advanced techniques with DNA, the more care we have to use to ensure that the information collected is kept confidential. To answer your question indirectly, we are studying this matter. Certain technologies that could facilitate trials have not yet been studied. We are progressing, little by little.
Insofar as settlements in court are concerned, we do not have the final word on that. We cooperate with our partners to prepare recommendations for the prosecutors' office.
Senator Dagenais: The RCMP covers large territories. There are itinerant courts in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. In the past, the Sûreté du Québec covered territory as far as Kuujjuarapik. Rather than having a police officer from Kuujjuaq or the Yukon travel, in a breathalyzer case, is it possible to hear the testimony by videoconference, which would eliminate the need for these trips?
Mr. Bidal: Our scientists already testify by videoconference. There are very few of them and their contribution is important. Unless it is a very specific case or a more complex one, testifying by videoconference is possible. This method is quite successful.
Photographs are another example. In court sometimes there are hundreds of photographs. We launched a pilot project where people use iPads in court. We are moving forward slowly thanks to technology, but it requires efforts on the part of all personnel.
We may not be evolving as rapidly as the private sector, but we are progressing nevertheless over time.
[English]
The Chair: Before I go to the second round, we asked you here because in the travels of the committee out west we heard some testimony expressing concern. I asked our analysts to look up the Calgary Chief of Police, for example, who said they were waiting weeks and months to get results. Bad guys are wandering the streets committing more crimes and leads go cold. I think this is in contrast to what your testimony is and the message you're delivering here today.
How do you respond to the concerns the Calgary Chief of Police has expressed to this committee?
Mr. Bidal: I did see those comments in reviewing some of the minutes. I was surprised. I don't know what cases those were referring to because, as I cited in my opening remarks, the case we turned around in 28 hours was a Calgary case. I can tell you that our average for Alberta for DNA is below the national average at 36 days for routine and eight days for priority cases.
I went digging with my own team and was not able to find the source of what was said, so I don't have the benefit of what the chief was referring to.
The Chair: Okay, we appreciate that response. Maybe we'll send him a note and ask him for specifics with respect to that comment.
When the sample gets to you, is there a delay in terms of time of receipt to actually send it to the lab for analysis? There has been some suggestion that there may be delays waiting for a guilty plea, for example. Does that sort of thing occur that you're aware of?
Mr. Bidal: No, it does not. I'll be brief, but the way it works is that the police officer calls us and a discussion occurs. We want to make sure we get the most probative exhibits. We want to help that police officer in terms of success. There is an agreement on what exhibits they will send to us. They send exhibits to us.
If there is a delay, there could be a delay concerning the time the police officer sends the exhibit to us. The clock starts ticking in terms of us calculating our turnaround time from the time we receive the exhibit, because we don't have any control over how long it will take that police officer to send it to us.
So when I speak of average turnaround time, it is from the time we receive it. Once it comes through our door, it goes into the machinery and robotics of what needs to be done.
The average turnaround times I expressed to you are from the time the exhibit arrives in RCMP lab.
The Chair: Just to follow up on Senator Dagenais' comment, some of us were reading about rapid DNA profiling being used in the United States, and there is a 90-minute turnaround. They have tripled the case clearance in a couple of examples we were reading about.
What is current CPIC backlog?
Mr. Bidal: The criminal record backlog in terms of our updates, in terms of numbers, is approximately 558,000 records.
The Chair: That's the backlog.
Mr. Bidal: With the new system I just described that we're implementing, the backlog is no longer growing. Now we've begun to on-board the agencies with respect to the new system, where they'll be automating files themselves — the CJIM system.
So as we speak, the backlog is no longer growing. As I described, we're beginning to prioritize the files in terms of how we will reduce that backlog in parallel to the implementation of the new system.
The Chair: Do you ever use the Ontario or Quebec labs, or private labs to reduce that backlog?
Mr. Bidal: That would be criminal records.
The Chair: Right. You can't use the Centre of Forensic Sciences?
Mr. Bidal: No, because it's criminal records. They wouldn't have anything to do with that. It'd just be DNA. The Ontario and Quebec labs —
The Chair: Yes, sorry. I got those confused.
One other question arose during a committee hearing on a private member's bill, essentially, dealing with bail hearings. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police was here, and the thrust of the bill was that the grounds at a bail hearing would lead with a record of the individual asking for bail. One of the chiefs' objections to the legislation was the lack of up-to-date CPIC records.
That was puzzling to me, but in any event, you mentioned a record management system they could turn to in those situations, so would that counter any concerns the chiefs had with respect to Crowns leading with the background of the accused?
Mr. Bidal: It should. In some cases, a person might not even have a criminal record, but if a person was charged elsewhere and was yet to be convicted, the record management system or the CPIC investigative data bank would reveal the fact that person has a charge. That person could have been a suspect in many investigations but never been convicted. That could be pertinent at a bail hearing, but you would never have that because there was no conviction in the criminal records.
However, they could search the record management system or another tool called the Police Information Portal, which is a search engine that searches our record management systems of different policing agencies.
There are many ways that a front-line police officer, for the purpose of a bail hearing, could get a much broader swath of information. That person might not even have a conviction in the system.
The Chair: And that's right at their fingertips, essentially?
Mr. Bidal: It is at their fingertips.
The Chair: Great. We have time for a few quick questions.
Senator Baker: In other words, CPIC is not up-to-date and you're trying to deal with the backlog?
Mr. Bidal: That's not exactly what I was attempting to represent.
Senator Baker: You have a backlog of half million, you said.
Mr. Bidal: Yes.
Senator Baker: And the backlog is not growing?
Mr. Bidal: No longer growing.
Senator Baker: But it's still there.
Mr. Bidal: And we're reducing it as we speak, yes, that's true.
On the backlog, if I may specify one thing —
Senator Baker: Yes, because we hear this a lot. We've been across this country, and you always hear police officers say that CPIC is not up-to-date.
Mr. Bidal: Without pointing a finger at our police partners, that backlog is a shared responsibility. In many cases, that backlog was residing in the basements of police services across the country. As we were implementing the new system — and we're working with our partners, so this is not a finger pointing exercise — but we were getting tens of thousands of pieces of paper from individual police services that was in their backlog — in some cases that had been there for months and years.
We took those with a view that we'll update those on their behalf because it was our responsibility. At the time, we were doing the manual upload, but the police communities, which are seized of us moving to a new system and it being a good thing, everyone wanted to get rid of their backlog.
When I described the 558,000 files, that's a police community backlog, it's not an RCMP backlog.
Senator Baker: But it is still a backlog.
Mr. Bidal: It is.
Senator Baker: Mr. Fourney, the Senate and the house committee recommended that DNA be taken automatically on conviction, and you were before the committee, and the estimate was given by the Department of Justice that there would be an estimated 100,000 profiles a year if it were for the designated offences, but it would be 175,000 if it were for the indictable offences. The total number of profiles you have is presently 326,969. If the Department of Justice were to take the advice of this committee and the House of Commons committee that it is taken automatically on conviction for those designated offences, would it be fair to say that you would double the number of profiles you presently have, as an estimate?
Mr. Fourney: In the 2009 report, I think you're absolutely correct. If we received all the samples from those charged and convicted, we would have between 75,000 and 100,000 samples coming in per year. We're not getting that. The databank is built for 60,000. With the technology and upgrades we have had, we can even go higher than that. We have changed the law and included 214 offences as of 2008. We included what we would call "generic secondary.'' There is all manner of obtaining samples from eligible offenders.
Once they come into the national databank, within 9 to 14 days they are processed and go into CODIS, and we can make those hits. Before they get in there, it has to go through a judicial proceeding, the sample has to be ordered, and we have to receive it. Unfortunately, you're asking me why they are not coming in. I would not have that answer.
Senator Baker: I am asking you, is my estimate that you would probably have double, 326,969, if the government had followed the advice of this committee and the House of Commons?
Mr. Fourney: I would have to go back and do the calculations.
Senator Baker: But you're not denying it?
Mr. Fourney: No, I think we would have a larger number of samples, if they all came in based on the eligible offences that could be ordered.
Senator Baker: On conviction.
Senator McIntyre: Senator Dagenais spoke about the chain of possession, and I think that's important for the chain of evidence. The reason I say that is because the whole point of DNA testing in the law enforcement area is to have evidence that is admissible in a court of law. We can all agree on that. The legal training that the personnel employed in DNA labs receive is extremely important, for example, how to keep and document the chain of evidence.
In order to avoid delays, how does CPIC manage its databases in both official languages? Is translation an issue for keeping the database up to date?
Mr. Bidal: It has never been brought to my attention that translation is getting in the way of keeping our records in one of the official languages more or less up to date.
Senator McIntyre: It's not an issue for court delays?
Mr. Bidal: It has never been brought to my attention that translation is an issue.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: In the case of a defendant who is before the court to ask for parole, when the Crown wants to verify his status, how long does it take to transmit the information if that person was already convicted and is in a CPIC registry, or if he was convicted in the past of a certain number of offences that may impact his parole?
Mr. Bidal: For information that is not related to a conviction, or a criminal record, the police service has jurisdiction and has access to it in its computer system. So the competent police force has tools to determine that in its computerized system.
The time required to provide that information is the time the Crown takes to ask the police officers to go and do a search in the computer system. Normally this is done the day before the appearance. The same thing applies for criminal records. However, in that case the criminal record system is involved, through CPIC. If the record has to be updated for the purposes of the case, it is done immediately.
Senator Joyal: If, for instance, in the 500,000 records that have not been integrated into CPIC, there is a conviction that is not in the current registry, how much time would you need to verify if the person is in the backlog?
Mr. Bidal: This would happen on the same day the request is sent to us. When the request concerns a criminal record, the answer says: "If this is for court purposes, contact us as soon as possible so that we may update the file immediately.'' If the request is received in the day between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., it will be done on that day. If someone is incarcerated during the night, the request is sent to our address and the follow-up is done the next morning. When the accused appears before the judge in the morning, the record is updated. For the others who do not have a criminal record, if the person was charged, information about their release would be in the computer system of the police force that has jurisdiction.
Senator Joyal: Only the police force that made the arrest can do this? The person could have been arrested in Montreal but have been under investigation in Quebec, for example.
Mr. Bidal: The other system I mentioned, the Police Information Portal (PIP), is a tool like Google, a search motor; with the person's birth date it can find information that is not necessarily related to a criminal record in the computerized information systems of other police forces, and a follow-up can then be done.
For example, a police force in Vancouver who has a defendant from Newfoundland in custody could access PIP to obtain information on that person through the St. John police system. The Vancouver police will then contact the St. John police force. It's immediate.
Senator Boisvenu: Your website on CPIC contains public information. Can you tell us what information is public? Is it popular? Do people consult this information on a regular basis?
Mr. Bidal: We had given access to the population to verify certain pieces of information. So a person who wanted to purchase a vehicle could enter the car's VIN number to see if it was stolen. The public had access to that type of information.
Recently we had to restrict that access temporarily because we understood that what is good for honest people is also available to criminals, who were checking to see whether the police knew that certain goods had been stolen.
And so we restricted access to the public. However, in partnership with the provincial vehicle registration offices, access is still available for verifications to be done through the provincial systems. However, criminals were really abusing that system to check and see whether the police knew that something had been stolen.
Senator Boisvenu: They could not steal it a second time.
Mr. Bidal: That's right.
[English]
The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you all for your appearance tonight. It was very helpful and informative testimony that was much appreciated by the committee.
(The committee adjourned.)