JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 1, 2000

• 0937

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I'd like to call this meeting of the justice and human rights committee to order. This morning we'll be dealing with Bill S-10, an act to amend the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the Criminal Code.

We have the pleasure of having with us today the Honourable Lawrence MacAulay, Solicitor General of Canada, and a cast of very reputable characters. I understand the minister has some time constraints, so what we'll do — I believe I have this right, Minister — is hear an opening statement, and then if members of the committee have any questions that in their view specifically need to be put to the minister, they should please do so, so he can entertain those questions. Then officials will remain as we do clause-by-clause, and so on.

In any case, Minister, perhaps you can identify those who are with you.

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for inviting me here today to speak to you on Bill S-10.

As you know, the bill follows up on the DNA Identification Act, which received royal assent in December 1998 and provides for the establishment of the national DNA data bank. The DNA data bank is in the final stages of being set up now. It is a major step forward in public safety in Canada. It will be one of the most powerful criminal justice tools available to the police in recent years, allowing them to link the DNA profile of repeat and violent offenders with those from unsolved crime scenes.

I am pleased to advise that the project plan for the DNA data bank is on schedule. The provinces and the territories have confirmed that they will be ready to implement the legislation by the end of the month. The RCMP has established a special unit to run the data bank and has trained over 800 police officers across the country on sample collection procedures.

• 0940

This brings me to the purpose of this bill. It does not change any key components of the DNA Identification Act, which this committee and Parliament have already endorsed. We've spent considerable time fine-tuning the legislation to ensure that it will be effective and respectful of the constitutional and privacy rights of all Canadians. Bill S-10 does not diminish this in any way, but adds some practical features to ensure that we have a complete and effective data bank.

I would like to remind the committee why this bill was introduced in the Senate.

After the House adopted the original data bank legislation, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended a number of improvements to better protect privacy and to ensure an open and accountable data bank. I agreed to address these recommendations in a separate bill. Before proceeding to the House, I wanted to be sure that the other place was satisfied that its suggestions were addressed in Bill S-10. As you know, the Senate endorsed this bill, and I believe the legislation has been substantially improved.

I am also very pleased that all parties in the House expressed support for Bill S-10 at second reading. This demonstrates our shared commitment to the goal of promoting public safety across the country.

I would now like to explain the key features of Bill S-10.

It amends the National Defence Act and the DNA Identification Act to include in the national DNA data bank the profiles from offenders who are subject to the military's own code of service discipline. This will ensure that the data bank is not limited to civilian offenders. It authorizes military judges to make data bank orders for offenders who are subject to the code after they are convicted of a designated offence.

Under the National Defence Act, “designated offence” includes the same designated offences as are in the Criminal Code as well as those service offences that are similar in nature to the Criminal Code offences. The DNA profile obtained from these offenders will then be entered into the data bank's convicted offender index.

The National Defence Act is also being amended to allow military judges to issue DNA warrants for military police investigations of designated offences committed in or outside of Canada by someone who is subject to the military's code of service discipline. This will assist the military police in conducting more effective and efficient criminal investigations.

Bill S-10 also includes new accountability measures to make sure Parliament can monitor the ongoing operation of the national DNA data bank. As an example, the RCMP commissioner, who is responsible for managing the data bank, will have to provide an annual report on the data bank's operations. This report will be given to the Solicitor General and it will be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Through this vehicle, the public will be kept informed about the data bank and will be able to assess whether it is meeting its intended public safety objectives.

Bill S-10 also strengthens the privacy safeguards in the DNA Identification Act by expanding the stated purposes of the act. A new principle makes it clear that bodily samples taken for the purpose of the act and the resulting DNA profiles can only be used for law enforcement purposes.

To ensure the smooth and effective implementation of the data bank, Bill S-10 also makes some practical changes to the Criminal Code. These amendments were recommended by a working group of federal and provincial prosecutors established by the federal, provincial, and territorial heads of prosecution to prepare for the implementation of the act. For example, the working group told us there was a need to clarify that the only time the court is not required to consider making a data bank order is if the prosecutor advises that the person's DNA profile is already in the data bank. To deal efficiently with offenders who may be transferred out of the province before a data bank order can be executed, provincial court judges will be able to endorse an order that was granted in another province.

The bill also repeals two Criminal Code provisions. As a result, there will be no need for a peace officer to inform the person named in a DNA warrant or data bank order that he or she may express a preference on the type of DNA sample to give, or to take that preference into account. There was a concern that this provision might lead to litigation where the peace officer followed the direction of the court rather than the express preference of the person.

• 0945

Another provision being repealed would have allowed a person to consent to the use of DNA profile previously obtained under a DNA warrant for the data bank. It would be better in all cases to take new DNA samples rather than use exhibits gathered in the course of a criminal investigation, because the exhibits may be needed as evidence in the event of a new trial.

Let me explain another important change included in this bill. Peace officers or those acting under their direction will be authorized to take fingerprints at the same time as the DNA samples are collected. This will ensure that the police can verify the identification of a person named in the DNA data bank order. By comparing the person's fingerprints with those contained in the RCMP's fingerprint data base, the police will know whether they are taking the sample from the right person. Not only will this enhance the reliability of this public safety tool, but it will also protect a person who may have the same name as an offender who is subject to a data bank order. This, as an added safeguard, forms part of the numerous checks and balances found throughout the data bank legislation.

I would like to leave you with a final comment before I take your questions. Bill S-10 is about practical improvements. It's about making Canada's DNA data bank more complete and effective. It's about adding safeguards and ensuring that Canadians can see for themselves how this landmark public safety tool will be used over time.

Progress is well underway across the country to get the DNA data bank up and running by June 30. In order to achieve that goal, this bill must be proclaimed at the same time as the DNA Identification Act. I therefore request the honourable members of this committee to give this bill the strong support it has received to date so that we can move quickly in implementing this long-awaited public safety tool.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

As I said in the beginning, I will entertain questions that are specific to the minister. I believe we have maybe 20 minutes, but the officials are staying beyond that for any other clarification.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, the official opposition has no questions at all.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): If we only have 20 minutes with the minister, I'm assuming some of that time will be allotted to this side of that table.

The Chair: I don't think you're going to see any questions at all, necessarily. At least, I'm not aware that it's coming.

Madame Picard, no questions?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): We don't have any question, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Carroll, I think you'll have lots of time.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just going to ask a procedural question, being a new member of the House of Commons, being of the class of 1997, Mr. Minister. I'm curious as to how it is that this bill was initiated in the Senate and then comes this route, through the committee, and then back to the House of Commons.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you.

The reason I introduced it in the Senate is that a number of recommendations were made in the Senate and we're following these recommendations, so I felt, just as a procedure, it would be very wise to make sure they were satisfied that what I and my department felt were very good recommendations met their requirements. And they did.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Then I assume, as is usually the case, we don't bring witnesses forward to deal with this sort of bill, that this merely comes to us for approval. Is that correct, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: The legislation has been through the committee before, and the committee was satisfied with the legislation as it was. It then went to the Senate, after going back through the House of Commons. The Senate brought to the attention of the government suggestions for improvement, which the minister responded to quite quickly and obviously to their satisfaction. So it's coming back to us to reflect on the amendments that the Senate has proposed be made to the legislation. That's why we're here today.

• 0950

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I prefaced my remarks initially, I am a new member of Parliament, and I assume it came to this committee prior to my joining this committee.

The Chair: Yes. In fact I remember it, for some reason, very well.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): I have just a brief question, Minister. You said we're going to have the bank in place this month. Are we guaranteed that? It's June now.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

What the RCMP required was 18 months, and that is the end of June. If everything proceeds as it is — and we see no reason for it not doing that — then it will be up and running by the last of June.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: One further quick question. When do you anticipate starting to get DNA from federal inmates who are subject to it?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Before samples can be collected from federal offenders, the crown will have to make a data bank application and the court has to authorize that.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: That will be coming into force as soon as you have the bill?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It will be, yes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: You anticipate that it will be started immediately?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): On the question of DNA from previously convicted offenders, do you have a rough idea of how many individuals we're looking at, and how long will this take?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It is estimated that about 28,000 samples will be collected from convicted offenders during the first year.

Mr. John Maloney: You'll be able to accomplish that in a year?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Well, that is what's anticipated, yes.

Mr. John Maloney: You've removed the preference. Does Corrections Canada have a preference for which of the procedures they would prefer to use?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Well, it would be a blood sample, I expect, but it was so as not to create a legal situation. If somebody is convicted and they exercise a preference and that preference is not used, then we're just establishing a situation where there could be litigation.

Mr. John Maloney: I appreciate that. But do you wish to take a blood sample or do you wish to take a sample of hair follicle or do you wish to take a mucal swab? Which preference do you have?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: The preference is a blood sample.

Mr. John Maloney: I have no more questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Seeing no more questions, Mr. Minister, I thank you very much for your being on time and I apologize for those of us who weren't. We look forward to continuing this discussion with officials.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Do we go to clause-by-clause consideration?

The Chair: That's exactly where we're headed.

Mr. John Reynolds: Good.

The Chair: Now, colleagues, we'll be moving directly to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-10.

(Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to)

Mr. John Maloney: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Could we perhaps include them all, going clauses 1 to 26?

The Chair: I intend to do that. I was trying to establish a trend. I think there is a trend.

(Clauses 3 to 26 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: That being the case, there is no need for reprinting on the basis of amendments.

Since there is nothing left for us to do, I adjourn the meeting.