JURI 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]

Wednesday, February 4, 1998

• 1529

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): I would like to call the meeting to order.

We have with us today the Honourable Andy Scott, Solicitor General of Canada. With Mr. Scott is Paul Dubrule, director of legal services; Jean Fournier, deputy solicitor general; Yvette Aloisi director general, police sector; and Barry Gaudette.

Mr. Minister, would you like to make your presentation?

Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The chief scientist, biology, from the RCMP, Mr. Gaudet, as well as Mr. Dubrule, Mr. Fournier, and Ms. Aloisi, will be assisting me with this.

First of all, Mr. Chair, I would like to read a prepared statement.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I am very pleased to appear before the committee today to address the proposed DNA Identification Act set out in Bill C-3.

• 1530

I'd like to begin by providing you with an overview of the proposed act and then focus on the four key issues that have been raised since the bill was introduced.

These four issues are: the point at which samples are taken, who takes the samples, the retention of samples, and access to the data bank.

As you are aware, the proposed DNA Identification Act represents the second phase of the government's DNA strategy. The first phase was put in place two and a half years ago, when amendments were made to the Criminal Code to create a DNA warrant scheme.

[Translation]

That scheme provides for a provincial court judge to issue a warrant allowing the police to collect samples of bodily substances from a person suspected of committing a designated offence. We have seen this law used successfully throughout Canada to help solve very serious and violent crimes. That first phase was welcomed by the law enforcement community.

[English]

We've heard from those at the front lines, who tell us that the use of DNA evidence has been a powerful investigative tool. It's already proven to be one of the most accurate methods of obtaining solid identification evidence in criminal investigations.

The second phase of the DNA initiative further demonstrates the government's commitment to fighting crime, especially violent crime, as described in our safer community agenda. As the Speech from the Throne noted, safe communities are among the hallmarks of the Canadian identity.

The national DNA data bank we propose will include two indices: a crime scene index containing DNA profiles from actual crime scenes, and a convicted offenders index containing profiles from offenders convicted of designated offences.

The data stored in the bank would be unique to each individual based on an analysis of genetic information. With this structure, stored DNA information can be cross-referenced in order to identify linkages and help solve serious crimes in any police jurisdiction across Canada.

Bill C-3 sets out the circumstances in which samples may be taken and stored in the data bank. Where a person has been convicted of a primary designated offence the court will—except in the most exceptional circumstances—make an order requiring the offender to submit bodily substances for data banking purposes.

Where a person has been convicted of a secondary designated offence and where the crown makes an application to the court, the bill allows for a judge to make an order requiring the offender to provide bodily substances for DNA banking purposes.

In making an order the court must be satisfied that it is in the interest of the administration of justice.

I want to be clear about why some offences were included in the secondary list instead of the primary list. It is not because those on the secondary list are considered any less serious. We recognize that all of these offences are very serious.

The primary list includes two types of offences: sexual offences and the most serious violent offences. Biological samples are most likely to be found at the crime scene in these cases; for example, a murder or sexual assault.

The secondary list contains offences in which DNA evidence will be less likely but may be found at the scene of a crime. Consequently, provisions were made allowing a judge to order that a sample be taken in these cases as well.

Therefore, the rationale for collecting DNA samples for the purpose of data banking is twofold: the serious nature of the offence and the likelihood that DNA samples would be found at the crime scene.

As you know, the collecting and banking of DNA raises important ethical and legal concerns. With this bill we're breaking new ground in the Canadian criminal justice system. It's therefore important that we find the right balance and we proceed carefully. Because of that there's a need for a full debate at this stage on all aspects of the proposed data bank, which is the very reason it was referred to this committee before second reading.

I would like to briefly address the consultation process that led to this bill and then turn to some of the key areas of concern.

In 1996 the federal government consulted broadly on the issue of establishing a DNA data bank. Consultation sessions were held across the country and written comments were received from over 70 respondents.

The results were summarized in a report that was released one year ago. We learned a tremendous amount from that process and found widespread support for the initiative.

• 1535

Since the introduction of Bill C-3, we've heard from a number of provinces that have indicated their support for the legislation and endorse it as a balanced and pragmatic approach. However, a number of groups have also raised the need to ensure that privacy and other concerns are appropriately addressed. Let me deal one by one with the four key areas of concern that I mentioned in the beginning.

The first issue raised by some groups is the point at which samples for DNA analysis will be taken. Bill C-3 provides for the samples to be taken after an offender is convicted. However, there are those who believe that DNA samples should be treated as fingerprints are treated and taken at the time of arrest. We understand that there are strongly held views on both sides of the issue.

It is our view that the approach taken in the bill is a sound one. Taking samples after an offender has been convicted of a designated offence balances our concern for the safety of all Canadians with our need to respect the rights protected by Canada's charter. We cannot ignore that the accused has a right to be presumed innocent and protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

Upon careful review of recent Supreme Court decisions, the Department of Justice has advised us that the taking of DNA samples is not viewed by the courts in the same way as the taking of fingerprints. The taking of fingerprints does not have the same impact on the privacy of individuals as the taking of DNA samples does. In fact, this premise was established and accepted in law when the DNA warrant legislation was passed in 1995.

The committee may wish to ask justice officials about these legal issues when they appear before the committee later on. As you know, Canada's DNA warrant scheme is now well established. It has been used successfully and has withstood the test of constitutional challenges. It remains a well-used piece of legislation that allows the police to obtain DNA samples in the course of investigations where reasonable and probable grounds exist to believe that a designated offence has been committed. Simply put, the warrant scheme already allows for samples to be taken at the time of arrest with a judge's discretion.

A second area of concern involves who takes the samples. There are those who feel the police who have received proper training should take the samples, while others feel that health care professionals are in the best position to do so. To provide as much flexibility as possible, Bill C-3 provides that samples for DNA analysis must be taken by a peace officer or another person acting under the direction of a peace officer. The legislation also makes it clear that the person taking the sample must be trained and experienced in this investigative procedure.

These requirements are consistent with those set out in the Criminal Code for the DNA warrant scheme. I would like to point out that these provisions were designed with provincial discretion in mind so that they can choose who can take the sample.

The third issue of concern is the retention of the samples themselves. Strong arguments supporting the retention of biological samples have been presented to us by the police and scientific communities. The field of forensic DNA analysis is developing quite rapidly. Forensic scientists have told us that as the technology matures, the DNA profiles of today are likely to become obsolete later on. By keeping the actual samples, scientists can analyse them again using new technology, which will ensure that Canada's data bank keeps pace with technological advances in the field.

The final issue of concern relates to access to the data bank. Information-sharing provisions currently used in the criminal justice system already ensure that privacy rights are protected. The DNA data bank will be protected even more so. Those who need to know a match will receive only identifying information attached to the profile, not the profile itself.

This bill sets out very limited access to the data bank. It prohibits any improper use of information and limits access to those directly involved in the ongoing operation and maintenance of the data bank. The bill clearly stipulates that the samples can be used for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis and nothing else.

To support this, the proposed law sets out some very clear penalties. The maximum penalty for any misuse of the information contained in the data bank is two years less a day.

Mr. Chair, you should also be aware that discussions are continuing at the federal-provincial level with respect to funding. This government's consultation process and subsequent dialogue with our provincial colleagues have taken place with a view to determining possibilities for financial contributions. I look forward to moving these discussions toward a mutually acceptable resolution in the near future.

I'd like to emphasize that there is no question that the use of DNA in our justice system has been a boon to police and the courts. But to situate the data bank in a more appropriate context, I think it's important to be mindful that this is only one tool in the arsenal available to aid police investigations and not the be-all and end-all in law enforcement.

• 1540

Part of that context is the concerns of those who do not entirely support the initiative or certain aspects of it. For instance, there are those who believe that resources earmarked for a DNA data bank would be better spent on family violence programs or women's shelters.

In response, I would agree that spending in those areas is important. Governments and society must do more to address the important issue of family violence and violence against women, but at the same time there's no doubt in my mind that a national DNA data bank will add to the safety of all Canadians. It will be a vital and critical tool for police in investigating society's most devastating and violent crimes.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we are approaching the tenth year in which forensic DNA analysis has been used in our justice system. In that time it has been instrumental in securing convictions and releasing those wrongly charged or convicted. Because you have decided to review the DNA warrant legislation, previously known as Bill C-104, at the same time you review Bill C-3, you will have the opportunity to hear from witnesses who will provide their perspectives on phase 1 of the DNA strategy.

My honourable colleague, Ms. McClelland, and her officials will be able to speak to the provisions of Bill C-104 and address how the legislation has affected us since it passed with all-party support in 1995.

With Bill C-3, Canada will become one of only a handful of countries to have a national DNA data bank. It will be a powerful investigative tool to help further protect Canadians from violent and repeat criminals. At the same time, there is no question that the use of DNA in criminal investigations poses complex, legal, and ethical considerations. Because the legislation is breaking new ground in Canadian criminal justice and because strong views exist on how such a data bank should operate, many issues deserve close, careful consideration.

It is personally very important to me that Canadians have the opportunity to voice their views and participate in how the government operates. It is important that this legislation balance the benefits of a useful investigative tool and the rights of all Canadians according to our charter.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Ramsay, we'll have seven-minute rounds. Mr. Thompson is leading off.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Seven minutes. It's cut way back. It used to be ten when I was here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): There are more of us now.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming today and presenting your proposal under Bill C-3.

There's one thing I'd like to clarify right off the bat. After having been here four years—and I've been to different committees, as well as this one—I can say that a lot of times what I see is that if the bill comes in that front door, there are instructions that what comes in that front door is what's to go out the back door, that there are to be no amendments or changes. Those are the instructions we've had. I know that's happened. I know we all know that.

The minister has made public statements that he would welcome suggestions for improvement to this bill. In practice we know sometimes that just doesn't happen. So my question for the benefit of all the Liberal members and the rest of us here is simply this. Are our suggestions for improvements to this bill going to be seriously taken by this minister?

Mr. Andy Scott: I'm new at the job, Mr. Thompson, but nobody told me I was supposed to instruct anybody to do anything. The fact of the matter is I believe, as I think I said in my opening statement, very much in the capacity of Canada to govern itself, and that includes all Canadians. I think those Canadians are represented here by members of Parliament.

I spent four years sitting on the other side of this exercise and took it very seriously. I take this very seriously, I take your work very seriously, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you for that commitment. I appreciate it very much. Because of it we can look forward to some very good discussions and suggestions, which you will, as you've said you would, take into consideration.

I appreciate your effort in bringing forth a bill of this nature. It is vital. I think it's essential, and I believe the police have stated that on a number of occasions.

• 1545

There are several little things in the bill that I will be questioning as time progresses. But the one thing that bothers me more than anything else—and you've alluded to it, that there are some very strong convictions on one side or the other—for the life of me, I cannot understand why samples shouldn't be taken at the time of arrest. That's the main question. I'm reluctant to support this bill because of that fact alone. If you could get that changed, that would pretty well override any other things that might have been necessary to change.

I would like an explanation, and I'd like to put it in the form of two questions. Is it because of the cost, or is it because of the possibility of this bill not meeting a charter challenge?

Mr. Andy Scott: Actually, samples can be taken at the time of arrest. It's just that you would have to demonstrate to the courts that there's reasonable cause. Consequently, since your support hinges on being able to take it at a time of arrest, I welcome it.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Minister, do you have to have the court's decision? Do you have to have the court's permission to take fingerprints at the time of arrest?

Mr. Andy Scott: I think that it's been reasonably well discussed. Again, engaging in this kind of dialogue, I want to reassure the member that we're exploring this. This kind of discussion has a tendency to sound defensive, but the fact of the matter is the courts have spoken on this often. It occurs to me that there are distinct differences between the taking of a fingerprint and what that reveals and the taking of a DNA sample.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Let me ask you again. If it isn't the cost factor, then it must be because of the vulnerability of meeting a charter test. Is that true?

Mr. Andy Scott: I think that assumes, however, that it wouldn't be our desire to reflect the same values that are contained in the charter. In other words, I don't want it to be seen that the only reason the government would do what it does is because it would be afraid it would be ruled unconstitutional. It could very well be that the position of the government would be that to take a DNA sample at the time of arrest would in fact be an intrusion that is unacceptable in terms of Canadians' sense of where the balance in this issue should be. And that the charter might reflect the same thing seems consistent with ongoing public policy debate.

Mr. Myron Thompson: But you're saying it's unacceptable to whom? You're not telling me the real reason as to why it can't be done at the time of arrest.

Mr. Andy Scott: I think that DNA sample taking is seen by many Canadians and the courts as being more intrusive than taking fingerprints, which is the basis of your question. I have some personal experience in this, having toured the country on the question of privacy and technology in the last Parliament, and there was a great deal of debate about this. So I don't think it's necessarily just because someone's fearful of a court challenge, but rather people are conscious of the fact that we need to find a balance in this exercise. We need to find the place where Canadians would have us be in terms of balancing law enforcement and a strong sense of personal privacy and the presumption of innocence.

Mr. Myron Thompson: So you're assuming that this is what everybody believes. You're not basing this on any legal analysis by anyone who says it's not a good thing to do because of legal aspects?

Mr. Andy Scott: No. We get advice, as is the nature of the system when we're drafting legislation, as to whether it's consistent with the charter and so on. The point I want to make is that because the government is making laws that are consistent with the charter doesn't mean that they wouldn't make them that way anyway.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Is it possible that any legal decisions that are made in that regard could be tabled for analysis by the rest of us in terms of how you arrived at that decision?

Mr. Andy Scott: As a matter of fact, I understand that the justice officials will be appearing specifically to deal with those issues, which I think everybody will welcome. It seems an appropriate way to explore those aspects of this debate.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Last question, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Myron Thompson: My last question? Well, we'll see if we can make it a good one.

Seeing as the law currently permits the requirement of parolees, for example, when they leave, to submit to a breathalyser and urine sample—that's a must, a requirement—why does this bill restrict this sample taking of the DNA to only dangerous offenders and two-time rapists? Why not all parolees?

• 1550

Mr. Andy Scott: I think it's a matter of establishing what would seem to be a measure of the likelihood of recidivism. People aren't given parole if in fact the authorities think they are likely to reoffend. So the test against which these people are being asked to submit to a DNA test has included in it recidivism. And by definition, if they're on parole the system has deemed that they're unlikely to reoffend.

Mr. Myron Thompson: That's a poor assumption.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Thank you for coming here today. I'm pleased to see you again this year.

Generally speaking, we share the same concerns as you do, but unfortunately, we don't always have the same solutions. I would like to address five points.

My first question concerns the process of taking samples. In your presentation, you used the word “flexibility” in English and the word “latitude” in French. I would like to know how the taking of samples by a health care professional, whether a nurse or a doctor, would give the police less flexibility or “latitude”.

You indicated, and I believe that this is what underlines your bill in general, that it comes down to a matter of balancing the right to privacy and the need to control crime. To minimize the possible invasion of personal privacy, why not let an offender choose the type of sample he wishes to provide, or in other words, let the offender choose the method that he deems the least invasive? Could this choice not be left up to the individual?

I listened closely to your presentation, but I still do not understand why the samples themselves are retained? Once the DNA samples have yielded the necessary genetic information, why is it necessary to retain them? Why leave the door open to the possibility of someone else using these samples for other purposes? You know as well as I do, since you are also a lawyer, that the law can change and that tomorrow morning, another law could be passed authorizing samples to be used for other tests.

The proposed law opens the door to the possibility of information on DNA samples being conveyed to a foreign government or to an international organization. What guarantee do we have that once this information has been passed along, the foreign government or international organization will comply with the guidelines that we, the members of Canada's Parliament, have set insofar as privacy is concerned? Are there agreements in place with these governments or organizations to ensure that the samples will be destroyed? What guarantees do we have that they will follow the same guidelines as we have once the information has been shared with them?

Finally, regarding access to the DNA data bank or laboratory, still with a view to protecting individual privacy, would it be possible to consult with the privacy commissioner to come up with somewhat more stringent guidelines?

These are the five questions that I would like you to address. I look forward to your answers.

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: I'll try to go through these in order.

First of all, in terms of the flexibility that would be contained in the bill, speaking of whether it would be health professionals or peace officers, given that we've determined that a minimal standard of training is required, it simply means that there would be a larger group of people who would be in a position to do it, and that would offer flexibility. We're leaving it to the provinces to refine that system beyond that.

• 1555

As to the question of why the samples and not just the profiles are kept, it is simply that this is an evolving science, an evolving technology. Consequently we wanted to make sure that once the samples are taken, and as the technology changes, we would be able to resample if in fact changes in the technology made that important or necessary.

As far as foreign governments are concerned, I'm assured that we're not going to make this information available to any other government that doesn't offer the same protection for this information that we would offer as a sovereign state.

As for the privacy commissioner, I was just inquiring as to whether or not the privacy commissioner was one of the people who appeared the last time. I don't believe he did. I guess the selection of persons they would wish to appear as experts in the exercise is at the discretion of the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Could we possibly consult with the privacy commissioner before we give just anyone access to the DNA sample bank?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: As I say, as far as the committee is concerned, it occurs to me that certainly they're empowered to choose whatever witnesses they would want.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: That's not exactly the point. The commissioner has the discretionary power to allow Andy Scott, for example, access to the laboratory. Before allowing Andy Scott, Richard Marceau, Peter Mancini or anyone else for that matter access to the laboratory, shouldn't the commissioner be required to consult with the privacy commissioner? That way, not just anyone could access the bank at the commissioner's discretion.

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: I will take it upon myself to make sure that I've had the opportunity to discuss this with the privacy commissioner.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: You haven't answered my question about whether it would be possible to allow the offender to choose which type of sample to provide. He could choose to provide either a sample of blood, hair or bodily substance, whatever. Couldn't this choice be left to the offender?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: It has been suggested that perhaps Monsieur Gaudette could respond to that.

Mr. Barry Gaudette (Chief Scientist, Central Forensic Laboratory of Ottawa, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): One of the reasons Bill C-104 allowed three different sample types was to facilitate some form of choice. However, generally speaking, from a laboratory standpoint, the sample we prefer, the one that's easiest to work with and the one from which we can get the best results, is the blood sample.

The hair sample and the buccal swab—the scraping from the inside of the cheek—were provided as some sort of back-up samples or to allow the person... We understand that for religious reasons or because they may be hemophiliacs—those sort of things—some people might not want to give a blood sample. I believe some form of choice is allowed in the legislation.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Who gets to choose, the offender or the police officer taking the sample?

[English]

Mr. Barry Gaudette: I believe it's a choice made in consultation between the two. I believe the police make the decision, but I would bow to Mr. Dubrule or one of the legal representatives on that.

I believe the general idea was that it would be something done in consultation. Presumably the police would be keeping in mind the concerns of the accused.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm quite satisfied with your answer, but we will have the opportunity to come back to this point later, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you.

Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Minister, thank you for coming. You are somebody who is new to this—you indicate you're new to the ministry—so I take you at your word that you'll listen to us.

I'm also one of those individuals who would be very upset if samples were taken at the time of arrest instead of at the time of conviction. While I see this as an important tool for the police, I see it as something that requires tremendous safeguards for the civil liberties of Canadians.

• 1600

I was one of those lawyers who argued that fingerprints ought not to be taken at the time of arrest. That leads me to my question.

Portions of this clause provide for information to be inaccessible upon an acquittal, a conditional discharge, or an absolute discharge. Once a person is acquitted—and particularly with respect to the acquittal as opposed to discharges—why would we not destroy the information upon acquittal?

I'm looking at clause 9. Maybe there's something I haven't seen, but—

Mr. Andy Scott: It will be destroyed.

Mr. Peter Mancini: The information, the index itself. There will be nothing kept?

Mr. Andy Scott: That's right, the sample would be destroyed.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay. The sample would be destroyed. And the information pertaining to the sample derived from testing would be destroyed as well?

Mr. Andy Scott: It would be destroyed.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Good. That satisfies my first concern.

The second concern I have deals with the administration, and this act certainly provides for the RCMP and for the government to be involved in that. But down the road we don't know what will happen, and I have concerns about any privatization that might take place in this regard.

Would it be acceptable to put in the preamble of the act, where we talk about the safeguards, the privacy of individuals...? To avoid any future contracting out by government down the road, would it not be possible to consider putting something in the principles that says it is the role of government to collect and administer DNA samples?

There are certain things in this country that we thought would never be contracted out or privatized and they are, for various reasons, and those are subject to debate. So how can we ensure in this act, or has thought been given to ensuring, that this would remain within the realm of the government and no services would be privatized?

Mr. Andy Scott: Certainly your views will be considered. It's quite inconceivable to me that this would ever be privatized, but I take your point.

Mr. Peter Mancini: So there might be a provision to put something in the preamble indicating that it's the role and responsibility of government?

Mr. Andy Scott: Unless there are provisions now—which don't come immediately to mind—that would already make that impossible.

Mr. Peter Mancini: My second question is, how did we decide upon the penalty for contravention of the act? As I understand it, it's two years less a day for someone who contravenes the sections of the act.

Given the important information that we will have stored, how was it decided? Why did we not look at, say, five years? Why didn't we look at ten years?

Mr. Andy Scott: I guess there's no secret, magical answer to that. There was a great deal of discussion about this, a great deal of input from a variety of sources, as has been mentioned already. The collective judgment was that two years less a day would be an appropriate penalty for contravention.

Mr. Peter Mancini: So you would be open to increasing the penalty?

Mr. Andy Scott: As I say, I'm open to any suggestions I receive here today. I think that perhaps an argument put as to comparative penalties for other similar offences, and so on, would be held.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I have one final question. Again, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the act provides for the taking of DNA at the crime scene, for any collection of DNA. I'm wondering if at the crime scene the DNA does not match the victim, if it does not match the accused, are there provisions for any other samplings to be destroyed?

There may very well be bodily substances from other individuals who are not involved—other than the victim, other than the accused—at the crime scene that have no application to, or no involvement with, this particular offence.

As I read it, the act provides for those samples to be taken and tested to determine to whom they belong. Surely there should be a provision or something indicating that they should then be destroyed, if there's no application. Has thought been given to that?

Mr. Barry Gaudette: The samples from the crime scene that are unidentified would then go into the crime scene index, so that they could be... This is on the assumption that nothing is matched to anybody else. The crime would then remain unsolved.

It would go into the crime scene index for use in future comparison against further suspects or with reference to future crime scenes to show that the two crime scenes are interlinked and that we're looking at a serial offender.

• 1605

Mr. Peter Mancini: Let me give you an example. If I were to sit down and have a cup of tea with an individual who became the victim two days later and I left behind samples of my hair or something, my DNA would then be...there would then be an index. It wouldn't be assigned to me, because of course you wouldn't know who I was, but it would remain in the data bank.

Mr. Barry Gaudette: Yes, because that was felt to be in connection with the crime. Presumably a lot of times the police will ask for somebody in your position, in that hypothetical example, to give a voluntary sample so that we can eliminate you. Under those conditions, if we then found a match to you, it would no longer be an unsolved crime and that sample would then be destroyed.

Mr. Peter Mancini: But if there was then a conviction entered against someone else, are you telling me that my sample and the information would be destroyed?

Mr. Barry Gaudette: Yes.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Those are all the questions I have.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney) : Thank you.

Mr. Discepola, I recognized you as first, Eleni Bakopanos as second, and Mr. Lee as third.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): I'll defer, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of solidarity.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Lee, would you go ahead, please.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I'll defer to the other parliamentary secretary.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): She has also deferred to you, Mr. Lee.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: No, we defer to you, Derek, for the moment. Go ahead.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): You have the floor, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: All right. I have two questions for the minister.

I'd like the minister to outline all the sources of DNA profiles that will find their way into what is called the offender index. Where will all the sources come from?

Mr. Andy Scott: Monsieur Gaudette.

Mr. Barry Gaudette: You are asking about the sources of profiles in the offender index?

Mr. Derek Lee: In the offender index, yes.

Mr. Barry Gaudette: These will come from the persons convicted of the crimes that were laid out in the bill as the designated offences, and they will come from persons on the secondary list where there is a judicial authorization. They will all come from known offenders who were convicted.

Mr. Derek Lee: So the only source will be individuals who have been convicted or discharged of an offence that is listed?

Mr. Barry Gaudette: That's correct.

Mr. Derek Lee: And there will be no other point of entry?

Mr. Barry Gaudette: No.

Mr. Derek Lee: For the crime scene index, what types of sources will constitute those profiles?

Mr. Barry Gaudette: Those will be profiles found in connection with the scene of the crime. It could be something found physically at the location of the crime, something found on or in the body of a victim, or around the victim. There is a whole list.

Everything would be related to a crime, and it would not be related to a particular person at that time.

Mr. Derek Lee: These would be profiles totally unrelated to any identifiable person? They would have no name attached?

Mr. Barry Gaudette: That's correct.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'd like to ask a hypothetical question. What if Parliament and the government got really smart and what if...? I realize how hypothetical that is, but what if that were to happen and we were to decide that for all time, from here on, we would dispense with fingerprinting as a means of identification? We wouldn't bother with it any more. It would have become outmoded, it would be the horse and buggy in criminal identification or forensic uses, and we would have walked away from it. Would we then simply fall back on DNA?

I suppose we'd have to choose a means of identification, and I would suggest to you that we would use DNA. I realize that is hypothetical, but do you envisage that as a possibility in the future?

Mr. Andy Scott: First of all, clearly this regime sets this up so that these two law enforcement tools are complementary, as against competing somehow.

I think that given the balance we wish to strike in terms of Canadians' desire to provide law enforcement agencies with all the tools that are available, and at the same time have it done in a way that is least obtrusive in the context of finding that balance, it seems to me that each has a role to play.

• 1610

Clearly fingerprints offer identity, and no more beyond that, whereas DNA offers a great deal more information about people. Therefore, based on tests of reasonableness, it seems there's a place for both.

Mr. Derek Lee: I suggest to you that fingerprinting is less obtrusive, but in the presence of DNA as a means of identification it is redundant, unnecessary.

If we are to change our tack in the future—and that may well happen—this particular system you are proposing, this data bank, does not involve the use of DNA in identifying people who are charged with offences, people who enter the justice system unconvicted but charged with an offence. Of course, police make great use of that system of identification of people charged. It's become part of the program.

Do you believe that what you're proposing now is capable of moving to a new system that would be totally reliant on DNA for identification?

Mr. Andy Scott: Frankly, I don't think it's necessary to pass that test. I think it's based on the hypothesis that somehow we won't be taking fingerprints. I'm not sure I can speculate on why that would happen, because I think these are complementary tools.

I understand the premise, that in the event that we didn't have fingerprints any more, because we were not taking DNA samples at the time of arrest, we would not have that group. However, I would have to remind everybody that with a warrant of course a DNA sample can be taken before conviction. Consequently, I just can't accept the premise that somehow we need to prepare a regime that would anticipate the end of taking fingerprints.

Mr. Derek Lee: So preparing for that type of contingency hasn't been taken into account as the design of the data bank has unfolded here in this case?

Mr. Andy Scott: No.

I understand Barry wants to speak for just a second, if that's...

Mr. Barry Gaudette: I just wanted to emphasize the fact that, as the minister said, fingerprints and DNA are complementary. Fingerprints tend to be found more often in property-type crimes, whereas DNA tests tend to be found more in crimes of violence against the person.

The experience in Britain—and Britain is the country that has the most experience with the DNA data bank—is that the use of the two go hand in hand. They've found that in unsolved crimes they may have a string of burglaries that they link together by fingerprints. Then at one of the burglaries the person cuts himself, and they link a further series of crimes with the DNA.

With the two working together they can then get a lot more crimes that are linked, and they have found that they both work very well together.

Mr. Derek Lee: In that case fingerprints wouldn't be redundant at all.

Mr. Barry Gaudette: Right. They're extra, as far as they...

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Ramsay, you have five minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Thank you.

Mr. Minister, thank you for coming. First of all, I've heard reports that the technology is getting to the point where some countries—and I heard one is New Zealand—can obtain a DNA sample through the same process as fingerprinting, in the same form, so that the intrusive nature of the taking of DNA samples would be greatly reduced. Nevertheless, the consequences of it would remain the same.

I make that point. I hope before we're done with the bill we can get more information on that.

But my question to you is this. The bill provides for the taking of samples from those who have been convicted, but only from those who have committed two sexual offences or have been designated dangerous offenders. This is under proposed section 487.055.

If I'm right in my interpretation, is your department open to amending that section for the very obvious reason that under this act the likes of Clifford Olson could not be subject to a DNA sample submission?

• 1615

Mr. Andy Scott: First of all, if I understand the first part of the question, I think you do misunderstand. According to the schedule in the bill of primary and secondary offences, in the first instance it's almost automatic that anybody in that first series of offences would have, upon conviction, the sample taken for the bank.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, let me read the section. It says this:

487.055 (a) A justice may, on ex parte application made in Form 5.05, authorize, in Form 5.06, the taking, from a person who

(a) before the coming into force of this subsection, had been declared a dangerous offender under Part XXIV, or

(b) before the coming into force of this subsection, had been convicted more than once of one or more sexual offences within the meaning of subsection (3)

Mr. Andy Scott: I think you're reading a section having to do with people who have already offended. It's the retroactive piece.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'm sorry. I didn't make my question clear. That's exactly what I'm asking you about—the authority to take DNA samples from those who have been convicted, those who are now in prison. This bill would deny law enforcement agencies the opportunity to take a sample from the likes of Clifford Olson, because he has not been designated a dangerous offender and he has not been convicted of two or more sexual offences. He's been convicted of murder.

This is very limiting in terms of the tool we think the police require in order to solve cases in which DNA samples have been left at the scene. In other words, your category of those people from whom you would authorize the police to take a sample includes only those in prison now who have been designated dangerous offenders and convicted of not just one rape, but two or more sexual offences.

If I'm right about that, I of course have great concerns about it. I'm wondering whether you would be open to an amendment to increase that particular area of conviction so that samples could be taken from people who have committed violent offences, in order to solve the backlog of cases in which DNA samples have been left at the scene.

Mr. Andy Scott: I think it's fair to say, to make sure that the legislation captures all the previously convicted individuals on whom that information would be valuable, we're open to where exactly that definition would be. But I want to remind everybody in the course of this discussion that it is related to the nature of the crime, the severity of the crime, and the likelihood that DNA evidence would be a factor in the crime.

I would also point out that when people have committed more than two sexual offences, or in other circumstances that are already included...if they're not included you're still in a position, with reasonable grounds, to get a warrant. I want to remind everybody that when we talk about what's automatic and what's available, it's a question of satisfying reasonableness. Consequently, even where it isn't automatic, you still have recourse to simply convincing a court that would be a reasonable act to take.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I have one more question, Mr. Chair, and it's a supplementary.

Inasmuch as this bill has allowed for the taking of samples from people convicted and in prison before the bill becomes law, inasmuch as you've opened it up, why would you limit it? There are many unsolved cases. A sample cannot be taken from the person who has committed only one rape, even though there is good reason to suspect that he has left his DNA at the scene of other sexual offences. Why would you limit it to that? I'm asking whether or not you'd be open to expanding it.

• 1620

Mr. Andy Scott: As I said in response to the first question, yes, we are looking at that, because the intention is to be able to access whatever information would be helpful within the limits of the seriousness of the crimes and the likelihood that DNA would be a factor in the crime or a factor in a prosecution. We must also recognize that if you have reasonable grounds you can get it in any case. All of that is to say we're open to making sure that we capture all of those individuals and all of those crimes within the balance that I spoke of earlier.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Minister, under section 9 of the bill, information in the convicted offenders index is kept indefinitely. Provision is made for some exceptions. Data is rendered inaccessible if the offender is acquitted, given an absolute discharge, or, in the case of a young offender, 10 years after all dispositions have been completed.

Why not simply destroy this information instead of merely rendering it inaccessible?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: I understand that Barry wants to speak to this.

Mr. Barry Gaudette: What we intend to do is to sever the links between the identifier and the information. As for the information, I'm not an expert in computer technology, but we're informed by our computer people that to actually get in there and destroy all the tapes and backup—it's all done in batches—would be a horrendous undertaking. By simply severing the links we would not be able to access that information any further, so for all intents and purposes we would have destroyed it.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Personally, I find it difficult to accept that the reason is merely because employees don't have the time to do it. If I were charged with an offence tomorrow morning and that the realization dawned that a judicial error had been committed, but genetic information about me had already been obtained, I wouldn't want that information to be kept somewhere in the government's data banks? Why shouldn't that information be destroyed? All one would have to do is take the information on file on Marceau, Richard and destroy it. If there is an index, record or a bank, I would assume that it would contain references and cross- references. If a person receives a discharge, why would it be so difficult to destroy this information instead of leaving it in the bank? I can't understand that.

[English]

Mr. Barry Gaudette: As I understand it, it's not only that it takes a lot of effort, but also that in a lot of ways it would not be technically possible to erase the last traces of this.

The other important point is that the part of the whole data bank—the bank that contains the most information about the person—is the DNA sample, the actual sample we have taken of the blood or whatever. That is destroyed in those instances. The information we store in the data bank is deliberately selected to be what we refer to as the non-coding region of the DNA. That is, it's not directly related to any known diseases or any other characteristics of the person. Even if in your hypothetical example that information were to become open to somebody, there would be nothing they could use it for.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: If that's the case, why not simply destroy the information? I don't understand. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not clear on this point.

[English]

Mr. Barry Gaudette: Perhaps you could talk to somebody who's an expert in computer technology in that area.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: That would be important.

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: If I may, it is highly technical. What we're doing is eliminating any relationship between you and that information, which is ultimately the objective. You've been acquitted, you've gone past ten years as a young offender, or whatever—there's no further trace of you in that data bank in the context of your being associated with that information. That's the critical piece.

• 1625

I guess the fact that there is some residue of DNA in the system that is unknown and not ascribed to anyone is what we're talking about. It is not a sample. It's the profile that is entered into the data bank.

Perhaps we could ask the technical people to explain how the database works in that regard.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I've another question. Do I have enough time?

I would like to come back to the subject of a foreign government or international organization obtaining this information. You've said that you will take care to ensure that the same guidelines that we have are in place in terms of enforcing the bill's provision. How will we choose which governments will be entitled to the information? How will we go about selecting the organizations that will have access to these banks or deciding with whom we will share this data? Have agreements already been reached? Do we have plans to draw up such agreements?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: There are many agreements, not necessarily around DNA, with other jurisdictions. It is not an uncommon situation for law agencies to co-operate, for countries to have different privacy restrictions, and so on. Very often it becomes quite cumbersome to try to deal with all of these things. I don't say that and place little value on privacy. I think Canada has a good reputation for having good laws around privacy. We make sure anyone we're sharing information with respects those laws and the standards we set.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Mancini, please.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you.

I want to thank my colleague Mr. Marceau for going over some of that, because my first question dealt with the very issue of rendering samples or information inaccessible. That's why I asked why can't it be destroyed. I guess we were into some kind of argument over semantics. I was told, yes, it can be destroyed, and I thought, well golly, maybe I didn't read it through. Now I find out in fact it can't be destroyed, it can be made inaccessible. I think you're right. I have concerns about that and would like to talk to somebody on the technological side who can explain it to me.

I move now to the next question I have. Why is it that a person who is acquitted or granted an absolute discharge can have the information rendered inaccessible, but a person who's granted a pardon cannot? The provision for a person who is granted a pardon is that the information be kept separate and apart from other stored substances, that it not be used for forensic DNA analysis, and that the existence of the bodily substance not be communicated to any persons. Why would we do that and not, as I would prefer, destroy it or render it inaccessible?

Mr. Andy Scott: I'd like to answer, but I'd invite Paul...to ensure that I'm right.

I would assume that because the Solicitor General has the power to revoke in the future a pardon and because records are kept—they're simply not made available in the same fashion—the same provisions apply. Consequently, since the Solicitor General has the power to revoke a pardon, ultimately the same would apply when that happens. This information would be public again. I want to make sure that's right.

Mr. Paul Dubrule (Director, Legal Services, Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada): It's a parallel provision to one in the Criminal Records Act to ensure that in those cases where the Solicitor General deems it appropriate to disclose a pardon record, that record exists to allow that disclosure. In relation to DNA profiles, they are to be kept separate and apart. This means they are not part of the same data bank and are not accessed in the normal course, but only in those exceptional circumstances in which the Solicitor General gives his approval.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you. I've learned something.

Maybe I can learn something else, because I'm going to go back to the other point I made on clause 5, which deals with DNA profiles derived from bodily substances collected at the scene of the crime.

• 1630

You indicated to me earlier that if the substance is not from the victim or the perpetrator of the crime but is mine, because I happened to be visiting, that sample would not be destroyed or rendered inaccessible, or it would simply be kept with no name on it. Which would it be?

Mr. Barry Gaudette: A sample from somebody who was an elimination suspect would never go into the data bank in the first place. You would have to be a convicted offender to get a main sample in the data bank.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I don't want to nit-pick here, but it says:

(3) The crime scene index shall contain DNA profiles derived from bodily substances that are found

There's no provision in there that says they would be destroyed if they couldn't be matched to the victim or the accused. So there would be an index containing that DNA. Am I right?

Mr. Barry Gaudette: Yes, there would be an index containing the DNA from the crime scene.

Mr. Paul Dubrule: There would be no identifiers whatsoever attached to that information.

Mr. Andy Scott: Ultimately there are no identifiers. We don't know who this is. We do know there was a crime scene and the data were collected at that time. It's not identified with anybody else.

I would like to explore this myself. I'm curious as to what it is. Since it's not attached to anybody and is collected at the scene of a crime, it might be helpful at some point.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes, but I just worry about it floating around for no reason. What if it didn't belong to an accomplice? I think that's my concern.

I know I'm running out of time, but I just have one more question.

In terms of obtaining the samples from people who have already been convicted of the designated offences—I think Mr. Lee approached this—what's the procedure to get them back in? Are we going to issue warrants to get them back in to obtain the samples?

Mr. Barry Gaudette: Are you referring to the people who are serving time for past offences?

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Barry Gaudette: I believe there's a form that's part of the legislation and they would make an application through that.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay.

Mr. Paul Dubrule: In proposed subsection 487.055(1), there's an ex parte application to have them brought forward to have the samples taken.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Thank you, Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola: In the interest of solidarity, I'm only allowed to ask questions of my own minister once everybody else has asked questions. Therefore, if everybody else has asked questions, I will ask mine.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: I have one short question. In a recent case, I think it was the Milgaard case, they took the DNA sample, if I'm not mistaken, out of Canada and had it analysed overseas. How many forensic labs do we have in Canada, for my curiosity?

Mr. Barry Gaudette: In Canada, we have the RCMP forensic lab system, which consists of six labs across the country. There are two provincial labs in the province of Ontario. There is the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto and a satellite lab in Sault Ste. Marie. There's a provincial laboratory for forensic analysis in Montreal, and there are a number of private laboratories that are doing this work. The one that has been around the longest and is the best known is Helix Biotech in Richmond, B.C.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: If I remember that case, he took it to a private laboratory in England.

Mr. Barry Gaudette: We took that case to the forensic laboratory service in England, which used to be the home office laboratory. It's a government agency now.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: The reason I'm asking the question is if we do go along with the parts of the legislation setting up these DNA forensic labs, there will be a need for more labs, I would assume. Will there be a provision in the act to say that, for whatever reason, if I'm the lawyer for the accused and I decide I'm not going to accept the evidence found here, I will be allowed to go to the United States or England? Are we going to look at stopping it some place along the line?

• 1635

Mr. Andy Scott: I think it's always an option for the defence to challenge, but that would be up to the defence.

As for the infrastructure that's necessary to meet the increased demand that is anticipated by this bill, we have anticipated it. We've estimated that it would take about a year and a half to put all of the mechanisms in place. The RCMP have agreed to do that for the first two years, and we're engaged with the provinces in terms of absorbing the additional costs, with the hope of making a deal quite soon.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: My question was whether or not we should be considering a provision where Canadian technology would override, if you want to look at it that way—it's a hypothetical question—whatever other considerations there are, other technology in England or in the United States. If I'm a defence lawyer, I may decide I want to take it three or four times, all over the place.

Mr. Andy Scott: I think the courts ultimately will decide what overrides what.

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos: Okay, thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I think you've described this legislation as an attempt to reach a balance between the impact on the privacy and security of persons, and the public interest. I know references were made with respect to charter challenges or potential charter challenges, and justice officials will be coming before us to allow the committee to explore those questions. But from a public policy point of view, were there any other objective tests or opinions sought, studies that the ministry, as the ministry drafting a legislation, made reference to and that the committee could review.

Mr. Andy Scott: Yes, we were engaged in some very extensive deliberations prior to its original introduction. There is a report that was done, I think it was a year ago. I've seen it, and in fact I have requested that the department make sure all the members of the committee get copies. It's entitled Establishing a National DNA Data Bank, Summary of Consultations. If you haven't gotten it yet, I apologize for that. You will get it forthwith. Included in it, though, are all the consultations.

It was widely discussed. In fact there has been discussion in other forums. As I mentioned, the human rights committee of the last Parliament spent four or five days discussing not DNA bank legislation itself, but the general issue of technology, of privacy, and spent a great deal of time talking about DNA technology specifically.

I think we've been informed in a variety of ways, and since it was introduced in the fall I've had a number of interventions as the sponsoring minister and look forward to continuing to do so. I think we are dealing here with what are fundamental Canadian values. I think they've been well expressed in terms of our desire to help those people who enforce the law, to provide them with the tools necessary to do that, and to do it in a way that is consistent with the preoccupation that we have in this country for people's privacy and of course the presumption of innocence.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): That ends our round, unless there is anyone with a quick, short question.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I have one.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): The last time it wasn't very quick, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Well, you just cut me off, Mr. Chairman. That's your prerogative.

First of all, if you've heard about it, for the benefit of the committee, I'd like you to comment on the court case that indicated that the taking of a hair sample was unconstitutional. The question I'd like to ask has to do with proposed subsection 487.051(2) of the bill, and I quote:

(2) The court is not required to make an order under paragraph (1)(a) if it is satisfied that the person or young person has established that, were the order made, the impact on the person's or young person's privacy and security of the person would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in the protection of society and the proper administration of justice, to be achieved through the early detection, arrest and conviction of offenders.

Now, what this does is grant the courts the power to exempt the taking of DNA samplings if, in their opinion, these conditions outlined in this section are met.

• 1640

I have grave concerns about this section because of the conditional sentencing law brought in under Bill C-41, particularly where the courts are not using it in the way Parliament intended. Do you have any concerns about this being a sort of parallel section that will allow, or will give great discretion to, the courts simply to deny the taking of samplings without real justification, thereby hampering law enforcement?

Mr. Andy Scott: It is the intention of the legislation to offer a very remote...one that we imagine, as I said in my opening statement, would be exceptional. The words “grossly disproportionate” were chosen to reflect the fact that it's the strongest language that was available, and we also wanted to make certain that under unforeseen circumstances and in the event that there was a situation where the court would want to exercise that extreme option, it could.

The second question had to do with a particular case.

Paul, can you speak to that?

Mr. Paul Dubrule: It's not clear to me what the case dealt with.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: The judge ruled that the taking of a hair sample from the accused for DNA purposes was contrary to the charter of rights. Are you aware of that case?

Mr. Paul Dubrule: Without more information I would be leery of speaking about it. I'm aware of a number of cases dealing with DNA matters, but I don't want to misstate myself. I will be sure to get back to you about that.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Discepola has a quick question.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I have a couple of questions for Mr. Gaudette. I understand there are two types of DNA analyses or technologies in use. I don't know the terminology. It's a very long word.

But here's my concern. If we're going to share information in some cases, especially with the United States, for example, are we going to use the same types of analyses or the same type of mechanism for storing the analyses so that we can cross jurisdictions?

Second, I am a computer expert—it's my field—and I don't understand what we've been told, so I think, Mr. Chair, that for the record we had better get this person that you have had access to, because if you're talking about the backup or the archiving of these databases that are going to be stored, it might be problematic. I think it's a concern that we had better address in our testimony.

I would like to have an answer to my first question, and then, very briefly, my other question is this: is there a mechanism that we can use to include existing DNA samples that we may have within our possession apart from the offender index, be it through the warrant procedures that we've used in the past or other samples that RCMP officers might have?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): We had better get a response to this.

Mr. Barry Gaudette: I'll speak to your first question. You're talking about cross-jurisdictional matters. We are working very closely with both the FBI and the British in developing these technologies. We have agreed on a standardized set of locations—the technical term is loci—on the DNA molecule where we'll be storing information, and by means of that we will be able to share information in whole or at least in part with both of those countries, which together with us are setting the standards around the world. We should be able to share information fairly well around the world.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Would that include samples in the database of existing samples?

Mr. Barry Gaudette: Samples that might be around right now?

Mr. Nick Discepola: Right.

Mr. Barry Gaudette: I don't believe there's anything...I believe the legislation is silent on that. Paul might want to speak to your idea.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Is there any reason why we can't allow it?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Mr. Gaudette, I think we're going to have to adjourn. I'm getting the high sign here.

Mr. Minister, thank you very much. We appreciate hearing your answers and those of the panel guests.

Mr. Andy Scott: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Maloney): Members of the committee, we'll reconvene here after the vote to discuss future business.