Transcribed from the hard copy tabled in the House of Commons on January 31

Transcribed from the hard copy tabled in the House of Commons on January 31, 2005

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

REPLY BY THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CANADA

Q-53 - December 7, 2004 — Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville) — With regard to the DNA cases in process at the RCMP forensic laboratories and the DNA data bank, for each of the last three years: (a) how many urgent and routine DNA cases were received; (b) how many urgent and routine DNA cases were processed; (c) how many urgent and routine DNA cases were left unprocessed at the end of each year; (d) what was the average time to process urgent and routine DNA cases; (e) based on the success rate of matching DNA cases to offenders in the DNA Data Bank, for urgent and routine cases what was the average number of repeat offenders that were on the loose and the average time they remained on the loose waiting for DNA cases to be processed; and (f) how does the performance of our DNA analysis compare with other countries in areas such as case backlogs, average processing time for urgent and routine DNA cases, differences in definition of urgent and routine, and success rates for matches with repeat offenders in their DNA data banks?

The National DNA Data Bank (NDDB) is a world-class operation that uses robotic technology to speed processing and analysis of DNA samples. A specialized sample and tracking control system (StaCSO), developed by the NDDB and being marketed worldwide, protects the privacy of individuals and ensures security of data. In combination, this allows the NDDB to process more samples in less time at significantly lower cost than other facilities around the world.

The Forensic Laboratory Services (FLS) uses sophisticated technology to analyze DNA samples in criminal cases. The results are matched against known samples or profiles that are contained in the Combined Offender Index and Crime Scene Index. FLS was the first to use DNA technology in a court case in Canada and participated in the determination by an international committee of the core DNA loci to be analyzed in making forensic comparisons. FLS operations are accredited by the Standards Council of Canada under CAN-P-1578 (ISO 17025).

NOTE: 1: The Urgent/Routine case classifications systems has only been in effect for the past two years, since January 1, 2003. Consequently, only two years of data (2003 and 2004) are available using the Urgent/Routine classification system. Prior to this a four case priority system had been used with cases prioritized as on of the following:

NOTE 2: Forensic Laboratory Services work load is measured in “service requests”. Each accepted DNA “case” has one or more service requests depending on the submission of additional exhibits e.g. warrant samples after the original service request has commenced. In Biology (DNA) the amount of work in an average case is equivalent to 1.4 service requests.

(c) how many urgent and routine DNA cases were left unprocessed at the end of each year?

NOTE 3: service requests received do not equal service requests completed plus service requests in process plus those unopened. Service requests in process and unopened at the end of 2003 are carried over and appear as service requests completed in 2004.

NOTE 4: When a case is received the exhibits are immediately processed and the required Service Requests created. Until a Service Request in a case is commenced, the Service Request is classified as Unopened. Unopened Service Requests are continually monitored and processed on a first in first out basis as capacity permits.

Urgent 51 days/service request 29 days (11 days since Apr 1, 2004)/service request

(e) based on the success rate of matching DNA cases to offenders in the DNA Data Bank, for urgent and routine cases what was the average number of repeat offenders that were on the loose and the average time they remained on the loose waiting for DNA cases to be processed;

Information on repeat offenders, assuming they exist, is not available as it is not part of a Biology 9DNA) case submission or a DNA Data Bank sample.

(f) how does the performance of our DNA analysis compare with other countries in areas such as case backlogs, average processing time for urgent and routine DNA cases, differences in definition of urgent and routine, and success rates for matches with repeat offenders in their DNA data banks?

A direct comparison of Canadian DNA analysis with other countries is not possible for a number of reasons. Each country uses different funding mechanisms, employs different priority systems and performance metrics, sets different analytical standards, uses various legal standards for acceptance of results in court and the use of DNA analysis in cases is at the discretion of the police agency.

With reference to the forensic (casework) in the United States :

“Processing times at crime laboratories pose significant delays in many jurisdictions. State laboratories take an average of 23.9 weeks to process an unnamed suspect rape kit, and local laboratories average 30.0 weeks for such tests”.

“The number if unanalyzed DNA cases reported by State and local crime laboratories is more than 57,000.

- State laboratories – 34,700 cases (approximate)

- Local laboratories – 22,600 cases (approximate)”

“Total crime cases with [possible biological evidence either still in the possession of local law enforcement, or backlogged at forensic laboratories is over one half million (542,700)”

From: “National Forensic DNA Study Report – Final Report”; N.P. Lovrich, M.J. Gaffney, T.C. Pratt, C.L. Johnson, Division of Governmental Studies and Services, Washington State University, and; C.H. Asplen, L.H. Hurst, T.M. Schellberg, Smith Alling Lane, P.S. December 12, 2003

No detail was provided as to any case categorization systems, e.g. urgent or routine cases

With reference to the National DNA Data Bank, at mid-December, 2004, it has produced approximately 2,600 crime scene convicted offender samples and 325 crime scene to crime scene matches from 70,000 convicted offender DNA sample profiles and 18,100 crime scene DNA profiles.

Data Bank success rate comparison with other jurisdictions is not a straightforward process and must be considered in the context of enabling legislation. For example, for the United Kingdom DNA data base, over 8,000 matches are reported on a weekly basis in a data bank that currently houses over 2.7 million samples. The high match rate is consistent with the large number of samples found in the data bank, however, it should be noted that this data base is not simply a convicted offender data bank. UK law allows for a collection process where convicted offenders, anyone arrested or people cleared of criminal charges and, potentially victims can be retained in the data bank for future comparisons.