Public Accounts Committee on May 2nd, 2007

[Sheila Fraser]

Those comments are based on concerns that were raised about the automated system for DNA testing. Several of the scientists in the labs were raising concerns that the automated process was not detecting DNA, whereas the manual extraction process was.

One would expect that if concerns are raised by the scientists and technicians in the labs, a quality management system should have a structured approach to clearly identify a potential problem, ascertain whether that truly is a problem, and then work to resolve the issue.

We actually gave a case study of one police investigator who brought in a piece of clothing, which I think had a hundred stains on it. The automated process didn't pick it up. The police officer didn't accept that, asked that it be retested, and it was with the manual extraction.... But of course there were long delays.

These concerns were being raised for quite a while. They were never reported through the quality management system. It didn't follow that kind of rigorous processing. After the fact, I think a year later, they did start to discover some of the causes of this. It shows that the system wasn't being applied as it should have been. The problem was that there could have been DNA in some of these samples that wasn't being detected.

That might be a question to ask them: what have they done about this.

I think they have written to some of the crown prosecutors and police forces to ask if they want retesting done. In a couple of cases, that has been requested.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It would be good to hear on the record that it has been solved, or not. It would also give an opportunity to some of the scientists if they want to get word—formally or informally—that they have concerns. We need to know that. So that will be a good question.

With respect to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I note that you make a comment about the LES, locally engaged staff. I've come in contact with the folks who are hired locally and every one of them is fantastic. The fact that they have that local awareness and the cultural side of things, because they are from there, is very helpful. I have to believe it's helpful in terms of policy development too.

However, you point out that they don't have the right kind of record keeping in that area—nowhere near enough. Do you have any concerns about security in that regard? Obviously if you're hiring locally, depending on where you are, that may not be as straightforward as one might think. Did that raise any alarm bells at all, or were you satisfied that we're okay on that front?

[Sheila Fraser]

We didn't specifically look at the security issue. We were really looking at the information that was available to the managers in the various missions. We noted, I think in a couple of the missions, that there was no indication of the security check having been done. That doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't done; it's just that the documentation wasn't in the file.

We're saying the greater issue with the local engaged staff is that these missions need to have much more support from Foreign Affairs. It is very complex to manage locally engaged staff, because they have their own local laws. With the rotation of people through the missions, one can't expect the head of mission to be aware of all the laws in that country in dealing with personnel. They need to have much more support from head office and much better information.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Did you have any indication at all that perhaps people were being hired who weren't as qualified as what they would have preferred, but because they couldn't get a Canadian applicant, they did the best they could?

[Sheila Fraser]

I'll ask Mr. Flageole if he saw any indication of that. I don't believe so.

[Richard Flageole]

Mr. Chair, we haven't looked at that, specifically, in terms of qualifications.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

To chapter 3 and the language question, do we have any sort of statistical evidence, because it's just hearsay—? As I said earlier, most often when you encounter our staff, odds are that they don't speak the local language. In countries like France, most often the reverse is true; it's rare that they don't speak the local language. Do we have any tables that you could provide that compare how we rank in this area against other G-8 countries or any other developing countries?

[Sheila Fraser]

We do not have that information, Mr. Chair. I don't know that the department would have it. We only looked at the information they had on their staff and whether there was evidence that they met the language requirements the department had established.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I just find it perplexing. We live in the most multicultural country in the world. You go to downtown Toronto and you'll hear every language of the world, yet we can't find the people who speak those languages when we send Canadians to work in embassies.

Following up on Mr. Christopherson's questions—and you said you didn't specifically look at security breaches—we assume that all embassies will be very secure. But I assume that there would be higher and lower rankings of the security required.

You did note that compared to other countries, Canada uses the highest proportion of locally hired staff. Were there variances, for instance, in countries like China or Russia, or was it just kind of a blanket policy that for various positions we just hire local staff?

[Sheila Fraser]

Again, we wouldn't look at that country by country. As to what the policy requirements would be, this is, of course, a policy of the government, and the percentage of locally engaged staff is really a policy decision that has been made.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

In paragraph 3.71 you talk about the head office sending people out to take a look and audit. They do about four embassies per year. Would that be one of the areas they look at?

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes. We mention here that they should provide much more support to the various missions. And they should be ensuring as well that the policies are being respected. We didn't make a specific recommendation on that, I don't believe. But they should ensure, themselves, that they are carrying out enough of the spot checks and that the oversight is happening.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay. That leads to the next question. You said spot checks. They do four out of 111 missions in the world. They do four per year. Is it just spot checks, or is it that when they hear of problems in specific missions, those are the missions this team would head out to?

[Sheila Fraser]

I don't know that. Mr. Flageole can respond.

[Richard Flageole]

Mr. Chair, the main issue is a capacity question. That bureau at head office was really providing support and doing those checks. Four missions a year means that some will be on a 25-year cycle. They're really struggling to do the work they have to do. I think the recommendation we make here is that there's really a need to strengthen the capacity, because they should be doing a lot more of those checks and verifications than they're doing now.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Obviously, that is an area we need to look at. It's a globalizing world. And if you've had a spot check three or four years prior, you know that during your term the odds are that you're never going to be checked. So I concur that this is definitely a chapter we need to take a close look at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You have 25 seconds, Mr. Rodriguez, for one brief question.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Regarding acquisition cards and travel cards, you said that in the Departments of National Defence and of Fisheries and Oceans, acquisition cards are named after ships. Thus, if the ship's name is Moby Dick, for instance, Moby Dick can purchase $20,000's worth of fishing gear. Am I right?

[Sheila Fraser]

This goes against the policy. The Secretariat of the Treasury Board has confirmed that cards should bear the names of individuals and not of ships.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mrs. Fraser.

Mr. Lake, five minutes.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One thing that can't help but come to mind in this whole conversation is if we can get this whole DNA thing figured out, perhaps we might be able to use it to locate David Smith.

I do want to clarify too for the benefit of the family of poor Senator David Smith, another Liberal caucus member, as I'm sure they're watching this on TV and are concerned for him, that he's not missing. I saw him just the other day. There are two David Smiths in the Liberal caucus, or formerly in the Liberal caucus.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

You should be very specific, so we know which David Smith here in Ottawa, because there are many.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Perhaps that'll be the subject of our next audit.

I want to ask you, first of all, just a general question in terms of the seven chapters that you studied. Which of the chapters concern you the most?