Evidence of meeting #59 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was dna.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
Order. Today we're looking at chapter 11, “Management of Forensic Laboratory Services”.
We have Madam Fraser, with officials from her department, and Commissioner Busson, also with officials from her department.
A question from Ms. Sgro.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't know if you want to deal with this now or at the end of the meeting, but I have a question on whether we were able to confirm the witnesses for our June 6 meeting.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
My understanding is that this will be dealt with tomorrow at the steering committee.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
I'm referring to the three individuals who were coming for our three-hour meeting on, I believe, June 6. Have we confirmed their appearance?
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
There's a steering committee tomorrow on that. I'm not sure we're positive on where we're at with that right now. We have no confirmation.
3:30 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Georges Etoka
Mr. Chair, I've been in contact with two of the witnesses, although not the third; nobody knows where he is.
I received the first answer this morning. It was negative. I'm waiting for the second one.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
These are the three individuals who are supposed to report here on June 6 at our three-hour meeting.
3:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Correct.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
3:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes--
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
Well, it was my understanding that at the next steering committee, we were going to decide what we were doing on that June 6 date. So there hasn't been, I don't think, a definitive decision made on what exactly we're doing on that date. It's certainly going to get discussed tomorrow at the steering committee....
Sorry; I apologize on that matter.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
If you've received a communication from any of those three witnesses, can you circulate it to the committee?
3:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, I can do that.
3:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
With that, maybe we can get back to our chapter 11 study.
I'll start with the Auditor General for an opening statement.
3:30 p.m.
Sheila Fraser Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We thank you for inviting us to discuss our audit of the RCMP Forensic Laboratory Services.
I'm accompanied today by Shelley Trevethan, director of the public safety team, who was responsible for this audit.
Our audit was in response to a request from the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, who had heard conflicting testimony on the performance of the labs from former employees and current management.
The key issues were the backlog of DNA cases, turnaround times for DNA cases, and the comparison between FLS services and similar services around the world. During our audit, an additional issue arose on the adequacy of the quality management system of the FLS.
I would like to take this opportunity to provide members of the committee with an overview of our findings.
The acceptability of turnaround times depends on the ability to meet standards and on the needs and expectations of the clients of the labs. We found that the FLS almost always met its turnaround standard of 15 days for urgent cases, but that these cases composed only about 1% of its work. For the 99% of its work classified as routine, the FLS is unable for the most part to meet the 30-day target that it has set for itself. For DNA analysis requests, it takes 114 days on average, an increase from 91 days in 2003-04.
The backlog of DNA requests is a major contributor to the long turnaround times. For our audit, we defined “backlog” as “requests for service that had not been completed with 30 days”, based upon the FLS target of 30 days for routine requests and the use of this target by other groups. As of March 2006, there was a backlog of 870 DNA service requests, an increase from 660 in April 2003.
Prior to the audit, the FLS stated that it effectively negotiated due dates for each case with police investigators. It relied on its quality of service questionnaire to provide it with feedback, and found that most clients were satisfied with the timeliness of service. However, clients told us that the RCMP rarely consults with them on their needs. Clients have little opportunity to negotiate turnaround times, and they have little say in the number of exhibits they are allowed to submit.
During our audit, the Forensic Laboratory Services were unable to provide us with much information on how they compare with others. After consulting with the RCMP on which labs to select, we gathered information on other labs. The results indicated that the FLS provide average performance in the turnaround of DNA samples and that the top-performing labs — the United Kingdom and Sweden — provide markedly better performance.
Our 2000 audit reported concerns about quality management at the labs. The RCMP responded by creating a national quality assurance program, completing lab accreditation, and implementing a proficiency testing program for staff. However, during the current audit we found that more needed to be done on the quality management system.
Although a national quality management system is in place, in practice there are significant weaknesses in how the FLS define, record, monitor and resolve quality issues. The quality management system was not functioning as designed and could not provide assurance of quality to senior management. The most significant example was the new automated process for DNA analysis. Although FLS scientists raised concerns that the automated process was not finding DNA that they believed was present, it took about a year for the FLS to identify a quality issue with the system.
Finally, in response to a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the RCMP agreed to begin reporting on the performance of the FLS in the departmental performance reports. The RCMP is not currently keeping its commitment to report to Parliament on performance, nor is it reporting to clients on FLS performance.
Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening statement. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this chapter. I will be happy to respond to the committee's questions.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
Thank you, Ms. Fraser.
Commissioner, we usually try to keep our statements down to five minutes.
3:35 p.m.
Commissioner Beverley A. Busson Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I'll do my best, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Auditor General's spring 2007 audit report, which makes recommendations specific to the RCMP forensic laboratory services. I'm joined today by Deputy Commissioner Peter Martin, who is responsible for national police services; Mr. Joseph Buckle, the director general for forensic science and identification services, under which the forensic labs fall; and, Dr. John Bowen, director of biology services.
I would like to make a brief opening statement.
The RCMP worked with the Office of the Auditor General for over a year on the audit of the forensic laboratory, receiving its first draft in December of 2006. Between then and the tabling of the report in May of 2007, we accepted totally the recommendations and worked closely with the staff of the OAG to ensure that our action plan not only met the report's spirit and intent but that it will also address the recommendations in total.
We believe the activities detailed in our action plan will strengthen the forensic services and prepare the laboratory to meet future challenges. The Auditor General has accepted the action plan as our road map for the next two years. The RCMP has already started to work on various aspects of the action plan and anticipates that significant progress will be demonstrated in our first status report to the OAG in the fall of this year.
The RCMP accepts the Auditor General's definition of a backlog as any routine case not completed within the 30-day target. As this committee is aware, there has been considerable difference of opinion as to what constitutes a backlog, and this contributed to the impression that the RCMP officials may have misled the committee. Using the Auditor General's definition of a backlog, the RCMP agrees that it has a backlog of DNA cases and is taking steps to increase its capacity to provide for more timely results. The RCMP accepts that response times for DNA case work are too long and acknowledges the capacity gap between our resources and the demands for service.
Forensic laboratory services have improved significantly in many areas since the 2000 Auditor General's audit. There have also been considerable improvements to DNA services. However, the probative nature of science has led law enforcement to heavily rely on this value in criminal investigations. Despite the many efforts to improve DNA turnaround times, demands for DNA analysis have increased on average by 8% per year, which far exceeds our capacity to date. This situation is not unique to the RCMP. Most publicly funded forensic laboratories report the same kinds of challenges. We take no comfort, however, in being on par with other laboratories. We are proceeding aggressively to improve our turnaround times.
You have been provided with the action plan documents, which detail a response to each of the Auditor General's recommendations. The document titled “Meeting the Need” provides further detail on our plan to strengthen our DNA services.
I would like to briefly describe three specific projects. First, we recognize the need to address our capacity issue. We're engaged in two initiatives to enhance our DNA services and improve our ability to respond more quickly. During the 2007-08 fiscal year, the first initiative for the labs will be to hire approximately 70 new DNA scientists and create a new DNA analytical unit in our Edmonton laboratory. The RCMP has provided $5 million in additional funding for these activities.
The forensic labs will also consider and implement other capacity enhancement activities, such as shift work, as required. It should be noted that there will be a significant time lag before the full benefits of this new investment will be realized. It will require up to 18 months in order to recruit and train new staff, and new equipment must be installed and validated prior to the use in actual cases. The time to conduct these activities is necessary to ensure that we maintain the rigorous scientific quality assurance process that we employ.
The laboratory's expertise is in scientific excellence, and the considerable increase in our DNA program provides, as our second initiative, the opportunity to engage outside expertise to review our DNA processes. The labs are seeking an engineering firm with process flow expertise to review processes in the current system and to then assist with the design of new processes to minimize bottlenecks and ensure optimal efficiency.
Improving capacity is not the only solution. We are also engaging the law enforcement community in the development of a new case priority system to better meet investigative and judicial needs. As I stated earlier, we know that our present response times are not satisfactory. Some cases are more serious than others and some require a more strategic response in order to meet investigative needs.
Since last November the forensic labs have been consulting with our police partners to develop a new prioritization system whereby the most serious cases would be identified and handled first. This may seem to be a simple approach. However, investigative priorities are different from region to region across Canada, and the labs are often faced with attributing competing needs between police forces. This is clearly not satisfactory. Senior management in the forensic laboratory has been working with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the national police services committee, and various other agencies to develop priority rating of operational files, or the PROOF system, to ensure balance and equity in our priority rating of casework, especially for DNA casework.
At the May 16, 2007, federal-provincial-territorial heads of prosecution meeting in Moncton, New Brunswick, Deputy Martin gained agreement from the representatives to participate in validating proof as well. The first significant result of this new priority will be the development of realistic and reasonable targets for the case response times. Law enforcement works around the clock, and the forensic laboratory will respond by enhancing access by police officers to forensic support services.
Currently, police can only access laboratory personnel from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. five days a week. By the fall of 2007, this will be expanded to 24-7 service, and we'll see a closer integration of forensic science services with field forensic identification services. In other words, those services that have traditionally been somewhat removed from the crime scene will be brought closer to the crime scene and the investigator's tool box. The intent is to provide a more streamlined service, as identified during our client consultation activities.
Finally, I would like to emphasize again that the RCMP has strengthened and will continue to strengthen its forensic laboratory services. We view the OAG report and recommendations as significant advice, and it is our intent to follow through with our action plan commitments in a timely way.
To this end, the forensic labs have dedicated a senior manager to coordinate the action plan activities and reporting and will install a monitoring function specifically to ensure follow-up in the short and longer term. With the exception of Ontario and Quebec, RCMP forensic laboratories provide forensic analysis to law enforcement across Canada. Clearly, the results they provide to the investigators are significant in helping solve crime and support the criminal justice system.
We understand the need to provide timely, reliable service to support safe homes and safe communities for Canadians. That is why we developed a comprehensive action plan to address the recommendations of the Auditor General's report.
Thank you for your opportunity to provide an opening statement. We're available to answer any questions you and the committee may have. Thank you.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
The first round is eight minutes, and we're starting with Ms. Sgro.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Thank you very much.
I guess I have to say it's nice to see you back again, but it seems as if we see you every week here, so--