Public Accounts Committee on May 28th, 2007

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

So the audit is processed, as well as actually findings, then, actually digging into the samples that you've tested yourself.

[Dr. John Bowen]

They do look at operational files. They review them in order to determine whether the results were appropriate.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Okay, but they would actually retest a sample.

[Dr. John Bowen]

No, they would not.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

So that's not a practice at all in the domain of forensic labs, that there's ever a time that this occasion would happen, just to continually validate the quality?

[Dr. John Bowen]

Not that we're aware of. There are jurisdictional issues, of course, because the samples belong to the investigator, not to the lab.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

You were talking about—what was the phrase you used?—reprofiling $5 million. I take it that “reprofiling” is removing it from one budget to another. Does that mean that your full budget now would be about $14 million, compared to what we see in the audit here?

If that's the case, I just want to go back to what some of my other colleagues mentioned, the issue that we have here of value for dollar. We see some of these labs that apparently.... And I understand that sometimes black and white figures may not give a real-world view, but does that mean that we're up to $14-million-plus in the lab, and will you take measures to maybe check out this Swedish lab just to see exactly the kinds of performance results we're getting?

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

We will look at the Swedish lab.

When we talk about the $5 million, it's in addition to the money that's already there. Within national police services, it incorporates a lot of services within the RCMP. My budget is around $400 million, so within the various programs I'm responsible for, we are taking funds from lower-priority items and also putting them into the lab.

The other thing we've done is generate some savings internally by taking the forensic laboratory services and the identification program and integrating them. Both of those areas had administrative support groups, a financial group, HR, and planning and that kind of thing, and we have achieved some significant savings.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

But specifically, I was just looking at exhibit 7.6—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Mr. Sweet, you're 30 seconds over. I can't give you any more time. We have to get to Mr. Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Busson or Mr. Buckle, when were the specialized Forensic Science and Identification Services created at the RCMP? Was there a previous incarnation?

[Commr Beverley A. Busson]

I just had some support from other people on my team, who tell me that it's been since the 1930s that the forensic laboratory system has been in place serving Canadians.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

The older it is, the worse it is.

One of the recommendations of the Auditor General reads as follows:

7.43 The RCMP should develop mechanisms for identifying bottlenecks in the process...

You said that the Services were created in the 30s. How come that today, in 2007, you have not yet been able to do some planning and to develop mechanisms to avoid such problems? The explanation may be in part linked to the evolution of the methodology but, still, any good management system in the public sector should be able to forecast its needs. I am particularly concerned that the Auditor General would have felt the need to make such a recommendation.

Let me read to you recommendation 7.73:

7.73 The RCMP should develop standard procedures for project planning and implementation, including documentation of decisions and sign-off by senior management.

My question is for Mr. Buckle or Mrs. Busson. How do you explain that this was not done before the Auditor General raised the issue after a third audit? I am really concerned by your lack of effectiveness. I asked a while ago to Mrs. Fraser if it was more an administrative issue than a technical issue and if the objectives were realistic. Those two recommendations seem to be linked to a lack of forecasting, management and planning capacity.

[Commr Beverley A. Busson]

I'll start by replying, if I might, Mr. Laforest, and then I'll pass the mike, if I could, to my colleague.

Certainly, without putting words in the Auditor General's mouth, I don't think we're where we were at in the 1930s with regard to the labs or lab science; we have made some incredible progress over the last number of years.

Having said that, as I said, we have accepted the Auditor General's recommendations and are prepared and anxious to move forward. One of the issues about the process and management systems is that, in conjunction with her recommendations, we have hired process engineers to help us get through to the next level of competency when it comes to dealing with these incredibly complex issues arising specifically around DNA and the complex processes in which we are engaged there.

All of that is to say that we are not in denial about the fact that over the last five to six years it has been a moving goal post and that we have certainly missed the mark in a number of cases, in a number of instances, and in a number of areas. But we are most anxious and have worked very hard since these things were brought to our attention. And as we work with the Auditor General's reports and recommendations, we will make sure that the next report to be tabled in the fall will give this body, and other bodies, confidence that we are paying attention to our responsibilities.

I will pass this on now to Joe, if he has anything more to say.

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

Thank you very much for that.

I think the two issues you are concerned about are forecasting and our ability to predict where we're going in the future. The DNA area has been particularly troublesome for us, simply because of the demand. It's a very powerful forensic technique for law enforcement; hence, the demand for it is increasing all the time. We recognize that we do not have expertise in that area, and we are taking the Auditor General's recommendation to bring in outside experts to assist us with that activity.

But we have done fairly reasonably in our other areas—toxicology and firearms—where we have placed people and reduced the turnaround times. This is because we understand those areas and the demand for them far better than DNA; each day, it seems, we get more demands for the use of DNA that we haven't even thought of.

With regard to project management, in 2003 we recognized that the organization was growing so quickly that we had to put in a project management office, and we installed one at that time. I believe the issue the Auditor General was concerned about was that the senior manager—that is me—would sign off on a project at the beginning, assuring that the funding was available and that resources could be put to it and that there was a project plan in place, but that I wouldn't subsequently sign off on the project when it was finished. That was a weakness on our part in the project management area. We had made the assumption that a sign-off at the scientific level was sufficient. We accept that recommendation and will improve in that particular area.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Thank you, Commissioner Buckle.

We'll turn the time over to Mr. Christopherson once again.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

Commissioner, in your opening comments, just to read it back into the record, you said:

Despite the many efforts to improve DNA turnaround times, demands for DNA analysis have increased, on average, by eight percent per year, which far exceeds our capacity. The situation is not unique to the RCMP; most publicly funded forensic laboratories report the same challenge. We take no comfort, however, in being on par with other laboratories, and we are proceeding aggressively to improve our turnaround times.

Then later on in your comments, Commissioner, you say, “The most significant result of this new priority work”--referencing work you mentioned in your earlier comments--“will be the development of realistic and reasonable targets for case response times”, again recognizing that as far as we're concerned in Canada, the RCMP is the gold standard of policing around the world. If not meeting that in every category humanly possible, we certainly strive to.

I'm just curious as to why you weren't stronger on saying that we've now identified that there are at least two jurisdictions that do far better than we do, and our goal is to match or exceed that. Instead, I got sort of--I'm going to say it--wishy-washy kind of language.

I'd like to know why this kind of wishy-washy language and why not an absolute commitment on quality and turnaround time, that we are going to be the best in the world. Why aren't you saying that, or will you say that now?

[Commr Beverley A. Busson]

Mr. Christopherson, what we want to say is that we will build a regime that is robust and reliable and the best system that Canadians have every right to expect. What we need to do is to be realistic and at the same time to promise expectations, promise goals and objectives that we know we can deliver in the short term and the long term. In my opening statements I talked about short-term goals and longer-term goals. We are most interested to be the best in the world. That will be our long-term objective.

One of the things we got ourselves in the soup for the last time was talking about 30 days, because we wanted to get to 30 days. We never got to 30 days.

So we are learning from experience to make the commitment to do the best we can and to perform in such a way that the committee and the Canadian public have confidence in our ability, and our ultimate goal is to get to be the best, but we have learned not to promise that as a short-term goal.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. That's reasonable. I can understand that you could find yourself in an impossible situation. Nonetheless, I would hope that at some point, some future committee does get an opportunity to hear that we're much closer to being the best in the world, rather than quite a bit far down, in the middle of the pack.

I'm sorry, Commissioner, I'm going to be a little abrupt and push along, because I've only got a couple of moments.

Commissioner, there were commitments made previously by the RCMP to report performance to Parliament. It didn't happen. Why didn't it happen? And once again, what is the commitment, and why should we believe it's going to happen now when it didn't happen before?

[Commr Beverley A. Busson]

Can I pass that on? I wasn't around when that commitment was made, and I understand there's someone here who has a better explanation than I can offer.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Certainly.

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

Initially I believe the force did start reporting but abandoned that process over time. That is not going to be the case. One of the reasons--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

How could that happen, Deputy? I'm sorry to interrupt, but in an outfit like the RCMP, how could a parliamentary requirement just sort of stop happening?

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

A lot of it starts to sound like excuses again. We went to the new DPR reporting. As I understand it, the templates didn't lend themselves to it, but we could have added information as an attachment to the templates. Those are the reasons I've been given. They do sound like excuses.

I'm going to be monitoring this myself. We will make sure, and I know darn well that I'm probably going to be the person here answering if it doesn't happen.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Excellent. Thank you. I like to hear that.

Auditor General, in the remaining time left, you went out of your way to mention quality quite a few times in here. You also went right out of your way to make sure that it was clearly understood that you're not standing by any kind of analysis, or no one should think that you've done an analysis. Just in knowing you and your shop, I looked at that and I went, hmm, putting a lot of distance there.

There's been a lot of detailed discussion, Auditor General. Overall, what is your impression around the quality issue? We've talked a lot around timing--and not just the automated process but the other issues too; that's had a fair bit of airing. Do you have any recommendations to us in terms of things that you think we ought to recommend, measures that we should take to deal with the quality issue? Probably more than anything, at the end of the day, quality is one of the biggest concerns running through here.

Thanks, Chair.