Public Accounts Committee on May 28th, 2007

[Sheila Fraser]

One of our major difficulties, which Mr. Buckle referred to, came from the fact that the labs did not have all the management information that we thought they would have. It is important to understand what created such important backlogs and why injecting more money did not resolve various problems.

The RCMP took some steps and did some restructuring to resolve the problems but we found that this did not produce the expected results. The RCMP agrees with the need to establish some mechanisms aimed at obtaining good management information, at respecting the measures taken and at understanding better the system and the process, in order to find the root causes of their problems.

I am not willing to say that it is only a capacity issue This may be partly the case but there are also other reasons The plan of action will at least allow the RCMP to take steps to identify the problems but, of course, there will have to be a follow-up to make sure that they have been resolved.

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

Thank you.

I have a question for Commissioner Busson. There have been three audits of the RCMP Forensic Laboratories and, each time, there were some recommendations. Each time, the RCMP accepted the recommendations and said that a plan would be developed to implement them. However, once again, the expected results are not here.

This leads me to believe that it is easy for them to say that they accept the recommendations of the Auditor General but that, as a matter of fact, the plans of action are not implemented. As the saying goes, they don't walk the talk.

Do you believe that this time there is a real determination at the RCMP to implement the recommendations of the Auditor General?

[Commr Beverley A. Busson]

I'll begin to answer that question, and then I'll pass it to the deputy here for the details, if you don't mind.

First of all, with regard to the audit in 2000, I agree with you that some of the responses missed the target with regard to commitments that were made at the time. We have been dealing with a moving set of goal posts with regard to DNA. We have done a lot of research into why we don't seem to be making a lot of progress with the backlog issue and the turnaround times issue.

One of the things that was stated with regard to Project Evenhanded—which is the Pickton case—was the effect of the new robotics on our turnaround times. Unfortunately, as Madam Fraser has stated, we don't have the managerial data to be able to connect the dots between those two events. I can assure you that it hasn't been for lack for trying. We have taken her recommendations and the action plan that we worked on with that group, and have made an investment of real dollars and real effort, to bring this organization, I believe, to a place where we have realistic commitments and realistic expectations that will be delivered to Canadians.

We have a biannual reporting system set up and an annual report now to Parliament, which I believe will satisfy folks that we intend to walk the talk.

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

Mr. Laforest, the answer is yes. I think that we've already demonstrated.... I was going to go back and talk about some of the other audits. I think we have missed the boat on some of this. But when you start talking about it, it sounds very “excusey”. I think the real answer is yes, we are serious about this.

The fact that we have taken $5 million and already begun the hiring and recruiting process to get the new facility in Edmonton up and running is an example. And the fact is that each of the audit recommendations is being dealt with—and not dealt with off the corner of somebody's desk. We have hired a senior manager to oversee this on a full-time basis. We are absolutely dead serious about making sure that we employ and report regularly on all of the audit recommendations.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Thank you very much.

We'll turn over our time now to Mr. Williams.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, everybody.

First, I'd like to compliment the commissioner. I think this is the first time that I can recall when before we even have the examination we have two documents from the commissioner of the department under investigation. One is the letter to Mr. Murphy, our chairman, giving a proactive response saying they accepted all the recommendations of the Auditor General, and also the response regarding testimony before the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

I appreciate the proactive response, Commissioner. For Canadians, of course, this is a vital part of the crime-solving tool box, and we need to know that it does work well.

The thing that concerned me most of all was the report about the conflicting testimony given to the public accounts committee. Madam Fraser, you mentioned in your report, in section 7.15, and I quote:

...the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness heard testimony from two former RCMP staff members, casting doubt on statements made earlier by RCMP officials before the Committee.

The two former members particularly disputed a number of things. Who were these two particular members, Madam Fraser?

[Sheila Fraser]

They were Mr. McLeod and Mr. Hepworth.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

They disputed testimony from whom?

[Sheila Fraser]

From the commissioner at the time, Mr. Zaccardelli, and Mr. Martin.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

If I read what's given to me today, it would appear to be an honest mistake of misinterpretation being proposed by the RCMP as to why the discrepancy occurred. In fact, in the letter to the chair, the commissioner had said: “Let me state emphatically that at no time was there an intent to mislead the Committee.”

By the way, Mr. Chairman, has this been entered into the record of the committee, the fact that the chair received a letter from the commissioner? If not, it will be part of the record.

Madam Fraser, do you feel it was, in essence, an oversight for lack of clear and specific guidelines, or do you feel it's more serious than that?

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, we don't get into trying to understand why certain things were said or not said, but we do believe there was a potential that the committee may have, at best, been confused by the testimony that was given. There's a table, an exhibit, in the report at the very end, on page 31, that sets out some of the statements that were made and what our audit found. I think there was the potential, at least, that the members of the committee may not have appreciated some of the nuances in definition and may have used a more usual form of defining backlog, for example. So that was our concern and I think that was the concern of the committee when they asked us to follow up on these conflicting testimonies.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I noticed at one point in time--I don't have it here--where apparently for the emergency cases being referred and dealt with as emergency cases, the response was that these murder cases would have presumably been designated as an emergency, but that turned out not to be the case. I was wondering with the way the words were used whether or not it was a lack of knowledge by the people who gave it and just throwing out an answer rather than knowing the facts.

[Sheila Fraser]

I can't respond to that.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I think we'll leave it up to that committee if they ever want to follow through on the issues of misleading, Mr. Chairman, so I'm not going to go into that any more. What I do want to get into is something I think Ms. Sgro mentioned.

Commissioner and Mr. Martin, does the RCMP have sufficient resources to do the job that Canadians want regarding this particular vital service in fighting crime?

[Commr Beverley A. Busson]

I've been asked to address those kinds of issues in other forums. Of course that's an answer that's a work in progress as we move forward, but I believe at this point in time, with the processes we have in place, we have the proper resources to fund our action plan and to work forward. There are processes in place to ensure that the continuing funding will be supported in business case submissions, etc., but this is not, in my estimation, a function of a lack of support or lack of budget resources.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

You've mentioned the Pickton case already. I know it was a huge demand on the forensic services of the RCMP. While that was ongoing, was there any threat to providing adequate and prompt services on other crimes?

Mr. Buckle.

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

During the Pickton investigation we reorganized the forensic services so we could harness all of our resources across the country. As we ramped up the Vancouver lab to handle the demand for the Pickton investigation, we utilized resources and other facilities across the country to do work that would normally have been done there.

So in answer to your question, during that period of time the number of samples we actually processed remained about the same, with the exception of the Pickton case, of course, which was a separate issue.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Okay. So there was no threat to being able to adequately respond to other cases across the country.

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

The Pickton case certainly challenged us, but we were able to respond to the other investigations across the country.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

By and large, I would hope--given the commitment by the commissioner that this will be a good-news story--this is all going to be resolved. The Auditor General has pointed out that the FLS is not prioritizing cases as described to the parliamentary committee. They were told one thing, and things were actually a little different.

Backlog is a major cause of longer turnaround times in biology, and the Auditor General noted that there had been no improvement on the biology issue. I hope the commissioner, Mr. Martin, and others will recognize that biology has to be kept up to speed as well.

When I read through this, additional resources have not made service more timely in biology. I came from the private sector, ran my own business, and helped others run theirs, and when there is no competition we sometimes find that things like quality assurance fall by the wayside.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

With that comment, Mr. Williams, you're out of time.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Okay. I thought I could play on this for quite some time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

I've been waiting for that.

Next on the list is Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Auditor General, Commissioner, and others, thank you all very much for your attendance today.

Commissioner, let me start out on a positive note. I appreciate the fact that every time you've been here and we're dealing with an issue, I really get a sense that you're doing everything you can to get ahead of the curve, as opposed to spending time on devising ways to avoid addressing the curve. It's much appreciated.

I made comments about you earlier, and I'll say them while you're sitting here. I've been very impressed with your forthrightness. I believe you are honestly trying to do the best you can to help this committee do its work. It's appreciated and respected. I would hope that whoever succeeds you on a permanent basis takes into account at least how well this particular member has appreciated that approach. Thank you for that.

Having said that, we still have problems. I know for my own part, and I think for some other members of the committee, nothing upsets us more than two main things. One is when we are given assurances that are over the top. Where “it's sufficient and things are okay” would be very reflective of the reality, we get “we're the best in the world, it's not a problem, and everything is excellent”. When it's the RCMP, we believe that. We expect it, and the RCMP expects it.

The second problematic area is when we have previous audits. It's one thing for something to go wrong, things to screw up, and people to screw up. Our job is to get on top of it and fix it; the Auditor General does her job, and the whole thing comes together. But when we get audit after audit where issues that have been raised are not addressed, then we get very upset, and we start climbing up towards the top of the house to find out why.

For much of the concern here, at least from me, Commissioner, I know you can't address it, but you have to speak on behalf of the organization. Why the hell has it taken us three audits to get to the point where we're now hopefully getting commitments? We've had commitments before, when things were found out, but they didn't happen. It's totally unacceptable.

As an example of the first one, I want to go to page 31 of the AG's report, which shows a comparison on what has been said in the past. I'm not going to parse words, as we've had to do in other cases, for different reasons. But these things are nonetheless pretty dramatic, and they need to be fleshed out.

I'm not sure who it was, because it's hard to read here, but the committee was told this by either the Solicitor General or the RCMP themselves. Certainly somebody in authority gave these kinds of commitments.

The first one I want to raise is the one in 2004, where it says:

There is no backlog in the system. What we have is cases in process. There isn't one major case that is not done within 15 days. There is no country in the world that meets that standard.

It's not true. We're told in this report by the Auditor General that the United Kingdom Forensic Science Service met a target of seven days to complete DNA analysis of crime scene stains. Not only is it over the top, but it's wrong. I'm not saying it's deliberately misleading, but at the end of the day, it certainly leaves the wrong impression.

On further evidence, a year later, in March 2005, a quote was reported to the committee:

We today on major crimes guarantee and have produced a 15-day turnaround, which is as good as if not better than anywhere else in the world.

Well, again, no, it's not true. Secondly, there was a redefinition so that only 1% of the cases received qualified for the 15 days.

It then says that 99% are routine, including murder and other violent offences, which again takes me to March 2005 and a quote to the committee:

But clearly, murder cases, cases with violence, violent assault cases, those kinds of things would definitely go right into the priority queue and be handled right away.

38 percent of service requests relate to violent offences. The FLS categorizes most of these as routine and does not give them any special priority.

Again, on the same date, this is a commitment from the government and the RCMP:

by 2005 we will have substantially improved our ability to provide world-class service.

What did the Auditor General find? In the 2005-06 fiscal year, the turnaround times for biology requests were longer than in earlier years and backlogs had increased.

I want to hear from you, Commissioner. First of all, do you have any explanation as to why these kinds of commitments were being made to Parliament and were then not honoured? Secondly, why should we believe the commitments you're making today are going to show any better results in two or three years than we've had so far, Commissioner?

[Commr Beverley A. Busson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.

The issues around the statements about our backlog and the statements around the 15 days have been a source of great concern to me and the other people at this table, because certainly in reading the report and in having a look at the review of how those statements came about and where we find ourselves today, it is not a good place to be. We've struggled with the issue around backlog and the definition of backlog, and unfortunately the person who made those statements is not here today to explain what they meant under those circumstances. But I can assure you that we are not arguing with the fact that the Auditor General has found a backlog, and we are building an action plan to improve it.

One of the things that we experienced, as I said, over the period between 2000 and now was a vast increase in the number of intake and uptake cases, which again has affected our results. As was stated by the Auditor, we did not have the defined and refined data to be able to directly reflect the connection between the issues of the effect of things like the Pickton case and the other increase in DNA intake and our backlog and turnaround result issues. So I have a very difficult time answering that part of your question with any kind of certainty.

With regard to the comment that Deputy Martin made, I'll pass the mike to Deputy Martin for him to offer you an explanation with regard to that, please.