Public Accounts Committee on May 28th, 2007

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

Mr. Christopherson, one of these comments was or is attributed to me. Clearly, murder cases, cases with violence, violent assaults, those kinds of things would definitely go right into the priority queue and be handled right away. That is my statement.

When I appeared before this committee—I appeared once before on the FLS issue—there was a request about the explanation for the negotiation process. When cases come into the lab, they either go into the urgent queue or they go into what we call the routine queue. We have murder and violent-type cases in both of those areas.

The question put to me was who decides on that negotiation process, who makes the decision? My response was that it's the case manager at our case receipt unit and the investigating agency. Together, they agree on what the response time is.

An example of that is that there may be a case coming up in court, and 100 days might be too long but it may be required in 60 days, so we program it accordingly. In those particular instances, that case will go to the front of the queue in the routine category. So that's the way that happens.

Now, the Auditor General has pointed out that a small number of cases are handled in this fashion. We were surprised by that. The whole process under discussion for turnaround time has to be initiated by the investigator, but we found out that not a lot of investigators were aware of that. We're fixing that right now. In the year 2005-06, there were over 350 cases submitted in the routine category that were given additional priority within that area.

The other comments...I did not make them, but if you would like me to comment on any one of them I'd be more than happy to.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Thank you very much.

It's Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's eight minutes, and we all want to hear from Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

There are two items of critical importance when the forensic DNA testing is being done; one is timeliness, and the other one is accuracy.

Madam Fraser, in exhibits 7.6 and 7.9 you deal with both of those. Exhibit 7.9 is particularly disturbing. It deals with a piece of evidence that had 100 spots of blood, but when the laboratory's automated processes were used, no DNA was found.

Then when I take a look at the timelines on the chart you provided in exhibit 7.6, what we see is that in fact with the forensic labs and their processes, we have no assurances that violent criminals are not walking the streets.

Obviously blood was involved in the crime from table 7.9, and when we take a look at table 7.6, it's incredibly disturbing. When we look at the turnaround times, in fact we're endangering the public. When we compare to countries like Sweden, they spend half as much in terms of financial resources, have half the number of people doing this sort of testing, and turn around in 28 days. We turn around in 114 days, so in each one of these cases we are potentially putting the Canadian public unnecessarily at risk for an additional 90 days--three months. As well, with the processes in place, we have no guarantees that violent criminals are not walking the streets because the RCMP isn't doing their job.

Is that a fair assessment?

[Sheila Fraser]

We did raise concerns on the two issues you mentioned. One is the timeliness. I think DNA is becoming used more and more, and I'm sure the other witnesses here would be more eloquent on this. Obviously, as it takes longer to get test results, investigations and eventual court proceedings will slow down, so the timeliness is important.

The question we were concerned with in relation to the automated process was that the RCMP labs put in a quality management system, and with a quality management system you would expect that any concerns about any aspect of the systems or the procedures within the labs would be reported. If there were any potential problem with quality, it would be identified. It would be ascertained if there really was a problem, and there would be a rigorous review to see what was going wrong and how to fix it.

The problems with the automated system were being raised by the scientists, and it took a year before they started to be addressed. That's why we were raising the issue that the quality management system was not operating in the way one would expect it to be operating.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

But, Madam Fraser, to the whole question, when I take a look at the comparatives with other jurisdictions--28 days in Sweden's case, 7 days in case of the U.K.--I can't help but arrive at a conclusion that with the processes that have been in place over the last number of years here in Canada in the RCMP system, we've in fact unnecessarily endangered the Canadian public. Would you agree with that statement?

[Sheila Fraser]

I could not draw that conclusion from what we have done in this audit.

We have certainly encouraged the RCMP to consult and to benchmark against other organizations, and I believe they have begun to take measures to do so, and they might want to address that.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Perhaps I could skip over, then, to Mr. Martin.

You said there has been an infusion of $5 million to start addressing some of these issues. Compared to jurisdictions that have an equal number of cases, you do have one of the biggest budgets, so it doesn't appear to be a budgetary issue.

You're reviewing this. Has anyone taken a close look? Has anyone travelled to Sweden, for instance, to take a look at their systems to try to figure out what we're doing wrong?

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

I have not looked at those, but I would pass that on to Mr. Buckle to respond.

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

Thank you.

That particular area of benchmarking has been somewhat troublesome.

In 2005 we attempted a benchmarking exercise with seven laboratories. The problem we found was that no lab was collecting a set of data to which we could compare our data.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

The question was, has the RCMP sent someone? You've just put $5 million into the budget to fix things. Have you taken a step? You have the Auditor General's report. Has anyone gone to see what the Swedes are doing? Yes or no.

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

Nobody has specifically gone to the Swedish lab.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Has anyone gone to the U.K. to take a look at the private lab there that handles forensics?

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

Yes. We collaborate with all of the labs mentioned in this report, with the exception of the Swedish lab, which I believe is the only one we haven't paid a visit to.

If I may follow up on the benchmarking issue--

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Perhaps someone else will touch on that, because we do have limited time here.

Coming back to exhibit 7.9 and the automated processes, I understand that all of the lab results that use the automated process are being reviewed. Is that correct?

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

Yes. I may point out that that was a controlled situation. Following the installation of our automated process, we did determine very early on--you're looking at exhibit 7.8--that there were problems. We started to look at each of the issues raised by our people. We eventually narrowed it down to a single issue, which was HEMASTICK. We know when it started; we know when it ended.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

How many cases are problematic?

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

There were 216 cases about which we sent out letters to clients, advising them that there was a concern with the results. However, 87% of those cases did yield other probative evidence.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So there are potentially 30 cases in which the conclusions were wrong?

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

No, I would not say that.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

You said 87%?

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

Yes, 87% of the cases about which we sent out letters had other probative evidence included in them. Six percent were cases in which we did not find DNA. We don't know if it was because of the HEMASTICK or not. It would not be unusual for us to not find DNA in a case. The other 6% were cases in which DNA was found but at a level lower than what we would have expected.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Now we'll have Mr. Sweet.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I have some of the same concerns that all of my colleagues have with the fact that we would desire to believe that your conviction today is one that will change it.

I wanted to ask you about the special projects team that was established in 2000. Mr. Martin mentioned having a manager specifically for this action right now. But there was a whole team in 2003, I believe, set up to review the Auditor General's recommendations. Whatever happened to that team that was supposed to follow through on those issues?

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

That predates me. I'd have to ask Mr. Buckle to speak to that.

[A/Commr Joe Buckle]

Thank you.

The team that was set up in 2000 to address that audit functioned until about 2002, and was at that point disbanded. That team put in place some of the action items that we followed up on in 2003, such as the restructuring of the labs, the lab information management system, the accreditation activities, and the installation of an advisory committee.

They had recommended that in fact we close two labs in our system. However, the events of September 11 prompted the government to change that decision. It was felt at that time, as I understand it--it predates my tenure as manager--that the activities were then handed off to the onboard management team for completion of their activities.