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.