PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 30, 2000

• 1539

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.)): Order.

Sorry to hold you up. Some of our committees have been broken into subcommittees and are meeting at the same time, so we've had to split out. But we have a full complement here.

• 1540

I'd like to welcome the members from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Ms. Maria Barrados, with whom we meet on a regular basis because of the significantly high position she holds in the Auditor General's office.

I'd like to begin by calling on Ms. Barrados to make her presentation, please.

Ms. Maria Barrados (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have with me today Mr. David Brittain, the audit principal responsible for directing this particular audit.

I'd like to thank you and the committee for this opportunity to present the results of our audit of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's services for Canada's law enforcement community.

The RCMP provides a range of special services that are essential to the effective operation of law enforcement in Canada. These services include: fingerprint identification; criminal history records; forensic laboratories; criminal intelligence; and police training. They also include a system called CPIC, the Canadian Police Information Centre, which makes it possible for users to directly access a wide range of data banks covering drivers, vehicles, stolen property, wanted persons, and criminal records.

[Translation]

These services are used by police officers, courts, parole boards, correctional institutions, federal agencies such as Customs and Immigration and, in some cases, the public. If the law is to be applied effectively, acceptable quality and timeliness must be assured. Information systems must be up-to-date and available 24 hours a day.

The audit has revealed that the services do not always meet user needs. For example, turnaround times for DNA analyses were too long, 183 days on average for the period considered. Important criminal files were not assigned the appropriate priority level, particularly in cases for which a preliminary DNA analysis would have been essential to identify a suspect. All the possibilities offered by DNA analysis as an investigation tool were not exploited, DNA analysis was only used in the most serious cases.

[English]

There are backlogs of more than two months in entering data into the criminal history records, and some files have taken over five months. At the time of our audit, the backlog for entering fingerprints into the system stood at 25,000 and was taking about 25 days.

Another concern is with regard to the delays in responding to requests for security checks on a variety of individuals—volunteers who will work with children, applicants for jobs in both the public and private sectors, and applicants for visas, citizenship, and landed immigrant status.

In addition, CPIC is unavailable nationally or regionally 11% of the time. This has prevented police officers from making almost four million queries, and represents almost $18 million in productive time lost.

The audit report includes a number of recommendations on how the RCMP can improve its management and its turnaround times. The RCMP needs to set performance targets and determine priorities, rationalize its laboratory service, improve its performance measurement, establish a national advisory committee, and communicate better with its users.

The RCMP has responded positively to the recommendations in the chapter to improve these services. The committee may wish to inquire of the RCMP on progress made to date in implementing corrective measures.

The RCMP's expenditure on services to the Canadian law enforcement community is $120 million, which is only a small part of the estimated $10 billion to $15 billion spent on the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, these services are the backbone and must receive the attention they deserve. Wise investment in these services will have a significant impact on enhancing public safety and reducing costs downstream in the criminal justice system. There needs to be clear agreement among all players on the level of service, funding arrangements, user input, management, and accountability. There needs to be improvement and it must be sustainable.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. We'd be pleased to answer any questions your committee may pose.

• 1545

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Richardson): Thank you very much, Madam Barrados.

I would like to recognize Mr. Curt Allen now to make his presentation.

Deputy Commissioner Curt Allen (National Police Services and Technical Infrastructure, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the progress the RCMP has made with respect to the recommendations contained in the Auditor General's report to Parliament in April of this year.

[Translation]

Next to me are the directors of the National Police Services or NPS, as well as Robert Goulet, the Assistant Commissioner, and Brian Richardson, Doctor of Science, who will help me answer your questions in greater depth.

[English]

I would also like to signal to the committee that present here is the director of the Canadian Police College, Tunita Murray. Also here is Mr. Dave Morreau, who is in charge of a special projects group that has been set up to address the recommendations. And seated beside Mr. Morreau is Richard Philippe, who is the director of the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada.

Mr. Chairman, the RCMP has undertaken a number of initiatives in response to the recommendations contained in numerous studies and reviews of National Police Services, the most recent being the report of the Auditor General.

Early this year the RCMP established a National Police Services and technical infrastructure responsibility area and created my position at the level of deputy commissioner to champion the new business line and provide a single point of accountability. The creation of the business line, under the National Police Services umbrella, is not necessarily new. What is new, however, is our style of doing business, focusing on accountability, strategic issue management, the development of concrete performance measures, and a commitment to work horizontally with ourselves and our partners at all levels, both internally and externally. By working this way we hope to ensure the most efficient and focused approach to policing.

Consistent also with the Auditor General's recommendations, we intend to implement an NPS advisory committee along with individual advisory committees within a number of our service lines. These advisory committees will include client stakeholders, police, government, criminal justice and private sector partners, and will be instrumental in providing guidance and direction in the delivery of NPS services.

[Translation]

I would now like to highlight some specific initiatives currently taking place, many of which are the result of recommendations contained in the recent Auditor General's report.

[English]

A critical component of National Police Services is the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC. The federal government recently approved funding of up to $115 million for the modernization of this important police information system. Enhancements to CPIC are expected to improve reliability and service to our clients in the criminal justice community, resulting in prompt access to the database. These improvements will provide the necessary level of service required to ensure public safety.

[Translation]

We are making considerable progress in our forensic labs. We have set up a team that has been given the task of developing new performance and service standards and implementing a more activity-oriented approach.

[English]

Our national DNA data bank and its cutting-edge technology has already created much outside interest. The DNA sample collection project will assist the police in identifying and apprehending repeat offenders by comparing DNA from crime scenes with DNA from convicted offenders. It will also aid the police in identifying suspects, thereby reducing the cost of investigations. It could also lead to reducing the number and length of trials, in addition to increasing the likelihood of obtaining a conviction.

The Auditor General detailed DNA case backlogs as a major concern. But we have already made significant progress and have reduced them substantially. This was accomplished by the introduction of a more efficient methodology caseload levelling and the redeployment of resources to biology.

The demand for DNA analysis is forecasted to grow at a rate of 10% to 20% per year. Our objective is to plan realistically to meet future pressures.

The Auditor General also identified a need for improvement in our information and identification services. Major upgrades have shortened turnaround times and backlogs relative to the time of the review.

A project team is in place to conduct a comprehensive review of criminal history records, fingerprint operations, and associated mail services. As with other areas under the NPS purview, internal and external processes will be reviewed and analysed for the purpose of identifying opportunities for streamlining and realigning work activities.

• 1550

With respect to the Auditor General's recommendations relative to the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, or CISC, we are proceeding with a multidisciplinary response. This approach is based on increasing our own expertise as well as our strategic partnerships, both within and outside the criminal justice community.

CISC has already forged many partnerships and has created an information-sharing capability with members of the police community that is second to none.

[Translation]

The Auditor General had recommended that the budget allocation for the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada be increased. An additional 1.07 million dollars was contributed to this sector.

[English]

Finally, we are developing a revitalized and forward-looking program for the Canadian Police College. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, as we are here before you today, the Canadian Police College is hosting an international police and information technology conference in Cornwall, Ontario, which has about 350 participants from several countries.

Again, we support the Auditor General's recommendations and recognize that the excellence and success of any police investigation is contingent upon the quality of the experience and expertise of the investigators. The best way to ensure that this quality is maintained is through appropriate training and education, which enables police officers throughout Canada, and in fact the world, to deal with increasingly complex and sophisticated cases, particularly in the area of organized crime.

Moreover, today's police managers require training in modern management skills as well as all aspects of police services. We are therefore committed to building a strong capability within the college to meet the changing needs of the police profession.

[Translation]

The initiatives I have spoken about today represent only the major features of a large number of initiatives which will ensure that the National Police Services program will be able to meet the challenges of the 21st century. A lot of work, however, still remains to be done.

[English]

To maintain safe communities we need the appropriate law enforcement capabilities in place. While the RCMP has long been recognized as one of the most progressive police organizations in the world in areas such as forensic sciences and information management, we will need continued investments in our programs to ensure that we meet our clients' demands.

Together with my NPS colleagues we are undertaking to build a forward-looking strategy for National Police Services. This will include an integrated business plan and resourcing strategy to identify our needs for the coming years. We therefore welcome the challenges posed by the Auditor General. And it is our hope that the rationalization and revitalization of our programs will result in a win-win situation for all we collectively work toward, a new model to deliver national police services to Canadians.

The challenges of today are many, but they are necessary in preparing us for the opportunities of tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

My colleagues and I will be happy to respond to any questions the committee may have.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Richardson): I thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Commissioner.

We'll commence in our usual fashion with the opposition having eight minutes. We'll go to Mr. Abbott first.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Good. Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank the witnesses, particularly for giving us the opportunity to have a look at your opening comments before committee. It's been very helpful in preparing.

There are a tremendous number of questions to the RCMP in particular, and especially about CPIC. Is it true that the system was basically designed for around 1990 and that it is running about ten times the volume it was originally designed for? Is that a true statement?

D/Commr Curt Allen: Yes, that is a reasonable statement. The system was designed many years ago, in the 1970s, to handle about one-tenth of the workload that it's handling now.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Let me ask another qualifying question.

If the system is down 10% to 11% of the time, is it reasonable to extrapolate that to say that when a police officer wants to access CPIC, when he's in his car, wherever it is—he may be in an emergency situation—there is a one in ten chance that when he goes to access CPIC it will not be available for him?

• 1555

D/Commr Curt Allen: No, I don't think that's absolutely true. I think one has to try to understand that we have made a tremendous effort as an organization to keep CPIC running given the fact that it's a legacy system that is now many years old. We have put a lot of effort into trying to maintain the system and to upgrade the system during quiet times, which hopefully has transpired into a higher rate of availability than the 89% that the report would indicate.

On the one hand, we accept entirely the recommendations and observations of the report. We recognize that there's a lot of work that needs to be done. Indeed, I could ask Assistant Commissioner Goulet to comment on our most recent records, which have shown some progress, even with the old system we're running.

Assistant Commissioner Robert Goulet (Information and Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Since the review we have worked very hard to stabilize the systems. The figures show now that in the 1999 calendar year, the CPIC mainframe database application was available 99.16% of the time. To date, an average availability for the year 2000 is 99.37% as of the week ending May 21.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm sorry; I don't understand. It's 99% and 11% down. Help me reconcile those two numbers.

A/Commr Robert Goulet: At the time the audit was conducted, it is true that the system was going through significant difficulties and we had to invest a lot of time, effort, and money to stabilize the system. It was done since that time. That's why now the system is working much better and is more available than it was at the time, which was 1998.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I didn't want to do that. This is a totally different issue, the DNA. I notice in your presentation you mention caseload levelling and the redeployment of resources to biology when you're referring to DNA. What you're saying is that there was a redeployment of resources to CPIC in order to get from the 11% down to the 99% up. Where are these resources coming from? What's being shortchanged?

A/Commr Robert Goulet: The major transformation we made was that the system was using what is referred to as nodes, if I can use the technical expression, and these nodes were being placed in the various provinces and regions. Since that time, we've brought them all to Ottawa. They are all locally at our headquarters now, which means we have the specialists in place so that whenever there's a little problem, they can actually work on it right away and fix the problem instead of flying over to parts of Canada to work on it. This means we can fix the problem much faster than before. That's one example of the adjustment we had to make.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Are you satisfied that the system, recognizing that there have to be some significant upgrades and a whole revision of the system... As it presently stands, as a very valuable tool to law enforcement officers, is it in totally satisfactory condition at this point, given the technology you have?

A/Commr Robert Goulet: It is very well maintained right now. For your information, the CPIC renewal project was started almost a year ago. The first part of this project is to stabilize this old system of ours—

Mr. Jim Abbott: It's some $30 million worth.

A/Commr Robert Goulet: Yes. They should be able to implement the maximum of their efforts, which they've been developing throughout the last year, sometime this summer or early fall. We're very satisfied that we can hold the old system until we have the support from the new application.

Mr. Jim Abbott: You'll have to excuse my cynicism about going from 11% down to less than 1% down as a result of an audit report. I'm just having trouble chewing on it.

A/Commr Robert Goulet: Well, the only answer I can give you is that when the audit team came to the RCMP to audit the system, we were going through a very bad period in terms of the technology itself. We have been working quite hard for the last two years to stabilize the system. Obviously we were successful, and that's why we're saying that the availability percentage is much higher than it was in 1998.

• 1600

D/Commr Curt Allen: I think it should be noted that while we've been able to stabilize the system significantly, we recognize that this isn't the system that's going to meet our future needs. That's abundantly clear.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I understand that.

D/Commr Curt Allen: There is a need for the upgrade to take us into the future.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay.

How much time do I have?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Richardson): One minute.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Oh boy, I'm just trying to think of what to do in one minute.

Let's touch on the question of compatibility with other systems. I have heard that there are many different systems by many different companies of police and a lot of them are not compatible one with the other. With the upgrade you're doing to CPIC, is there also work ongoing to try to come to some kind of a standardization so that we can get into one system between all police departments?

D/Commr Curt Allen: That's a complex question, as you can appreciate. We do have a number of major information systems in the organization. There is one that deals with human resources, one that deals with finances, and then a number of operational systems such as CPIC. There are many others. We are making every effort to integrate all of the systems to lead into the kind of management information systems we will need for the future. That will take a significant investment. We're putting all the resources to it that we can at this time.

Mr. Jim Abbott: But those resources aren't coming out of the $115 million?

D/Commr Curt Allen: None of the resources are coming out of the operational area such that the operations are being affected adversely.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Richardson): Thank you.

Now I call on Madame Venne to have eight minutes of time.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Ladies and gentlemen, looking at the Auditor General's report, we observe that the RCMP has serious management problems to say the least. For example, the fact that no priority sequence has been established for preliminary DNA analyses. The report mentions that 82 days are required to do these analyses whereas only 2 days should be necessary. In light of this information, how can we expect the genetic data bank that will be in operation in June 2000 to be at all effective?

[English]

D/Commr Curt Allen: I don't share entirely your point of view on the remarks you've made. There's no doubt that at the time of the review, it was taking us far too long to do DNA analysis. I would also add that it was taking us too long to do a number of things. That relates to a number of factors that I believe we're well on our way to trying to ameliorate.

For a number of years, the organization suffered systemic funding challenges. Budget 2000 has gone a long way to correct that, and we now have more funding at our fingertips to put to good work. Coincidentally, the turnaround time at the present time for DNA analysis has been reduced to about half of what it was at the time of the review.

We have undertaken a lot of other majors since that time as well to implement screening at all of the laboratory sites. Although there's evidently more work to be done, the construction of the DNA databank is scheduled to open at the end of June. We see that happening, and that facility will be world-class. We have the international community knocking on our door looking for access and understanding around the technology that's involved in that.

• 1605

I think in some ways, for a period of time we were somewhat victims of our own success, in that we changed from one technology to a more elaborate technology around the way we do business with DNA, and that caused some resource challenges.

We are trying to hire at the present time more resources, which we know we need, because from my perspective DNA is a hot science in policing. Part of the challenge with addressing that though is that the need for all of the other things we do in the laboratories hasn't really disappeared. So what we're trying to do is wrestle the challenges of providing the right mix of services, recognizing that DNA is the one that's going to hold enormous potential presently and down the road.

So my sense is that the DNA data bank will open on time and will provide a world-class service.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: I understand that the time required to do these analyses has been cut in half, from 82 days to 41. However, the report says that an analysis should only take two days; so you are still a long way from meeting the objective.

[English]

D/Commr Curt Allen: With your permission, I'm going to ask Dr. Richardson to add some comments here.

I don't think we've arrived at the performance standard, if you will, that we ought to be doing screening in all cases in two days. We've been able to do that in some of the cases. We're some distance away yet from developing the performance standards with the kind of transparency they should have in the future, but we have made a lot of progress. We've tried to level the workload across the six laboratories rather than deal with everything at the point of entry. We've tried to streamline the process in that way.

Brian, perhaps you can add some comments.

Assistant Commissioner Brian Richardson (Forensic Laboratory Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Certainly.

The reference to the two days is in fact the total time it would take if an investigator brought an exhibit into the lab, handed it to our scientists, and then received the report after all of the analysis. Obviously we don't have scientists waiting at the door ready to receive reports. So the two days is realizable, but it's not realistic in terms of the total workload our scientists bear.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: What time limit would be realistic then?

[English]

D/Commr Curt Allen: I'm not sure we know that at this point in time. We've undertaken to put together a group to look at it.

There are many things we have to do, and among them is to study all of the steps involved in the work and analyse how we can try to streamline all of that work. One of our problems is we have too many people at the specialist level where we need to have some people more at the technologist level. These people will be better qualified—not necessarily better qualified, but aptly qualified—to do some of the work, with the specialists dealing with the more comprehensive work.

So at this point in time it's probably unrealistic for us to commit ourselves to a standard. We recognize that we have to perform the work in a much shorter turnaround time, and that's not only the screening; it's also the analysis.

We recognize as well that for every case we provide analysis on, there will be other cases coming through the door. That's a reality as well. So we have to find a way within all of that to prioritize so that we're dealing with the most important work on the first basis or at the earliest opportunity.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: It seems the RCMP is doing analyses that are not part of its mandate, and that consequently the DNA analyses that it needs to do are delayed. For example, we are told it does toxicity studies for coroners in civil cases. If, as I have been able to ascertain from reading the report, the RCMP does not do these analyses because they make money (the Auditor General had already noted this fact in 1990 and apparently nothing has changed since then) what does it intend to do in this regard? Will it follow its mandate and just work at solving crimes?

• 1610

[English]

D/Commr Curt Allen: The RCMP has completely committed to respecting its mandate in every aspect. I don't believe there's a good reason we're doing some of the work that was noted in the report, other than that as the laboratory system has evolved over some forty or fifty years at least, we have taken on responsibilities at times when we probably had the resources to do it. That's no longer the case, and we're moving out of all of those areas as quickly as we can. In doing that, we have to try to understand that the people who should be doing it are going to have some challenges finding a way to have it done.

At the present time, we're working as quickly as we can with everybody involved in it, trying to disperse those responsibilities as soon as possible, recognizing completely that's not what we ought to be doing.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Richardson): Deputy Commissioner and Madame Venne, I'd like to thank you for your discussion. The time is up for the eight minutes.

We now move to Madam Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Eight? Right.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Richardson): No more, no less.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You can start the clock now.

Madam Barrados, Mr. Brittain, thank you very much for your presentation. I read the report, and I have to say it raised a lot of red flags.

Deputy Commissioner Allen, firstly I find it very difficult to believe that in fact the CPIC system has only been down less than 0.1%. I used to work in a peripheral activity to law enforcement. I was a member of the Quebec Police Commission and then I was deputy commissioner for police ethics for the Province of Quebec. So I have close to nine years of experience in investigating public complaints against the police and conducting public inquiries. A significant number of complaints arose out of the weaknesses in the system, where police officers simply didn't have access to the information from CPIC, and as a result of that precipitated information coming through and committed gestures or actions that then resulted in public complaints. So I'd really like to know how you did that turnaround so quickly. That's one.

Secondly, the Auditor General has queried the need for six complete forensic labs that duplicate the same services. You haven't directly answered that. You've said that in the past, when they were created, the resources were probably there to be able to do that duplication. Well, obviously the resources are no longer there, so I'd like to know what action plan you have to address the issue of duplication and to centralize, where centralization will in fact be cost-efficient. That's the second one.

Third, how does the lab turnaround, both on the analysis for DNA warrants and on the full-screen DNA analysis, compare with turnaround we would see with, say, the FBI's forensic lab, and then secondly with private labs that deal with that kind of analysis? If there's a significant difference in the turnaround, what is the issue? Is it lack of resources, lack of qualified people? Or is it simply the way in which the structure has been put into place—processes within the organization to deal with analysis and to ensure there is a rapid turnaround?

Last, when is the new CPIC system going to be completely operational? And that new system at one point will become outdated, outmoded, in the same way the original has become, and you'll attempt to upgrade. Now you're saying it's a heritage system. So in terms of the new CPIC system, how long do you think its lifespan will be?

D/Commr Curt Allen: You've asked a number of questions—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes, I have.

D/Commr Curt Allen: —all of which are very good.

I'd like to try to clarify something. I'm going to ask Assistant Commissioner Goulet to speak to the availability time. I would invite the Auditor General's folks as well to compare the methodology. I'm not a scientist, but I do believe we have to be looking at things in the same way.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

• 1615

D/Commr Curt Allen: I am also pleased to say we've had excellent cooperation from the Auditor General's people. I consider them to be on the team we've put together to make the changes that are necessary. We're working, I believe, hand in hand on that.

I also would like to clarify something that may have confused some. I believe the question I responded to here just a moment ago dealt with work that is outside our mandate, and not work that you referred to in your questions—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm not even talking to that issue.

D/Commr Curt Allen: I think there are two issues here. There was the work that was beyond our mandate, which we recognized squarely we shouldn't be doing and have to move away from. On the other hand, the laboratory system was built on the premise that there should be six disciplines. I believe the issue that the Auditor General has identified in that regard is this: Is there a need to offer six disciplines, or five disciplines, whatever the right answer is, in six laboratories?

I think we recognize that we really have to give that serious consideration. Part of the responsibility of the project team that's been put together is to look at how we can consolidate those disciplines so that in fact we're not providing the full range of services at each of the locations.

Where that will go, I don't know, not at this point in time, but as far as I'm concerned it's one of the larger issues involved in this whole review. We recognize that DNA is the science of today and will expand a lot in the future, so clearly we have to provide that at enough sites to meet the demand and to provide the service necessary. On the other hand, with regard to such disciplines as document examination and firearms, in my own view, although the review is not done, clearly I don't think we can support providing that service at the sites we're doing it now. The question is whether or not we provide it at one or two or just where we go. What we really have to do there, in fairness, is to map out the work and decide how to best do it in the future.

On the question of turnaround times and your reference to FBI and private labs, I believe what we have to do is what's right for Canadians, and I think we have to do that in recognition or realization of what other laboratories are doing, but I'm not sure we want to model our system on any other that may be somewhat different. By that I mean I don't think we should have a second-class system. My view of the—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm going to interrupt you, Deputy Commissioner Allen. It's not an issue of modelling on another. If you're doing DNA analysis, a full-screen analysis, and you have a private lab right next door that's doing the same full DNA analysis and they're able to turn it around in, say, 30 days, then I want to know why your lab is not able to do so.

Is it because we, the government, have not provided the RCMP with sufficient targeted money to address that—i.e., so that you can have the proper equipment, the proper training, the proper professionals—or is it something else? If it is something else, what is it?

That doesn't mean...because they're for profit, those private agencies. They will simply charge a higher fee in order to make sure they get the top-line equipment and bring in the specialists.

If that's what it is, then we need to know.

D/Commr Curt Allen: I understand your question. I do believe, however, that what we have to build in this country is a system that is going to be the right system for the Canadian criminal justice system we have. I don't thing we can make a square comparison to private sector and public sector laboratories.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Which is why I mentioned FBI, because it's also public sector.

D/Commr Curt Allen: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You still haven't given me a hard fact. Do you know the turnaround they have?

D/Commr Curt Allen: Dr. Richardson may, I would expect. I know the turnaround times that some other laboratories have established as standards.

One of the things I believe we have to recognize as well is that this is a new science, and I'm not sure that every lab in the world has established performance standards. I'm not sure of that. I think what we have to do is establish the ones that are right for this country.

• 1620

I can't answer your question today in terms of whether or not our biggest problem is technical or staff. I think we have a lot of work to do within our own system to put the system together in the way that it's most efficient and then we have to come to grips with what we need.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: And what's your timeline?

D/Commr Curt Allen: Our timeline for the whole review is—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: No, on this one specific issue. Can I get one clear answer?

What is your timeline on the review of the forensic labs? What is needed? How many are needed? What are the services that should be provided? What are the targets in terms of turnaround for the different analyses? Do you expect to have a preliminary plan in six months, in one year, in two years, in five years?

I mean, if you're running a business you have to set goals, so I would assume that one of the goals you have set in doing that review is that there is a time when there's supposed to be a preliminary plan.

D/Commr Curt Allen: I'm hopeful that—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Richardson): I'm going to cut it there. If we keep going this way there'll be no time for other members to participate. It's a little over the barrier now.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Do we have time for the answers to that?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Richardson): Well, there are a lot of questions still left there, Mr. Abbott. The Alliance will have to pick it up.

We'll now begin the four-minute round.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Where is the Canadian Police College? Is that in Regina?

D/Commr Curt Allen: The Canadian Police College, sir, is right here in Ottawa, at Rockcliffe.

Mr. Jim Abbott: How does it relate to the Regina RCMP?

D/Commr Curt Allen: They're quite different, in fact. The Regina RCMP “depot”, as we call it, is primarily there to feed the RCMP with cadets, with recruits, and to provide basic recruit training for all of the people we need across the country. It does provide the other limited service of training to other federal government departments. That is also there.

On the other hand, the Canadian Police College is really there to provide a service to all police forces in this country.

Mr. Jim Abbott: But doesn't the depot also have some advanced training? Isn't there a component to it of advanced training?

D/Commr Curt Allen: It may have some training. It has some advanced training it shares with other federal government departments, but its primary purpose and raison d'être is to feed the RCMP with cadets to do our work with.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Now, the direction I'm going in here is toward CISC. It strikes me that all sorts of things at CISC, if it's going to be successful in getting really well grounded and organized against organized crime, are going to be required. I touched on a resource earlier in terms of the rationalization of the data reporting between jurisdictions and agencies.

Here's another one that lies in the area of training:

The Auditor General recommended increased investment in CISC and an additional $1.07 million has been dedicated to this area.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are many individual crime investigations that can run into $1 million, $2 million, $3 million or $5 million, so while $1.07 million may be a lot to everybody around this table, it's not a lot in the giant scheme of things.

What do you need in terms of resources, and what are you doing to rationalize the training required? How are you getting focused on the training required in order for CISC and other agencies like that to be able to feed the information to the enforcement community?

D/Commr Curt Allen: Just before I answer the training question I would like to add that a $1.07 million increase in CISC's budget comes very close to doubling their A-base budget, so it is a very significant increase.

Part of the premise of CISC is to try to bring people together from all police organizations to work toward optimal sharing of information. Most of the staff, I believe, at the present time are secondments from other police organizations and from federal government departments.

Really, the whole idea isn't necessarily that the RCMP fund the budget to the point that all of the resources there are paid for by us. Conversely, the notion is that we should try to get people to share some of the burden for that and try to work together.

• 1625

I must say, CISC is very successful at what it's doing, I think. On June 19 and 20 we're hosting a probably once-in-a-lifetime-thus-far meeting of people from all across the country to look at how to approach organized crime. As well, this past week there was a meeting hosted by CISC here in Ottawa that brought together people from each of the provinces.

I look upon CISC as a real success story in terms of the work it's able to accomplish with a minimal budget, recognizing that everybody contributes to that.

With regard to training, I think that's really the responsibility of the Canadian Police College. That's why we're trying to build a new business model there that will address the needs. There are enormous training needs across all police organizations as we try to cope with more complex organized crime investigations, in particular cyber crime and those kinds of things.

The crimes haven't changed in some ways, but perhaps the medium has, and so has the international nature of them. The criminals are using technology to their advantage. We really have to try to catch up with that and if possible get ahead of it.

You're very right in saying that investigations cost a lot. Some of our investigations today may cost as much as $6 million or $8 million, one single investigation, and that's very taxing on resources of all kinds, not only human resources but also the costs of the whole administrative or technical side of the investigation.

I guess all of that says that what we really have to do is try to refocus our efforts as well. I don't think money is the answer to everything. We have to make sure we're working at what we're doing in a smart way, notwithstanding the enormous cost of some of this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Richardson): I think we'll just have to call it there. This is a four-minute session.

I would like to recognize Madam Barrados, since she caught my eye just a moment ago.

Ms. Maria Barrados: I just want to make a little clarification. We didn't recommend in the audit at any point a specific amount of money that should be put into this. In fact, we did recommend that there should be a review on the part of the RCMP to make sure they had adequate effort put into this service. We didn't make a specific recommendation on the amount.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Richardson): I'm sorry, Jim, but your time is up as well, coincidentally.

Mr. Finlay... Or Madam Venne; I recognize you.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Reading the Auditor General's report, we see that information on police records is not up-to-date and that, due to an administrative error, the RCMP has left 1.2 million dollars in government coffers, an amount that could have been used to improve services. I would like to know if the RCMP intends to recover that part of the revenues which it is entitled to for 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 with regard to cost recovery negotiated with the National Parole Board.

D/Commr. Curt Allen: Thank you very much for your question. I will ask Assistant Commissioner Goulet to reply to your question.

A/Commr Robert Goulet: The error that is being referred to as an administrative error also stems from problems with cost recovery procedures followed by the National Parole Board when someone applies for a pardon. The agreement stipulates that the RCMP must obtain part of the amount received for this process. Unfortunately, the RCMP obtained less than it should have. We met with departmental officials last year and reached a new agreement to correct these discrepancies. The RCMP is now recovering its share of what it has invested in this process.

• 1630

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: You say you are recovering your current share. What about the amount you lost in previous years?

A/Commr Robert Goulet: I do not think you can say that there was any money lost since these sums have been deposited in the coffers of the Receiver General of Canada as would have happened if we had recovered them. Therefore, these sums remained within the government.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Yes, I understand but these amounts could have been used, among other things, to update police records.

A/Commr Robert Goulet: You are right. That is why we entered into discussions with Treasury Board a year ago to ensure that the RCMP could keep the amount recovered within its own budget allocation. We must have Treasury Board's approval to be able to take advantage of these revenues.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Thank you. That is all for now.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Richardson): Thank you very much, Madam Venne.

I recognize Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to everyone for their attendance and information.

I'm looking at your speaking notes, Mr. Allen, and I have a question on page 2 regarding CPIC. At the end of the paragraph at the top of that page you say “These improvements will provide the necessary level of service required to ensure public safety”. That's a very broad statement and a pretty strong statement. I wonder if you could give me some idea what you see as the necessary level of service.

The other statement I want to question is in the next paragraph, where you say “A special project team has been formed to develop new performance and service standards and to implement a more business-oriented approach”. When you say a business-oriented approach, I presume you're talking generally; you're not being specific about police business, entrepreneurial business, agricultural business, or a lot of others. We use business as a pretty general term. I just wonder if you mean a more efficient approach, or whether it has some business or return attached to it.

D/Commr Curt Allen: I'll deal with the second question first, if I may.

I think you're correct in terms of the use of the word “business”. What we're really talking about is a more efficient and effective service. I believe that will entail some significant restructuring of the services that are being provided today.

Rather than having six full-service labs, I think we need to specialize around the notion of centres of excellence or specialization. I believe part of that is a recognition as well that we're top-heavy, in terms of the personnel we have in the system today. We could provide a more efficient level of service if we had more technologists, rather than everybody at the specialist level.

On your earlier question, and to ensure public safety, I believe Canadians are fortunate to have the police services they do at their disposal today. All of that comes at a cost, and all police services—and I'm speaking primarily for the RCMP—have very important and serious concerns around the issue of public safety.

I think the Auditor General's folks would agree with us that when CPIC isn't operating 11% of the time, it's difficult to ensure private or public safety. We clearly need a system that will be operable at all times, if that's possible. I'm not sure in my own mind that it is, because every system requires some maintenance and some update. However, we have to try to do all of that around the best times to do it.

I'm convinced the new system will be operating a minimum of 99% of the time, and that will ensure public safety.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much.

Do I have one more short minute?

An hon. member: There's no such thing.

• 1635

Mr. John Finlay: I read in the summary of the Auditor General's report that with respect to the management of workloads in labs, cases that were assigned no priority at all were completed, on average, faster than priority one cases—those considered most urgent—in the disciplines of biology, document analysis, and toxicology.

That's a curious statement, as far as I'm concerned. If they were assigned priority, you would think that would mean priority with respect to getting the answers or providing the report that was requested. So why did the non-prioritized cases seem to be completed faster than the others?

D/Commr Curt Allen: I'm curious about that statement as well. However, I am satisfied it is true. I've been out across the country and visited all six of the laboratories since that report. We've made it abundantly clear that everything needs to be assigned a priority and everything needs to be dealt with in accordance with the priority assigned.

If I might just allude to the question that was asked earlier, I'm hopeful of having some idea of the plan for the services we need by this fall—September or October. I would like to share with you that the average turnaround time for priority one DNA files right now is 20 days, the average turnaround time for other priorities is 57 days, and all screening is currently being done within five days.

I mention that because we have to build the system that's right for the clients we have, the demands on the service, Canadians, and public safety. We have made tremendous strides forward over a very short period of time, recognizing there was a lot of improvement necessary. I think we're at the point now where we can dwell on rebuilding the system the way it has to be built, for the reasons I specified.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)): Thank you very much.

Next is Ms. Phinney for four minutes.

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I was out for a few minutes, so if this question's been answered, please just put me in my place right away.

I would like to know if you think you have adequate resources in place to deliver the National Police Services program the way you'd like to. This is where you should put your pitch in.

D/Commr Curt Allen: I view the National Police Services as the glue and backbone to policing in this country. I believe they're the services that really bring together all of our collective policing efforts across the country, so in that way they're unique.

At the present time I can't tell you definitively the extent to which more resourcing is necessary, because of the work we have to do to bring together the program we have now. I believe my friend sitting to my immediate left will probably not believe that the first thing that ought to be done is to get money, before we make the changes that are necessary.

I believe that technology will continue to evolve. I believe that criminals will continue to profit from using technology, and the police are going to have to deal with that in order to be successful. Increasingly, all major investigations are international, which means we have to deal across jurisdictional boundaries.

Ms. Beth Phinney: So we should tell the Minister of Finance, at the next meeting we have to prepare next year's budget, that you don't need any more money. I think that's what you're saying.

D/Commr Curt Allen: No, I wouldn't be that quick to say that.

Ms. Beth Phinney: But you haven't said anything else.

D/Commr Curt Allen: From my perspective, the RCMP received significant new funding in the most recent budget.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Can you still see areas where money is needed to make this work, or are we just going on fine with no problems?

D/Commr Curt Allen: I think there will be new money. I think the Auditor General recognized that there was an investment required in the resourcing around the National Police Services.

Ms. Beth Phinney: That doesn't mean you will get new money. That means the Auditor General has recognized that. Do you agree with the Auditor General that you need more money?

D/Commr Curt Allen: I do. I agree that in the future we will need more money.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay, thank you.

• 1640

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you very much.

Ms. Jennings, you have four minutes, and I am going to be right on the dot. At the end of four minutes, I am going to cut you off.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: This question is for Deputy Commissioner Allen. Because you've risen to your position, I'm sure you have an excellent memory, so I don't have to remind you of those questions that you haven't yet answered, one of which is when will the new CPIC system become operational? How long is that new system projected to be sufficient for the rising demands over the next five, ten, fifteen years, or whatever?

D/Commr Curt Allen: By plan, the new system will be operational in the year 2003. It is difficult to speculate accurately on the lifespan of it, but my best judgment would be that we hope it would meet our needs for ten to fifteen years—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Without a major upgrade.

D/Commr Curt Allen: —without a major upgrade.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You answered my other question about the forensic labs and the whole plan of action review. You did answer my question about the average turnaround on DNA. So now I'll ask a new question, which relates to the Canadian Police College.

I know personally of the excellent work the Canadian Police College has done. In following up on the question my colleague asked about funding, do you feel that the budget of the Canadian Police College is adequate for its mission and its stated goals? If not, how much more do you need, and where would it be applied in terms of achieving those goals?

I see that you're proposing a new business plan. Is that new business plan taking into account the new trends in terms of new technologies and new ways of learning?

D/Commr Curt Allen: The easy part of your question to answer is the last part of it, and yes, it is. It's trying to focus on three areas. One is education for police executives, which the college really doesn't provide a lot on at present. However, of late we have had a number of seminars around organized crime. I mentioned earlier the conference that's on in Cornwall around police and information technology. Those are clearly some of the things we have to try to focus on. It's also trying to focus around the area of police sciences, and that involves updating some of the services we provide today and bringing them forward to deal more specifically with cyber crime. At the same time, it's trying to establish a very effective futures group, which would bring to the fore a group of people who will try to identify the challenges of the future and enable us to deal with them in a timely way.

Back to your question on funding, a number of years ago the college was given the mandate to try to cost-recover about half of its budget, and that has been very difficult. It was quite a significant departure in our business model, and I think other police forces have not viewed that change in all aspects as favourably as one would have hoped. However, to the college's credit, this past year it recovered about 85% or 90% of its target, and I'm very pleased with that.

Could the college use more money? To come back to funding generally, I don't think there's a police organization in the country where the senior management would say that it couldn't use more money. But, specifically, I think the college could.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You're obviously aware of the federal government's program for chairs of excellence, and one of the reasons for that is to be able to maintain our well-trained young scientists here in Canada, regardless of whether they're in the social sciences, humanities, hard science, etc. I know that in Quebec there has been some movement between the MUC police department, for instance, Sûreté du Québec, and the Université de Montréal in order to develop a BA program and some graduate studies that would provide specialization.

• 1645

Is there any move on the part of the Canadian Police College to partnership with some private universities to develop those programs for police officers and also for people who don't want to become a police officer but who maybe want to open up their own specialized security business or whatever? Is there any move in that sense?

D/Commr Curt Allen: There is very much a move toward recognizing the need to partnership with all educational institutions. There's a recognition that we need not create or re-create everything we believe we need, that there's a lot of ability in other educational organizations to help. There may be many opportunities where other educational organizations can take the lead role and we can help them in a secondary manner. That's something the current director, Tonita Murray, is really looking into and advancing as quickly as we can. We recently had a meeting where Tonita Murray brought together a lot of people from educational organizations across the country to talk about that very issue. I think there are a lot of opportunities we can take advantage of in that regard.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Next is Jim for four minutes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Deputy Commissioner, I'm trying to put a couple of things together here, and I need you to help me make it look a little prettier than the way I see it. Paragraph 7.63 of the Auditor General's report says:

The RCMP is not routinely measuring and monitoring system availability and is unable to provide us with information for previous years.

They go on to say that in the U.K. and the U.S. senior management is provided information daily on such areas as system volume, etc.

Then I go to paragraph 7.67. This would be referring to all of the police forces across Canada and other agencies, presumably. It says:

CPIC users are also concerned about the system's continuing operation. Some provincial jurisdictions have indicated that they would develop their own information systems to perform CPIC's functions if the system is not renewed.

I need you to help me get away from this. I'm starting to get an idea that somebody was asleep at the switch at the RCMP, that we can only say thank God for auditors for us managing to get from 11% down to less than 1% down.

What was going on? We've been tap-dancing around this all afternoon, so I figure we may as well put our foot down on it and ask what the heck was going on. Why were you not routinely measuring and monitoring the system? Why was the system in a situation where it was down 11% of the time? Why were provincial jurisdictions and other agencies ready to walk away from CPIC in frustration? What was going on, and what has changed?

I want to be as gentlemanly as possible, because you two are gentlemen, but I still have to ask the question. I am still having trouble chewing on this thing, that all of a sudden, because the Auditor General came along, everything is fine because it drew your attention to it. That doesn't say much about the management style in the RCMP. Help me out with this.

D/Commr Curt Allen: I would have to agree with your observation in some respects. From my perspective, the RCMP recognized many years ago that CPIC needed to be replaced. We knew, I would suspect, when it first came on stream that it wasn't being built for 25 or 30 years. Nonetheless, it has had a lifespan of almost that period of time. It has also been under a lot of pressure in terms of implementing programs within the organization. One of those, of course, is the firearms program, which is becoming a database being dealt with by CPIC. The fingerprint and the criminal history databases have consistently carried about the same workload, which is about 2.8 million files each. The workload for the system outstripped the design of the system a long time ago. We recognized the need to move forward with it.

Part of the problem was trying to balance a number of funding pressures at the same time and trying to provide a service to all of our clients in contract, in federal policing, and in the other areas.

• 1650

Mr. Jim Abbott: Please excuse me for interjecting, but the RCMP is not routine in measuring and monitoring the system. That was something you could have done, even apart from funding. It was something that was being done in the U.S. and the U.K., where they had 99% up time versus your 11% down time.

D/Commr Curt Allen: I'm going to ask Assistant Commissioner Goulet to comment on that further.

Bob, if you would, please. You addressed it briefly a moment ago.

A/Commr Robert Goulet: Yes, I understand your question, and rest assured, if we do compare the available time from the U.S. system and our system, it's certainly a bit different.

The measures that were taken something like two years ago to ensure the maintenance of the system were not predicated only from the presence of the Auditor General in our office. We were at the time dealing with a major problem, and we were not successful in getting the appropriate funding to change or modify the system so we could give maximum service to our clients.

So we started slowly looking at measures and opportunities. And you have to understand that we're dealing with a very, very old technology that doesn't exist any more. At the same time, most of the specialists of 30 years ago who had been hired to maintain that system have since retired, some have even passed away, and so on. So we have only a very small handful of people to deal with that system.

It took quite a long time before we were able to find the right solution to the problem, and I guess we finally found some temporary solution that will allow us to bridge the gap between what we have today to when we have the new system up and running.

I'm not saying we're waiting until the new system is up and running. Deputy Allen says a new system will be up and running in three years, but the first year is to stabilize the actual systems, which will probably solve most of the concerns of our clients, because now we're going to have something that is much more robust and capable of dealing with the demands of today.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you.

Mr. Clouthier, four minutes.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Deputy Commissioner, I guess I have one observation, and the other one is a question.

I'm relatively new in the political arena. I come from the business arena, and I've found out one thing: if you want to have a successful business, if you're making a change, look toward other businesses that have already made the change and been relatively successful in it. And it seems to me that you've agreed on most occasions with the Auditor General that something has gone amiss and something has to be corrected.

My response is to ask, did you have consultations with other policing agencies throughout the world, whether it's the U.S., the U.K., Australia, or any of the European countries that had already implemented this program or were in the process of doing it? Did you have consultations and discussions with their experts to see how we could come on stream and on board in a more timely and efficient manner?

D/Commr Curt Allen: Is your question directed at the whole program, or CPIC?

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Well, at the whole program, really, or the different components of it. I'm just wondering if you tried to pick anyone else's brain on this.

D/Commr Curt Allen: Yes, indeed we did. With regard to CPIC renewal, as the new system is being developed, we're bringing in on a six-month basis experts from a number of sectors to make sure we are developing the system the way they ultimately feel it should be developed, and we're making the necessary changes as we do that.

With regard to DNA, I'm satisfied there's been a lot of consultation, a lot of input from a lot of folks around this, and I believe we will have a world-class DNA data bank.

Just to go back a little in terms of the discussion today, I don't think the points in the Auditor General's report relate as much to the quality of work as they do to the level of the service that's being provided. I don't think the quality of the work has ever been a serious issue. Rather, what is the issue—and we recognize it and are trying to deal with it—is that we have to improve the level of service that's there. We have to improve on the turnaround times. We have to have a new CPIC system that's going to provide the service. And I'm confident that all of these systems we will provide will be world-class. They will serve Canadians very, very well and they will compare very favourably in all regards to the systems any other country will have.

• 1655

Mr. Hec Clouthier: I have one little question yet. Just to veer from the topic in one regard, we were talking about DNA. I just want to get it through my head. Maybe this question is directed toward Dr. Richardson.

You know, you now hear proponents of capital punishment—of whom I am not one, and I'll go on public record as saying I'm not in favour of capital punishment. But many people who favour the return of capital punishment say that unequivocably, because of DNA testing, we can determine who the killer is. Do you agree with that?

A/Commr Brian Richardson: Well, I think we have to separate identification from the larger issue of who a killer is. All DNA can do is substantially associate two pieces of evidence. It doesn't speak to a crime beyond that.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: So I guess your answer is no. I'm not trying to put you on the spot—or maybe I am. I'm just trying to get it through, because you get people now who are talking of DNA evidence. They say—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: In the United States it's suspended execution—

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Yes, that's right.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: —because DNA has shown that you have all kinds of innocent people on death row. So go back and tell those people that.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Okay, here we go. I have a couple of small questions before we break. Does anybody have any more questions?

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have a quick one on the DNA. In your response here, you talk about an efficient methodology, caseload levelling, and redeployment of resources to biology. Redeployment always means that you take something from somewhere and put it somewhere else. Redeployment of resources to biology indicates to me that you made a choice and have redeployed them to the biology side of the DNA. Where did they come from?

D/Commr Curt Allen: Not necessarily. I believe that as we rebuild the model down the road and as we reconstruct the services we're currently providing and move away from six full-service labs, there will be opportunities to redeploy people to biology. But what we've also done is taken a decision recognizing that we need more people in biology, and we're going ahead and hiring them.

Mr. Jim Abbott: But that has to come out of the budget from somewhere. Is that part of the new allocation the government has done recently? Is that what you're saying?

D/Commr Curt Allen: We've been able to redeploy to the forensic laboratories about $2.2 million as a result of the increased funding in the budget 2000.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Then the final question is at item 7.38, which states:

While the RCMP is having difficulty providing timely DNA analysis, it responds to requests from coroners and medical examiners to perform toxicology analysis for non-criminal cases. These requests are outside the RCMP's mandate...

Apparently they account for one-third of the toxicology caseloads in Halifax and Winnipeg. The RCMP was told about this in 1990. It says:

Our 1990 Report noted that the RCMP was performing work outside of its mandate, but little action has been taken.

In ten years, nothing has turned around. Why?

A/Commr Brian Richardson: I just want to correct an error in that. That statement would give the impression that one-third of the total casework of the Winnipeg and Halifax labs was in non-mandated work. In fact, it is rather one-third of the toxicologies casework, which is substantially less. It would be about a sixth of that.

But that aside, we do recognize that we shouldn't be doing that. It was taken on in times when we had the capacity to do it, and agencies like medical examiners will want that examination done. We will be advising them that we will discontinue those things that are not of a criminal nature, and give them sufficient notice to find alternate providers.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Or charge them, do it on a cost-recovery basis—if you have the resources to do it, I presume.

• 1700

D/Commr Curt Allen: That's an excellent point, Mr. Chairman. Those are some of the options we'll be looking at as we undertake the review, which is now ongoing.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Very well.

I don't have a lot of questions. I just have a small comment and a question. I understand that criminals don't have to go to Treasury Board for approval if they want to purchase a piece of equipment, but I suppose you do. You have to go to Treasury Board every time you have to make a major purchase, don't you?

D/Commr Curt Allen: We, like all other departments and agencies, Mr. Chairman, have to seek our funding through the normal processes and have it appropriated or approved by Treasury Board.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): I was very pleased with what you have done on the international scene, in particular in Haiti after the crisis that took place. You went there and started literally from scratch and built their police force right from the bottom up. In my view, that's an excellent service that you have provided internationally, because, as you have indicated in your comments, most crime knows no borders, and most of it is frankly coming from other parts of the world.

I would want you just to reflect on the importance of, first, continuing to do those kinds of activities internationally but also on perhaps setting up some sort of a strategy with some of our alliances around the world, so perhaps if the Brits can't do it, we can, so you don't divide territories or expertise where we can specialize... But we can also provide a international service, which we are good at. That will also help us out in terms of uprooting part of the crime from its origin. I just wanted to commend you on that. I think that's an exceptionally important thing you have been doing.

From my end, I would say frankly that I see no police force anywhere in the world as good as the RCMP in what they do, because you have 50 balls to juggle at the same time, dealing with crimes, dealing with other jurisdictions, dealing with God help me what. You're doing an excellent job. I don't want you to leave here thinking that we don't appreciate that. I think all members of the committee share the view that you are doing an outstanding job in trying to provide a service that's exceptionally good.

Having said that, the Auditor General mentioned that you have to provide more information to Parliament in your report. I think that is a fair statement, because if you don't give us enough information, we can't really find out what it is that you are doing. I think it's fair game to say that you should improve on that. But you didn't make any specific response to the Auditor General's recommendation. Is that because you agree with it?

D/Commr Curt Allen: We agree entirely with that, Mr. Chairman. I think at times we tend to stand on principle when we're faced with a number of challenges and I think what we have to learn and get better at is recognizing that we do have to be more transparent and quicker to ask for help when we really need it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): That's it. I'm at three minutes and thirteen seconds, Marlene.

I wanted to ask you, Mr. Allen, first, if you have any comments you wanted to add overall before we go back to the Deputy Auditor General?

D/Commr Curt Allen: No, I don't, Mr. Chairman, really.

I've tried to make it clear that the RCMP has welcomed the report of the Auditor General, that we're trying to work hand in hand with the Auditor General's people in terms of making the improvements that are necessary. We consider this to be a partnership between the Auditor General and ourselves. I, personally, and my team that's here with me today, together with the commissioner and the entire senior management team of the RCMP, are committed to get this right and to move the National Police Services to the point where they're once again providing the level of service that is necessary and at the same time maintaining the quality of service we're accustomed to providing.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you very much.

Ms. Barrados.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Mr. Chair, I would like to say on the part of the office that we are very pleased at the response we have gotten from the RCMP. There are a lot of recommendations here, and some very critical observations, and the RCMP has responded very positively.

We are also pleased to see the kinds of improvements that they're beginning to put into place. When we do our follow-up audits, this is the kind of thing we'll certainly take a close look at, because one of the things we would really like to encourage is to ensure that these improvements are sustainable so that these good initiatives that have started will continue.

• 1705

As part of that exercise, it will be important to put the routine measurement and reporting systems in place and to start defining service standards, so that members of Parliament then can assess how the performance is going once they see a standard and once they see the performance report. But as I say, we are very pleased at the initial progress and response.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Mac Harb): Thank you very much.

We'll move adjournment, it being ten minutes after five.