Chapter 6: Thematic Issues — Prioritization
Special Report on the Federal Policing Mandate of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Prioritization

159. Federal Policing must address a dynamic criminal landscape with finite resources. To do so, it employs a prioritization process designed to allocate funding and personnel to operational files of the highest importance. This process involves multiples stages.

160. The first stage of the prioritization process is the setting of strategic priorities. The Federal Policing program adopted a Federal Priority Setting Framework in 2016 to align its resource output and effort with the criminal threat environment by focusing on the most serious threats to Canada and Canadians. ^{Footnote 271} The framework is intended to allow Federal Policing to optimize resources; to enhance governance, oversight and situational awareness at Federal Policing National Headquarters; to increase results and evidence-based policy and decision-making; and to enhance accountability and reporting structures. ^{Footnote 272} Federal Policing sets its strategic priorities on a three-year cycle. ^{Footnote 273}

161. The Federal Policing Strategic Policy Branch (Strategic Policy) is responsible for managing the priority setting cycle and preparing an overview of the national and international criminal threat environments to inform the priority setting process. ^{Footnote 274} In completing this overview, Strategic Policy relies on internal, external and international sources of information. These include the Federal budget, Ministerial mandate letters, intelligence and information shared by domestic security and intelligence partners, completed and ongoing RCMP investigations, ^{Footnote 275} reports by the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, and allied information. ^{Footnote 276} Federal Policing’s strategic priorities are then set by the National Integrated Operations Council, which is chaired by an Assistant Commissioner or Director General from one of the RCMP's operational business lines, and attended by all Federal Criminal Operations Officers and senior officials from various parts of Federal Policing. ^{Footnote 277}

Chart 6: The Federal Policing Prioritization Process

Long description

Strategic Priorities

1. set by Strategic Policy
2. based on national and international criminal threats

Tiering of Major Projects

1. set by Prioritization Committee
2. assigned a level from Tier 1 (highest priority) to Tier 3

Allocation of Resources

1. set by responsible Federal Policing branch
2. operational expenditures based on Tier level

Source: RCMP, Federal Policing, “Federal Mandate Accountability Framework,” January 2019.

162. As noted earlier, Federal Policing’s priorities for 2020-2023 are national security, transnational and serious organized crime, and cybercrime. Within each of these priority areas, Federal Policing has identified key target areas. For national security, the focus is on terrorism and foreign interference. For transnational and serious organized crime, it is organized crime, money laundering and border integrity. For cybercrime, it is foreign influenced cybercrime and cyber-enabled criminal activity conducted by transnational serious organized crime actors. ^{Footnote 278}

163. Federal Policing’s priority-setting process is flexible by design, allowing the program to adapt to short-term changes in the threat environment. For example, during the most recent strategic priority window (2020-2023), Federal Policing shifted some of its focus from religiously- motivated violent extremism to ideologically-motivated violent extremism due to the increasing prevalence of the latter. ^{Footnote 279} Strategic priorities are also designed to give Federal Policing a degree of flexibility in exceptional circumstances (e.g., Federal Policing may conduct a non-priority investigation if another police force of jurisdiction has a conflict of interest in a file). ^{Footnote 280}

164. The tiering of major projects is the second stage of the prioritization process. The tiering process is designed to rank major divisional projects across the country according to a national perspective of the criminal threat. The Federal Policing Criminal Operations Branch is responsible for tiering divisional projects. In ranking these projects, it considers a number of factors, including Federal Policing’s strategic priorities. ^{Footnote 281}

165. Federal Policing employs a structured approach to assigning tier levels to major projects. First, Divisions must complete and submit the Major Project Prioritization and Governance Tool (Prioritization Tool) form. Federal Policing developed the Prioritization Tool in 2013 to better align its resources with the most important criminal threats. The Prioritization Tool includes a number of standardized questions to assess the overall profile and priority of a project, ^{Footnote 282} including strategic relevance, targets, specialized investigative techniques, investigational objective and expected outcome, resource requirements, and Federal Policing’s Scope of Service (see below). ^{Footnote 283} The Scope of Service refers to three elements that are of specific relevance to Federal Investigations. Investigations, operations, and probes must include at least one Scope of Service element — even if it relates to a broader strategic priority — to be considered a major Federal project and enter the tiering process. ^{Footnote 284} The Scope of Service elements are:

166. Divisions then submit the results of the Prioritization Tool to Federal Policing at National Headquarters. ^{Footnote 286} The Prioritization Committee is responsible for tiering Federal Policing’s major projects. It is chaired by the Director General of the Federal Policing Criminal Operations Branch, and its membership includes a senior official from each of Federal Policing’s thematic investigative areas (e.g., Serious and Organized Crime) and may include representatives from other relevant areas within Federal Policing (e.g., Covert Operations). The Prioritization Committee meets as needed or at the call of the Chair. Members vote on the initial tier level of a project, on adjustments to a pre-established tier level, and on whether to reject a proposed tiered project. This is done on a consensus basis with the Chair holding a veto. ^{Footnote 287} Lead investigators of tiered projects are invited to present their file to the Prioritization Committee to ensure that tiering decisions take their subject matter expertise into account. ^{Footnote 288}

167. The Prioritization Committee assigns tiers to major projects across the country. Each tier designates the importance and reporting requirements for the divisional investigative team conducting the project. Federal Policing’s project tiers are:

• Tier 1: projects deemed a top priority requiring significant oversight and direction from National Headquarters. Reporting requirements are at the discretion of the Prioritization Committee, but Divisions typically report to National Headquarters every 14 days.
• Tier 2: projects deemed a priority requiring some level of oversight and direction from National Headquarters. Reporting requirements are at the discretion of the Prioritization Committee, but Divisions typically report to National Headquarters every 28 days.
• Tier 3: projects not deemed a priority. Reporting requirements are at the discretion of the Prioritization Committee. ^{Footnote 289}

168. Federal Policing at Headquarters relies on two main sources of data for overseeing Federal Policing activities. The first dataset is known as the Projects and Prioritization Dashboard. The Situational Awareness Support Unit maintains this centralized database of tiered projects, and uses it to produce monthly reports on all tiered major projects. It shares these reports with Federal Policing’s Senior Executive Committee. A separate Federal Policing Assessment Unit maintains the second dataset, known as the Project Stat Sheet, to consolidate information on projects submitted for prioritization.

169. Resource allocation is one of the main outcomes of the prioritization process. Federal Policing assigns greater focus and resources to higher tier investigative projects. On an annual basis, Federal Policing engages in a ‘resource reset’ process, where the Deputy Commissioner Federal Policing issues direction to the Federal Criminal Operations Officers and commanding officers to shift their resource footprint to align with federal priorities. The Deputy Commissioner Federal Policing provides a mandate letter to each Federal Criminal Operations Officer annually, which describes budgetary restrictions, operational priorities and expectations. The Deputy Commissioner of Federal Policing and the Federal Criminal Operations Officers from each division discuss progress in these areas on a quarterly basis and Federal Policing Headquarters shifts divisions’ resources to focus on higher priority investigative areas. ^{Footnote 290}

170. There are four significant challenges with the current prioritization process. The first is divisional discretion. While Divisions must complete a Prioritization Tool for every major project, the Federal Criminal Operations officers within their Divisions maintain discretion regarding when to submit a project for prioritization. ^{Footnote 291} In some cases, they decide not to submit investigations for tiering until they are at an advanced stage, ^{Footnote 292} or if an earlier investigations was rejected for tiering, they may nevertheless continue to work on the investigation. ^{Footnote 293} In practice, this means that Divisions work on what they deem to be Divisional priorities without submitting them to Federal Policing, even when they are fully within the Federal Scope of Service. It also means that the Prioritization Committee reviews new projects without an understanding of current investigations and expenditures in the Divisions. Consequently, Federal Policing is not fully aware of the number or type of major projects advanced at any given time, limiting its ability to track major projects across Canada or to direct resources to the highest threats from a national perspective. ^{Footnote 294}

171. The second challenge with prioritization is governance. As noted above, respective tiers impose reporting requirements on Divisions. However, there are no standardized methods for this reporting. There is no centralized tracking of this reporting and an internal audit found that, on the cases it examined, Divisions submitted reporting on time in only 43% of tiered projects. ^{Footnote 295} This further impedes Federal Policing’s ability to govern its own investigations. These challenges are not new. A 2016 internal survey of prioritization compared divisional and national listings of major projects and identified a number of discrepancies. The survey recommended that “[m]anagement should consider improving its monitoring and reporting activities and identify the potential causes for such discrepancies to exist.” ^{Footnote 296}

172. The third challenge is the continued control of federal resources by Divisions. As the RCMP noted, “Divisions are responsible for managing both their investigative resources and their priorities in conjunction with their business line at [National Headquarters] and the Federal Policing priorities.” ^{Footnote 297} This means that while the Federal Policing program sets priorities and assigns tiers to major projects, it does not automatically determine what investigations Federal personnel conduct nor the level of resources assigned to tiered investigations in the Divisions. ^{Footnote 298}

173. The fourth challenge with prioritization is data integrity. As noted above, Federal Policing relies on two sources of data to oversee Federal investigations (the Projects and Prioritization Dashboard and the Project Stat Sheet). There are significant discrepancies between the number of tiered projects listed in the two documents, which is mainly due to a lack of data input controls and inconsistent quality review. ^{Footnote 299} As a result, senior executive are not receiving a clear, consistent picture of tiered projects across the country. Without proper compliance and standardization, the reporting used by officials within the Federal Policing program to make decisions risks being inaccurate, inconsistent or incomplete. ^{Footnote 300} This makes it difficult for the RCMP to assure itself, the Minister, and the public that it is addressing the highest threats to Canada and Canadians.