Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 28th, 2013

[Anita Biguzs]

Thank you for the question.

Just for clarification, the transfer from the Canada Border Services Agency in the supplementary estimates is basically a cost from decommissioning an old, what we called, field operation support system, and integrating it fully with our global case management system. So there's no loss of data and the system will be fully efficient and integrated and will actually allow for improved information-sharing.

There are supplementary estimates here for access to health services for refugees per se, because that is covered under the main estimates expenditures for the interim federal health program. I don't think the estimates are showing any kind of a reduction to the interim federal health program per se, but the government did announce changes to that program, largely to align it with comparable services that are provided to Canadians and that Canadians are eligible to receive. So the majority of refugee claimants and successful refugees will continue to receive services under the interim federal health program for hospital and doctor services until such time—because it's a temporary program that bridges to provincial-territorial health programs—

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Sorry, I'm just going to interrupt you because I only have five minutes and we are familiar with the interim federal health program. That is actually where I'm going with my next question, so it was a perfect segue.

A recent report by the Wellesley Institute entitled “The Real Cost of Cutting the Interim Federal Health Program” has outlined issues and recommendations for the interim federal health program. Their assessment is that the changes in the IFH have had negative effects that Minister Kenney assured us would not happen. The information collected in their assessment indicates the following:

...the new system creates confusion, lessens access to health care services among vulnerable populations, leads to inconsistency in care across Canada, and results in poorer health and avoidable illness for refugees and refugee claimants.

This is from the report itself.

As you mentioned in the main estimates, how can CIC ask for additional funding to support their interim federal health program, which as you mentioned right now provides temporary health care for refugees, while stakeholders are reporting how many people across the country are actually suffering from the cuts?

My question is, weren't these cuts made so that the moneys spent on the program wouldn't increase? So now we're trying to spend more money on the interim federal health program, but actually are providing less service and there are more cuts to the services being provided.

[Anita Biguzs]

If I can just clarify, Mr. Chair, the majority of refugee claimants and successful refugees continue to qualify for services, for hospital and doctor services. The intention of the program was that services and benefits should not be provided at a level more than Canadians would have access to. In the case of rejected claimants, they no longer receive coverage unless there are public health, public safety issues, because they do not have legal status in Canada. We understand that the change—

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

If I may, just to understand you, that also includes pregnant women and people going through labour as well, if they are rejected?

[Anita Biguzs]

If they're a rejected claimant. That's unless, as I say, there are public health or public safety issues.

We understand that with any kind of a transition in a program it can create confusion about what services are covered, what benefits are covered. To respond to that, we actually have ensured that our call centre is able and equipped to answer any calls. We also have a portal that actually has lots of information and questions and answers for health practitioners.

So we have tried to ensure that information is provided, certainly with P/T governments as well, about the nature of the services and the benefits provided. We understand that during a period of transition there may be some confusion about what's covered and what's not covered, but certainly the majority of refugee claimants and successful refugee applicants will in fact continue to receive hospital and doctors' services.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Deputy Minister. That concludes the fourth round.

We are now starting again on the first round.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our guests for being here. Just as the deputy minister is new, so am I to this committee, so I did a little work from the previous year just to get up to speed on a few things.

Part of the estimates process, as you know, is the plans and priorities documents that are produced every year and normally presented shortly after the mains are out. I was reading them and there was one thing of interest to me that I thought maybe you could clarify for me.

One of the priorities as part of the estimates process is strengthening the outcomes based on management as a priority, which seems sort of motherhood and apple pies—obviously what we should be doing. But it says the CIC's new program alignment architecture, the PAA, and the performance measures framework, the PMF, was to be introduced as of April.

I'd like to know how it's going. What are your expectations of the outcomes from this? Does this mean that if a program is not working and isn't meeting the goals that we set for it, you're going to bring it forward and that maybe we should either restructure it or get rid of it? Could you explain what that means?

[Les Linklater]

Thank you for that very good question.

To put this in appropriate context, each department has a program activity architecture. We are, with Treasury Board guidance, able to then outline for public consumption, and for parliamentarians in particular, our various lines of business down to what we call activity level or subactivity level. This helps us with our planning and our budgeting process to understand where our resources are going in terms of meeting certain program objectives.

Within those subactivities, we do look at performance indicators to be able to measure our success in terms of delivering outcomes for Canadians. What you're referring to from CIC's RPP relates to essentially our performance measurement strategy and our data strategy to support our ability to measure our work and to be able to then report on outcomes so that we have a good evidence base for future policy decisions.

So as we move forward and are able to make the links to available data sources that can then be applied against our programs, we're then able to support evaluations.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Did that not exist prior to April 1?

[Les Linklater]

This priority was first introduced with the PAA in 2011, and it was renewed in 2013-14. I would say that we have always tried to use best available evidence in developing our policy and programs, but the PAA rigour and the performance measurement strategy, the data strategy underneath, now brings a comprehensive coverage to our range of programs, which might not necessarily have been the case in the past.

[Anita Biguzs]

Could I just add to that? Under the government's evaluation policy as directed and guided by Treasury Board, every department is required to perform evaluations. That certainly was an activity of the department well before 2011 in an ongoing process whereby we evaluate each individual program. We have a five-year plan to identify what we evaluate.

I think what Mr. Linklater was referring to is that we're now talking about a more comprehensive, integrated framework across the department.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thanks. I have been active on a previous committee, the government operations committee. The estimates are my thing here on the Hill and have been interested in them.

We are moving. I must admit that I appreciate the work that Treasury Board is making you guys do in providing better information with these estimates compared with supplementary estimates (B) from last year. You'll see I don't have as much writing on this one, because I can understand it more easily.

At that committee, we have indicated that we would like estimates to be in a program format more than the system that we have now, and we are moving in that direction. That will mean your program outcome evaluation should match up nicely for us to be able to say that we're meeting our outcomes, or no, we're not, and do we need more money or less there.

On that, the one area that always drives me crazy is horizontal funding, and for your department, which is fair, there is lots of integration with other departments in providing programs, no doubt about it.

Who decides who's in charge and who's responsible for those programs? Is it the largest funder or is it...? How does that work?

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, normally when you have an interdepartmental initiative involving a number of departments, usually at the outset of the initiative it's clearly determined at the policy stage which department is the lead department. Part of that process, both on the policy process and also when you have to go forward to Treasury Board to seek the detailed expenditure and program authorities, also includes the need for a performance framework that identifies the roles and responsibilities of various departments.

Usually one lead department is assigned the responsibility to pull all of it together and make sure there is a consistent framework that integrates all the pieces. Then you're able to determine and assess whether you're meeting the intentions and the objectives that have been set for the program.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

When you bring out your fall performance report, does it indicate what your role was in that particular program, even if it's a shared program?

[Anita Biguzs]

It should. Every department should report on its programs in terms of the DPR, and the performance achieved.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

It's not in these estimates but from the previous estimates—and it may happen in future estimates—I don't understand why it still costs us money when we no longer require a visa from a certain country. I saw that in supplementary estimates (B) last year. I have no idea why not requiring a visa now costs the taxpayer money.

Can somebody explain to me why that is?

[Robert Orr, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

In the long run, there are savings from that, but initially there can be an issue of foregone revenue. For instance, we are charging a certain amount per visa and that money is no longer coming to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is one significant issue.

Then there is a second part. There is a lot of infrastructure to deliver a visa program. We work with Foreign Affairs on that, but if we withdraw the visa officers or close a visa office, we may not receive those savings immediately. It may take some time until we are out of a rent situation and so on, and so in the long run, yes, but in the short run we may not see the savings.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay, I appreciate that. I may be back.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's Mr. Cash's turn.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to get back to a couple of questions around the VACs and VFS Global. The deputy minister mentioned that this type of program is being used in the United Kingdom, but you also know that in 2007 VFS was involved in a security breach of personal information in the U.K. that prompted an independent investigation.

Given its current involvement with visas and biometrics as seen in these estimates, we need to know what level of accountability is built into this deal that has been made between the government and this private company to deal with personal information. This is in the context of an increasing awareness of the difficulty across government programs to secure private information.

So now we're talking about farming this stuff out to a private company that is potentially subcontracting to smaller companies, which is another question I want to get to, and there's no sense here that we have proper transparency, accountability, and the security built into this so that Canadians and families, immigrants, and their loved ones who are making these applications can know that their information is secure. Can you give us some assurance? Tell us what measures the government has taken to ensure the privacy of these individuals.

[Anita Biguzs]

The nature of the contracts that we have for the visa application centres, in fact, includes very stringent provisions related to the protection of information, the management of information, and the security of that information. So we have to be satisfied that the contractor has appropriate security processes in place to protect that information.

We work very closely with the visa application centres and our missions abroad, and there is oversight in terms of the kind of control mechanisms that would apply to those visa application centres. So there is oversight and there is monitoring of how the visa application centres are conducting their operations to ensure the privacy and the security of that information.

I can ask my colleague, Mr. Orr, but I believe as well that there are provisions in the contracts in terms of penalty clauses. In fact, if we have any concerns that aspects of the obligations that have been contained are somehow being compromised or violated.... But perhaps Mr. Orr can fill in on that.

[Robert Orr]

The deputy minister I think has covered all the principal issues. There are regular audits. There are regular visits by our visa officers to the various visa application centres to ensure that the appropriate practices are in place.

I'll just give you a couple of examples. For instance, the visa application centres have no role in the decision-making process and so on.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

We understand that.

[Robert Orr]

But it is to the point that, when a passport is returned to them, they have no idea whether a visa was issued or not. They hand over a package to the individual and are completely unaware of what the decision was on any particular application.

In terms of taking biometrics, there's a video camera that is running the whole time that biometrics are taken and, indeed, in Ottawa we can monitor and watch what has happened during the entire process.

These are the sorts of very practical ways that we are able to monitor what is going on in VACs.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

So you can watch every taking of biometrics?