Evidence of meeting #104 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cases.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
It took me a year, but finally a good question. I'm curious as to what the answer is.
September 17th, 2018 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
I'm going to ask some questions regarding your report.
In paragraph 7.30, you wrote that “Global Affairs Canada should review and update advisories for 229 destinations every 18 months. However, we found that it completed only one-third of these mandatory cyclical reviews on schedule.”
Was there any reason that the other two-thirds were not done?
Principal, Office of the Auditor General
They explained to us that they didn't get to them. They have only so many resources and they were not done. They should have been done, but they were not done.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I have a follow-up question. I'm sure 18 months may have been the right time when the policy was formulated, but when we look at the global challenges today, do you feel that 18 months is adequate time to do a cyclical review? I know there are travel advisories and updates done if something extreme happens, but do you think 18 months is the right cycle now, or should that time frame be changed?
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
That's one of those things that we really wouldn't question. It's up to the department to decide what the right cycle is. They've determined that 18 months is the right cycle, and we found that they weren't able to do even that. Again, I really think the department would be the one that would need to explain why they have chosen the 18 months and whether they review that from time to time to determine whether that's the right time period.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
The second question I have is regarding your chart.
In Exhibit 7.5, you talk about the amount of cost recovery. I just have one question. You said that there is going to be a shortfall in revenue. Revenue will be $28 million in the fiscal year 2019-20 and $24 million in 2020-21, and then it goes back up to $69 million.
Why is there such a variance in the numbers?
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
Again, that's primarily because of what's happening with moving from five-year passports to 10-year passports.
The charge is $25 per passport—
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Are you anticipating that kind of revenue drop in the next three or four years just because of the 10-year passport?
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
Again, this is the data provided by Global Affairs Canada. This graph is illustrative of their estimate.
I'll ask Ms. McCalla to provide the details.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General
It's primarily because of the 10-year passport. Most Canadians are opting for the 10-year rather than the five-year passport. Without having to renew it as frequently, there is going to be a revenue drop-off, but then you can see that it's going to go back up again.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General
The reason is that they're going to start renewing them again.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
That's fine.
My final question is this: when you talk about travel advisories to certain countries, does this include some of the expectations that travellers may face if caught under the law, or if they are detained in any way? Does it give an outline of what they can expect if they are detained? Obviously some countries will have a more robust legal system than others.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General
They do have a booklet. They do have information available online about your rights when detained abroad, and they do caution that conditions are not the same as they are in Canada. Global Affairs' approach to this is to inform the travellers.
Our issue was that they had not examined the best way to reach the vulnerable travellers, nor had they examined their outreach to people who might be travelling to dangerous locations or to the Caribbean during holiday or hurricane season. They need to know how to best reach them and how to best put that information online. The fact that it's online and there's a booklet available to you after 15 clicks may not be the most effective way.
Liberal
NDP
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am struck by something you said. You said it is often left to the discretion of the officer. In your report, you indicated that cases in which there may have been torture and mistreatment had not all been handled the same way, obviously. In the past 10 years in particular, we have heard a lot about this. We have heard that consular cases had not all been handled the same way.
I have two questions in this regard. First, a more general question pertaining to the fact that it is left to the officers' discretion to determine whether services will be provided to someone who is not a Canadian citizen. The second pertains specifically to how cases of torture and mistreatment are handled.
Some people have suggested that there should be a bill of rights for Canadians, setting minimum standards for the type of services a Canadian or other person can expect so that fewer things are left to the discretion of the government or consular services officers.
As to cases of torture and mistreatment, have you noticed any trends in the handling of such cases? Were some cases handled better than others? Are the cases of Canadians handled better than those of persons with dual nationality, or does it depend on the mission?
Sorry for asking two questions at the same time.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
I will answer the first question and ask Ms. McCalla to answer the second.
The first question was about a potential bill of rights. It is of course important for the government to be clear about the services offered. Do we need a bill of rights or is there another way of going about this? That is another matter. In any case, the government must be very clear about the services that Canadians can expect.
It also has to be very clear about the services that are left to the discretion of an agency or the department. I cannot speak to that because that is another aspect of government policy. I can say, however, that it is very important for the government to make sure that the same services are offered by all missions. If some discretion is allowed, the government has to make sure that these services are provided fairly to everyone.
I'm going to ask Ms. McCalla to talk about whether there is any difference in the trends.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General
In the 15 cases we reviewed of mistreatment and torture, we didn't see anything on the consular officer on the ground. We saw that they met as soon as they were alerted. When it came to their attention, they immediately took action. The variance that we saw was in getting the information necessary to make a judgment as to whether or not the claims were credible. That involved the consular officer to a degree.
It was a training issue in some cases, in terms of knowing what to look for and what to report back to the decision-makers on whether or not the case was credible. For those cases, that was our assessment of what we examined and why there was different treatment across the 15 cases.
In the cases of Canadians arrested and detained abroad, our biggest concern was having the assessment of the person's vulnerability in order to decide what services were needed. In such cases, the discretion and judgment of the consular officer are key, and you wouldn't want to lose that. What we didn't see was how that judgment was being exercised and documented in the file, so that it could be overseen as well—so that everyone at the consulate knew, and it wasn't just in the mind of this one consular officer.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you very much, Madame Laverdière.
That will be the end of our time with the Auditor General and with Ms. McCalla.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you very much for the report of the Auditor General. This is a big issue. Canadians should be seized with it, because it's clear that we are travelling more and more in larger numbers around the world. It's extremely important for the Government of Canada and Canadians to be assured that we have their backs, so to speak, when they are somewhere else around the world. This was an important start to that discussion, and your study of it helped to take us along that path.
This committee will be making recommendations on the policy side, Mr. Ferguson, because I understand that's an issue that is somewhat difficult for you. I very much appreciate having had the opportunity to speak to you.
We would be very appreciative of more work in this area. It is something that's important to us as Canadians. I don't know anyone anymore who doesn't travel abroad at some point in the year, it seems. That's extremely important for us. Thank you very much.
Colleagues, I'm going to take a five-minute break. Then we're going to go in camera.
Thank you very much.
[Proceedings continue in camera]