Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[Richard Flageole]

Not all applications are made electronically. The message here is that the department needs to put in place a new system. It will already have to update a number of new technologies. It will be important for the department to properly manage all those elements.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Have any security or system integrity concerns been brought forward with regard to these new technologies and the use of the system?

[Richard Flageole]

This is all still just a project but it should be implemented within the next two or three years. It's important that the department make sure that it takes all these aspects into consideration.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Earlier, you talked about the number of files that went months or years without being opened. This is often what causes the delays. This is probably not even included when the backlog is calculated.

Let's start from the principle that the first application made by an individual is submitted online. In principle, that should help to reduce the wait time, should it not?

I think I'm out of time, anyway, or very close to it.

Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have a question about overseas operations. Maybe you have the answer in here and I just haven't found it, but Ms. Chow raised some particular jurisdictions that have particularly lengthy timeframes. Are you able to tell the committee where the problem areas are? What particular jurisdictions are problem areas, and, if you can, would you tell us why?

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I can refer you to exhibit 2.7 on page 17 of the English version. We indicate there the average processing times. They come from the department's own reports at December 31.

If the problem is defined as being long processing times, you can see that in certain offices the processing time is much longer than in others, but again it goes back to the levels, essentially, that have been assigned to the various offices. How that overall limit has been divided and assigned would be a policy decision, and consequent to that are the resources that are put in place to do the processing. That is something that would have to be discussed with the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

So you're not in a position to explain, for example, the situation with New Delhi. Damascus is another; Accra is another. Are you unable to say why those particular areas have longer processing times than others?

[Sheila Fraser]

At the simplest, it would be a very large number of applications received relative to their capacity to process them.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you think that's what it is, as opposed to the actual overseas operations in those particular areas?

[Sheila Fraser]

I believe it's that; as well, a target or a limit is given to each one of these offices. They have a limit to the number of people they can accept in a year. If they get many, many applications in relation to that limit, obviously the delays are going to go up.

I don't believe it's necessarily a question of being inefficient. There may be some element of inefficiency, but I really think it relates to the number of applications they're receiving versus the number they can accept.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have Mr. Calandra.

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Flageole, I think, wants to--

[Richard Flageole]

Mr. Chair, I will add that when we did the work, we found that most of the missions are meeting their targets. The overall target for Canada as a whole is allocated to each mission, and the missions are meeting their targets. The department is following that very closely. If one is behind, they might move this. The delay is really related to the target that is allocated to a mission compared to the number of applications coming in.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I suppose I just look at my own experience. We all have those in our particular constituency offices. There's no question that some areas are more difficult to deal with than others. It could be any number of reasons. You mentioned language and percentages of skilled workers. It could be all kinds of things. As you just said, Ms. Fraser, it could be volume.

I'm trying to get at whether there are particular areas, particular jurisdictions. I don't know whether I want to name any. Are the overseas operations working better? Maybe that wasn't part of your audit, but are our overseas operations in one jurisdiction more of a problem than in others, or is it just, as you say, different issues such as skilled workers, volume, and those types of things?

I'm looking at the efficiency of Canadian operations overseas and whether there's a problem with the efficiency of those particular areas.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes, I understand, Chair. That is not an issue we looked at specifically. There would have to be studies done. You would almost have to study the targets that are given to each office and the number of people who are assigned to that office, and then make other considerations and do all that assessment. That is not something we have done, but it is something the department might be able to discuss with the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Fraser.

Next is Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Auditor General, and your team. It's really quite an extraordinary piece of work.

In the interests of continuing non-partisanship, I'm not going to mention that the Liberals were in power for much of this time period--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You know, I'm going to stop you. You guys have got to stop this.

[An hon. member]

It's fun.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I know it's fun, but...Mr. Calandra, carry on.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Actually, I printed it from the Internet so I have a different version, but sections 2.44 and 2.45 outline a number of situations between 2000 and 2005 that caused the backlog or inventory to increase dramatically. It was a time when we were changing the act. Apparently there was a court injunction, and standards were reduced at one point, so it was really a difficult time, obviously, and something we are still dealing with today. Again, as it says in the report, it was a key factor in the increase in the inventory.

What recommendations do you have--because obviously governments will make changes again in the future--so that we don't run into this type of situation again? It really appears to have left future governments in a bit of a dilemma in dealing with the backlog.

[Sheila Fraser]

Chair, I think we first have to accept the reality that there probably will always be a backlog. Canada is a very favoured place, and there are always going to be, one would assume, a lot of applications coming in. I think the real question is how well we are doing at getting the right people in quickly. That goes back to ensuring that there is a good analysis of labour market needs and that the department understands the projections going forward and then assesses the job categories based on that analysis.

We saw a reduction in job categories, but we didn't see the underlying analysis as to why the categories were reduced to those 38. We would have expected to see that, and then very good tracking afterwards. That's what we are recommending now: to make sure that these new measures that have been put in place do actually have the desired effects, because we do not see a reduction in applications. If the targets are maintained at the same levels, the backlog is going to skyrocket, and in fact the targets may even be reduced; the projection the department had was down to 18,000.

There are a whole number of factors in there. They include labour market needs, the targets in the programs, how well they are working with the provinces, and whether they become even more limited in the applications.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I'm on different pages than you are, but the modernization of the computer system is on my page 28. I'll get you the actual section, but I think it said that work was started back in 1994 on a system, and only now, in June 2010, will we finally be rolling that out. What caused some of the delays? From 1994 to 2010 is an awfully long time to bring a computer system online. That's an awfully long time.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes. This has not been one of the success stories in computer program development.

We looked at the management of large IT projects specifically in 2006. We looked at the global case management system, and we noted a number of problems, such as changes in scope. One of the big difficulties was getting the funding for the project. As well, there was a lack of people with the skills needed to do it, and the program was more complex than people had anticipated initially. There have been a number of challenges and difficulties along the way.

This has always been a very important system, because people in those missions are just overwhelmed with paperwork, and in this day and age, one would expect systems to be computerized. It is supposed to come out in June of this next year. It is hoped that it will increase efficiencies, but as Mr. Flageole mentioned earlier, in the intervening time there have been many changes and many advances in electronic processing, and the department will probably have to look at those fairly rapidly, because the system was developed several years ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Fraser.

Go ahead, Mr. Dykstra.