Evidence of meeting #22 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Could you wind up, sir? We're over eight minutes.
I thought maybe you had a few pages there that you could—
4:50 p.m.
Information Technology Research Analyst, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Yes. So in conclusion--
4:50 p.m.
Information Technology Research Analyst, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
In conclusion, we've been working with our partners in government departments, and stakeholders, and we look forward to continuing to work with them to build a safe and secure immigration system.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I start, I want to ask for a point of clarification. I notice there are five members of the NDP opposite me, and I'm wondering if that's permitted.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Okay, thank you.
Thank you to our guests for the second hour. My questions are actually directed at the officials from the Auditor General's office.
The purpose of the report itself is to make recommendations and uncover certain areas that need improvement. One of the things that was in that report, and I believe this is a quote, was unsatisfactory progress on commitments in response to the 2006 recommendations, in particular in the areas of governance and project business case.
What I am talking about in this particular case is GCMS and the biometrics projects. In that report GCMS was rated unsatisfactory, whereas the biometrics project was rated satisfactory.
I'm wondering if you can give me specific examples of what is lacking in both of those systems, in particular why one was rated satisfactory and the other one was obviously not.
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Certainly. I will probably have to get back to you on that. I believe you are referring to a report that I actually don't have.
We have in front of us today chapter 2, “Issuing Visas”, from 2011. You were referring to chapter 7?
Which chapter are you referring to, and from which report?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I'm actually referring to the response that was made from the 2006 recommendations that things had not been done appropriately or fulfilled.
You're not prepared to talk about those issues today?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Are you talking about systems, or are you talking about the detentions and removals chapter?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I'm talking about the actual biometrics project and GCMS. One was rated unsatisfactory and one was rated satisfactory. I'm trying to determine what was lacking in both and why one was a much better project.
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Right. I think you're referring, though, to chapter 2, “Large Information Technology Projects”, from June. That was an IT chapter that looked very much at systems and how the systems were being developed and whether or not they were progressing as planned.
I'm sorry, I don't have the details on that particular chapter. But certainly it's very easy for us to get the information you are looking for and get back to you on that.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you. I would really appreciate it.
Hopefully you can answer this question. The actual report—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Excuse me. Could you provide that to the clerk when you get it, please?
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Absolutely.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
The report also states that CIC and CBSA do not have systematic quality assurance practices or performance measures in place. Hopefully we can talk about this.
Could you clarify to the committee what the benefits are of having both of those, the quality assurance practices and performance measures? I just want to have it clarified for the committee.
4:50 p.m.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Certainly, I'd be happy to.
Mr. Chair, the reason we looked at quality assurance was that we noticed.... It's a very difficult job that the visa officers have to do. The job relies very much on the information they have and then the judgments they have to make with it. Based on what is in front of them, they have to decide whether or not to request security screening on individuals. They use the tools that are available to them—indicators, etc.
But we noted in our analysis that actually very few of the requests they make come back with any information that would help the visa officer make a determination. It became clear in our reviews that in some cases they were not sure whether they were applying the indicators correctly or whether the indicators were the right indicators or whether they were up to date.
In that particular instance, while there's nothing to suggest that the individual should perhaps not have been allowed into the country, it's an admissibility determination. But going back to saying—
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Exactly; we need to go back to ask whether we made the right decision. We need the quality assurance so as to come back and ask, when you applied these tools, when you looked at the information, did it work for you? Did the system work? Without that quality assurance, it's hard to know.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
Do I have more time? I was cut off in the first session. I would really love to ask this next question.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
Going back to the safety and security and the health of Canadians, obviously for any government that's the main priority: the safety and security of their Canadian citizens.
I've had a number of constituents write to me or call in to my office concerned about tuberculosis. There were recommendations in the Auditor General's report related to medical screening, and I assured my constituents that I would ask this question.
I want to know what currently is the medical screening that we focus on and how we can improve—and not necessarily with relation to the tuberculosis issue. Obviously, the health of people coming into this country is a main concern to the Canadians who already live here in Canada.
Could you answer that question, please?
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Certainly, I'd be happy to, and I'll ask Suzanne Therrien to add a bit of the detail.
Right now, when an individual is applying to come.... Any permanent resident must have a medical screening—anyone applying to come to Canada permanently. There will therefore be a situation in which they go and get their medical screening, according to criteria laid out by Canada, in the country they are applying from. That is subject to review by medical officers at the missions. They will make a determination and then provide their assessment to the visa officers so that they have that information to determine whether the person is admissible.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Given that there were recommendations in that report that there had to be improvements, can you specifically say exactly what we're lacking right now whereby we could make those improvements?