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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Shirley Cuillierrier  Director, Immigration and Passports, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Tom Venner  Executive Director General, Security Screening Branch, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Todd G. Shean  Assistant Commissioner, Federal and International Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Geoffrey Leckey  Director General, Intelligence and Targeting Operations, Canada Border Services Agency
Wendy Loschiuk  Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Jennifer Stoddart  Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Andrew Patrick  Information Technology Research Analyst, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Suzanne Therrien  Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Gordon Stock  Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Thank you.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Mr. Trottier.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming in today and helping to illuminate this growing concern across Canada. It's a big challenge for us. It's important in my city of Toronto, where about half the people are immigrants. It's important that we get this right. We need to balance security with letting people into the country appropriately.

You mentioned in your audit in 2008 that there was an overall problem with performance indicators and performance metrics. These things seem fundamental to running any kind of department or operation.

What are the barriers to putting good performance indicators and performance metrics in place? There's lots of volume and there's lots of things that could be measured. Why haven't they been put in place?

5:25 p.m.

Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Wendy Loschiuk

That's a good question to ask the departments.

We did note that in some cases there were difficulties in getting good and accurate information that would allow measurement. Some of the older systems they had did not collect that kind of information, and they really didn't have the basic data from which to start to measure.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Okay, so it's not a question of organizational desire or the goodwill of people working there. They're impeded by the lack of investment in the proper technology and the proper systems.

5:25 p.m.

Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Wendy Loschiuk

It's probably a good question to ask them to get the details.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

There's one area that's a little disturbing. In your remarks, you mentioned that more work was needed to ensure that persons who were detained but released on bond complied with the conditions of their release.

As you know, there have been some recent high-profile deportations. Are these the kinds of situations where people were non-compliant with the conditions? Did they post bonds and then just walk away from those bonds and disappear into the country?

Can you elaborate on the magnitude of this problem? Was it something you were able to capture in your audit?

5:25 p.m.

Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Wendy Loschiuk

I'm really not familiar with individual cases. Gordon might have some insight.

5:25 p.m.

Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Gordon Stock

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the 2008 audit, for the period we were looking at, which was back in 2004-05, so it is quite dated, there were approximately 2,000 cash bonds required for individuals. When we looked at them, approximately 300 had not been honoured. They found about half the people, which was about 170. For the remainder, about 150, we were still not sure if they had left the country or were still in the country.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

I'm not sure what the size of the bond is. Is there a standard bond size, or does it depend on the unique situation?

5:25 p.m.

Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Gordon Stock

It depends on the situation, and it would depend on the level of risk assessed for the individual as far as the risk of flight or something like that.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

In your audit, did you find that maybe there was a problem upstream of actually requiring a bond? Maybe that person should not have been admitted in the first place. Obviously, there's some information that came to light afterwards that led officials to believe that these people needed to be deported.

What was the difficulty in capturing that information ahead of time? Is there any sense, from your audit, that something more could have been done upstream?

5:25 p.m.

Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Gordon Stock

We could not go into that level of detail on the individual areas. We looked to see if the risk assessments had actually been carried out. Sometimes they might be released on their own recognizance and be required just to check in every two weeks. Other times they would require a cash bond, which is a different level of surety. Or they could actually be detained. It depended on the perceived level of risk.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Maybe this is a question for the privacy officials.

When people are released on bond, there's a certain level of privacy those people are entitled to. You mentioned that they could check in with officials every two weeks. Are there uses of technology that could be better utilized so that we don't lose track of people in the system?

For example, in another committee, there's some suggestion that perhaps some form of electronic monitoring could be done. Or perhaps people could check in virtually via the Internet.

Is there a sense that there are better uses of technology that wouldn't violate privacy concerns?

5:25 p.m.

Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Jennifer Stoddart

There are uses of technology that more or less impinge on privacy. Certainly voluntarily checking in at some point and sending in some pre-arranged symbol or signal I think would be the least invasive.

There is the electronic monitoring bracelet. I recently testified at a Senate committee that unfortunately, at this time, from what we can see—we are doing a privacy impact assessment with Correctional Services Canada—this bracelet is not entirely accurate. Right now, not only does it not guarantee real security about the person's whereabouts, but it hugely invades the privacy of the person. The person reading the monitor knows everything that person has done, not all of which is necessary to know, whether they're going to leave the country or, in the case of inmates, whether they're going to commit another offence.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Leung, you have the final minute.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to make my question very brief.

We know that for certain cases there are potential inadmissibility rules for the person applying to come to Canada. If that person submits fraudulent data, how are you going to be able to check on that and propose better tools to detect it? Could you please elaborate on that?

5:30 p.m.

Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Wendy Loschiuk

Fraudulent data is very difficult. We did not specifically examine it in this audit. But we did note that the data provided by an individual, for the most part, is the lion's share of what the visa officer is going to get. Unless something comes back from a security partner or a visa officer that is able to show in some way that the documentation is fraudulent—for example, there are police certificates that can't be verified—it is extremely difficult. It certainly depends on where the person is applying from as to what can be provided by that individual to show their admissibility.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you, Ms. Loschiuk and your colleagues, for your presentations.

And thank you, Commissioner, as well, and your colleagues. You've all been very helpful. Thank you very much for coming.

This meeting is adjourned.