Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 16th, 2012

[Suzanne Therrien, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What we found in our audit is that physically the medical screening has three criteria: danger to public health, danger to public safety, and excessive demand.

What we found for the criteria regarding screening for danger to public health is that basically we're screening only for tuberculosis and syphilis. Those criteria have been used for the last 50 years, and we strongly recommended that CIC look at its strategy to protect public health to see whether it is sufficient to screen for syphilis and tuberculosis, when we note that in Canada a doctor has to report on 56 different diseases that could be a threat to public health.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Chow and Mr. Trudeau, welcome back to the immigration committee. We've missed you.

Ms. Chow, you have up to seven minutes.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you.

To the Auditor General's team, I've read your two reports. It's quite stunning. This is dealing with the Border Services Agency. The decisions for detention and removal are arbitrary, there are no performance measures, no quality assurance. Because there is inadequate tracking of failed refugee claimants, CBSA doesn't know where a good number of them are, and this is partially because of a failed information technology program. There is inadequate training, and they're not managing the detention costs effectively.

This is the body that is supposed to deal with those who are failed refugee claimants, to detain them and remove them. It seems to me it's not the law that's the problem; it's the implementation of the law.

I recall that close to the end of last year I was asking the staff from CBSA how many people they could deport per year. They said it was 8,000, or thereabouts, and they couldn't do any more than that because they just don't have the information technology program in place. As a result, they can't keep track of people, etc. It seems stunning that we have both your report and their admission that they just can't manage. We know this from experience and from your report, which indicates there is no timeliness to the security screening and you don't know precisely how long it might take. Sometimes it takes months; sometimes it takes years. I know of a case that has taken eight years, and they're still trying to screen the person to decide whether the person is really at risk or not.

Have you noticed any improvement, especially in the information technology area? They have been saying for years that they would be able to have the global case management system, that it is all going to work out, and that it's almost there. That was as of mid-year last year. Can they actually track people now? Do they know where people are?

[Wendy Loschiuk]

I'm going to ask Mr. Stock to get into the details to provide you with more of an answer.

At the time of the audit, the question really was that they had no way of knowing if persons were still in the country or not, and I think the number was quite high. Even with GCMS, I don't know that it would answer the question of whether or not the person is still in the country.

I think what you're asking me is whether or not that would solve the problem.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Can I just narrow it down? It's not just that. The key thing that was most disturbing is that the decision for detention and removal seems to be arbitrary, in your report. That was key, that sometimes they make types of decisions...and because there are no performance measurements, you don't know how they are making the decision. If there is not a consistent application of the law, then there is a really big problem.

As a result, I noticed in that report that because a detention cell is too small, they're cramming eight people in one place that is designed for one or two people and that kind of thing.

Is the decision-making process now better? Is it more consistent? Do they have performance reviews? Do they train their staff adequately? Do they have the kinds of things that need to be done in order to have good management practices?

[Wendy Loschiuk]

I'd have to say that we really have not audited that area since 2008, so it's very hard for me to say whether or not there has been an improvement without good audit work.

Gordon, do you want to add to that?

[Gordon Stock, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As Ms. Loschiuk pointed out to begin with, we don't know how many are still in the country, first of all because of the lack of exit controls for individuals.

In terms of quality assurance on the decisions being made by agency officials, they need to be able to make a decision to admit someone based on the information in the individual responses, when they present themselves. If a person is perceived as a threat, or the agency cannot determine the person's identity, then the person is detained.

The real point is that this is being done across the country at many ports of entry, so the ability to be consistent across the country depends on proper procedures and controls, and also on monitoring afterwards and the quality assurance program. That was what we pointed out in 2008; it was not in place to be able to give that assurance.

Since then, they have had an action plan to respond to the audit. We have received information from them as far as their progress, but we have not done any further audit, as Ms. Loschiuk said. So based on that, there is more in place now. Also in 2008, we noted that they did put more effort on high-risk individuals and being able to remove them. So we saw that as something good as well.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Right, because that was one of your key points. About 10% of them are criminals, or less than 10%—that should be what people are focusing on. So they are doing that.

They literally cannot deport the number of people they want to deport. Are they still at that same place? As of nine months ago, they were still having trouble deporting people because they just can't manage it. Is that still the case?

[Gordon Stock]

Unfortunately, I would not be able to answer on behalf of CBSA, as our audit work is somewhat dated.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Stock.

Mr. Trudeau, go ahead.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be back at the immigration committee with so many old friends.

I have a couple of questions. For the Auditor General's Office, first of all, throughout your recommendations, it keeps coming back that there are weaknesses in data collection and monitoring. Is that being addressed by GCMS coming in, or is it just not there yet? Is it something that is going to be improved, or is it something that wholeheartedly has been missed in the implementation of GCMS? Or are they completely different things?

[Wendy Loschiuk]

Mr. Chair, GCMS is a system that CIC is putting in place that is supposed to be a much more robust system to manage its information. The audit that was done earlier to look at the implementation of GCMS noted that it was behind and that there were delays. But how GCMS is going to replace the current FOSS and the NCMS—there will be some improvements, I understand, from what the department has said. However, there are some things that it will not be able to do.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

It seems to me that, particularly for a department that is so wrapped up in life-altering decisions for people, we have to go to a higher standard of monitoring what our processes are. It particularly concerns me that there isn't much data on acceptances. One can understand where there would be more appeals for refusals and therefore they have a system there. But the potential for corruption or for favouritism on acceptance is obviously, unfortunately, there. Is that something that was simply an oversight because of lack of resources, or was it a deliberate decision to not monitor? Or is it just something that has fallen through the cracks, even though it represents the largest part of what is done?

[Wendy Loschiuk]

We looked at the protection of health, safety, and security and how that information is provided. There are other areas that we didn't look at, one of them being the fraud aspect. That is a completely separate area that would require a lot more work. So we made a scoping decision at this time to just focus on those three aspects of the act.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

You mentioned, Mr. Stock, that there are no exit controls to allow us to see who has left the country or not. I understand that's for Canadian citizens and people who live here in any case. But for people visiting on a foreign passport with a visitor's visa, when they leave the country, is it not registered anywhere that they have left the country?

[Gordon Stock]

I'll pass that one over to Ms. Therrien.

[Suzanne Therrien]

In fact, no, there is no exit control in Canada unless somebody is under removal order and they are asked to report to CBSA to indicate that they have left the country. Otherwise, we would not know. For any visitor who has come to Canada, we don't know if they have left or not.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

That's even though, in order to travel outside of the country to another country, one has to use a passport. One is only showing it to an airline agent and not obviously a Canada Border Services Agent for it to go in.

Has anyone looked at having airlines actually register foreign passports and whether or not they come through on visas?

[Wendy Loschiuk]

That's something you'd have to ask the airlines about.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you very much.

Moving over to the Privacy Commissioner, it's a pleasure to meet you. You've been very important of late in many different areas, but it's nice to see you here on this.

I very much understand and am fascinated with biometrics and the difference in using them for identification versus verification. Is there a movement towards using them for identification, with all the concerns doing that brings in? On the verification, how are we doing in terms of collecting the data necessary to make sure that the enrolment system is strong enough, particularly in parts of the world where the documentation is often very sketchy?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

Thank you, honourable member, for that question.

I'll answer the second part, and the first part I'll turn over to Dr. Andrew Patrick.

Several years ago we did some audits on Canadian consulates abroad and their handling of passport applications. We noted some weaknesses in the system at that time. I believe we're currently following up, but I think we could still strengthen the obtention of what my colleague referred to as the foundation documents, which means that the person who is actually giving you the face or the thumbprint is the person that he or she claims to be. I think we can never be too vigilant about that part of our system.

As for the evolution of trends in biometrics—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm afraid we'll have to move on.

Mr. Dykstra has up to seven minutes.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

It's interesting to have both the colleagues back, Ms. Chow and Mr. Trudeau—although as I recall, they were sitting in opposite positions the last time they were here.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

You were over there.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Somehow I ended up over there. Anyway, I'm glad to have you guys back.

I want to pick up on Ms. Chow's comments. I think they're quite insightful, and I also think they stem from some of the comments Mr. Davies made on Tuesday with respect to the tightening up of the system. We called for this study because of your report and your recommendations, and we hope to come out of this study with some recommendations for both the minister and the ministry, which will give them the ability to take up those recommendations, and not just perhaps to implement the recommendations you made but to further enhance the system we have.

Mr. Davies spoke somewhat at our last meeting about the leniency that was in the system. There's a bit of a conflict here, because on the one hand, I hear from the folks on the other side of the House and they think the system is too slow, the system should allow more people in, and the system cuts people out of their particular ridings when they think they shouldn't be cut. On the other hand, part of the reason they would like this study to be done is that they felt there were possible gaps in the system.

I wonder if you could sort of bring that together, in the sense that the desire to expand the system and allow more folks in doesn't make the system tighter. In fact, it may require or push the system in the opposite direction. Based on your recommendations, I really would like to hear what you have to say with respect to that.