Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 16th, 2012

[Wendy Loschiuk]

Thank you very much.

We looked at this from the point of view of “What do we know about how well the system is working?” and “Where are the weaknesses?, so that we could address them. We found that there just weren't a whole lot of metrics out there to really tell us that. We don't have the quality assurance and the different decision-making to determine whether or not we're using the right indicators, and all of that information.

Any change to the system I wouldn't really comment on, except to say that as long as we know that we're accomplishing what we want to accomplish and we're putting in the quality assurance and putting in the performance measures, then those things go a long way to letting us know that the system is working. Those were really the key messages we wanted to get out, that we don't have that kind of assurance, that we're getting the results we want, or that we're accomplishing exactly what the system is meant to do, which is to protect health and safety and security and to not allow in persons who are inadmissible.

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

You obviously researched some cases when you were making your recommendations. Could you give us a couple of specific cases that stood out for you, in terms of saying we've got a problem we need to address?

[Wendy Loschiuk]

Most of the cases I could relate to would be based on information we received during a survey we conducted with visa officers and what they would have told us.

As an example, visa officers need and want to have assurance that they're doing their job right. In some countries it's extremely difficult to know if they are applying the indicators correctly. For example, one that we were talking about earlier is, how do you know if you should deny a person on human rights violations, because what may be a human rights violation or may not be is sometimes very difficult to determine? Often we found in the system that when in doubt, it's hard to say no. So there may be cases such as that. The difficulty is trying to decide when it's a grey area.

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

I'm going to turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Shipley, but it's interesting that your assessment or the analysis led you to that conclusion: when in doubt, how do we say no? In most circumstances, when in doubt, you always say no. So we've got a check and balance that we obviously need to work on here.

[Wendy Loschiuk]

That's right, yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have two minutes, Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you.

I want to follow up a little.

Madam Loschiuk, you talked in your deficiencies about the diseases. You only mentioned TB and syphilis. I understand there's a list, which I don't have. They go on a waiting list. My colleague has tried to identify the situation; it's not so good out there, but what criteria then stops them? If they're on that list, do they not just come in? Are they sent back? If they're in a screening area, how long does that screening take? From across the way, we've had eight years, so if there's some doubt, where is that person?

I guess that should raise some flags in terms of not being sure whether they've got an issue in terms of health, and yet they're in the system, in public, for a long period of time. Where are they?

[Wendy Loschiuk]

Let's take the case of an individual who is applying to come to Canada permanently. We're looking at a permanent resident visa; therefore, we're going to be going through all the health checks. A person has to go through a lot of different checks, and their medical could take time. Sometimes we've found that the medical takes time because of the individuals themselves; they don't get the medical checks they need to have done. If it's not that, it may be that they are waiting for security clearances.

There are many different spots in the process when an individual's application is pending. It depends on an individual case; it could be for security, for health, for criminality checks—any of those.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

If they've got a health issue there seems to be some uncertainty, and yet it's contagious. Where are these folks all the time we're worrying about them? As my colleague said, if you're in doubt, they shouldn't be here until they get cleared. I'm wondering how we deal with that.

[Wendy Loschiuk]

In the case of a medical, a person will have their health check, but you can refuse them on health grounds if you deem them to be a danger to public health in Canada. Currently, that's defined as those two diseases. As an example, hepatitis may be on the list of 56, but an individual probably would not be refused entry to Canada on health grounds if they were known to have hepatitis, because it's not one of the screening diseases.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan has up to five minutes.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you all for joining us today.

The AG's report on visa issuance made many recommendations, including service standards, for the timeliness of security screenings to be established. I asked this question to the CBSA person who was here earlier, and he told us the maximum a security screening could take was 20 days, whereas I know from the experience we're having in our office, and like my colleague Olivia's example here, it takes longer in some cases.

So what were the AG's intentions in the report?

[Wendy Loschiuk]

There are the two components. There's the temporary resident; that's a visitor wanting to come to Canada. Those are expedited, because an individual wants to come to Canada. They may take 20 days. On the permanent resident side, it could take a lot longer. Although there is a memorandum of understanding to try to get those done in 9 to 18 months, we noted that they could take years.

On the temporary side, they will move quicker, because there could be all kinds of extenuating circumstances and it is a visa.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So the TRV security screenings were found to be short, and the recommendations in the AG report were for the permanent residence security screenings?

[Wendy Loschiuk]

You mean the delays for the years? Yes, those have to do with permanent residents.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay.

Thank you.

[Suzanne Therrien]

Actually, the recommendations were for both the temporary and the permanent sides. When Mr. Leckey mentioned that it would take 20 days, he was referring to the time it takes for the file to get from CBSA to the visa officers. But sometimes the file is first directed to CSIS. If CSIS finds something out about an individual and they need to do further work, there could be delays. It could take, one, two, or three years before it moves to CBSA. Remember, those delays usually occur when no adversarial information is found. As soon as we need to do further work, it's a lot longer.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

To the Privacy Commissioner, could you elaborate on your concerns about cross-matching and secondary information? How would you recommend that CIC and CBSA officials implement a biometric system that would mitigate privacy concerns?

[Jennifer Stoddart]

I'm going to ask my officials to answer that.

[Dr. Andrew Patrick]

There are two components. One is a policy and management component. This would ensure that the purpose for which you're collecting the information, in this case biometrics, is limited and clearly stated. You must explain why you are collecting it and you must limit your use to the stated purpose, so that you don't start cross-matching against things you did not intend, without informing the person that you were collecting it. It's a policy and a procedural issue.

There are also some new technical advancements that can make it hard or impossible to do that cross-matching. That's a much longer answer.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Is it verification that biometrics should be used for, rather than identification?

[Dr. Andrew Patrick]

It depends on the context. In general, verification is, in our view, more privacy-sensitive. You are only comparing against one and you're not having to create databases. But in some contexts, you do need to create large databases, for example, if you're trying to do duplicate detection—

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

You're talking about temporary resident visa applicants.

[Dr. Andrew Patrick]

For temporary resident visa applicants, you can compare the person to whom you gave a visa with the person who has arrived. It's a one-to-one verification. We think it's a pretty good use of biometrics.