Public Accounts Committee on May 8th, 2008

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

For someone coming on a temporary resident visa, there would be no reason for them to inform the agency. So for the most part, that would not even calculate into the numbers we're talking about, and I would think those numbers could be fairly significant.

Was there any work done or any study done on the average length of the process, from someone landing here in Canada to the culmination of legal proceedings and the coming into force of a removal order--the average timeframe?

The reason I ask about that for background is that oftentimes what we see is a case where someone comes here and goes through the entire process of trying to get refugee status, which can take him or her many years to go through—four, five, six years, or longer—at which point that person is turned down. They have been turned down early on but have gone through appeal after appeal.

I think of a case in my riding of a family in which, after four years, the kids were fairly established in their high school and university. It becomes very difficult at that point to go through the process.

Was there any study done on the average length of the process? If we can cut down that process in terms of time, it might solve the problem to some extent.

[Sheila Fraser]

We did not look at that specifically. I'm not sure whether the agency would have that kind of information. They might, and that would be something to ask them.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay.

On the lack of exit controls, again, Borys talked about our exit controls being substandard compared to other countries, or non-existent compared to other countries. Those are his words.

Is there any indication of a comparison? Have you done any work comparing what we do in terms of exit controls with what other countries do in terms of exit controls?

[Sheila Fraser]

No. That is not the kind of work we would do, because we really consider that to be a question of policy.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It's another question for the department perhaps.

[Sheila Fraser]

It's not really a question for us to look at.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay.

In terms of resources, is there any indication that simply increasing resources would have a corresponding effect on the backlog? Let's say that the 22,000 cases in the working inventory are ready for removal. We know who they are and where they are. It says that in 2006-07 we actually removed 12,600 people. If we simply, for example, doubled the resources committed to this, could we remove another 12,600 people out of that 22,000?

[Sheila Fraser]

I think we can presume, Mr. Chair, that if resources were increased, the number of removals would probably also increase. But to what extent and by how much, I don't know. I don't have that kind of information. The agency might be able to give you a better estimate of how additional resources would have an impact, and they could perhaps talk about some of the difficulties they would have actually locating some of the 41,000 people they don't know the whereabouts of.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Thank you, Ms. Fraser.

Mr. Christopherson, you have five minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm thrilled. I didn't realize we were going to have time for a second round. That's great.

I'd like to move to chapter 3, “Oversight of Air Transportation Safety”.

There are 99 million passengers. As has been pointed out, a lot of us in this room are part of that 99 million. That's a lot of people.

You said in your initial tabling that “Although Transport Canada deserves credit for being the first civil aviation authority in the world to introduce regulations for this new approach, we found weaknesses in several areas”, and “The rest of this transition process will be more complex to manage, with over 2,000 smaller companies affected”.

My understanding is that they've gone to a new system. I'm not all that thrilled about the new system, but it's a little late for that. If I understand it correctly, rather than the Government of Ontario providing hands-on inspections and hands-on assurance for the public that safety measures are being met, it's now going to be the responsibility of the airlines themselves. The government will now be responsible for overseeing their systems to make sure they have systems and are doing this the right way, if I understand it.

[Sheila Fraser]

I would just note that it's Transport Canada, not the Government of Ontario.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry. That's me going back into an old life. I'm not staying sharp enough today. Sorry, I meant the Government of Canada and Transport Canada.

[Sheila Fraser]

That doesn't mean they will not be doing what they call traditional oversight any more. They can still continue to do the inspections and the audits. It's just that there will be more emphasis on the safety management systems and on ensuring that the companies themselves have systems in place to ensure safety.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I don't want to belabour this, because it's already a done deal, but doesn't that sort of create two levels of inspection? It's a little harder for the public to get through.... At least when it was being done solely by Transport Canada there was direct accountability. Now we're once removed from that. We can have systems in place, but are the systems being adequately enforced right down to the...?

[Sheila Fraser]

No, no. Transport Canada is still responsible for providing oversight.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Has that not been weakened at all or watered down?

[Sheila Fraser]

That has not changed.

The way they do it is somewhat different. If a company does not have safety management systems that are judged acceptable, they should not be allowing that company to operate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. So we haven't transferred any of that responsibility. We've actually built a secondary area of responsibility. That's making me feel a little better. All right.

Your concern is that they haven't properly identified where the weaknesses would be and where the risks are to ensure that during this transition we don't create a safety hazard.

[Sheila Fraser]

That's right.

In their own management, in the management by Transport Canada of this transition, we have some issues with the fact that they didn't adequately assess the risks. At least we see no indication that they did. There is nothing documented. There are risks around, for example, human resources. The number of inspectors is going down each year. Obviously, the skills the inspectors will require in this new system will be different. What is the plan for human resources, such as the training and the rest of it? As well, there were no additional resources put into Transport Canada during this transition.

So what is the effect on the traditional oversight, which is continuing while they are moving the system? Obviously, the number of audits and inspections has been decreased, just because there are fewer people doing them. Is it at a sufficient level? Have they analyzed that kind of risk? Those are the types of issues we raise.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, given the fact that it's affecting 99 million passengers—some would be duplicates—I would hope that's one of the ones we bring in to look at further.

With time remaining, I'd like to move to the Public Health Agency of Canada. In part, I was a little confused about the audits in 1999 and 2002, given that this entity wasn't created until 2004, but I assume that some of the responsibilities are the same and go back to Health Canada and that you were analyzing those. Is that correct?

[Sheila Fraser]

That's correct.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

And some of them, had they been fixed, would be a part of the new system.

You say you had serious concerns in 1999 and 2002 and, this being 2008, we still have those same issues unresolved. You know what it does to the current makeup of this committee to have earlier reports pointing things out, especially multiple reports, and the actions not done.

On page 2 of chapter 5, you say, “the Agency has not made satisfactory progress on those related to strategic direction, data quality, results measurement, and information sharing.”

What are the implications of those? Why are they so serious in this context?

[Sheila Fraser]

The agency can only do its work by obtaining data from the provinces, because health is a provincial jurisdiction. The agency needs to get data on a timely basis and needs to get it in a manner that is complete and accurate. There's a question of the standards around the kind of data it wants and the detail it needs to be able to do its work. Certain provinces have raised concerns about privacy issues. Those have not been addressed. So there's a question around the timely provision of accurate and complete data for the agency to be able to carry out its kind of analysis.

As well, we would have expected to see in place protocols around roles and responsibilities in the case of a major outbreak, and those are still not in place. Who calls whom? Those sorts of things should be in place and not be left up to chance when we need them.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm thinking here of another SARS. Are we ready to prevent the mistakes that were made in the last SARS outbreak?

[Sheila Fraser]

In fact, we will never really know, if we unfortunately ever have to face that situation, but having these kinds of protocols and clear rules and responsibilities in place will help to at least minimize the risk.