Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.

Thank you, Ms. Johnston.

Mr. Saxton, you have seven minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank all of you for coming before the committee today.

This chapter shows us some serious concerns, but it also shows some areas of improvement. I know that Minister Day was concerned and acted on this report. I also know that Minister Van Loan is picking up where Minister Day left off.

I was encouraged by your presentation, Mr. Rigby. I noticed that the last time the CBSA was before this committee, Alain Jolicoeur was the president. Could you just share with us how long you've been in this position and what you did before you had this position?

[Stephen Rigby]

Certainly. I've been in this position for a little longer than six months. Prior to that, I was the Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. Prior to that, I was the executive vice-president of the agency for a period of about 18 months.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you. Congratulations on your position.

[Stephen Rigby]

Thank you.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

In Mr. Jolicoeur's comments before this committee, he noted that this is a new organization, created overnight by putting together three pieces of different organizations with a new mandate. This is quite an undertaking. Coming from the private sector, I'm sometimes quite amazed at the complexities in overlapping jurisdictions. I think the flow chart on page 6 demonstrates what I'm referring to.

Can you comment on how the CBSA is working with its partners to simplify and coordinate policies? In particular, speaking of the TRPs, the temporary resident permits, how are you working with Citizenship and Immigration Canada to improve the efficacy of this program?

[Stephen Rigby]

Certainly.

We have a very robust and fairly sophisticated relationship with CIC in the co-management of this program. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act actually shares responsibilities between the ministers for immigration and public safety. When we got the recommendations regarding the temporary resident permits, we did sit down with Citizenship and Immigration Canada and we defined the action plan that we're pursuing as a result of this chapter.

I think, generally speaking, there's been agreement between us, both in terms of tightening up and revising the policy and the procedural guidance that our officers will follow in issuing these permits at the border, and in terms of focusing on the kind of monitoring framework that I think the Auditor General pointed out has been lacking in the past.

Finally, we did reach a fairly rapid and complete agreement with CIC, I think, in terms of making improvements to the extent to which we've been properly documenting the issuance of and the reasons for the issuance of these permits.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I know that one of the problems we have in administering this program is that in Canada we don't track people exiting the country. I lived in Asia for a number of years, and most Asian countries, and I'm sure other countries around the world, do track visitors or residents when they leave the country. Is this an option that is being considered?

[Stephen Rigby]

There are countries around the world that do this: Australia and New Zealand are a couple of examples. I was just in Belgium, and Brussels has an exit program as well. A couple of perspectives: to the extent that Canada wanted to adopt this program, it would be a significant policy decision on the part of the government. I think it would require careful consideration and close scrutiny.

That said, we have had ongoing discussions with our colleagues to the south, in our sister agency in the United States, on the possibility of implementing a program that would basically see at the land border our entry system used as their exit system and vice versa. There has been consideration of how it might work. It would be a lot more streamlined and probably a lot simpler at airports. It would simply be another stop on your way to the gate. I think we have a sense of how it could work, and as and when the policy discussion on this occurs, I think we'd be ready to give some advice on that.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

It seems that our best line of defence is the people at the border, the CBSA officers in the front lines. Can you explain what kind of training there is, if any? I assume there will be extra training to help improve the situation.

[Stephen Rigby]

I'll ask my colleague, Barbara Hébert, to comment on that.

[Barbara Hébert, Vice-President, Operations Branch, Canada Border Services Agency]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

We do have an extensive program to recruit and train our officers. When we are going to recruit officers, we have them go through a variety of tests, essentially skill tests, behavioural tests, and we make sure they have other credentials such as first aid and are able to handle the enforcement responsibilities they would be asked to undertake.

Once they pass that screening, then they go to what is currently a nine-week training program at our national training centre in Rigaud, Quebec. There is extensive testing done when they are there, and they must pass two tests along the way. When they graduate from that nine-week training, then they will be deployed to their particular ports of entry.

Once they get to their ports of entry, we have what we call a follow-up in-service training program. That would constitute training that is more applicable to their particular geographical situation, to the kinds of clients with whom they might interact, and also to the responsibilities that they will undertake. As an example, some officers may work their entire career and never actually deal with complex commercial matters if they're in a small port of entry that is more focused on traveller processing. So if you're going to work in a commercial environment, we'll make sure that we give you that kind of training.

In addition to all of that base training, as I'll call it, we continually have other kinds of training available for our officers. If, let's say, someone is from a legacy organization, such as customs, and we would like them to become more comfortable at administering our immigration responsibilities, we will make sure that they are cross-trained in order to do that. The same situation would apply with the breadth of our responsibilities.

We also make sure that our officers are given, if necessary, linguistic training and values and ethics training; there's a whole host of efforts that are being made.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

One thing that comes up to me from my constituents in my riding—and most of them are from Asian countries—is that often the border guards are not friendly and make them feel intimidated. Maybe that's something you could also add in your training. I think it's important, since they are the first face that people coming to this country see, and obviously we want to give a positive impression.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead, Mr. Rigby.

[Stephen Rigby]

It's a priority of mine, sir. I think it's extremely important, and I've asked Barbara to make it a priority of hers. I've travelled reasonably significantly since I came into this job, and I promote that idea constantly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Rigby.

Before we go to the second round, there's one issue I want to clarify with Mr. Johnston or Mr. Rigby. I know you have a tremendously important and challenging job. The public wants everything to go quickly at the borders and the trade to flow, but they don't want anything bad to happen. You've got these conflicting demands facing you, and it is certainly very challenging.

Speaking as a member of Parliament, I find the one aggravating issue that does come up in my office quite frequently is that of people getting held up or turned back for offences I consider to be in the strata of minor criminality. I know you can't speak for the American border officials, but it happens going both ways. I'm talking specifically of possession of marijuana, in some cases 20 or 25 years ago—and at that time it probably was a criminal offence—as well as impaired driving, DUI in the United States. Some of these offences are quite old. These people have led exemplary lives. It happens going both ways.

There are two issues. One, I know it's an assessment of risk, but is there any way of dealing with these so they don't happen? More importantly, is there any way people can find out? People come into my office and they have an impaired driving charge that's 20 years old. They ask me if they would be allowed to go to Florida. My answer to them is I don't know. They don't want to buy a ticket and embarrass themselves by getting caught in an airport and being sent back. Is there any way they can go to an Internet site and find out exactly what the situation is? This is an inquiry we get every month, and it's becoming more and more frequent.

It happens on the border every day but with no consistency. In most cases they don't ask, but when it does happen it's very embarrassing. I've got situations where very successful business people have an old charge and there's no way you can expunge it. They won't accept the pardons in the States. You just don't get anything at all. It is a big issue.

[Stephen Rigby]

I will ask my colleagues if they can comment on the situation in the United States. I'm less familiar with that.

On the situation in Canada, I'm very familiar with that because I suspect I get as many overtures on this issue as you do, Chair, or perhaps more.

It's an issue of great sensitivity. As you say, a lot of people who come to the border, northbound certainly, are regular and exemplary citizens who have an issue in their background that renders them inadmissible.

I guess I'd say a couple of things quickly. We endeavour to make sure our officers have the best guidance and the best training to effect a decision on a temporary residence permit, if that's applicable. Generally speaking, I think the bigger challenge for us is to make sure those decisions, point to point to point, are consistent. We often hear stories of people coming up saying they couldn't get in, yet the year before they got in, they had been given a permit. I think our challenge is to make sure we are doing all we can to ensure consistent processing of these decisions.

The one thing we're trying to do through tourist associations and other fora is to ensure people know what the requirements are when they're coming into Canada. If they contact us in advance, we can make sure they get good, full consideration of their case and a proper and due-deliberate decision regarding the issuance of a temporary residence permit. In the event that we do not find we're able to issue the permit, they are at least spared the embarrassment and hassle of potentially being turned away at the border.

I'll just ask whether either of my colleagues could comment on the U.S. situation.

[Kimber Johnston]

I would only comment that I know it's different but I don't know the particulars of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The next round is five minutes. Ms Crombie, you have five minutes.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you all for appearing before us today.

As I read through the material, I just wanted to acknowledge that you have had some significant challenges, and I'm glad to hear you're slowly working your way through them as well.

I'd like to focus on two areas. One is the need for fair and consistent policy and procedures. I also note that, as was brought up by my colleague across the bench, we need better data for exit controls. We also talked about better monitoring of individuals who are released, better resource allocation, more effective information management, and consideration to costs and risks.

Specifically, you've had some challenges with lack of procedures and lack of controls, the lack of clear roles in accountabilities between CIC and Border Services, and the lack of consistency in decision-making with respect to the detentions. So there has been a lot of latitude in decision-making on detaining persons who pose a risk. How do we know whether those policies are being applied fairly and consistently across Canada? Is there an effort to put more procedures and policies in place? I acknowledge you've said there has been.

Have the decisions been based on experience, or on risk assessment, or sometimes just on capacity and limitations? What about this monitoring framework that's been discussed? Is it in place, and do we have quality assurance checks?

[Stephen Rigby]

Thank you for those questions.

One of the things that I've made a separate priority is making sure our national programs are armed with three things primarily: clear policy based on the legislation, procedures that flow from the policy, and monitoring to make sure those policies and procedures are being applied equitably and consistently. The fourth thing I might mention is training to make sure that people understand the policies and procedures we've got in place.

I think we've made some headway on these things. There's more work to be done, but we have amended and tightened the policies and procedures in a number of the areas that are touched on in this audit. The program monitoring framework you referred to is something we have deployed. It is not completely evolved yet, but I'm satisfied it's going to provide the kinds of information that I think we need at the national level to make adjustments to the procedures that are out there, the resources that we deploy, and the actions of our officers.

The other thing I would say is that the flow of information that's available both to management and staff is pivotal in making some of the gains we've undertaken to making in response to this audit.

So the work we're doing now in the national case management system, which is the data and statistical underpinning to our work going forward, is going to be fairly pivotal to our success here. We've identified about 40 specific areas where we would like to make some changes in NCMS. We've done about 20 of them and we have about 20 more to go. At the same time, we're looking at our complete architecture to see how the long-term evolution of NCMS or its replacement will be situated among the suite of systems that CBSA administers, and there are about four dozen of them.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

The next theme is on risk to the public. We've talked a little bit--Dave Christopherson already spoke briefly on cash bonds--and I just wanted you to reiterate quickly on our concern about whether these people could pose a risk when released back into the general population. How are these individuals tracked and monitored while they are waiting for status?

Another related theme on risk to the public that's of specific interest to people in my community is the failed refugee claimants, if you want to address that. PSAT funding was received in the greater Toronto area, and 8,200 people had been deported--and in Quebec as well, but it sounds as if Quebec is no longer operating the program. I just wanted assurances that it's still operating in the GTA. Where else might it be across Canada, and who monitors and controls these failed refugee claimants? What happens to them? Do they just get absorbed into the general population? Do we ever find out where they are, and do they ever get deported?

Thank you.

[Stephen Rigby]

Generally speaking, on the issue of the terms and conditions, as I said to Mr. Christopherson, we try terribly hard to make sure we make acute and sharp risk assessments whenever we release somebody and attach terms and conditions to them. I think for the most part people we release in this fashion abide by the terms and conditions. Some of them do not. Some of them disappear into the ether, and they become part of the warrant inventory that's mentioned in the report.

Again, you can get people who are perfectly acceptable and legitimate presenting themselves for refugee processing, and for reasons that are unclear to us at the time they present themselves on the first arrival in Canada, they go into criminal activity or they find themselves in social situations that lure them into criminal activity once they're in Canada. There's a certain amount we can do in terms of what we know about them, but we can't always predict what they're going to do once they're here.

In terms of the resources you're referring to, we continue to have pretty robust efforts going in the GTA, for sure. One of the things we do in the GTA, for example, is a program that tries to work with people who have to be removed and to make sure they're given good support for their removal, that they are counselled properly, and on occasion are provided with financial support to guarantee they are going to go when they say they are going to go or when they need to leave.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Crombie.

Mr. Kramp, five minutes.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome all.

Just following up on Mr. Murphy's concern, I don't think there's a member of Parliament who isn't faced with a number of constituents in their offices all the time. They have no idea; there's no consistency whatsoever on both sides of the coin. And I find it quite unacceptable when we asked what the American situation is and you said you can't comment on it. Is there no communication whatsoever between the different agencies? Does the left hand not know what the right hand is doing? Where is the communication? Do you have systems to work compatibly together, or is there any integration whatsoever? Can you give me an update on that?