Evidence of meeting #5 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was number.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
You had raised, Mr. Rigby, the issue of the national case management system and the global case management system. I'd like to visit that a little more closely.
The GCMS was supposed to replace the NCMS in 2005, and you held off doing a lot of things, believing that the system was going to come in. And then it didn't happen, and now you're in some ways starting over.
On April 22, 2006, The Toronto Star ran an article that reads as follows, under the headline “Computer Revamp Costs Soar. Program Goes Up 25% and Lags Far Behind Schedule. Immigration and Border Officials Scrambling”.
The article says, in part:
A $48 million increase in the cost of a federal computer project is raising the spectre of another financial fiasco sadly reminiscent of the infamous gun registry. Bureaucrats in the three departments are whispering about the political cash and career implications of a massive program that has risen 25% to almost $243 million, won't deliver all that was originally promised and lags far behind schedule. Not surprisingly, immigration and border officials are losing confidence in the Global Case Management System while their superiors are struggling to contain what is even by Ottawa standards a mess.
In April 2007 the government cancels the program, or at least cancels it in terms of your participation in it. It's obviously wasted money, wasted time, wasted staff effort, wasted work, and continuing risk for a longer period of time than was necessary.
Please tell me why this failed, why the decision was made to not go with the GCMS and to return to the NCMS, how much more it is going to cost, how much money you have spent so far, and how long it is going to take until you get up to where you should have been had the government gone ahead with the original plan of 2005.
4:45 p.m.
President, Canada Border Services Agency
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson, for those questions.
I can only comment to a certain extent. The project is essentially the responsibility of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The Canada Border Services Agency was a participant in it by virtue of the fact that we have front-line enforcement responsibilities for immigration issues. The reason, in broad-bush terms, it was descoped was, in essence, that they were trying to amalgamate and replace 12 front-line and overseas systems with one integrated system. And I think that at the end of the day, a number of decisions that had been taken over the life of the project, including the switch from a customized solution to something referred to as a “customs office off the shelf”, proved to be incapable of delivering the original vision of the project.
In terms of the NCMS aspects of it and the FOSS aspects of it, the two systems we're most interested in, yes, there were delays that were caused by virtue of the fact that we were waiting for the GCMS to give us the sort of upgraded capacity--
4:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It was four years--four years.
How much money was wasted, sir? Can you get me that dollar figure?
4:45 p.m.
President, Canada Border Services Agency
I have no idea how much. I could ask my colleague to provide that number.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
Is there anybody here from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration? Maybe we can ask them why this program was reduced in scope and why this money was wasted.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We'll wait for the response from Mr. Rigby. You're going to get back to us with a fulsome response on that.
4:45 p.m.
President, Canada Border Services Agency
Yes, I can undertake to provide a response to the committee.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Do I have time for a quick question?
Public Safety and Anti-Terrorism, PSAT, was funded in 2005-06 and 2006-07. Toronto used this money. Part of it was that they developed their own system of evaluating risk, which causes me concern, because it means that we have different evaluations happening in different parts of the country.
I'm curious as to why Quebec got out of the program. If it's not working, why is it still in Toronto? And if it is working, why did Quebec say no?
February 24th, 2009 / 4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency
Thank you.
Actually, the reason Quebec is no longer implementing the program is because the funding ceased in 2006-07. The funding also ceased for Toronto. So the funding was only for 2005-06 and 2006-07. As a result of that, what Toronto did was integrate the approach it had taken, with that special funding, with its ordinary daily activities within its existing resource levels, whereas the Province of Quebec felt that it couldn't do that without the additional funding. That's why you see the disparity.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
How much money are we talking about? Do you know, roughly? What's the ballpark? Is it $10 million, $50,000? Give me a working number, somebody in this room, please.
Nobody?
4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency
We don't know. I'll get back to you on that.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Whatever the number is, my concern would be what other things they decided not to do, given that one of the reasons you haven't been able to achieve all the goals you've set out for yourself is limited resources.
So what in Toronto did they have to give up in order to do that while maybe in Quebec they decided they weren't going to make that trade-off? Again, inconsistencies in the application of all of this is a real problem.
I'm going to be very anxious to see what the reports are that we asked for from them, the updates and what they tell us in the next couple of years as to how many of these files are moving in the right direction. But thank you for your answers today.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.
Before we move to Mr. Weston, I want to clarify that there were a number of undertakings given this afternoon, Mr. Rigby, so let's say three weeks. Is that sufficient time for your department to get back to us?
4:45 p.m.
President, Canada Border Services Agency
I think three weeks is reasonable, Chair.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
You can file them with the clerk, in both official languages, and we'll distribute them to committee members.
Mr. Weston, five minutes.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
A couple of my colleagues and I went to the wrong room, so please forgive us for that.
Mr. Chair, I would like to follow up on Mr. Saxton's comment.
I travel back and forth across the border a lot and I travel internationally. It is purely anecdotal, but consistently my wife and I have observed that in crossing to the American side there's a professionalism but a friendliness, and crossing to the Canadian side a professionalism. I don't know what the training difference is, but there's a clear difference after tens and hundreds of anecdotal experiences. So it is just something for you to consider.
My question goes to the enforcement side. I see in the Auditor General's report that the CBSA is primarily responsible for the enforcement provisions of the act in section 7.3. Then in your remarks, Mr. Rigby, you say at page 3:
The CBSA's removal priorities continue to be individuals who pose a threat to the security of Canada, such as those involved in terrorist activities, organized crime and crimes against humanity.
You've mentioned that there have been 2,800 to 2,900 who have gang or criminal connections.
What is the status of the carrying of firearms by our border guards? I recall that this was something new. It was brought in certainly since 9/11. There is no mention of this in the Auditor General's report or in your remarks.
4:50 p.m.
President, Canada Border Services Agency
The project to deploy armed officers is one that will span approximately ten years in total. At this stage we're into starting our third year, and we have about 720 officers deployed with weapons. The bulk of them are at the border, but some of them are inland officials. These would be officers who would deal with a lot of the cases we're responding to here.
So when people go to a residence to find somebody who may be there, arrest them and remove them, often times there can be some difficulty and occasionally some violence that's associated with that. So we are interested in making sure that as we deploy the weapons over the coming years we have a good blend between front-line officers and inland enforcement officers.
I think I can tell you that we are on time and on budget in terms of the deployment schedule. We are often asked why is it taking so long. Part of the reason is that in the fullness of time we'll arm approximately 4,800 officers, but in order to train them we have to bring them off the front line, send them for significant firearms training, use-of-force training, make sure that they pass the appropriate qualifications, and then get them their weapon and deploy them.
We cannot remove officers from the line in huge numbers, obviously. We are doing that in a very systematic way that responds, we think, to prudent risk management but also ensures that the highest-risk ports and the highest-risk areas of our program get the weapons first.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
In an increasingly dangerous world, I think it's a good thing that we're doing this. It was very controversial when it began. I was just surprised that the auditor's report didn't touch on that, because it seems to be an important thing, especially given the allocation of responsibility between Parliament and our bureaucrats.
The other thing I am going to point out is that in many of your plans I don't see timelines there. I noted, for instance, on page 4 of your report, Mr. Rigby, that it says, “The Auditor General noted that no national procedures exist to address excess capacity at detention centres.” We talked about that a little bit. There is a timeline target date for implementation of June 2009.
Flipping over to the next page, it states that the CBSA is also negotiating agreements with the provinces, and you mention Ontario and Quebec. We touched on that a little bit in answer to another question. It just seems to me that it would be easier to understand what was happening and for a future committee to follow up if there had been timelines.
I know you put your neck out when you do that. In several cases, I would have liked to have seen some sort of a target date for what you're doing. I also realize that because you only have six months under your belt, that perhaps may have been a bridge too far.
4:50 p.m.
President, Canada Border Services Agency
Certainly we have tried wherever possible to specify a timeline. A number of the things that I've spoken to today are complete, and when you get into issues such as negotiation with the provinces, as we've said to Mr. Christopherson, the vagaries of the ebb and flow of the negotiation and the fact that we are the demandeur in this matter make specifying a target date difficult for us. But suffice it to say, we are going to try to have all those things done as far in advance as we can of the latest date that was specified in our plan.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Weston and Mr. Rigby.
Ms. Ratansi, you have five minutes.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Thank you.
I have a few questions. The Auditor General found that though the two departments, CIC and CBSA, have a memorandum of understanding, they have not come to an agreement on the consistency and quality of information supporting decisions to issue temporary resident permits.
I used to chair the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. With the Vancouver Olympics coming, we have a huge problem with trafficking, and as people come to the border there is a subjective decision made by border guards. What protocols have you put in place that will ensure the safety and security in terms of those trafficked women or children? I think the minister said that if we think they are trafficked, we will give them a temporary resident visa. But what do you do with the person who is trafficking? That's the first question.
The second question is how do you gauge what you're going to do? It's a tricky question. It's very judgmental, but I'd appreciate your input into this.
Secondly, there was a project “Hide and Seek”. Could you explain how much that project cost? Is it still active? How many people were on the unwanted list? How many have disappeared? Have they gone underground, or have they gone to the U.S.?
That is where I'll stop.