Public Accounts Committee on May 5th, 2016

[Michael Ferguson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, based on the samples we took and the tests we applied, we found somewhere around 50 cases in which there were indications that people might be trying to obtain their Canadian citizenship through fraudulent means. I've said a number of times that in my estimation those are 50 cases too many, because we didn't have to apply particularly sophisticated tests to find them.

Now, I can't take those 50 cases and extrapolate to how many other cases might be problems and then to how many of those cases could actually be fraud. The only thing I can tell you is that we did say in the background in the introduction to the report, in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4, for example, that “The Department reported that in January 2016, it had about 700 revocation cases pending.” That's 700 cases that the department itself had identified. The three most common reasons for revoking citizenship are fraud related to residency, identity, or undeclared criminal proceedings. Those were the three things we looked at in this report.

Then at the bottom of paragraph 2.4, “In 2012, the Department issued a public warning that nearly 11,000 individuals had been linked to residency fraud investigations.”

I can't extrapolate the 50. It was extremely disappointing to me that we were able to find those 50 cases, and I think when you look at the other information the department has, it indicates that there are a significant number of people who are obtaining citizenship through fraudulent means.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

You have discussed the theme of data through many of your spring reports. I think that's one of the common themes for all six of them. That certainly seems to be the case in this report.

Regarding information sharing with the RCMP and the CBSA, currently a citizenship officer requests a clearance check that is then performed by the RCMP. You know this works generally well, but you recommend that it happen later rather than early in the citizenship process. Someone is criminally charged after that initial check.

I take your point, but I'm not sure that's the right solution, because a criminal charge generally ends an application. It is like a red light. Learning that someone had a charge or a conviction at the start can stop the expenditure of resources for processing an application that involves a fraud.

Would it make sense for the department to have direct access to search this database so checks can be run multiple times in the whole process of the citizenship?

[Michael Ferguson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will start the answer and then maybe ask Mr. Swales to also provide some information.

Fundamentally, I think what we were looking for were ways for Citizenship Canada to make sure they were getting information about people with criminal charges against them.

I'll ask Mr. Swales to speak specifically to that section about when those security checks were done and when they might be done.

[Nicholas Swales, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We essentially recommended in paragraph 2.37 that they review when the optimal timing is rather than specifically saying that there was perhaps a better time.

One of the other points we make in the report later on is that the validity of this clearance check had been extended, so it's not necessarily the case that it was done at the beginning and then not done again. In recent years, until some of the changes were made, citizenship applications were taking a very long time, so in fact they would have to do this clearance check multiple times because the validity of it would expire.

Then the department increased the length of that validity from 12 months to 18 months, but as far as we could tell, there was no analysis to explain whether that was a better way of doing it.

What we want them to do is go back and look at when they do this and have a proper basis and justification for that timing.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

In your report you mention that these checks should be done towards the end.

[Nicholas Swales]

That's not what we say. We recommend that they look at the timing and that if they're going to make adjustments to the timing, they have a proper analysis and basis for that adjustment.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Sometimes the citizenship and immigration department does not receive information in a timely fashion. For example, in paragraph 2.33, you selected 38 cases where the individuals had been charged by the RCMP, and you found that “the RCMP shared the required information in only 2 of the 38 cases”, so for the rest of the cases, the information was never shared.

[Nicholas Swales]

The RCMP did not share it with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. As we also point out, in 20 of those cases, they obtained the information by other means, and in 19 of those it was from the Canada Border Services Agency.

However, the expectation is that the RCMP generates this information. There's a memorandum of understanding that says they will share it, so we feel the responsibility belongs to them to share that information directly with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and not pass through an additional party.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

We have to work—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move back to Monsieur Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ferguson, we have had several meetings with you. We appreciate your work a great deal. You tell us that a number of departments are enforcing the rules. However, you add that, if the office of the Auditor General does not conduct an audit, the departments do their own thing until you look into their books to check the situation.

In the seven reports that we have had from you, most departments thank you and accept your recommendations. That is how the situation looks. In fact, it is as if someone in the act of committing an offence is caught red-handed by the police as they investigate and then promises to follow their recommendations. Of course the person would agree to follow them.

As members of Parliament, we are responsible for the public purse. We want it to be used optimally. Earlier, you talked about solutions for assessments and efficiency. You said that we must not be satisfied with a 95% success rate. You are completely right.

I am calling on your expertise as Auditor General and the expertise of the skilled team around you. Are you able to provide us with a method by which each department becomes responsible, assesses itself and does not wait for an audit on your part every six years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, or 30 years before it does anything?

People in the departments have to be made responsible. I need your expertise to allow us to be even more efficient so that all Canadians who pay taxes to Ottawa can get full value for their money.

[Michael Ferguson]

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Godin.

First, I would like to talk about the audit on the Governor in Council Appointment Process in Administrative Tribunals. We conducted an audit on this a few years ago. I believe it was in 2009. In the past, we identified problems with the process and we made some recommendations.

With this current audit, we noted that the Privy Council has made some improvements to the process. However, the current results are the same as in 2009. We feel that this situation is a concern. In the past, we identified a problem and made some recommendations. It is clear that the department did make some changes to the process. However, in the eyes of Canadians, the results are the same. The same problems continue to exist.

In my opinion, it is really important to find a different way of following up on our recommendations. As you mentioned, all departments are receptive to our recommendations, but the results are the same.

The committee's role is really important in maintaining dialogue with the departments. It would increase their ability to be accountable. Moreover, I feel that it is important to consider the possibility of finding a different way to follow up on our recommendations. We should be able to conduct a new audit on the same subject before being in a position to state whether there have been adequate changes.

In a word, it is important for us to consider whether there is a different way to follow up on some audits.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Actually, I understand that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly summarize. No more questions. You have about 20 seconds.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I will leave it there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We can move to the next one, then. We'll actually move to Ms. Mendès, please.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ferguson, thank you for being part of this meeting today. It is great to have you here. It is not always great to hear what you have to tell us. But we have a job to do.

As my colleagues, as well as Mr. Christopherson, have emphasized, a major problem seems to beset all the government apparatus, collecting data and how to use it.

Do you see that this is affected by privacy legislation in Canada? Is there an impact on the ability to share information between departments because of privacy legislation? Does it have an effect?

[Michael Ferguson]

Of course, we must comply with that legislation as we do our work. There are also some aspects of our own act that identify the ways in which we manage the information we have available. So, of course, it is important to comply with the legislation.

In certain cases, it is also an issue for departments to comply with the provisions of the legislation. However, there are provisions that make it possible for certain information to be circulated. So it is a requirement to comply with the legislation but there are ways to make sure that it is complied with in all programs.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

At the same time, it does allow information to be shared.

That takes me to a question to Mr. Swales to follow up on Ms. Zahid, if possible.

I think my colleague's question was mostly on whether it is possible, when someone applies for citizenship, to have immediate checkups on criminal records done by the RCMP in the first instance. We shouldn't even open the file until that is done, so that we could avoid delays and avoid waiting for information that takes a long time to come before people start working on the file. It seems to me, logically speaking, that if someone has a criminal record or has a criminal accusation, obviously the case is closed, and the application won't go further. It seems to me—that was the point of my colleague's question—is it possible to do that? Going into privacy laws, is this something that could be shared by the RCMP with IRCC?

[Nicholas Swales]

Certainly it is possible, and that is how the system currently works. They do that check early on. The issue we focused more of our attention on was that once that check is done there is a period of time, and it used to be quite lengthy, while the application is in progress—

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

It still is quite lengthy; it's still over 18 months.

[Nicholas Swales]

Indeed, but it was getting up to three or four years not that long ago, in which there was a possibility for people to have committed crimes, so it was getting that information that we were most concerned about.

As for the issue of whether there is anything that prevents the sharing, there isn't in this case. They have the systems and the agreements in place to do it. It just needs to be done.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much.

Is there a technological reason that would be the primary reason we have this issue in the different departments? Did you find it was mostly technological?

[Michael Ferguson]

Mr. Chair, what we found was that it was just the way the data was handled. I think the best example in the citizenship program was that we selected a sample of 150 addresses, because again, for somebody to become a citizen, they first have to be a permanent resident in Canada and they have to be able to prove they've been a permanent resident for a sufficient period of time.

Some people don't meet the permanent residency requirements. They may provide a false address or try to give an address that isn't in Canada. Address is important in making sure Citizenship Canada has the addresses correctly captured, so they can determine whether multiple people are giving the same address, which would be an indication that perhaps there's a problem. We went in and took a sample of 150 addresses and found there were duplicates existing in the system for 102 of those 150 addresses. One address existed in the system in 13 different ways. Departments are always going to say, “If we had a new system, we could manage.“

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

I'm not talking about the new system. I'm talking about using the one they have properly. I guess that's where you're reaching to.