Public Accounts Committee on June 2nd, 2016

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for the officials from the department and the RCMP.

If I've understood correctly, the Auditor General presented findings. Did you expect these findings?

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, no system is perfect and I think it would have been surprising to me if there hadn't been issues identified. That's the role of the Auditor General.

As they say, every program always needs to look at itself in terms of ways to make improvements. Certainly, measures were put in place in 2012. There have been enhancements made to the program, so I wouldn't want to leave the impression there has been no system or no process in place.

I think we have had some very effective measures. The question is, were they good enough? I think clearly the Auditor General has helped to identify the fact that we need to better and we need to do more, so we have taken that on board.

I think the issue from the Auditor General's point of view that we have to take very seriously is how do we make sure that we continue to follow up on these things, that we deliver what we say that we are going to commit ourselves to and that we have a continuous process, and that it isn't the Auditor General only having to tell us where the gaps or weaknesses are, but that we actually have measures in place. That's where our quality assurance, quality control processes, are important and will be important, to make sure we are continuously learning how we can do better.

We know that fraud can change. People come up with sophisticated means of finding ways to get around the system. We have to make sure that we keep on top of that and that we're always making our system responsive and sensitive to that.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

As far as sharing documents and how fast it's done, did you expect this report? My question is for the RCMP representatives.

[Chief Superintendent Brendan Heffernan, Director General, Canadian Criminal Real Time Identification Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

We are alive to the fact that the timing is critical. In fact, we're evolving as an operational organization, and it's a continuous requirement to review. With respect to the MOU, it was last signed in 2012, and there has been an evolution of our operational modus operandi, if you will. We agree that there is a need for the revision of that MOU now to reflect the current realities going forward.

In terms of the criminal record checks, that was actually pointed out within the Auditor General's report as something that is working well. The issue in respect to that now is the timing. When it is best to commence that activity? Or is it best possibly to commence it twice, at the front end and the back end, in order to better meet the needs of the citizenship program?

We have met since the report came out, and we welcome those recommendations, absolutely. We've met with our colleagues at IRCC, and we have a continuous dialogue going forward to meet our management action plan of determining the most effective times to do those checks. It's important to note that the checks themselves are point-in-time checks; it's what's in the system at that particular time. We do it once, but then there may be police interaction or charges laid subsequent to that before the citizenship application is processed.

We have to find that most effective spot within the process, and we are working with our colleagues at IRCC. Because there are numbers of competing interests along that process flow to citizenship, we need to determine when is the exact best time to do that. We're getting very good guidance from our colleagues at IRCC.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Orr.

[Robert Orr]

If I may, I'll add that one of the issues that has reduced the risk to a certain degree on the criminal checks, which are going on well, is the processing times. Citizenship applications used to take two-and-a-half to three years to be processed. New applications are now being processed in less than a year, which means that when we do the criminal check, there's far less time for something to happen.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I agree, it's an improvement. Do you think the delay is still too long?

[Robert Orr]

This is one of the things that we are in the process of considering. When is the best time to do that? We had been doing it early in the process, and we think it may be possible to do it a bit later. We're reluctant to do it twice in the process, because about 10% to 15% of people have to go and provide fingerprints, which is a fairly onerous imposition on these applicants. We would like to do it just once, but at a time when it's effective and at a time when we think we can manage the risk appropriately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Orr, and thank you, Mr. Généreux, for your question.

We'll go to Ms. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing this morning, because of course we're not here to prevent people from coming to our country. We would like to welcome people to Canada, yet for all the people who go through the proper procedures and are doing it legitimately, any time there is a case of fraud, or certainly a serious threat to our public security, that endangers the potential for other new Canadians to come here.

I'm trying to get a grip on what the process is like. It sounds to me like it's largely organic. I'd like to understand that a little more. What does a typical application process look like? Is it one agent who is charged with processing the applicant from A to Z? There are problems associated with that; you can have a change of agent where they lose track. The types of stories we hear in our offices are about files being lost or documents being requested but not in a timely manner. That leads not just to frustration but to genuine hardship for people who are trying to come here.

At the same time, I'm not at all an advocate of rushing application processes, so I'm even a little concerned that we went from 2.5 years to less than a year. I don't know if that's the kind of quality improvement we're looking for if people are getting through the cracks.

I'd also like you to address the issue of fraudulent consultants. Maybe some of our security witnesses can deal with that.

Mrs. Biguzs.

[Anita Biguzs]

Perhaps I can start and ask Mr. Orr to fill in the details.

When individuals submit their paper applications, those are then sent to our case processing centre, located in Sydney, and the information is inputted into our global case management system. This is where we try to enhance the guidance and the instructions to staff on how to input information into the system, particularly around the issue of problem addresses, to try to make sure that we obviate any issues in how the addresses are entered. At that stage we can identify, through the system, if there may be multiple addresses. The system helps to facilitate whether, in fact, multiple addresses have already been identified at that particular address.

As I say, the information is inputted into the global case management system. There is a process of risk triage. We have risk triage criteria that have been identified, which we worked on some time ago to triage cases, to identify which cases are more complex and not routine, where more issues may be flagged, for example, if a problem address has been identified....

If it's a more straightforward case, then it can be referred back to the local office, and the local office then can go through the process. As you know, a knowledge test is administered, which an applicant has to pass in order to complete their application. There is also the language requirement. There is an in-depth interview that is also undertaken. In a straightforward case, the decision is then rendered.

In a more complex case, as I say, it will go to a higher level decision-maker in the local office, where there would be a more in-depth program integrity review. If an issue has been identified with, for example, a problem address, potentially it is referred to what we call our case management branch. They have an expertise in following up on problem addresses.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

So it doesn't seem to be following a linear path but a circular path where the file is going from one person to another. Is there, at any step, an aggregating of the risk factors? Is there a systematic way of tracking? It's one thing to track an individual application; it's another thing to be recognizing where there is systematic risk.

[Anita Biguzs]

As I say, we certainly use risk triage criteria at the front end—and we're actually doing more work in looking at our risk indicators up front—to try to make sure that we can identify lower risk, more routine cases where there may be not issues versus complex cases, so they're are two kind of different pathways that an application may follow in terms of the process. Clearly, more complex cases where issues have been identified go through a more rigorous process.

As I say, that's where we call on our case management branch where we may have to refer cases further to the RCMP, for example, or to CBSA. So as I say, there are two different pathways in the process.

Mr. Orr, you may want to add to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, as we're already over time. So very quickly, Mr. Orr, if you're going to.

[Robert Orr]

There are just a couple of points on this. Keep in mind that this is a program where the acceptance rate is very high. It's about a 93% acceptance rate. We have about 2% who are refused for inadequate knowledge and language; about 1% for residency; and about 3.4% abandon or withdraw their application; and then there are a couple of hundred who are refused for criminality. That's sort of pretty average in terms of where it goes, but that might help to situate the program and how we process it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll now move back to the opposition and Mr. Poilievre. You have five minutes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

In paragraph 7 of the Auditor General's presentation, it says, “We looked at 38 cases in which the RCMP should have shared information about charges with the Department, and we found that it had shared the information in only 2 cases.” It goes on, “We also found that after the criminal clearance check was completed, the Department had no systematic way to obtain information directly from police forces—other than the RCMP—on criminal charges against citizenship applicants.”

I'll start with the second part of that quote. How hard is it to get records of criminal charges related to citizenship applicants from police forces?

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, I can ask my colleagues at CBSA and the RCMP to respond further, but certainly as soon as we have an application and we enter the information into our global case management system, it is then referred to the agencies and we are able to receive criminal security clearances almost immediately.

As I indicated, if in some cases a percentage of cases require fingerprinting, then that process does take somewhat longer before we can get a clearance, but perhaps my colleagues can respond further.

[C/Supt Brendan Heffernan]

With respect to that process, as Madam Biguzs mentioned, originally the checks come in to us through the government electronic messaging and document exchange service, which is a name-based application. Once we receive the name, date of birth, and some other biographical information, we filter that through two processes: the criminal name index, which is the criminal record check, if you will; and then the persons check through the CPIC system.

If the name and date of birth and other biographical information meet a certain threshold through an algorithm that we have within the system.... If it's below that, it's a negative and we respond immediately that no information is available in our databases for this particular purpose.

If it is above that threshold, then it's inconclusive. Then we need to go back to the applicant and ask them to send in a set of fingerprints, because we apply—with every criminal record that we have in our database, the criminal record itself is matched to a legally obtained set of fingerprints, obtained under section 2 of the Identification of Criminals Act. So we would know with certainty that the identity of the individual who is submitting the prints is married to that particular criminal record. As a result, we can provide a certified document that says these prints belong to these criminal charges and they belong to the person who submitted the prints. That does take a little longer.

When we send back the initial response that said that prints were need, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada provides a letter to the individual instructing them to go to a police service or an authorized third-party agency to submit the prints to us. They have up to 30 days to do that or they need to acquire an extension from IRCC.

In some cases, information is contained in the criminal record holdings that requires follow-up from the police services. The police services themselves provide that information to the system. It's their information. Sometimes we have to ask if this information is releasable, depending on what it is. It can take a little time, but essentially the process is that a name-based check is done first; then, depending on the information derived from that, a subsequent fingerprint check might be required; and then the conclusive results are sent back either to the individual, or if he signed a third-party waiver, directly to IRCC.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

How does it differ from a normal criminal background check that an employer or a non-profit organization would do on an applicant?

[C/Supt Brendan Heffernan]

It doesn't vary that much. It's a similar process. It's what we consider a civil check. We don't retain those prints either: once we have fulfilled the process itself, those prints are eliminated automatically.

From the information we provide, IRCC has the opportunity through the CPIC system and CBSA to do a more fulsome review of that particular information. An employment check for a company doesn't give them that opportunity. We have the more fulsome ability to do that additional research through the CPIC system that our colleagues and partners have access to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We will now move to Mr. Arya, please, for five minutes.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

I'd like to continue what my colleague Mr. Poilievre was asking about. I'm really concerned after hearing about the weakness from the RCMP's Jamie Solesme that even now, after so many decades, the RCMP is still saying that they are going to look at IRCC's information requirements.

She also mentioned that the complexity makes it difficult to share information, and said that the privacy laws, our charter of rights, and other things that make it difficult. She accepts that there are challenges.

That leads me to conclude that there have been cases, and I don't know how many, in which criminals have got citizenship in Canada because of the lack of information sharing between the police forces and IRCC.

Ms. Biguzs, are you sure that the RCMP knows all your requirements?

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, we've been operating under an understanding with both of the security agencies. It has become apparent that there needs to be greater clarity and that we need to be more explicit in terms of our requirements and what our processes are for the exchange of information, and the authorities under which we can do so. The system we use, the global case management system, is a secure system.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Regarding the global case management system, which you apparently think is so good, when it comes to CBSA, what the AG found was that they have not been very good in updating the GCMS. The response you have provided is that, given the necessity of protecting the integrity of ongoing investigations, blah, blah, blah, the agency will develop the process. There is no commitment from the CBSA to update your database system.