Public Accounts Committee on June 2nd, 2016

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I totally respect your comments.

I am not going to get to Mr. Orr, and I apologize for that.

I guess all I was trying to say was that, if somebody files an application for citizenship within the country, regardless of nationality—I wasn't bringing nationality into it; I don't even know why we went down that road—and gets flagged for criminal charges for doing something after that, then, in my mind, I believe that at that point there should be a common sharing system. If somebody has filed a citizenship application and is brought up on charges and put into a database, it should be automatically flagged. It should show up that this person has filed a citizenship application. At that time, a flag should go up to Citizenship that there are charges pending against that person or an ongoing investigation, not necessarily indicating that the information can be shared at that time, but letting Citizenship and Immigration know that there are charges pending and that this file does not move forward until such time as there is a resolution to the pending charges. That is what I am trying to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Is there anything like that now?

[Insp Jamie Solesme]

When somebody is charged or entered into the CPIC system, the issue is that we will not necessarily know what that person's status is. If we have a question, we could refer the case to IRCC and perhaps identify the person, but....

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

All I am saying is that regardless of what exists today, this should be something we are moving towards, a system that is fully integrated and that allows the departments to cross-collaborate, so that if somebody has a citizenship application that is pending, it is noted in Citizenship and Immigration that there are charges pending, whether it is from the CBSA, the RCMP, or a different law-enforcement agency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harvey.

We will now move back to Mr. Généreux, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This time, my question is for Mr. Ferguson.

Your report contains your findings about fraudulent or potentially fraudulent documents, what are called “suspicious documents”. I'd like to know whether you detected a real danger or a significant risk related to this issue in terms of what is currently going on.

[Michael Ferguson]

This risk is generally defined by the department. Some people are trying to obtain Canadian citizenship fraudulently by using suspicious documents or by altering them. We found that the documents are not handled uniformly. They are seized in some regions, but not in others.

We identified the problems because it's a risk that is defined by the department. It is very important that the department find a way to solve the problem and handle these documents in a uniform way.

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

By the way, I would like to congratulate you on your French. I am very happy to hear you today, especially after the criticism about your appointment. You have made a lot of progress, and it's to your credit.

Ms. Biguzs, continuing with the issue of documents, is there a difference between seizing and keeping potentially fraudulent documents used by people who want to enter Canada? Can you give us any examples?

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I will start by saying that the issue we identified is the fact that we don't have the authority, under the citizenship legislation, to seize a document. If someone has provided, for example, what appears to be a fraudulent or suspicious identity document.... It might be a passport that looks like it has been altered in some way....

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

Excuse me for interrupting you, Ms. Biguzs. You said that you don't have the authority to seize these documents when people meet with your officers. Is that right?

[Anita Biguzs]

Yes, that's right.

Under the citizenship legislation, our officers currently do not have the authority to seize a suspicious document. Bill C-6, which is before Parliament, actually includes that authority now. If that were to be approved, then our officers could do so.

Under the immigration legislation, officers have the authority, or under Canada Border Services under the immigration legislation, we can seize documents, but if a citizenship officer suspects that a document has been altered or is fraudulent, they can't actually take control of the document. That has led to inconsistencies in terms of our citizenship officers and what to do in those kinds of cases when they suspect that a document actually has been altered. We have updated our guidance to officers, and now, if an officer suspects there is a problem with a document, there are procedures. They can actually go to a CBSA officer or to an immigration officer in the same office. Basically, if it is an immigration document, then in fact the authority under the immigration legislation can be used to seize the document.

In the absence of an immigration-type concern, in fact, what we have now done to make sure there's consistency across the regions is that we have given guidance to our officers. Basically, they can in fact look at the document, and if they suspect there is an issue with the document, they can ask a client whether we could take control of the document.

If a client refuses, the procedures require that official copies be made of the document. We make official photocopies of the document. We alert our case management branch that is responsible for following up on issues of this nature. We put a red flag in our system, and we do not continue processing that particular applicant for citizenship until we have actually been able to verify that in fact there is no issue with respect to an identity document or a travel document that has been submitted.

As I say, we're hoping that if the legislation is passed this clarity of the authority for citizenship officers will be in place. Otherwise, we have other procedures that we've tried to put in place to address that concern.

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

What tools do the officers have to detect potentially fraudulent documents? Do they have any particular tools for that?

[Anita Biguzs]

Officers have been given training on these kinds of things. They actually are trained to look at original documents against sample documents. Officers have access to a fully computerized image retrieval system of travel documents from around the world. They can look at a document that an applicant has put in front of them and verify it against this. I haven't seen it myself, but apparently it's a very sophisticated and advanced system, and against it, you can verify travel documents from around the world.

Officers also have access now to the lost, stolen, or fraudulent document database. We have given them guidance as well in terms of what to look for in terms of the quality and the colour of a document in comparing them against sample genuine documents. We've also encouraged our officers as part of our guidance to question any differences and to look at the photograph very carefully to compare the person they're interviewing against the photograph. They will ask for secondary documents if they are not satisfied with the documents they have in front of them.

We have put all of this more systematically into our program delivery instructions to our officers in terms of what to look for, but it is part of the ongoing training for staff and, as I say, it is part of our enhanced guidance and procedures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Our time is up. We'll now move back to Mr. Lefebvre, please.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ferguson, in your report at paragraph 2.24, you say:

We observed inconsistent practices for dealing with suspicious documents. In one region, no documents suspected to be fraudulent have been seized for in-depth analysis since at least 2010....

For five years prior to this, there were no thoughts that any of the documents that had been presented to that office had been reported as potentially fraudulent. Is that correct?

[Michael Ferguson]

That's correct. In paragraph 2.24 what we're doing is pointing out the inconsistency in the practices in the various regions.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

My question is as follows. There are a lot of consultants who make a lot of money with respect to immigrants in helping them out with their citizenship applications. Can these consultants pick which offices they would go to to file these applications?

[Michael Ferguson]

That would be the way that individual applications are assigned to officers, and I would defer to the department to answer that question.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

But if you're saying that in one region none of the officers detected anything that was fraudulent for a number of years, my question is, again, can a consultant say that they want to try to direct their clients to go to Kingston all the time because they know that maybe the checks and balances in that one are not as strong as the office in Kitchener?

[Michael Ferguson]

Again, what we say is that in that region there were no documents seized that were suspected to be fraudulent. They may have identified that possibly there was a problem with a document, but they weren't seizing them.

In terms of whether somebody can choose which citizenship office to go to, again I think the department would be in a better position to explain how those files are assigned to citizenship officers.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Very quickly, Ms. Biguzs, can you explain?

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, as I noted in my previous answer, and as the Auditor General has stressed, although the region didn't seize the documents, it doesn't mean to say that the officers didn't go through the full process. In fact, if they suspected there were an issue with the document, it meant that they probably went through a much more extensive program integrity interview and asked for secondary documents.

I think the distinction here is that they didn't have the authority to seize the documents, so we've tried to clarify in our guidance what the procedure should be across the country with applications.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Yes, perfect. I respect that and I understand that.

Turning now to my second point, though, can a consultant or anybody pick an office and say, I will try to get my file reviewed by that office?

[Anita Biguzs]

The application is considered in the local office where the residence of the applicant is.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

So basically, if my address is in Kingston, I have to go to that office.