Public Accounts Committee on May 29th, 2017

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

Have you just made this change?

[Diane Jacovella]

Yes. The change was made to follow up on the Auditor General's recommendations.

Before the release of the Auditor General's report, we had already asked our employees to speak with the staff under their responsibility about values and ethics. We don't think it's enough to give the code to the staff. They must also speak with the staff to encourage them to quickly indicate areas that need improvement. This way, the management team shows its desire to be made aware of any unacceptable situations that arise.

I simply want to say that the Auditor General was only able to see that 20% of employees had taken the training. However, this doesn't mean that only 20% of employees received the training. According to our statistics, 86% of employees are trained.

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

This should include all employees in Canada.

[Diane Jacovella]

The training is mandatory. I agree we should aim for all or almost all employees. Before, our system didn't allow us to analyze the data by mission. However, we can do so now. We send monthly reports to the heads of missions and the managers to let them know how many employees haven't received the training yet. These managers must follow up on the matter. It should be made very clear that the training is extremely important for everyone.

Thank you.

I'll give the floor to my colleague, if she wants to add something.

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

Thank you.

[Marta Morgan]

The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development and our department provide the same thing. We speak with employees regularly, both during meetings or as part of the annual assessment, to make sure they fully understand the values and ethics principles. Therefore, additional information is provided periodically within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Mendès.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Have you thought of doing post-service surveys—I won't dare call them satisfaction surveys—with people who actually use the system? I ask because a lot of people are afraid of telling you what's happening to them when they apply. They won't come on their own to make complaints.

Would you consider that as a way to measure what they actually live when they make an application?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Orr.

[Robert Orr]

Mr. Chair, we have undertaken some surveys, indeed, to see client satisfaction with the process. I don't think there are particular questions about fraud in there, but on the other hand there are opportunities to raise issues that individuals may have come across. We are in the process of trying to increase that sort of activity with our clients to get a better read on what's going on. Some of it has already happened, but, yes, you're quite right that we can improve that.

There are a couple of other things I would add on this score in terms of managing our staff abroad. Every year we insist that the staff reread the code of conduct and that they sign that they have done so, and we do regular quality assurance exercises to investigate what's going on and to be assured that the processing is appropriate.

Another thing I would mention is that we understand that our risks at different missions and different parts of the world are different. Thus, we manage those risks differentially as well. In some places we're very cautious and other places we can give a more expansive role to our locally engaged staff.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Orr.

We'll now go to Mr. McColeman, please.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I'd like to direct this question to the Auditor General.

Recommendation 3.35 states that IRCC “should develop a comprehensive internal fraud risk assessment based on analysis of the effectiveness of its controls.”

What specific elements of IRCC's fraud-risk assessment were found to be inadequate? If possible, could you please provide examples?

[Michael Ferguson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask Mr. Swales to provide the details.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Swales.

[Nicholas Swales]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In this case what we were saying was indeed as Mr. Orr just said, that the circumstances in the international network can be quite variable and, indeed, the checklist that we refer and that is circulated provides insight into that by providing information.

One of the things we felt was lacking was that these checklists were not then being used to say what exactly the situation was across the network and how that could best be addressed. It was really that kind of an opportunity for improvement that we were aiming at.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Just thinking about it from a logistical, management point of view, what they were using were checklists. The department was using inadequate checklists. Is that what I'm hearing you say?

[Nicholas Swales]

No, I'm saying that they were collecting information on checklists and we felt they were not then using that information to establish enough of an understanding of risk in the international network. In a sense, they had a tool. That was one aspect of it. However, they were not fully utilizing the information they were gathering.

The other issue is that in the same way we were looking at information in GCMS for improper behaviour, there were opportunities for also looking at that information on a regular basis.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I'd offer the witnesses from IRCC an opportunity to respond to that answer, if they wish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Morgan.

[Marta Morgan]

I'd be pleased to respond.

The main response we are making to the Auditor General's findings, which were very timely and relevant for us, is that we have developed an international network professional conduct standard. This standard has enabled us to consolidate in one place all of our guidance for international program managers. Through this international standard, we're putting in place a cycle whereby we will be regularly reporting and following up on all of the issues raised by the Auditor General.

We're also putting in place a monthly calendar for each head of these program offices, for specific issues to be addressed each month in all offices. We're reporting back to headquarters on those, and then rolling that up in a report at the end of the year so we can track the baseline data. We can track it across our missions and we can see where there are anomalies or potentially emerging issues. It's really consolidation and tracking on what we were already doing. I hope that responds to the main recommendation of the Auditor General in this regard.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

For many of us, our experience in coming from the private sector, as well as in talking to people we know who work within the immigration department—in different circles in my case—would indicate that the employees who work within these departments often recognize when something is going sour at the desk next to them or in the same department. They see the first signs of fraud.

Is there any mechanism within your management structure, something that some people would term “whistle-blower” style—I don't want to use the word “legislation”—that would allow one of those employees to come forward and tell management without major repercussions within their work environment?

[Marta Morgan]

We maintain very close communication with our locally engaged staff and close supervision. We do have issues raised at the management level. We are very prompt to address those issues when they are raised, as you heard from Mr. Orr's description of some of the disciplinary actions taken. Where there have been issues, sometimes they will be raised by other employees, either anonymously or not, and when that happens we will investigate in a way that protects the employee. We have a separate unit within the department that has been set up to do those investigations, separate from our operating structure.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Chair, I hope you will indulge me here. I am curious whether any of the organizations could respond to this. There is another initiative that we've heard lots about. We've heard testimony on it. It's called the Beyond the Border initiative. Is that connected at all with what talking about here today? Is there anything happening within your scope of work that is associated with that initiative?

It's not reported on by the Auditor General here and you might not have expected a question such as this, but is there any connection between what's being attempted through Beyond the Border and any of the discussion today?

[Marta Morgan]

Mr. Chair, I'll just make one quick statement about that. I don't think what's being talked about today really has any connection with the Beyond the Border initiatives, given that the special Canada-U.S. relationship and the fact that, really, those were focused more on pre-clearance and, in many cases, the movement of goods.

What I would say, though, is that I think in all of our programs we are trying to strike the appropriate balance between risk and facilitation, and trying to use not only our staff but also modern analytical tools to try to determine where the highest risks are, and to mitigate those risks while at the same time facilitating the vast majority of the flow of people or goods either across the border or into our country through other means.

I think that same theme shows up across all of our programs in many ways.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Unless there is another response to that question, I think that is a good answer.

Mr. Chen, please.