Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 19th, 2017

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, your time is up.

We're going to Mr. Christopherson now, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much for your attendance today.

I appreciate the answers now. I still haven't heard why we couldn't have heard some of that detail in the response the first time.

Make no mistake that part of our messaging here today is also to let all the bureaucracy know that we read these things. As a result of the Gomery inquest following the sponsorship scandal, the recommendation was to double our analytical ability, and we've done that. We get a massive amount of responses from departments. We read them, and when we're not given answers in their completed fashion, people can expect to come back here.

I think questions 4 and 5, at least so far, have been dealt with. My greatest concern is your response on recommendation 6, in the last sentence. I don't know whether you ran this by your legal department, but I can assure you this is not acceptable. To make a statement, “As such, a detailed report cannot be provided to the Committee”, is not acceptable, period, full stop.

I'm a former solicitor general of Ontario. I understand security. I understand confidentiality. The previous paragraph to the sentence I just read says:

The Citizenship Program Integrity Framework is an internal document that contains information about investigative techniques used by the department to detect fraud and therefore cannot be disclosed or shared in the public domain.

Fair game, I'm with you on that. It's the next sentence. You, as a department, do not have the power to say no to a committee that asks for information. Parliament is supreme. Parliament has the power to summon persons, papers, and records. I've been around here long enough to have this tested, and I've been here long enough to have the parliamentary law clerk at the end of the table, in camera, with the top legal person in a department, berating them because they had the audacity to tell the department because something was captured by one of our confidentiality laws they couldn't give this committee the information they wanted, and the law clerk was there to tell that lawyer that they were giving wrong information to their deputy and department.

Parliament is supreme. We are a committee of Parliament. We asked for an answer. To tell us we can't have it is not on, and it is not on ever. What do we do? We find a way that you could give it to us in a way that protects what needs to be protected. The simple answer to this is that you would offer to us an opportunity for an in camera briefing on these matters if we wish. That is the correct and acceptable answer.

Number one, and, Deputy, think clearly. I need to hear what your opinion is of my interpretation of the powers of this committee as they relate to information we want from you, and number two, in detail, I would like to know whether you are offering us such a briefing in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Morgan.

[Marta Morgan]

Mr. Chair, I would like to reiterate that I regret very much that the committee did not find our responses to members' questions to be sufficiently detailed. The questions by the committee really related to how we developed and are monitoring our improved processes and frameworks for the detection and prevention of fraud in the citizenship program. I'd be happy to provide more information on how they were developed and are being monitored today.

With respect to the reports mentioned in our response to the committee, they were intended to illustrate the mechanisms by which the department is following up on the Auditor General's report. However, release of this information could identify investigative techniques and priorities. It could increase the vulnerability of the program to fraud and could expose our investigative techniques and those of external partner agencies. It is those internal reports to which we referred that could jeopardize our investigative techniques and increase the potential for fraud in the program that was referred to in the response.

Nonetheless, in terms of the process for how we're developing and monitoring these frameworks, and how we're tracking them and the processes that we put in place, we'd be very happy to provide additional information as the committee requests.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry. It's disappointing that you read most of that response. I still did not hear, Deputy, whether or not you accept the fact that Parliament has the right to summon whatever persons, papers, and records we choose. I asked if you would give us that information, and I, for one, am more than willing to go in camera, because I understand what you're saying. However, the bureaucracy cannot say to Parliament, “You can't have this information.”

Look, I was the defence critic for a period of time, and we ran into issues with security matters all the time. We deal with them. You go in camera and on some supersensitive things you put together all-party agreements on how we're going to handle them. I remember one process—I won't get into it—in which we selected some of our most respected members of each caucus to be on that committee to take the information. We had to find a way.

It was never acceptable for the bureaucracy to say to Parliament, “You can't have something.”

Now, colleagues, if necessary, I will move that we adjourn this meeting so that we can call the parliamentary law clerk in here and go through the whole process. Maybe we need to do that at this committee. We haven't done that yet, but I assure my colleagues that the rights I am mentioning are supreme and will hold.

I'm still not hearing the deputy say, “Yes, I will give you that information”, but we just need to work out a process to keep the matters contained therein confidential. I need to hear that, or this will not get resolved, at least for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Let me just say this to the deputy. On a couple of occasions, we've dealt with reports by the Auditor General, followed by the departments coming before this committee and saying that they recognize the Auditor General's report, that they've accepted all of the recommendations, and then three years later, we find that nothing has happened. They may have an action plan but the same problems come up in audit after audit after audit.

Now we have a case, just as Mr. Christopherson has said, where we've issued the report with recommendations, and it is problematic to the committee that the answer from you is that the department can't disclose parts of the process dealing with fraud. If you had said that, that might have been acceptable, but as Mr. Christopherson indicated, there has never been an opportunity for you to disclose the information in camera or in a place where.... So I would just straight out ask you, do you still believe that you cannot disclose that information?

[Marta Morgan]

Mr. Chair, there is considerable information that we can disclose relating to how we've developed these frameworks, what our monitoring systems are, and what our governance is around those frameworks. There is also information that we cannot disclose because it would provide information about our investigative techniques or those of our partner agencies, and potentially increase the risk of fraud in the program. That is the information we referred to in our report to the committee. We wanted the committee to understand the kind of information that we were collecting and using for investigative purposes, but there will be some information that simply cannot be disclosed.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's not acceptable, Chair. I'm sorry, but at the end of the day this is not going to fly. I've been here before. This is not going to stand.

My advice to colleagues is that we suspend this meeting, call in the parliamentary law clerk, and have the law clerk tell this committee what our powers are. I guarantee that we're going to be right back here after the parliamentary law clerk talks to the departmental senior law person who gives the proper advice to this deputy about information that they do not have the right to keep from Parliament. This is big.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson. We may come back to that.

Mr. Nuttall has a comment, just so that all parties have had an opportunity.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I just want to clear up what Mr. Christopherson is saying. I think that the message that comes across, Ms. Morgan, is this. You don't trust parliamentarians in this room to hold the confidence of the information, the confidence that we are actually required by law to hold.

Is it the case that you don't trust members of Parliament, whom the public trusts?

[Marta Morgan]

Mr. Chair, we are hoping to provide more information today on the questions that the committee put to us, which were questions about the process under which we develop these frameworks, whether they exist, how we monitor them, and how we track them.

There is some information in the internal reports that were mentioned in our report back to the committee that really does relate to investigative matters, techniques used by our partner agencies, and data and information that could be used and result in increased fraud in the system. That is the kind of information that is generally not released under any circumstances because of the potential to increase fraud.

The general nature of our frameworks, what's in there, how we track it, how we monitor it, how we adjust as we find new information and get new information from investigations that are ongoing, all of that is information that we would be happy to discuss with the committee.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

So your position is that there is information that you cannot share with members of this committee because it could lead to an increase in fraud in your system, meaning that there is information you're not willing to share with the Parliament of Canada because you're scared that we will be part of some sort of fraudulent loop, whether through the dissemination of information that should not be disseminated or by actually participating in the process. That's what I'm understanding from what you're saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I would just ask a question. It comes from the table. Then, we'll go back to Ms. Shanahan.

You say there are some things that you would disclose, and there are some things that you can tell us. Can you explain, for example, how refusal rates are monitored? Are there controls on this process?

[Marta Morgan]

Yes, Mr. Chair. We have a monthly monitoring of refusal rates of files. We have monthly extracts of data, and we monitor the refusal rates every month. That allows us to see whether there are any deviations from the norm. We also look at the risk indicators, and refusal rates in cases that have certain risk indicators, to see whether the refusal rates on those are showing any difference.

Lu, would you like to add anything to that in terms of the monitoring?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Then we'll go to Ms. Shanahan, or Mr. Arya, whomever.

Go ahead, Mr. Fernandes.

[Lu Fernandes, Director General, Citizenship and Passport Program Guidance, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to the refusal rates and the baselines that we have established through our processes, there are two pieces. One is around general refusal, so we're not necessarily talking about fraudulent issues in those general refusal rates. It can be anything from not passing the knowledge test to language requirements or residency requirements.

Refusal rates are a way of establishing the overall baseline around refusals. The more specific indicator that we've established as a baseline is regarding the particular fraud indicators that we are using and how many refusals are based on those indicators.

What we've managed to do over the course of the last number of months is to establish a baseline of overall refusal, and then to look at our risk indicators and say, this is our baseline refusal rate based on what we believe is fraud. We're looking at those on a monthly basis to see what the kinds of results are in order to take action, mitigate risk, change indicators as needed, and make adjustments as we go.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Shanahan

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

Thank you, Chair.

Let's just get back to why we're here, why we've called you back. It's certainly not uncommon for us to look for clarification from entities when we're not satisfied with their responses, and so on. We do not mean in any way to cast any aspersions on your work. The principle that is really at work here is that when we ask for a response, we cannot have an answer like the one that was provided to number six.

I would like to move a motion like the one suggested by Mr. Christopherson earlier, to have the law clerk address this committee about what its rights are. It's the IRCC today, but it could be another entity at another time, another place, in another set of circumstances.

Can I put that on the floor?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think we can deal with that motion right now. I'm not ready to adjourn this meeting. I think there are still questions that we can ask of the deputy minister. I don't think we need to shut down the meeting early.

Are you moving the motion then, Mrs. Shanahan, that we—

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

Just to be clear, we're not here to focus only on your group, but this issue has come up because of the answer you provided to us.

On that note, with regard to the investigative techniques, I am concerned when I see abnormally high or abnormally low refusal rates. What is going on there? For that, we do need to understand what the investigative techniques are. As my colleagues have said, we are certainly able as parliamentarians, and have the tools at our disposal, to receive that information.

You may not be able to share it with us now, but I would like to know more about the refusal rates, what your baseline is, and how you monitor that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Fernandes.

[Lu Fernandes]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, when we're speaking about the general refusal rates and the baselines that we've established, we've had the latter since fiscal year 2015-16. They are relatively consistent in terms of the total and as a percentage of refusals.

As I mentioned previously, the types of issues that would have come up include knowledge, language, residence, and prohibitions. The refusal rates are in that range of about 2%. Of the total new citizen applicants, 2% of the new citizens have been refused for a variety of reasons. In some cases there can be more than one reason for refusal. That's a fairly innocuous general statistic with regard to our refusal rates.

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

Okay.

Mr. Arya.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think we need to suspend the meeting now, because the question that has arisen is what the power of the committee is, what can be disclosed to the committee, or if there is anything the department can withhold from the committee.

I think the questioning of the current witnesses will not be complete until we have this resolved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

May I ask one question first?