Public Accounts Committee on April 5th, 2022

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to follow up again on where I was going in my last round, about the problem resolution process.

For the record, there was an article on the CBC News site back in December regarding a couple, Eric and Kerri Langer. As a quick summary, the article says, “This past summer, several travellers [were] getting robocalls reminding them to quarantine even if they weren't required to.”

Specifically, in the case of the Langers, it says, “They pulled up to the Thousand Islands border crossing to return home [and] the ArriveCAN app with their proof of vaccination wouldn't load on Eric's phone.... The officer refused to look at their printed documents and ordered [that] they quarantine for two weeks.”

Kerri is a teacher at a short-staffed elementary school, and said that taking that much time off “wasn't an option”. They got home and “started making calls to elected officials, the Public Health Agency of Canada and...CBSA.”

Eric is quoted: “The resolution should have been [that] somebody calls to verify that we are indeed vaccinated”. He went on, “Boom. The quarantine is lifted. But there's nobody. There's no information. It's crazy.”

Dr. Kochhar, can I get you on record to explain this? We're looking at the review of a government program and policies and how they're enacted.

However, I'll go back to a key aspect of this. When there was a glitch—when there was a problem and there was an easy resolution to not require somebody to quarantine, for two weeks in this case—what was your problem resolution to deal with those types of issues? Was there any? Were there any call volumes? Have any changes been made?

[Dr. Harpreet S. Kochhar]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start by saying that the Public Health Agency verifies travel compliance with emergency orders through live calls with screening officers and automated interactive voice calls, or a combination of both. That is what we do.

We leverage the contracts, or MOUs, that we have at Service Canada and Stats Canada, both federal entities, to complete up to 8,000 live verification calls with travellers daily. That is the way we try to reach out.

These compliance verification calls can begin as early as day two following arrival into Canada, and may continue for the entire 14 days to ensure that we are reaching the traveller. Travellers who have an indication of non-compliance, specifically with emergency orders following a compliance verification call, are referred to the appropriate police of jurisdiction.

In relation to whether there are the components of a glitch in the system or others, we have our call centres, our lines that people can call to get support in terms of rectifying our finding or finding other solutions to that.

To be more precise, Jennifer, who deals with those on-the-ground kinds of things—

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I don't mean to be rude, but I want to get in a couple of supplementals on that.

What I'm asking would be a secondary issue to that. We had constituents...and my constituency staff would call the Public Health Agency of Canada and explain, for an example, the situation of the media story that I referred to.

I'll give you another local example. I had constituents, a husband and wife, who went to the U.S. and drove back. She had the proof of her second vaccination but not the first. They said they needed the first and that she was in quarantine for two weeks. She just couldn't find it in her email when they were at the border. She called public health, and the answer was no; it was just too bad and they didn't have a process to change or amend that.

Can I just get you on record...? Yes, there was a phone number, but was there a process, an opportunity for a Canadian to say, “Look, I'm sorry, but the ArriveCAN app didn't work. Here's my proof of vaccination”? Could they say, “Oh, I'm sorry, I don't have proof of my first dose. Here's my second one”?

Were you resolving these issues, or just saying, “Sorry, no, that's the discretion of the officer. We can't reverse course on this”? Was there any sort of program at all to address those types of concerns?

[Dr. Harpreet S. Kochhar]

Mr. Chair, may I please pass it on to Jennifer, who, as I mentioned, is closer in managing that?

[Jennifer Lutfallah]

Sure. I'm obviously not going to address the details of the cases you're referring to. I am aware of one of them in particular.

With respect to entry at the port of entry, the admissibility determination is done by the Canada Border Services Agency based on information and instruction from PHAC. It depends on what happens at the border and what type of information is provided to that officer to enable them to render their decision. Once that officer, the BSO, renders a decision, that decision stands.

If there is supplemental information and so forth, that could have been provided to CBSA or to PHAC, but the admissibility determination is made by another government department.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dong, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair, and I want to thank the witnesses for coming today.

For the AG, I've read the objective of your study. The time period you looked at was July 1, 2020 to June 2021, following your previous audit. Did you find improvements from PHAC in terms of reporting on the non-compliance and the enforcement?

[Karen Hogan]

You're correct that this was our second audit. The first audit covered March to June of 2020.

Where we did note some improvements from the Public Health Agency was in its ability to contact travellers to determine whether or not they were quarantining. In the first audit, we found that they were unable to follow up with 66% of travellers. That improved to only 37% of travellers.

I would highlight two things there. At the beginning of the pandemic, very few people were entering the country, so even though the percentage has reduced in the second audit, the number of travellers who are coming in has dramatically increased. It isn't a huge success story that about a third of population can't be followed up with.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you for that. There were some improvements.

For the president, I know that screening is interwoven with different jurisdictions and the goal is to filter out those incoming travellers with positive symptoms. Can you explain to me, first of all, how big your enforcement team and the frontline team are? Just give us an idea on the HR.

[Dr. Harpreet S. Kochhar]

I'll start. Jennifer will probably be able to provide a precise number.

We have quarantine officers at different ports of entry, who managed it 24-7 at that time. We have screening officers also. The correct number as of March 28, I think—I have that information with me—is that almost 59 staff, which are really assigned in terms of virtual assessments, are doing those at the 36 different sites.

Also, at four international airports, we have a physical presence of Public Health Agency of Canada employees. We have a physical presence at around 36 points of entry, including 10 airports. The total staff complement is up around 410—approximately that—with an average of 100 employees on site per day for 110 sites.

Also, I want to mention, Mr. Chair, that we provide remote support in cases where it is needed. There is a mixture of on-site presence as well as the remote presence, which is assisting travellers through the Public Health Agency.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have more questions coming at you.

This is important. I just want to make sure that everyone understands this and can put into perspective your team versus the rest of the team fighting on the front lines against COVID. I'm talking about including the municipalities and the provinces as well.

I understand that your goal is to identify, test, inform, follow up and enforce if they decide not to comply—for all travellers, right?—but I see that the finding is that there were a significant number of travellers who were missed. Does this mean that those who got missed are among the public at large, or is there an additional layer of screening, whether it's provided by the provinces or the municipalities, that should be able to trace them once they arrive in Canada?

[Dr. Harpreet S. Kochhar]

Mr. Chair, there are multiple layers that would work in tandem. One is on the arrival front, and the second is our ability to correlate the data provided by the testing service provider, because that information goes directly to the provinces and municipalities where they live, as well as the service provider and the Public Health Agency of Canada. We have a system whereby provinces can also do what is needed on that.

Third, as I mentioned earlier, where we see that there is information available that needs immediate attention based on risk, we obviously use our ability to have door knocks. Our people go in there, and we also inform the local police of jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We now turn to you, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné. You have the floor for two minutes and 30 seconds.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses again for their earlier responses. We are going to stay on the topic of people testing positive and therefore carrying the coronavirus when they arrive in the country.

Please respond briefly. What did you do about tracing people who were on the same plane, knowing that these people could have been contaminated without their knowledge?

[Brigitte Diogo]

I will answer this question.

The agency worked closely with Transport Canada and the major airlines to ensure that when a positive case was detected or reported on a flight, the information was published on the agency's website so that travellers on that flight were aware of it.

In terms of tracing, it is primarily the provinces and territories that follow up locally with travellers.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Perfect.

Given the information you had, did you test the other passengers to see if they themselves had contracted the coronavirus?

[Brigitte Diogo]

This was the responsibility of the provinces. Until recently, it was the policy of the provinces to ask people who had been exposed to the virus to go and get tested.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Now that vaccinated people no longer need to isolate, what recommendations do you have today to continue to be vigilant about people who may be carrying the virus when they arrive in Canada?

[Brigitte Diogo]

For people entering Canada, we have a random screening program to check for possible importation of the virus, but we still continue to provide travellers with information that tells them what personal steps we recommend they take to protect themselves and those around them.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Now, Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor for two and half minutes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks again to the witnesses present here for this important discussion.

I want to make a special mention regarding the fact that there were two audits in this particular instance. We'd had recommendations for the quarantine process once already, and there was follow-up. We heard from the Auditor General in her opening remarks that we still, of course, have issues related to the enforcement, particularly in some jurisdictions like Alberta. I want to follow up on my previous questions regarding that.

I heard a response that there are tools, but I will ask specifically what kinds of tools we could assure Canadians with, should the Public Health Agency have to respond to something similar again?

I'd really appreciate it if you could be brief.

[Dr. Harpreet S. Kochhar]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As my colleague Jennifer mentioned earlier, we are in the exploratory phase for other tools, as mentioned earlier, like administrative monetary penalties, or some other kind of legislation that we will have to look at. All of those are being discussed with partners. This is going to be something on which we can work with our partners at the borders—CBSA and Public Safety—as well as other provinces and territories.

At this point, we are in an exploratory phase, but we are looking at a few of those options.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

We have one. An administrative financial penalty is what I've heard about so far. I'm still not satisfied with that response or that I understand that issue, but I'll move on. This is the third time I've asked that question related to which tools. Maybe I can get a response to that later.

Maybe the doctor can respond to this. If we do not fix the enforcement problem at the intake border—the four airports in particular—what are the risks to Canadians, particularly in light of new variants?

[Dr. Harpreet S. Kochhar]

Mr. Chair, the aspect of mandatory random testing at the airports is more often a way to allow us later to screen those at highest risk, coming from the countries that have a higher incidence of COVID-19.

As I mentioned earlier, we test them—that's part of the mandatory random testing—and then we sequence them. That is how we get a clearer picture of any variant of concern that is going to be arriving through the borders.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Doctor. I will turn now to Mr. Lawrence.

You have the floor for five minutes, sir.