PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 16, 2000

• 1539

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My apologies for being a little tardy this afternoon.

We are meeting today pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), consideration of chapter 3, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the economic component of the Canadian immigration program, of the April 2000 Report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Our witnesses today from the Office of the Auditor General are Mr. Denis Desautels, the Auditor General; Mr. Richard Flageole, the Assistant Auditor General; and Mr. Serge Gaudet, Principal, Audit Operations Branch. From Citizenship and Immigration Canada, we have Janice Cochrane, the Deputy Minister; Michel Dorais, Associate Deputy Minister; Joan Atkinson, Acting Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development; Martha Nixon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations and George Tsaï, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services.

• 1540

Before we start, I'd just like to offer a little apology on behalf of our researchers, who weren't able to get the briefing notes out in their normal efficient and early manner. There were reasons for that, of course. They were out of town last week, as many of us were.

Without further ado, Mr. Desautels, present your opening statement, please.

Mr. Denis Desautels (Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present our audit findings of the economic component of the Canadian immigration program.

The purpose of the economic component is to recruit skilled workers, entrepreneurs, investors, and self-employed workers. In 1999 more than half of approximately 190,000 immigrants admitted to Canada were immigrants under the economic component.

Our observations and conclusions deal primarily with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. However, other federal partners are involved in attaining the objectives of the economic component. They include the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Health Canada. For this reason, some of our recommendations apply to them as well.

We last audited the delivery of immigration services abroad in 1990. Since then the department has gone through many significant changes in its organizational structure and budget and has taken initiatives to rectify some situations. However, it's disappointing to see the similarity between many of the problems we raised in this report and those we identified in 1990. Therefore, the department will have to put significant effort into dealing with these long-standing problems.

At present immigration offices abroad cannot cope with the task. First of all, immigration levels have not been met for the last two years. Further, there were almost 175,000 applications at various stages of processing in late 1999, 38% more than there were three years ago. Average processing times for applications doubled over the same period. In some offices skilled workers have to wait about three years for their applications to be finalized. These long delays can compromise the arrival of highly skilled immigrants into Canada.

The officers responsible for processing applications are deeply concerned about the present state of affairs, and I share their concerns. We had an opportunity to interview a number of visa officers and program managers when we visited their offices. We also conducted a survey of these employees in all offices abroad. We draw very positive conclusions on their calibre and commitment. However, what they revealed concerned us deeply. They have a great deal of difficulty handling their workload and responsibilities. They also feel they're making decisions that could carry risks that are too high and that could entail significant costs for Canadian society.

[Translation]

In our view, the Department does not have the resources nor the operational capacity to process the number of applications required to reach the immigration levels set by the government. We found that the Department needs much better information to accurately determine the level of resources required to process applications in offices abroad.

We also noted problems of operational efficiency and effectiveness and a lack of rigour that have a bearing on the system's ability to meet expectations in four main sectors.

First, some weaknesses leave Citizenship and Immigration Canada open to criticism on the quality and consistency of its decisions in selecting immigrants. Visa officers need better selection criteria, better training and better tools. The Department does not sufficiently monitor the quality of their decisions. It is also important to minimize the negative impact of off-shore applications.

Second, we have identified significant weaknesses in the management of the medical assessments of prospective immigrants. We found that the terms "danger to public health and public safety" and "excessive demand" had not been defined, even though we stressed the importance of doing so in 1990. We are also very concerned about the lack of rigour and consistency in the overall management of medical assessment activities.

• 1545

Third, there are serious constraints in establishing the criminality and security admissibility of prospective immigrants. Visa officers have little information and support to ensure that applicants are not likely to engage in criminal activities or endanger the safety of Canadians.

Finally, we found that the Department is particularly vulnerable to fraud and abuse. It has no effective measures in place to discourage people from submitting fraudulent applications, and visa officers often resort to detection methods that are costly. In addition, we found inadequate control over revenues, visa forms and computer systems.

[English]

Overall, immigration services abroad are faced with serious problems. The deficiencies we've observed limit Canada's ability to gain the economic and social benefits that immigration affords. These also seriously weaken the level of protection for Canadians that was intended in the Immigration Act.

On April 6, 2000, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tabled Bill C-31, which amends the Immigration Act. The amendments would make it possible to address some of our concerns, if the bill is passed.

However, most of the problems we have raised cannot be corrected through legislative changes. Additional funds have been allocated to improve some areas related to the management of the economic component of the immigration program, particularly an increase in the number of visa officers abroad and the implementation of the global case management system. These funds will help the department to reduce the application processing time and perhaps to improve efficiency in the longer term.

However, administrative measures will also have to be taken to solve the current problems. First of all, it is essential that an appropriate balance be maintained between the resources allocated to the department and its federal partners and the workload needed to attain the annual immigration levels set by the government, while assuring the integrity of the program. The department also has to be more rigorous in managing its activities abroad. It will have to take effective measures to ensure sound management of risks, particularly in health, criminality, and security checks. It will have to monitor more closely the quality of decisions and improve controls over revenue, visa forms, and computer systems. Finally, it will have to clarify roles and responsibilities within the department and those of its federal partners, such as Health Canada, the RCMP, CSIS, and DFAIT, to define expectations, to ensure adequate direction and monitoring of immigration activities abroad, and to provide a complete report on the results.

Your committee, Mr. Chairman, may wish to follow the situation closely. The department has to take administrative measures immediately, and your committee could ask the department to prepare a detailed action plan and then follow its progress.

That concludes my opening statement, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer the committee's questions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Desautels.

Now we'll turn to Ms. Cochrane for her opening statement. I see that it's seven and a half pages long, and we prefer to have these opening statements made within a five-minute period, Ms. Cochrane. Are you prepared to do this within about five minutes or to summarize it?

Ms. Janice Cochrane (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Mr. Chairman, I can deliver it within five minutes.

The Chair: Okay. Proceed.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to be here with the Auditor General to discuss my department's plans in response to his recent report.

I'd like to say first that my department considers these audits as a very important contribution to our management of the program. Canadians need to know that federal programs are being properly and effectively delivered.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that members first understand the context within which the department will respond to the Auditor General's recommendations. As our minister has stated, our work over this period centres on five priorities: modernizing the Citizenship Act, seeking passage of a new immigration and refugee protection act, developing a multi-year plan for immigration with provinces and territories, strengthening the integrity of our programs in terms of both protecting public safety and improving client services, and continuing our international work to address a range of pressing global migration issues. In addition, we will contribute to the government priority of providing online services to Canadians by 2004, while managing our human resources so that the Canadian public service becomes an employer of choice.

• 1550

[Translation]

Members also need to know that we are responding to the Auditor General in an environment where we had to cut CIC resources by 20% as part of the early 1990s Program Review. This has hampered our delivery capacity during a decade of program growth—37% in the total of all applications received. During the same time period, we have increased the non-discretionary activities of student and tourist visa issuance by 76% and 27% respectively between 1989 and 1999. This has inevitably led to much greater workloads for staff, which makes it more difficult to maintain service excellence.

CIC welcomes the Auditor General's most recent comments on issues that were already a concern to management. Our response to this latest audit will build on what we have done and continue to do in responding to the 1990 audit.

Since the 1990 audit, we have improved our means to respond to malfeasance—a small phenomenon amongst our staff but one with great consequences. We have improved training, particularly for those staff members who assess complex business immigrant applications. We have made key legislative changes to bar or remove those involved in organized crime. We are now successfully moving against modern-era war criminals.

[English]

More particularly, with respect to this most recent audit, we will respond by working on workload pressures, or what we call program integrity; security and criminality screening; and medical admissibility controls.

The Auditor General's report highlighted the gap between operational mandate and funding levels. The government has recognized the need for more resources and has allocated an additional $139 million in the federal budget. This will allow us to strengthen interdiction, conduct more early removals, enhance enforcement at ports of entry, and improve the screening of applicants abroad.

Another $25 million will be invested in processing pressures overseas and in improving client service. With this increased funding, we will be deploying an additional 81 temporary duty officers for the next six months, and for the longer term increasing by 25% our permanent staff overseas, so there will be an additional 45 visa officers in overseas missions by 2002.

[Translation]

We are also developing a pilot project to test the feasibility of processing certain immigrant applications in Canada. We are improving our processing capacity by developing the global Case Management System, which will vastly improve our capacity to share information within our Department and with our partners.

[English]

This brings me to the second of the key issues: security and criminality screening. For us this is one of the most important determinants of program integrity. By working more closely than ever with more national and international partners, it is possible to more effectively share information, particularly information related to organized crime and modern-day war crimes.

In addition, we have assigned resources to improving our handling of security cases, including the development of a national criminal and security screening process specifically for the front end of the refugee process; new legislation to put in place a more streamlined approach to security certificates; and a strategy to improve our ability to interdict improperly documented migrants.

Finally, there is the issue of medical admissibility. One of our most important domestic initiatives in this area is the development of a working definition of “excessive demand”—the health conditions of visa applicants that could place unacceptable strain on our health care system. This new definition will provide more objective and transparent decision-making with regard to medical admissibility.

In addition, we are working closely with Health Canada and expect to soon be in receipt of their advice on whether we should change or add to our routine testing; we will improve medical surveillance and provide better explanations to entrants with certain infectious but inactive diseases about why they need to report to public health authorities; and finally, we will look at ways to reduce the amount of time claimants are in Canada before they undergo immigration medical examinations.

I hope the areas I have touched on illustrate the degree to which my department is committed to retooling, streamlining, and improving its management processes and working collaboratively. The additional resources allocated to our department in the budget are making possible at this time crucial investments in our infrastructure and in our partnerships. These in turn will ensure our operations and program delivery are not only more efficient but also more effective.

• 1555

I want to thank you for your attention. I and my colleagues would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cochrane.

I hear the bells ringing. According to the screen, there are 23 minutes left, so I think we have time to hear from Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Oui.

The Chair: No, Mr. Benoit. I knew that was coming.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Eight minutes, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

Good afternoon to all of you and welcome. I'm pleased to be here at the committee.

I'd like to thank you, Mr. Desautels, for your good work on this report. It's a very scathing report. I've had people who have looked at a lot of Auditor General reports over the years tell me this is probably the most scathing in that time. Certainly a lot of things were pointed out that will be of service to the general public. I share your concern that this report is too much like the report given ten years ago and not enough has been done. That's something we should be concerned about.

With this in mind, I'll start my questioning to the deputy minister. I'd just like to ask you why, when the department knew—and I take this from the Auditor General's report—that they could not safely meet the targets of 200,000 to 225,000 without jeopardizing the integrity of the program, did your department go ahead and recommend those levels to the minister?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Thank you.

It is in the last two years that we have experienced difficulty in meeting the levels, at a time when the external factors having an impact on the program have become increasingly complex.

The government makes its decisions based upon a range of factors it considers. All options are put to the government at the time the decision is taken, including the implications of taking one course of action or another. Based upon that, the government decides how much risk it is prepared to assume. In this case, I think it is fair to say all options, with commensurate implications, were before the government at the time it took its decision.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're saying they knew that by accepting those levels, 200,000 to 225,000, there would be considerable risk to Canadians.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: They knew there would be some risk to Canadians. There is always risk to Canadians in this program. It's not a perfect program. We don't have absolutely perfect tools. But as efficient bureaucrats, we put a range of options before ministers and indicated what the possible consequences could be.

Mr. Leon Benoit: When you put that range before the minister, do you have a recommended range, one that you personally or your department would recommend to the minister?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: There is generally a discussion with the minister as to the position she will take to cabinet. She makes the final decision on the advice she will give cabinet.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could you tell me whether the range that was actually accepted by the minister and the government in this case was your recommended?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Mr. Chair, I think you would agree it would be inappropriate for me to convey the nature of my personal recommendations to the minister. My advice to the minister is privileged information. But I can tell you all options, with complete consequences, were put to the minister in helping her determine what recommendation she would take to cabinet.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would just like to reinforce that point, reading from the Auditor General's report in section 3.54:

The Department's senior management was aware of the challenges in processing applications with its present resources. In planning the 1999 immigration levels, for example, the Department indicated that it would be very difficult to maintain levels at 200,000 to 225,000 given its current resource base and delivery network. It said that pressures on the integrity of the Program and selection process would result.

These are pretty damning words, I would suggest—that in spite of this, and the department knowing this, the minister went ahead and accepted that level of 200,000 to 225,000.

I'll go on to the next question. The deputy minister suggests—and actually I've heard it suggested before—that the proposed increase in departmental spending will make up for the deficiencies noted in the Auditor General's report. I'd just like to ask you, Ms. Cochrane, whether in fact you believe that is the case. Will the increase in spending proposed for this year make up for those deficiencies noted in the Auditor General's report?

• 1600

Ms. Janice Cochrane: The increase in spending will go a long way to helping us make up for those deficiencies, but money is not the only answer. We recognize that a number of management issues raised by this report require more senior management attention by the department, and we have developed an action plan that we will put in place along with the additional spending to support our officers in their decision-making overseas.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Is that action plan—

The Chair: Could we perhaps have that action plan tabled?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: You certainly could.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: It's on our website. It's certainly not a secret document.

Do we have a copy here that we could table? Yes, we do.

Mr. Leon Benoit: When the Auditor General was doing his report, did he have access to that action plan?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: This action plan was developed following the receipt of his report.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

So you're saying the spending increase will help. Section 3.56 of the Auditor General's report says: “The Department's approach to determining needs and allocating resources requires significant improvements.” I would like to ask you to tell me very quickly what in your action plan provides that needed improvement, with some very specific examples, if you could.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: We have tried for several years, in fact many times since 1990, to develop a model for resource allocation that would help us ensure the optimal utilization of resources. We have one that we are about to validate in this year's allocation of resources, based upon the new money we received. Essentially it allows us to capture information by business line and sub-business line, rather than on a consolidated basis, so that we know and are able to compare information between missions on where our personnel is being allocated.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you think that will answer these concerns pointed out by the Auditor General?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: That, along with management analysis of personnel utilization and various conditions and country conditions that exist around the world, will help us. It will give us a better tool to allocate resources in an efficient and effective manner.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think you would agree that economic immigrants are really the backbone in terms of the benefits of the immigration system, and it's quite distressing that according to section 3.46, “The Program's economic component shows the biggest shortfalls.” I would like to ask you, Deputy Minister, to explain to the committee why it is that the area of immigration that would most benefit Canada in fact is the area that comes up most short. It seems there's been a bit of a problem with focusing particularly on what's going to benefit Canada.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: I think it's fair to say that component of our program has become more complex. That caseload has become increasingly complex in the past few years, in part due to the change in source countries we've experienced over the last few years.

But also, at the same time, there has been an exponential increase in what we consider non-discretionary work. People are arriving at our missions looking for visitor visas and student visas, and they have to be dealt with on a priority basis, so that takes away processing time from the more complex cases. The backlogs are in part a reflection of that.

Part of the problem as well is that the business cases have become much more complex. Our expertise in dealing with complex business proposals and investor proposals... Our capacity has been somewhat limited. We responded to that a couple of years ago by creating specialized business centres so that we could develop expertise in a restricted number of missions in the world to allow us to deal with these kinds of cases. We are trying to improve the tools used by our officers dealing with those business cases in order to enable them to make more informed assessments on business performance and the like.

Also, where we can, we have responded to increased workload pressures by sending in people on our SWAT teams in the summer. Temporary duty officers go in and can often deal with the simpler workload, freeing up time for the more experienced Canada-based officers to deal with the economic component of the program.

• 1605

The challenges have been enormous in the last few years. Despite the fact that we haven't met levels two years in a row, last year our numbers were up again, by 15,000 over the year before that. With increased effort over the next couple of years, I think we will see a significant improvement.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Now, Mr. Benoît Sauvageau.

If I can ask your indulgence, Mr. Sauvageau, with the clock now down to thirteen minutes, I would like to say four minutes and then we break. We'll go for the vote, vote, and come back. There may be another vote. I think there are scheduled votes at 5:30, so we may have to wrap up early.

We'll go for another four minutes, Mr. Sauvageau,

[Translation]

please.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, you are doing this simply because you want to make sure that I will come back here after the vote. If that were not the case, you would give me my allotted time.

Mr. Desautels and Ms. Cochrane, I am pleased to meet you. I would like you to clarify whether or not the information I have here is accurate. This document says that the Canada-Quebec Agreement, signed in 1991, stipulates that only Quebec is responsible for selecting immigrants in the self-employed category, namely workers and business people, and that this chapter does not apply to Quebec. Is that true?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: That is right.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I simply wanted to make sure that this was true. I will ask three brief questions and I believe that I will be able to accomplish this in my four minutes.

My first question pertains to the security of the computer systems at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I believe that it was Mr. Flageole who told us that there were some shortcomings and therefore a potential security threat. If my question is not clear enough, perhaps Mr. Flageole may want to specify the number of the paragraph that deals with this issue.

It does not seem to make much sense or it seems a bit strange that the medical examinations have not been changed whatsoever in 40 years. In my opinion, it would have made sense to change them over this time period. Do you intend to change them?

I would like to hear your thoughts on the calibre of the decisions made by the officers. It seems to me that if an officer is in a good mood one morning whereas his colleague is less so, two different decisions can be made. Those are my three questions. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Are you directing all your questions to Ms. Cochrane, Mr. Sauvageau?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: To anyone who wants to answer.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. We'll start with Ms. Cochrane, please.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Okay.

The Chair: If you want to delegate, feel free.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Georges...

Mr. Georges Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Thank you,

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman. It would appear that your first question pertains to the POS+ computer system, that we use to control revenue and which was mentioned in the Auditor General's Report. There is a security issue at various levels. The Auditor General had indicated that the data contained in this system could be changed because the required fire walls had not been installed. This is the first way that I have interpreted your question.

If I were to interpret your question a second way, I would say that you were referring to the computer systems that our department inherited from other departments when it was created, and to the security problems that exist between these systems. I do not know which interpretation is correct.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Let's presume that I am referring to these two issues. Have you found two solutions?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Fine. As for the first situation, I can tell you that we resolved the problems associated with the revenue system in 1999, as part of our work to ensure that our systems were Y2K compliant. We took this opportunity to rectify these shortcomings. I can assure you that our POS+ system is secure and that no one can make any changes whatsoever without the authorization of the system administrator.

As for the second part of your question, Mr. Sauvageau, we have begun developing the new Global Case Management System so that all of the systems that we inherited can operate effectively. With this system, which will be implemented over five years, we will be able to assign a unique identifier to each of our clients and to use it from the start to the end of the process. This is how we propose to resolve the security problem in the second case.

• 1610

[English]

The Chair: We're going to stop there, unfortunately. You have time to contemplate the answers to the other two questions Mr. Sauvageau has, if he wants to continue on or ask some others.

We will suspend to the call of the chair. There is a vote. We will be back immediately after the vote.

• 1611

• 1644

The Chair: We're back.

We have quorum to hear testimony, but Mr. Sauvageau, who had four minutes left, isn't here yet.

Time is short, because we expect another bell this afternoon. Therefore, we'll move to the government side. When Mr. Sauvageau comes back, we'll give him the rest of his four minutes.

Does anybody from the government side want to ask questions? We have no indication at this point.

• 1645

This has to be a record. There isn't anyone... no questions at all.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): About anything in particular, or what?

The Chair: We prefer immigration. We're doing a review.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have many things on my mind.

The Chair: We've had the opening statements, so because time is short and I like to give everybody who wants to speak a chance to speak, if there is agreement on the government side I'd like to limit the first speaker to four minutes. Is that okay?

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

An hon. member: —

The Chair: No, they're having eight. But I'm just asking if there's agreement. If you say no, there will be no agreement, but that's fine.

Do you prefer to go four minutes? Is that okay with you, Mr. Finlay?

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Yes, sir.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay, four minutes.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, witnesses, for everything you've informed us of so far.

I'm looking at page 2, Mr. Desautels. I'm looking at paragraph 5. Am I correct in saying that despite having some difficulty in getting these things processed... All of us know because we get appeals from our constituents, no matter where we are, that things take a long time. You've outlined some of the reasons and it says here:

...the Department does not have the resources nor the operational capacity to process the number of applications required to reach the immigration levels set by the government.

That's in paragraph 6. Would I be correct in saying that the department has not, in the last two years at least and maybe longer, met those levels? I think the level was set at 225,000, but I think in your report the level was... I see 175,000 at various stages, and I think somewhere it said 195,000. Would I be correct in that?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I believe exhibit 3.5 gives statistics on the target that was set and the actual levels achieved for 1998-99, and then what's also been projected for 2000. You can see from it that there's a difference between the actual and the targeted. For 1998, for instance, the actual that we have here is 173,836 for the total immigration program, and the target that had been set was 200,000 to 225,000. So the actual numbers, I believe, are all there.

The Chair: Exhibit 3.5.

Mr. John Finlay: I think my statement was correct that those levels have not been reached, and probably that's the reason. I don't know that there's any...

On page 2 also, I don't understand the statement, “It is also important to minimize the negative impact of offshore applications”. Can you explain that for me?

Mr. Denis Desautels: I'll ask Mr. Flageole to explain that.

Mr. Richard Flageole (Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, we are making reference here to what the department refers to as offshore applications.

I guess the main message is that it provides further difficulties to process those applications because the agents don't have the same level of knowledge to assess those applications when they're looking at an application from somebody in the country where they are, so it adds to the processing time. We had comments from officers abroad that in many cases it might take as much as twice the time, and the level of risk in handling those applications is higher.

• 1650

The Chair: A short question, Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

So one way to handle it would be to put an office in the country where these people come from or refuse their application unless they're in the country that—

Mr. Richard Flageole: Mr. Chairman, the unusual thing we're referring to in the chapter is that most of those applications are made by residents of countries where Canada already has an immigration office. The two main reasons that were put to us on this matter are that people are applying in offices where the waiting period is shorter, and that some applicants might be looking for a less detailed assessment of their applications.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

We'll now return to Mr. Sauvageau for the last four minutes of his opening time.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Tsaï, you raised two issues earlier and I would like to raise a third one. Page 3-43 of the Auditor General's Report indicates that computer systems are not adequately protected. Paragraph 3.179 states:

3.179 The Department needs to monitor how these officers are fulfilling their responsibilities. It needs to know to what extent the rules are not being followed. However, there are practically no internal audits or security audits in this area, notwithstanding a Treasury Board directive requiring that comprehensive security audits be conducted at least once every five years.

In an aside, we read:

We are very concerned about the current level of computer system security in all of the foreign offices we visited.

We have already discussed this issue informally. Do you believe, as is suggested by the Auditor General, that you should enhance data protection and data access and that you should comply with the Treasury Board directive pertaining to this matter?

Mr. Georges Tsaï: Mr. Chairman, we of course recognize the need to conduct regular audits. Moreover, we intend to conduct such a security audit this year, during the fiscal year 2000-2001. I would also like to point out that we will be making changes over the next five years in order to ensure that our control measures protect the integrity of our computer systems.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you. Who will answer my question about the medical assessments? You, Ms. Cochrane? Things aren't going very well in this area. You have not made any changes to these assessments over the past 40 years. I shouldn't be pointing the finger at you, because I know that this is not your fault, but the tests have not changed in 40 years. What do you have to say about that?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Acting Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Perhaps I can begin by indicating that in terms of our medical assessments, we have admissibility criteria to look at when we're assessing the medical admissibility of visitors and immigrants. The first is public health and whether an individual has a condition that would be a danger to public health. The second criterion is excessive demand on health and social services and whether an applicant has a condition that would pose excessive demands on health and social services.

On the side of public health, the disease we are most concerned about in the immigration area is tuberculosis. That has been the case since we started doing medical assessments of immigrants and visitors and it continues to be the case today.

Ever since we started doing medical assessments, we have continued to screen all immigrants and certain categories of visitors to determine whether they have infectious tuberculosis. I know you can appreciate that our source countries for immigrants and visitors to Canada include countries of the world where tuberculosis is endemic, so we have to always be vigilant and prudent and have for many years had a medical assessment that looks at tuberculosis.

In conjunction with Health Canada and other epidemiological experts from other countries, we have been looking at a process to determine whether we should be modernizing and how we should be modernizing our medical examination process in looking at infectious disease around the world and the movements of people. That process, which we are working on with Health Canada and a number of other countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, brings together infectious disease experts to look at diseases such as hepatitis, tuberculosis, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, and others, and to look at the movement of people and the way in which those infections are spread.

• 1655

As the deputy minister indicated, we are expecting to get a final recommendation from Health Canada as a result of that process, which will hopefully provide us with the evidence we need to make the changes to modernize our immigration medical system.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you for this answer. I would be tempted to ask Mr. Desautels if he feels that this is a satisfactory answer.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, you only have a little bit of time. If the AG feels it is important and he has something to add, then we'll let him make a very brief response.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, we have nothing further to add to the answer given by the department.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Mahoney, you have four minutes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Desautels, with regard to the issue of the department being overtasked, as you refer to in section 3.55... The whole tenor of your report seems less critical of the department and the processes than the fact that they simply seem to have faced severe cutbacks. It seems to have impacted on employees, on morale, on ability to deal with the volumes we see.

I had the privilege of touring both the London office and the Nairobi office. I was incredibly impressed with both, but I was very impressed with London, with the efficiency. I'm hoping it wasn't just a show, that what I was seeing was what really goes on. I think it was. I sat in on interviews. I was stunned at some of the decisions. I would have let them in, and they said no. But what do I know? Don't answer that.

Seriously, I'm interested to know if you think there is a situation of best practices in a place like London. I'm a little concerned about the fact that a number of other parts of the world simply ignore offices that we have and go straight to London to apply. I don't think it's because it's particularly easier or less detailed. I think that was the term used earlier today. I don't think it's that the visa application is looked at in a less detailed fashion. I didn't perceive that.

Are there some best practices that you would think the ministry could take out of an operation like London or anywhere else that your people visited?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Mr. Gaudet to answer the question, because he went to the London office too.

As I said in my opening statement, we were also impressed by the people we met, in terms of their dedication and their professionalism. We have actually said that and recognized that. They're working against very difficult conditions and there are certain things that have to be put back in place to make their job more reasonable.

We were talking about better systems and better computer systems that can withstand certain internal control and security checks. The systems in place for verifying health and security of applicants also need to be updated. There are quite a number of areas where, despite all the best intentions of the people working, we can't be assured that they're always making the best decision, the right decision. In my view, all of these things have to be attacked.

Obviously, around the whole network there must be some better practices that can be exported to the rest of the network. In the case of London, I'll ask Mr. Gaudet if he can elaborate on what we found there.

• 1700

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Before he does that, could you just answer something? There have been additional moneys allocated to the ministry in the recent budget. Is it a matter of more money and more staff in these places, or do you think it is really the systems being used?

Mr. Denis Desautels: Mr. Chairman, I think there are three real needs, and hopefully they're all being attacked at the same time. There's a need for certain amendments to legislation, and a bill has been introduced to deal with that. There's a need for more resources, and additional resources have been allocated. It's difficult for me to tell whether or not that will be enough, but at least there's a real effort being made at putting in more resources. The third one is that there's a need for better management practices, better practices all around, and better systems.

It's not necessarily a question of money or a question of legislation. I think it's a question of dealing with the policy issues and their regulations and the forms and so on, internal control issues. There are three types of problems, and the action plan of the department should basically be working on all three fronts at the same time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Gaudet, do you want to say something briefly?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Am I done?

The Chair: You're done.

Mr. Serge Gaudet (Principal, Audit Operations Branch, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): We visited nine offices in doing our audit. I don't think we can compare one with the other. It's quite different from one office to the other. Of course there are some offices where they have some practices that could be done in other offices.

This is why, when we were doing the internal audit... There's the sharing of practices, the need for training. There are many aspects where these tools can bring the information and help share the best practices. Everywhere we went, we saw some very dedicated people. They were working very hard on the job.

Of course, the best practices need to be put together by the department. I went to London, and they were the victim of their own success in a way, because they had a shorter time delay and of course everybody decided to go there in order to have a faster processing of their claim, of their application.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gaudet.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Jennings, please.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you for your presentations, Ms. Cochrane and Mr. Desautels.

In his April 2000 report, the Auditor General again points out certain human and financial resource deficiencies that he had identified in his previous audit, conducted in 1990. Perhaps these deficiencies do not exist for the same reasons, but they persist nonetheless. Are you able to determine how Canada compares with other countries that receive immigrants in terms of the quality of our immigration services, in terms of the way that we process applications and in terms of processing time? I am thinking particularly of the United States and Australia, although to a lesser extent. How do we rate compared with other countries that have a history of immigration and have had to implement immigration systems? Although we are concerned about tuberculosis, we are not testing for other communicable diseases that are almost endemic in certain countries or continents. Is this the same situation that prevails in the United States, in Great Britain and in Australia?

• 1705

Ms. Janice Cochrane: It is difficult to draw any comparisons because our systems are different.

[English]

We work very closely with our colleagues in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the U.S., notwithstanding the fact that the systems are different, to identify problems that are common to all of us, and I should say there are many. Many of the issues that were identified by the Auditor General are issues that our colleagues are also struggling with in other countries, including long backlogs and dealing with issues of admissibility. The backlogs in the United States in some categories are as long as 20 years—a 20-year waiting list in family-class categories from some parts of the country that aren't given priority in the United States.

They also have very different systems in terms of selecting skilled workers. Canada and Australia are the only two countries that are aggressively seeking skilled workers to bring to Canada as permanent residents and to Australia on the same basis. The United States tends to bring people in as temporary workers, and then they adjust status after they have been in the country for some time.

We expect, though, that the competition will become more fierce, and that is why it becomes critically important for us to have better tools—management and financial and legislative tools—because there are emerging signs that countries that are not currently seeking to attract skilled workers are beginning to do so based upon their own assessment of their aging populations and falling birth rates. Countries like Japan, Sweden, Germany, and even the United Kingdom, which traditionally have not been competing in the same market with us, are going to be there in the next 10 years.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Jennings.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You took time off me while I was waiting for translation.

The Chair: It's four minutes and six seconds.

An hon. member: I agree with her, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I get another minute.

The Chair: The clerk was watching the clock, and as I say, we do expect another vote.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Clerk, were you watching the clock? I don't think so.

Did you subtract or stop the clock?

The Clerk of the Committee: No, I didn't.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: No, you didn't.

A voice: Who's next?

The Chair: I'm next.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: The chair sure has its privileges.

The Chair: In your opening statement, Ms. Cochrane, it seems you lay the blame for the lack of modernization of the department after the Auditor General's report of 10 years ago on the fact that program review denied you sufficient resources to get the job done. Is that correct?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: In part it's correct. There are a number of other factors. Our resource base was cut by 20%, and the 20% in cuts were taken from the operating budget of the department, which is essentially people to process cases.

The Chair: But wouldn't you want to speak to your minister and to the Treasury Board saying, excuse me, but we have to protect Canada's borders or the immigration flow and ensure that these people don't have criminal records, ensure that their health is adequate, ensure that they're properly skilled, ensure that there is no fraud, no criminality, and so on? If you had a choice between protecting Canadians or getting a financial cutback, surely protecting Canadians was more important. So why did you accept the cutbacks if you couldn't do the job with them?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: I think the problem has actually become really acute for us only in the last couple of years. We certainly didn't have the same operating environment at the time the decisions were taken in 1993-94 to embark on the cuts to the department.

We also believed we could manage the impact upon our staff abroad through systems modernization. It has really been only in the last couple of years that the numbers in our non-discretionary program have increased and the source countries have changed to more complex source countries and we have found increasing difficulty in meeting our targets.

The Chair: But the Auditor General hasn't said, well, gee, it has deteriorated in the last couple of years. He said, this is what I reported on 10 years ago, and it still has the same problem.

You accepted program review, you accepted cutbacks, and now Canadians are not being protected. It seems to me you have your emphasis on the wrong syllable there.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I don't think that's the case. The Auditor General raised a number of issues in his 1990 overseas delivery audit, but his audit focused on things that were different from those on which his 2000 audit focused. The 2000 audit focuses a lot on quality of decision-making, and the 1990 audit didn't. It was an audit that focused on efficiency and operational effectiveness. There are overlaps, and there is no question that there are some areas in which we didn't achieve the progress we would have liked. It was not for lack of trying, but for various reasons, not the least of which was reorganization of the department, program review, and the complexity of our environment, we did not achieve success.

• 1710

The Chair: Reorganization and so on doesn't really cut it with me. Your job is to perform a service for Canadians, and I don't accept the excuse, well, we were reorganizing, therefore we failed to meet our mandate.

Anyway, going on to the area of public health, you said there are two main components: public health and excessive demand. I understand you really haven't defined either, other than the fact that tuberculosis is a major concern, and rightly so, because it's one of these new super bugs and a very dangerous disease. Everybody knows that. But what do you mean by “excessive demand”?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Joan Atkinson will take that question.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Thank you, Janice.

We are, and have been for some time, working on a regulatory definition of excessive demand on health and social services. What we are looking at presently in our current Immigration Act and regulations is an assessment done by a medical officer looking at the medical condition of the individual, taking into account that medical officer's knowledge of the treatment that would be normally available in Canada to treat that particular disease and the cost of that to the Canadian health care system. They make an assessment based on all those factors and determine whether or not that particular medical condition would cause an excessive demand.

The Chair: Perhaps I could interrupt. The reason I asked that question is that I had a situation where, in a school teacher exchange, a family was denied entry into Canada because they had an epileptic child. It was certified by Australian people that it was completely under control with medication. The family was denied entry into Canada even though they accepted a commitment under a teacher exchange, and the family had to be broken up for a year even though it was certified by the medical authorities in Australia that there would be no additional demand. And yet we don't test for HIV.

I'm at a loss to understand the dichotomy here, why we would deny someone with an epileptic condition that is controlled by drugs, and yet with HIV—and we know what that costs as far as excessive demand on the system is concerned—we don't even test for HIV.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, it's not correct to say that we don't test for HIV at all. What we say is it's not a part of our routine medical examination like the chest x-ray for tuberculosis, for example, is a routine part of every medical examination that we do. But medical officers do test for HIV where they have reasonable grounds to believe they are dealing with an individual who may be HIV-positive. If an individual is found to be HIV-positive, then normally they are considered to be medically inadmissible on excessive demand grounds.

The Chair: Inadmissible?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: They are inadmissible on excessive demand grounds, given the cost of treatment for that disease in Canada.

I should add that in the context of our legislative reform, we expect to be putting forward a new definition of “excessive demand” that we hope will be a much more objective definition, which will be applied by our medical officers overseas, using a cost-based threshold so that it will be very clear both to applicants and to decision-makers what the standard is that must be met.

It has been a very difficult and complex area for us to deal with because, as I know you can appreciate, all the provinces and territories have been keenly interested in the policy work we have done on that. So it has been a very difficult issue for us to resolve, but we are now in a situation where we hope to be able to put forward, in the context of our legislative reform, a new definition of “excessive demand” that will be much more objective.

The Chair: I'm so glad to hear that, because it was a serious embarrassment to Canada to break up that family for a year.

I expect the bells to ring at any moment, but, Mr. Benoit, in anticipation, you may continue.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll continue to pursue that line of questioning.

When I look at the Auditor General's report, I find it absolutely shocking that 10 years after the last report, which pointed out many of the concerns that were pointed out in this report, there has been so little done in the area of criminality and in the area of health to protect Canadian citizens. Surely that has to be the number one priority in your department, to protect Canadian citizens, and yet we have the security breaches in the criminality area and in the health area.

• 1715

Now, you said the two criteria you used to judge were whether it's a danger to the public and whether it's an excessive demand on health and social services. How can it be that after all this time... This government's been in office, and I've been here, since 1993, and I know our critics have pointed out the serious problem in terms of danger to public health and excessive demand of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, hepatitis B, and other diseases, yet your department doesn't routinely test for these things. How can it possibly have taken this long? It shows such a lack of judgment on the part of your department that it's truly astounding.

Ms. Janice Cochrane: If I may answer that, Mr. Chair, the department wishes to make its decision based upon scientific evidence, which has taken some time for health professionals and professionals in infectious diseases to come to consensus on.

We take our advice from Health Canada in this respect. We are expecting their advice very soon. I had a conversation as recently as last week with the deputy minister of health, urging him to give us his advice in order that we can make decisions in the context of our legislative proposals.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Are you saying you needed scientific evidence to determine that allowing people in with HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, or hepatitis B isn't a danger to public health in Canada and that it isn't going draw in an unreasonable way on our health care system?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: HIV is not transmitted in the same way as tuberculosis, Mr. Chair. Tuberculosis is transferred through casual contact—sneezing, coughing, and that kind of activity.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Immigrants don't have sex?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: HIV aids is transmitted by people who engage in high-risk behaviours. It's not transmitted in the same way. We are looking forward to the advice from our colleagues at Health Canada and are confident that it will be forthcoming in time for us to be able to change our regulations in the context of legislative proposals in the fall.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Are you saying that you have—

The Chair: I think what Mr. Benoit's saying is that transmission is transmission, and it seems to be fairly easy to transmit all these diseases.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Whether you're an immigrant, a business traveller from Canada, or anybody on vacation, it's also easy. So do we do HIV tests for everybody who leaves the country and returns?

The Chair: Anyway, we hear you.

Just before we close, we still have time—I think we will have to cut if off there—to maybe have some closing comments by the Auditor General.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No questions?

The Chair: We have less than 14 minutes. I'll give you two minutes, Mr. Sauvageau, then we'll have a wrap-up by the Auditor General.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay.

[Translation]

I acknowledge your legendary generosity.

Ms. Cochrane, you said that the HIV screening test was not a routine test, and so I said to myself that a person would be tested only if there was a reason for thinking that he or she had HIV. What does a person who has HIV/AIDS look like?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, again, that's an assessment that's done by our medical officers overseas, who are all trained medical doctors. They will look at the medical and physical condition of someone.

If the report that comes from the designated medical practitioner indicates there are physical signs or symptoms, for example, that an individual may be HIV-positive, or if they're in a situation where the designated medical practitioner indicates there may be some other diseases or conditions that would be indicative of HIV positivity, then the medical officer would require that additional tests be done, including an HIV test.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You will agree that these people can at times look like us, like you and like me. We were told that if a person submitted false information, the worst that could happen is that the application would be turned down and that there is nothing to stop the applicant from reapplying the next morning. Do you intend to change this process? We are all upstanding people, but I am afraid that a dishonest individual could go to your office often and submit false applications until one day meeting an officer who is a bit more permissive. What do you intend to do, Ms. Cochrane?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Chair, we have proposals in our new legislation that would bar people who submit false information that is material to the consideration of their application. They would be barred from submitting another application for two years.

We have also increased the penalties—substantial increases in the penalties—to up to five years imprisonment. I believe it's a $100,000 maximum fine for people who either submit false information or counsel people to submit false information, which we hope will allow us to get at the problem of unscrupulous consultants who perform their trade here in Canada.

• 1720

The Chair: Thank you. I will have some closing comments by the Auditor General before we adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Denis Desautels: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As members have noted, I think this chapter contains some very important comments on the program and the way it was being administered by the department. I have to say we're quite encouraged by the reaction we've had so far to this chapter and by the intentions announced by the department.

Having said that, all of this, in my view, represents a major challenge to the department. They will be running at the same time a number of major concurrent projects, and it will require very rigorous planning and management by the department if we are to eventually overcome the challenges they're facing.

So there's action needed in the short term, as we've identified, and there are actions that will not be achievable in the short term, but are more of a medium-term nature. I believe very strongly that there is a need for a fairly detailed action plan by the department by which the committee could track the progress made over time, and that we could use ourselves in doing follow-up work, as we will in a couple of years' time.

So there's a lot to do, and it's a major project. I think it requires both good management and a certain amount of oversight by the committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Desautels and Ms. Cochrane.

There are the comments by the Auditor General saying that in a couple of years, of course, he'll be doing his normal follow-up review, and we'll expect a glowing report at that time.

The meeting stands adjourned.