CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 13, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.))

Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

Á

1110

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1115

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Á

1120

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mr. John Hitchinson (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. John Hitchinson

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. John Hitchinson

Á

1125

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. John Hitchinson

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. John Hitchinson

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. John Hitchinson

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mme Sheila Fraser

Á

1130

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Á

1135

Mr. John Hitchinson

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Shahid Minto (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. John Hitchinson

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. John Hitchinson

Á

1145

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. John Hitchinson

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Á

1150

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1155

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. John Hitchinson

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. John Hitchinson

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Â

1200

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.))

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Â

1205

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. David Price

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Â

1210

Mr. John Hitchinson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Hitchinson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Hitchinson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Â

1215

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. John Bryden

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Â

1220

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. John Hitchinson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Â

1225

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 058

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 13, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are considering chapter 5, “Citizenship and Immigration Canada--Control and Enforcement”, of the April 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

    It's our pleasure this morning to welcome Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General, along with her colleagues Shahid Minto, Assistant Auditor General, and John Hitchinson.

    I understand you have an opening statement, and I'm sure we'll have all kinds of questions for you. Thank you very much for attending, and I look forward to your presentation.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    We thank you for this opportunity to present the results of our audit of Citizenship and Immigration Canada's control and enforcement activities, which, as you mentioned, are contained in chapter 5 of our April 2003 report.

    As you mentioned, I have with me Shahid Minto, who is the Assistant Auditor General in charge of this audit, and John Hitchinson, who is the principal who led the audit team. As well, in the room are several members of the staff who worked on the audit, including Paul Morse, who was the lead director.

    Parliament passed the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in the fall of 2001, with most of the provisions coming into effect on June 28, 2002. For the past few years senior managers in the department and members of this committee were very involved in the preparation and passage of the new legislation. Once the act was passed, Citizenship and Immigration Canada drafted new regulations and made the necessary changes to operating policies, guidelines, and support systems before the June 2002 deadline. To prepare for the act, the department conducted extensive training of its own officers and of customs officers at the primary inspection lines of ports of entry.

    Citizenship and Immigration Canada has a difficult task. It must welcome legitimate travellers into the country, while preventing the entry of those who are not admissible. Our audit examined control and enforcement activities. We did not examine the activities of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

    Our audit found a number of positive activities that have been carried out by Immigration. For example, the department has taken a significant step to stop inadmissible travellers entering the country. In the past three years immigration control officers have worked with airlines overseas to prevent some 20,000 people with improper travel documents boarding flights to Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada is also playing an important role in the government's joint control efforts with the United States. The department has produced the permanent resident card, which has modern security features, and it has also led the negotiation of the safe third country agreement with the U.S.

Á  (1110)  

[Translation]

    The integrity of the immigration system depends on control and enforcement activities.

    One problem is that the Immigration Department does not know how effective its border controls are.

    Border controls have not been assessed since the mid-nineties when both primary and secondary screenings were found to have been not very effective.

    We strongly urge Citizenship and Immigration Canada to regularly examine the performance of its border controls. It is the only way to be certain that the steps they have taken to improve the security of our borders are effective.

    The Department agrees and has indicated that it plans to evaluate both the primary and secondary inspection lines through a combined review process.

    Once people are in the country who should not be -- for whatever reason -- it is the job of Citizenship and Immigration to enforce their removal. This must be done in a safe, effective and respectful manner while ensuring that the individual's legal rights are maintained. They cannot remove someone as long as that person's legal rights allow him or her to stay.

    A problem that we highlighted is the large gap between the number of removals ordered and the number of departures confirmed. This number has grown by 36,000 in the past six years. Now, we should be careful not to jump to conclusions: this doesn't necessarily mean that all these people are still in Canada illegally, and it certainly doesn't mean that they are all security risks.

    Immigration doesn't actually know how many are still here because Canada does not have exit controls and some may have left voluntarily without reporting their departure. I think it's unrealistic to expect this gap to be reduced to zero.

[English]

However, the Immigration and Refugee Board had a backlog of some 53,000 cases at the end of December 2002. The Immigration and Refugee Board estimates the historical average of its decisions that resulted in cancelling a removal order at about 45%. Therefore, the department can calculate that about 29,000 more people already in Canada will soon require processing. We are concerned about how Citizenship and Immigration Canada will handle the growing backlog of investigations and removals.

    I understand you will be meeting the department tomorrow, and some of the questions you may want to ask them are when performance measurement and evaluation of the primary and secondary inspection lines at ports of entry will begin and how the committee and Parliament will be informed of the results; what measures are being put in place to improve the screening of travellers at marine ports of entry; how the department plans to deal with the growing backlog of investigations and removals; and whether the department has developed an action plan to respond to the recommendations.

    I hope that this brief overview of our audit and findings on Citizenship and Immigration Canada's control and enforcement activities has been helpful to the committee. Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening remarks, and we would be pleased to answer the committee's questions.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Fraser.

    Diane.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

    As always, your reports and your follow-up comments are read with great interest, especially by the opposition, but I'm sure by all members.

    My first question is with respect to your finding that the number of individuals who should have been removed from Canada, but were not has grown by 36,000. The report I've read gives the 36,000 as the absolute number. In other words, the number of people who should be removed from the country, but are not has grown to 36,000, but it's really by 36,000, which means, presumably, that it is in addition to another number of people who should have been removed from the country, but have not. You have mentioned that you can't pinpoint that number of people, because some of those individuals may have left voluntarily, and we don't track that. Can you give us any reasonable estimate of the total number of people in this country who are illegally here and should be removed or should have left, but haven't left?

Á  (1115)  

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: It is impossible for us, and I would believe it's impossible for the department, to give an estimate of those numbers. We compared the number of removal orders that have been given each year, and that's about 14,000, with the number of confirmed departures, which are about 8,000 a year. There's a table in our report on page 24 that gives the trend over the six years. These are only people for whom there has been, obviously, an investigation and a removal order. People who are in the country illegally are obviously much more numerous than this. These are only the people who have come to the attention of the department, and there are many more people in the country illegally. I would not want to hazard a guess as to how many there were. That might be something to talk with the department about.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: In your view, should it be a matter of concern to Canadians that an unknown number of people, far in excess of 36,000, are illegally here, should have been removed, and have not been removed, or what significance should we attach to this, as Canadians?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: The major concern we had with the 36,000 number was that the department is obviously falling behind in this, the gap has been growing over the years. To us, it was an indication of the attention and the effort that was being given to the enforcement activities. As I said in my opening comments, I don't think it's realistic to expect that this number will be zero. There are a variety of reasons why people are in this country illegally. Some are simply overstaying visas, there's a whole variety of reasons, and as I mentioned earlier, we should not assume that they necessarily pose a security risk either. It was particularly troubling when we looked at the backlogs. As we noted in the report, we looked at three of the major offices, and there was a backlog of 11,000 cases waiting for investigation, and then there's another backlog at the Immigration and Refugee Board. So there is, I think, a real issue about how the department is going to manage all these cases. There's also an issue on the information systems they have to be able to monitor and track these cases well, to clearly identify those people who are top priority for removal, and making sure they have good information systems nationally. Those were the two major concerns we had.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: To switch to another topic, when we had cross-country hearings, some people brought up the new permanent resident card, sometimes called the maple leaf card, and settlement workers dealing with newcomers to Canada, now permanent residents, complained about glitches in issuing the cards, in getting them mailed or sent to the right people. Of course, you know about the wrong information that was put on some of the cards, resulting in a recall. Has your department done any study of the integrity of the system of issuing these new permanent resident cards?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: No, I'm afraid we haven't looked at that.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Also, with respect to border security, which you spent quite a bit of time looking at, as I understand it, one of the real problems is that there is virtually no communication between the CCRA and CIC on what's expected, what procedures will be put in place. In your view, is this likely to change soon? I know there are some initiatives being undertaken, but this critical communication between those two departments is obviously completely missing at this point. Do you see the measures being taken that will really fix this problem, or do you still have concerns about how this is going?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: One element we mention in this report is that there has not been a memorandum of understanding between CCRA and the Department of Immigration in practice since 1983, when the last one expired. This has been a repeated concern of the office in many of the audits we have done. Just at the time we were actually finalizing this report, in early March, there was a memorandum of understanding signed between the agency and the department. So we're very pleased to see that. That should go a long way towards clarifying responsibilities and who should be doing what.

    I would also like to tell the committee that we have another audit coming on immigration and on border controls in a report we will be tabling on May 27. Some elements of response will be in that report. Unfortunately, I can't disclose those findings, but I would encourage the committee to look at our report on May 27, which is a follow-up of work we did on the economic component of immigration and border controls on goods and people.

Á  (1120)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Since you recommend it, I guess we'll read it.

    Thank you very much.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Go ahead, John.

    Mr. John Hitchinson (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): The point on feedback between the primary and secondary lines came up just about every place we went. In particular, the people on the primary line were concerned that they never knew whether they were making a good referral to the people on the secondary line.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: The primary line is customs people, the tax collectors, not the immigration people.

    Mr. John Hitchinson: That's right, but in the memorandum of understanding that was signed the immigration people made a specific commitment to deal with that issue that we were very pleased to see, and they've included it in their response just behind paragraph 5.54, where they talk about mechanisms for providing better feedback to customs officers on referrals. Getting that in there is a bit of a first, and we were very pleased to see that commitment go in.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you.

    The Chair: Sarkis.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you very much again. I saw you yesterday, I see you today--I see you more than I see my wife. I don't think my wife would like to hear that.

    The Chair: Sarkis, does your wife check the books as well as Sheila does?

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Well, I don't know about that.

    On the second page of your presentation, Sheila, you mentioned that the department, in cooperation with the airlines, prevented some 20,000 people boarding planes in the last three years. Would you give us a comparison from the previous three years, if you have any, so we could make a judgment on whether the cooperation between the airlines and the department has been productive?

    My second question is on ministerial permits. In 2000 and 2001 there were approximately 4,000 permits issued by the department, the minister, or his agents, most of them are on technical, medical, and criminal grounds. But there were others. Usually, there was an interview with the officer overseas, and this person decided, for some reason other than medical, technical, or criminal, not to allow the visitor to come to Canada. But after you make the request on fair grounds, because ministerial permits are issued, I wonder if that number includes those excluded on other than criminal, medical, or technical grounds.

    Finally, since September 11, 2001, what kind of impact do you think your office has had when you investigated the work of the government to do mostly with security and immigration? I know that kept the department very busy, but how much of that aspect of it had an impact on the department's work overall ?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I will perhaps ask Mr. Hitchinson to help me respond. I believe with the airlines, this is a fairly new initiative in the last three years.

    Mr. John Hitchinson: The initiative has been around for some years. We don't have the data on the previous years, but I know the department does. As I recall the deputy minister saying yesterday, the interception rate is now up to 70%, so clearly it's on the rise. I don't have the numbers that go back, though, before the period we refer to, but I know the department does.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

    Mr. John Hitchinson: On your second question, on minister's permits, this is the full population of minister's permits in 2000 and 2001. Many years ago that number was much higher, and it has been in relatively steady decline.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Is that good or bad, in your judgment?

    Mr. John Hitchinson: I'm not sure I could make a judgment on that. The act and regulations got changed, so that changed the ground rules for admissibility and inadmissibility. What it reflects is the current number of people who, for some reason, are inadmissible under the current rules and need a minister's permit to get into the country. I don't see it as good or bad, it just reflects the situation that's there now.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: On that same question, how many people with those permits overran their stay in Canada?

    Mr. John Hitchinson: There's a report tabled in Parliament every year that outlines the reasons someone was inadmissible, and therefore why a permit was needed. I don't have that in front of me, and I don't think it specifically refers to overstays. The largest grouping is “all other”, and I think you would find overstays in there.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: If I could just add, the real comment we were making on the ministerial permits was the lack of documentation required to justify why the permit was given. We were not making any comments on the numbers, but that the documentation should be there in the file to support why the permits were given, and we found that many of them did not contain adequate documentation.

    As to your third question, on our effect on the department, I would like to think we've had a positive effect. The department has certainly been very receptive to the findings in our audit. I think the deputy minister would confirm tomorrow--and I think it would be good to ask him how he views it--that he has viewed the audit as being helpful to them. They have certainly been very responsive. As soon as any finding was brought up, the department started to take action immediately, it didn't wait until the end, and that's why I think we can see that many of the issues have already begun to be addressed. I would hope our persistence in bringing up the issue of the MOU with the revenue agency had something to do with its finally being concluded. So I would hope our work has helped the department.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Good day, Madam. This is the first time I've had the pleasure of meeting you in person, although I feel it won't be the last.

    You indicated in your opening statement that you had not examined the activities of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I'm curious as to the reason behind that. Was this too unwieldy a task or was it because you had something special in mind as far as the Board's activities were concerned?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: We restricted our audit to control measures and to the enforcement of the act. We would have to audit the Board separately and that's not in the cards at this time.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: When your report on immigration was released, the press spoke about the number of persons who had disappeared into the woodwork and that among these were certainly some extremely dangerous individuals, security risks for Canada as well as for the United States.

    You also mentioned the shortage of detention space. I can appreciate that. Moreover, if a decision were made to detain every single person who didn't have proper identification, we would need many more detention spaces. However, budgets are not very big. We've discussed this matter and a distinction was drawn between persons acting in bad faith, and those in fact acting in good faith.

    As AG, are you in a position to make a relatively subjective evaluation of the situation, or are you inclined to think that all individuals without proper identification should be detained because that's the only way of controlling them?

    Mme Sheila Fraser: We base our audit operations on the department's policies and procedures and detention policies are set by the department.

    We were concerned about the fact that at certain locations, we learned that some persons should have been detained but were not because of a shortage of space. We recommended that the department take steps to clarify with staff its internal regulations to ensure that adequate space was available to detain persons, in compliance with departmental policies. Therefore, the decision as to which individuals to detain rests with the department.

    Yesterday, at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Deputy Minister stated that it was quite rare for persons not to have any pieces of identification whatsoever and that as a rule, the department was able to process most files without having to detain people. Decisions are left to immigration officers. The latter must have the necessary training and expertise to make informed decisions. We also ensure that staff evaluations are done to verify compliance with internal procedures.

Á  (1130)  

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Entry controls are in place when a person arrives in the country, but there are no exit controls as such. However, when a person exits the country, obviously he enters another, unless his destination is the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. This debate on exit controls is an important one. Do you feel that attitudes have changed since September 11? Do you agree that when a person is permitted to enter the country for either three or six months, that person should be obligated to notify officials upon leaving the country?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chairman, that's a policy question.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I agree with you.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: As you know, it is not the role of the AG to comment on policy issues. Currently, the policy of the government is not to have exit controls in place. For that reason, it's impossible for the department to know for certain how many persons ordered out of the country are still actually here.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Libby.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much.

    It's nice to see you again today.

    I want to follow up on a question I was asking the department officials. You do have a fair amount of information in your audit report on the detention issue. From reading through what you have found, it does seem we basically have a very unclear policy on detention. The level of detention has gone up; there's about a 1200 increase in the number of detainees from 1999 to 2001-2002, and the number of detention days has also gone up, about 8,000 days. In reading through your comments in paragraph 81, we're left with a very strong impression that the number of beds available is really dictating the number of people who are detained, and there's a lack of clarity on why people are being detained, as if, when they hit the limit, they don't know what else to do. I also noted that “60 percent of people detained for purposes of identification subsequently provide satisfactory documents”. I don't know if you were able to determine how long it takes to get those documents or whether they are actually considered to be some sort of security risk, such that they will take off or go underground. It seems to me the whole issue of detention is hardly talked about. I think people are not really aware that we have these centres, and the policies seem to be very cloudy. So I wonder if you will comment some more on this.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'll ask Mr. Hitchinson to give more details, but we were concerned that the department wasn't monitoring enough the application of their own procedures, especially when we heard of cases where officers thought people should be detained, but they weren't being, because of a lack of space. That is symptomatic of an issue.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. John Hitchinson: That's what we did bump into. A policy came out that said, detain for lack of identity, but in order to detain, you then need to have the resources. Detentions themselves drive a lot of other work, because there has to be a detention review after 24 hours, and then after 72 hours. What seems to have happened in the last few weeks came up in yesterday's hearing. On a couple of occasions both the deputy minister and his ADM, operations, said they'd looked into it and agreed that there were some problems with the consistency of the application of their own guidelines and policies on detention, and they had put out some pretty clear instructions to make sure those problems disappeared. We've not seen those, they're obviously very new, but from the department's statement yesterday, they saw it was a problem, they agreed it was a problem, and took steps right away to fix it.

    Ms. Libby Davies: The policy of detaining people because their identity is unclear is a fairly major undertaking administratively, but also in respect of the loss of people's civil liberties. These are people who are innocent until it's shown otherwise. So I'm curious as to whether your audit revealed any information about the detentions based on a lack of identity and who would be monitoring that. You say there was an internal study, but again, it's not clear whether the policy is being applied in a very harsh way or what.

    Mr. Shahid Minto (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): If I may, I would refer the member to paragraph 82 of the report. I'll just read it:

The 2002 study recommended a strategy that included a 12 month monitoring of detention for reasons of identity. At the time of our audit, Citizenship and Immigration Canada had not yet developed the strategy.

I think that goes to the heart of the issue you're raising. It is up to the department to monitor the reasons and to see if it's effective to detain or not to detain. Our job is simply to see that they've done that in the time allowed.

    The Chair: I think that's a question for the minister, who will be coming to talk to us about estimates or any other matters on May 26. As a supplementary, though, to the question just posed by Libby, did you look at whether or not people were being unnecessarily detained? Whether or not that is a policy decision, I guess it's in keeping with what Libby asked. When you are looking at a file, the decision is made by the individual immigration officer as to whether there's a fear of flight or whether the documentation is right, so you choose to detain that person. We're detaining at a cost of $10 million. I'll give you two examples that were given to me by the Council on Refugees. Why would we be sending guards to secure a hospitalized child? Does a pregnant woman giving birth need to be detained? I'm wondering about the quality of the decision on detention and whether that is an audit function or a judgment or a policy function on the part of an immigration officer.

    Mr. John Hitchinson: Mr. Chairman, we did not look at that, but the way due process comes into the system is through detention reviews conducted every 24 and 72 hours by staff of the Immigration and Refugee Board. So the fact that someone is in detention doesn't mean they're in there forever. There are very regular reviews of why they're there, and that is a way of dealing with a detention decision of the wrong quality.

    The Chair: That is an audit function, then, to see whether or not those decisions are being reviewed every 72 hours. Are you satisfied that this is occurring?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: We did not plan to look at that aspect of it in this audit. What we did find, though, is that there was a lack of understanding by the officers in the field on who should be detained, for how long, and all that. That was the major finding, that the department needed to clarify that and needed to do better monitoring, but we didn't go through the rest of the process.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: We'll follow up with the department tomorrow. Thank you for giving us some insight, though.

    Massimo.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Good morning, Ms. Fraser; it's nice meeting you.

    On the removal orders, as opposed to the confirmed removal, I see the gap exactly, it's moved up by 36,000, but you also said, if I understood properly, the goal should not be zero. What should the goal be? What should our target be? What do you see as being the proper number?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think it's up to the department to decide, considering several factors, but doing the risk assessment of what would be a reasonable goal. I think it is unrealistic to think it could ever be at zero, and we didn't want to give the impression that we thought it should be at zero. There are many people who could be here for various reasons, and to be realistic, the effort and the cost to remove them would probably be excessive relative to the risk to the country. So I think a trade-off has to be made, but the department itself should be monitoring this and should be saying, are we managing this appropriately, do we feel comfortable that we're putting enough resources into this? Our main concern was that the number is increasing, and given the backlogs elsewhere in the system, we just didn't think there was enough attention, effort, and priority being placed on the enforcement activities.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Can we put in a strategy such that when somebody comes in, they get a coupon, and when they leave, they have to give it back and we give them $5? Is there an incentive, so that we could keep track of this? We can say 36,000 is the difference, next year it'll be 40,000, this year it'll be 20,000, but people come back and forth all the time.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: But these are people in the country illegally who have come to the department's attention, have exhausted all the legal avenues, and have been ordered to leave the country. So if they're still here, I think the incentive is to stay here. They must have personal reasons for wanting to stay in this country.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: They also don't have an incentive to check out. They'll just leave, I guess.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: That's right, and that's why it's important...

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: There are two ways of looking at it. I'm just wondering if there's a way we can say....

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: You might want to discuss with the department why these people stay in the country. I presume it's because even though they may be in a very difficult situation here, it's better than wherever they would have to go to. That's why enforcement activities are important, to maintain the integrity of the system, because if people come in, are found to be here illegally, and there are no activities to try to remove them, I really fear that would undermine the whole system.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: They acknowledge the observations made by the office and say they're going to improve, but they haven't said how and when and why.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: As we said, the committee may want to ask them those sorts of questions on their action plan going forward. I also suspect it's a question of the resources they have to dedicate to enforcement activities.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I have a question on the 70% of people with improper documents trying to come to Canada who were stopped overseas. How were they stopped?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Before boarding an aircraft you have to now show your travel documents, so if you don't have travel documents, proper identification, or they are proven to be false or fraudulent, they can be stopped there. John, do you want to elaborate?

    Mr. John Hitchinson: These officers work with the airlines overseas. For example, somebody might be just on call at home and get a call from Lufthansa saying, someone is at the counter and has a document, and we're not too sure about it. The officer will go in, have a look, and say to the airline, that's not really a good Canadian travel document, so that person doesn't get on the plane to Canada. Or they will be at the airport--and I've been with them--wandering around, and they will see people they think are likely to be travelling with improper documents, and again, they will alert the airline that they may not want to let that person on the plane. At other times, depending on the relationship with the airline, they might be right there at the ticket counter, and you may have seen them sometimes before you get on the plane. Somebody very nicely says, may I have a look? That may or may not have been one of these officers.

    It's been determined to be a very cost-effective way to keep people with improper documents from getting to Canada, and it's one, from our own experience, other countries have found to be very successful. I've heard the Americans on the immigration service side say some very good things about that program.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: So we're saying it's 70% of the people who were asked for their documents who have been stopped?

    Mr. John Hitchinson: I think what they've said is that they've interdicted 70%.... It's not one of our numbers, but it's a number that appears to be on the way up, as the program does seem effective.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Thank you.

    The Chair: Excuse me, though, it is one of your numbers, it's in a paragraph, and in fact, I circled it. We are very proud of this particular program, and this committee has recommended more immigration control officers at these points. It does say 70%, and I think it better defines it.

    Yvon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions for the Auditor General.

    The first pertains to paragraph 5.17 of your report in which you note the following:

...the guarantees set out in section 7 of the Charter [...] apply to everyone in Canada, not only citizens [...] regardless of the legality of the method of entry.

    You actually list the rights in question here.

    Did your audit focus on the application of the guarantees set out in section 7? Did you identify situations where these guarantees were disregarded? I wasn't able to find any comments about this aside from the statement in 5.17.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chairman, we merely included this information to put matters into context. People sometimes wonder why the department takes certain steps and we've often said that pursuant to the Charter provisions, the department was bound to treat persons a certain way.

    Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I can understand that this might be somewhat unclear to the reader, since no further mention is made of this fact. Are you mentioning this simply to remind us that we need to be more vigilant where section 7 is concerned, or to emphasize the fact that the guarantees in section 7 perforce make the process slow and complex?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: It was simply to underscore the fact that immigration officers, for example, must respect human rights and cannot detain a person without grounds. A number of measures must be upheld and the goal was to situate the audit in this context. We do not audit this particular aspect of the work. I don't feel that it would be appropriate for us to start doing that.

    Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Even in an ideal world, it would be impossible over the course of one or even several years to respect all rights all of the time. Even in an ideal world, that's not possible. Did your audit focus on the extent to which rights were, or were not, respected?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: No, we didn't get into that.

    Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: My second question pertains to relations between customs officers and immigration officers. You focus on this relationship at considerable length. After pointing out all of the problems associated with the signing of an agreement between the two agencies, we discover that an agreement has in fact been signed and another memorandum updated. You say as much in 5.51.

    Now then, on further reading of your report, we note that a number of issues still need to be addressed. An official quality assurance system is still not in place. We know that immigration officers are posted at only 44 of 272 ports of entry.

    You note in your audit report that screenings at marine ports are limited and inconsistent. Problems identified include training, consistency of procedures and the transmission of information from immigration officers to customs officers. Information is not always properly conveyed or taken into consideration by primary inspection line officers. Have you giving any thought to recommending the merger of these two agencies to ensure that officers receive the same basic training? If these two agencies merged into one, officers could be assigned specific duties and persons could specialize in a particular area, even though they would all receive the same basic training. Information would be exchanged and would flow smoothly. As I see it, there would be major advantages to having a single agency responsible for overseeing operations at the 272 ports of entry. No longer would we be able to say that officers are posted at only 44 ports of entry. They would be present everywhere under a reorganized system. Would you care to comment further?

Á  (1150)  

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, I have to say that it is the government's responsibility to structure its operations as it sees fit. Our role is not to comment on the way the government organizes its operations.

    Given the present situation where customs officers are the first ones to greet visitors arriving in the country, it's important that these officers know the laws they are responsible for enforcing, that they understand not only immigration legislation, but a host of other laws as well, and that their role and responsibilities be clearly defined.

    That's why we mentioned the fact that the memorandum of understanding between the Agency and the Department had not been renewed in nearly 20 years. A renewed memorandum was recently signed, following the release of our report, or at the time it was scheduled to go to press. We're pleased that the memorandum was renewed, but this doesn't necessarily mean that all problems have been resolved. We'll have to see how things go.

    You've highlighted several of our concerns. One of the main problems identified is the failure to assess the effectiveness of the two inspection lines. The memorandum makes provision for such an evaluation, and you can be certain that we will be following up on this in a few years' time to ensure that this was in fact done and that the department and the agency have taken the appropriate steps further to any recommendations that have been made.

    This is a question that you could put to the department or to the minister, as decision- making authority regarding operations rests with the government.

[English]

    The Chair: For the committee, the 70% figure came from Mr. Dorais, the deputy minister, and it says--and I'm sure you'll want to ask him about this tomorrow--70% of the people with improper documents trying to come to Canada are now stopped overseas. It wasn't in Ms. Fraser's documents, it was in the deputy minister's documents.

    Lynne.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Do you have it in your mandate to assess the overseas posts as you have assessed the immigration here? Would it be a benefit to assess how immigration is handled overseas? We're getting requests that we should probably put our resources there. Would you agree? The only way you could is to actually assess it yourself.

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: We have done audit work at posts overseas, in particular when we did the audit in 2000 on the economic component of immigrants. As I mentioned earlier, we have done a follow-up audit on that and we will be presenting the results on May 27th. In that audit the staff did visit several posts abroad and look at the procedures.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Only economic, though.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Only economic, that's right, although some of the same procedures and policies would apply to other immigrants as well.

    John.

    Mr. John Hitchinson: While we were at posts overseas on this audit, we did look to see that certain expected procedures in place for visitors visas were being followed. For example, if an applicant fit a certain profile, was the applicant then being sent to CSIS to see if a visa should be issued? One of the controls the department put in place overseas was an increase in the number of countries where we now require visas by nine or ten. Putting a visa control in place is a very effective way of controlling access to Canada. It means you put the initial review of whether someone should come to Canada overseas, rather than in Canada. So yes, in this audit we looked at those parts of the overseas operation that dealt with things that touch on control enforcement.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Would you be able to comment on whether you recommend more resources overseas, so there isn't so much happening here, but more of the screening is done overseas, instead of bringing the work here into Canada?

    Mr. John Hitchinson: We've not made any recommendation on how the resources are allocated, but we know the department has internally done various work that reached the conclusion that it makes sense to increase the number of immigration control officers abroad. They went through, did the analysis, and concluded that it makes sense for them. We didn't get into an analysis of how they might want to redeploy their resources.

    The Chair: Diane.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you.

    I want to go back to the issue of people illegally in the country not being removed. We travelled to Washington and met with experts there and some of our counterparts in Congress, and this is a matter of concern. I know it is also to you. I'm looking at page 24 of your report and the graph you did showing that on an cumulative basis, the number of removal orders, in contrast with confirmed removals, is growing, actually in quite a shocking manner. It's very steady. I also notice that on page 26 you have a box setting out the pilot project that was done to focus on removals. You mention in that box that this project was very successful, but was scaled back or abandoned because of lack of resources. I wonder if you could comment on this, because I am puzzled about why a successful program would be toasted. Was the cost per removal really prohibitive? Can you tell us how that would compare to leaving people illegally in the country and what that might cost us in different resources?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Unfortunately, we don't have all the details on the kinds of costs you would like. Yesterday at the public accounts committee hearing there was a question to the deputy minister on this project, and he did indicate that the resources had been cut because of constraints within the department, but have subsequently been re-established. That might be something you want to review with them tomorrow. We did see it as a positive project that they had initiated and they were very successful in, and we were concerned when we saw it being scaled back.

  (1200)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, we will ask.

    I want to switch to an issue I think we're all interested in. In your report and in other remarks you've said the future is in biometrics with respect to tracking people and doing entry and exit controls. I believe you've said that at some point. Am I correct?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: No. It was the Deputy Minister of Immigration who said that yesterday.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Then I can't ask you about that, can I? Let me ask anyway, since I was on a roll. Have you studied or do you intend to study the efficiency and effectiveness of biometric identifiers from an auditing point of view, or do you feel that's premature at this point?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: We have not done any work in that area, we are not planning to do any. Quite frankly, the department should be doing that kind of analysis and evaluation before they make a decision one way or the other. I would expect the department to be doing some work in that area. Obviously, one of the major concerns, which was brought up a bit in the questioning yesterday, is how you know if the person is actually the person they purport to be. The deputy minister seemed to say biometrics would go a long way to resolving that issue. I realize there are a whole lot of other concerns, privacy and others. I think we're really into a policy issue here. I would expect the department to be doing the kind of analysis it should before proposing something on that.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You will be interested to know that this committee is doing a study on this whole issue, so maybe you can watch for our report.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)): Thank you, Diane.

    Auditor General, one of the issues is exit policy. How do we eliminate that space between reported people leaving the country and those who have left voluntarily, but didn't report? When people are asked to leave the country, in many cases it is on a voluntary basis, we give them time to leave the country. Several we feel there are problems with in posing any kind of threat or danger are escorted out of the country, people who have not cooperated, when found, are escorted out of the country, but the rest are given a chance to leave the country on a voluntary basis, with directions that they are to report to immigration officials when they leave. That voluntary system doesn't work as well as it could, because when someone has been directed to leave the country, it may not sit well with them, and so to cooperate may not be the answer. Short of having an exit policy, which I believe you stated would be very expensive, how can we carry it on? Would you say over the long haul Canada needs to set up a system with our neighbouring countries on entry-exit policies? That 36,000 is going to rise exponentially, I believe, in the future. Somehow we have to get a grasp on that. Is it a danger to Canada, and if it is, what actions should be taken, in your estimation?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: The whole question of exit controls is really one of policy, and we have not and would not comment on that. It is up to parliamentarians to decide if that would be appropriate or if the policy should be changed. One issue we brought up in this report, though, is the whole case management system and the information that is available nationally. There has to be much more improvement in the information management systems. In fact, when we did the audit, many of the offices across the country were not even using the case management system. There has to be better information nationally. A lot of the information we had to pull together in our audit, as there wasn't a system that would easily give that. There needs to be a better understanding of who is in that gap. What is the profile of the people? That is one of the reasons, as I mentioned earlier, we will never go to zero. There will always be cases, but what is a reasonable number the department could set for itself? It really goes back to risk management. Do they really know what the cases are that present the highest risks to this country? Are they dealing with those effectively? Are they able to manage this caseload? Obviously, in addition to the 36,000, there are all the investigations that are waiting. There is a very large issue of actually managing all these cases.

  (1205)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): We could probably point a finger at resources. More resources are needed to do the proper risk management assessments, from what I'm hearing. What you're saying does make sense, but we have to get our heads around how we handle that, and I guess it's with more personnel.

    David.

    Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Fraser, for being here with your team.

    I find this a good, constructive report, and as you've said, we've already started to move on it. That, in itself, says a lot.

    One of the things that bugs me a lot and has right through, and you've just covered part of it, is information and sharing that information. You talk about the case management systems in here, the national and the global, information that is not getting back and forth. I agree there. That is one point, but I want to go a little further than that, to the problem of sharing information right on our borders, land borders, for instance, which I deal with personally quite a bit, having seven crossings in my riding. I look at the sharing that goes on informally between either customs officers or immigration officers back and forth with their counterparts just across the line. It does happen. They pick up the phone and call. We're always trying to ask how we can get this a little more formal, because it would be invaluable. We've started some things on the criminal side, they have been able to tie some of that together. Have you had a chance to look into that aspect of the sharing of information, not just on the international level, but even between different departments in the government itself, which could be valuable in being able to assess somebody coming in, while not getting caught up in the problem of privacy?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: We have done a little bit of work. Here we talk about the case management system. In the next audit we do look at some of the information systems at border control points. That was brought up when we did the review of the customs a few years ago. We talked about the information that was available to people on the primary inspection lines, particularly at land border crossings, and there were problems there, so we have done a follow-up to see what has been improved on that.

    Generally, in many of our audits, the whole question of information management and sharing of information comes up repeatedly. Many of the systems in departments are fairly old and were not designed for easy access, were not designed to have multiple users across a large country like this, and it's a real challenge.

    Mr. David Price: Did you find that it was not just a question of equipment, but people not wanting to share, not wanting to give their little piece away?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: We haven't done any specific audit work on that, but I would suspect that is part of the problem, In much of our society and in many organizations information is power. If you control the information, you maintain a certain status in any organization, be it the public sector or private enterprise, and there has to be a real change in the culture for more sharing. I think there is a much greater recognition in recent years of the need to have good intelligence, and I would link it back to the work we've done on risk management in government. The government introduced this very good integrated risk management policy, but in order to manage risks well, you must have the information there to make good decisions. I really think information management is going to be a major issue for government going forward. I know there is a new policy, which, unfortunately, I haven't looked at, but I would like us to do some work in the area of information management, and even more in that of knowledge management.

  (1210)  

    Mr. John Hitchinson: I have a specific example I can give you of where we saw it working. A few years ago, for the first time, the people out in the booth, if you're on the Peace Bridge, were able to tap into the on-line immigration database. If I'm coming up and they see my last name, they can tap in “Hitchinson”, and if there's a hit on me, the screen goes red, and I'm off to secondary. That was quite a breakthrough. That was years in the making. It's not perfection, it's not licence plate red, it's name entry, but it is an example of how at least the databases can talk a little bit to each other. From our discussions with them, the customs people out there on the front line in particular thought that was quite a breakthrough. The same thing has been accomplished overseas, incidentally. Immigration has been able to integrate some of its systems, and they are now working a lot better. The kind of macro thing you are talking about, if it gets done, will emerge under part of the smart border accord, because the key thing you mentioned is getting the Canadian and American systems talking, and that is the umbrella under which that is being done.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

    On page 26 you refer to arrest warrants:

However, we are concerned that the difference between the number of unexecuted removal warrant orders and the number of arrest warrants in the System could mean that warrants have not been entered that should have been.

Could you elaborate on that and give us an idea of what the implication is there and what you see happening in that regard?

    Mr. John Hitchinson: If you go to the start of that paragraph, you'll see that in the last six years we saw an increase of 36,000 removal orders. Usually, a removal order will result in a warrant. It doesn't always. For example, a removal order will not require a warrant if the removal is to a country that's not accepting removals. What we saw was that the field operation system has 30,000 warrants, and that goes back to day one of that system, the late seventies or early eighties. In the past six years we've seen 36,000 removals unaccounted for. We wanted someone to do some sort of analytical work to explain those numbers and whether they make sense. In the last six years you see a potential increase of 36,000, and it wouldn't really be 36,000, there are only 30,000 in the system. It made us wonder if there were some removal orders that weren't getting in there. To us, this was just a sign that perhaps some analysis should have been done to make sure removal orders are in fact getting turned into warrants in the system.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Okay. So there's some speculation here about what may or may not have happened over that time period.

    Mr. John Hitchinson: You could view it almost as a type of quality assurance mechanism. There may be a good and sufficient explanation or there may be some that were missed. I wouldn't want to leave the impression, though, that you add 30,000 to 36,000, that's not the case at all.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much.

    Diane.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: There are issues in your report of real concern to Canadians. For example, Canada's ability to deport individuals who should be removed and have been ordered removed is diminishing. You raised the fact that our screening effectiveness at the border has not even been studied since the early 1990s, so we don't really know how good we are at catching people. But in the early 1990s we know about 80% to 90% of people who should have been stopped weren't. Then there's the fact that the first person an incomer to Canada sees is a tax collector, essentially, and those tax collectors don't talk to the immigration people about whether we should be stopping this person for security reasons.

    You've mentioned some of the responses to the concerns you've raised. I wonder if you could tell the committee, because we have a job to oversee the department on behalf of Canadians, whether there are any significant issues you raised where you believe we could help the department be more effective in its response and light a fire under them, so to speak, things you feel need to be dealt with, but at this point don't see any movement on.

  (1215)  

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think the department has been very responsive to the audit recommendations, has certainly indicated an intention to do something. What we have not seen is a specific action plan that would deal with each one of the recommendations, what the department expects to do and by when and by whom. That might be something the committee would want to ask them for, that there be a specific timeline. It would also help us in doing follow-up work in the future to be able to say the department expected to have this action in place by this time. We could then see, of course, if it had been done or not. But I think on just about all the issues we've raised there is an indication the department recognizes that there's something that needs to be done and is going to do it. I would go back to the evaluations as probably one of the major issues in this report. They have indicated, with the new MOU with the revenue agency, that there will be evaluations starting this fall, but we haven't seen the precise details of that.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you. I think that will help us. I appreciate it.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Auditor General was saying in the past three years immigration control officers have prevented some 20,000 people with improper travel documents from boarding flights to Canada. Can you give us a sense of what was going on before that three-year period? I can remember this committee debating at great length the problem of people arriving in this country without proper travel documents, then being released into the community.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Unfortunately, we don't have the information. At the public accounts committee yesterday the deputy minister did indicate, and I think we discussed it earlier, that 70% of the people with improper documentation are being stopped overseas, and he may be able to provide you with more information on that trend and how successful this program is compared to before.

    Mr. John Bryden: One theme that's hovered in the background with respect to the problem of people coming to this country, landing on Canadian territory, and then staying until their removal is effective is that we all know there have been great problems with removals. One of the problems with respect to removals has been an interpretation called the Singh decision of the Supreme Court. Has the application of this interpretation, which basically says anyone who lands on Canadian territory has the right to due process, been a factor in your assessment of the problem of handling people who have entered the country illegally or improperly?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: We mention at the beginning of the report the application of the provisions of the charter to people who are here in Canada legally or illegally. That, to us, is a fact and part of the context of how the department has to operate: they must carry on all their activities, of course, respecting the charter rights of people in the country. So with issues like detention and all the rest, they have to take that into consideration. We put that information in simply as context and background and did no specific work in that regard.

    Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

    September 11 was obviously the date when the security issue began to come forward very rapidly in this country, as well as in the United States. The accusation has often come forward that within certain conditions, people who may be a threat to Canada come into Canada and are released into the society. Have you found any evidence of that happening? We've been assured by departmental officials that with those who are coming in without proper documentation, research is done, background checks are done, and they are quite certain before anyone is released that there's not a security issue. Since you're doing the audit and looking at the operations, you may have an opinion on whether this is being done adequately or not. Conversely, when it comes to stopping people, do you feel what we are doing is adequate for the protection of Canadians in border control?

  (1220)  

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: You've asked me a tough question, Mr. Chair. The real answer is, we don't know, because of the lack of studies of effectiveness at the border. That is why we have a concern in this report that there have been no evaluations done since the early 1990s, and it is important. The department has put in a lot of effort, has put in a lot of new procedures, and it's important that they know if those are effective or not. That's why we think this study is really critical. That would be the only way of really getting a sense as to how good procedures are. The other thing we all have to realize, of course, is that no system is fail-safe. There could be people who at some point in the future would pose a security threat, and even if you went through all the checks and all the procedures, you would never identify them. It's a bit like saying a police officer should be able to walk down the street and identify everybody who could potentially commit a murder. I think we have to be realistic in our expectations as to what customs officers and immigration officers can do at a border control point. Still, the study of effectiveness of the border controls is essential to answering the question you just asked.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): To follow up on that, are other countries doing those types of analyses, and is there a clear pattern or program they could follow to do that type of analysis? I, as a novice, have no idea how an analysis of that nature could be done in Canada with entrants to Canada.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: We're not aware of anything like that. We haven't done that benchmarking. I was just asking my colleagues if we had done a literature search of work done by the GAO in the U.S. Perhaps Mr. Hitchinson could indicate what that literature review revealed.

    Mr. John Hitchinson: We haven't seen a recent study that compares to the one we just did, but our sister agency in the States does things from time to time that are generally similar. They seem to show the same sorts of problems. If you take the 36,000 number and go by a multiplier of 10, you're looking pretty well at the number they come up with for their own version of a removals cap. But there isn't a nice piece of analytical work one can turn to and say, yes, we could use this as a model.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): With our overseas facilities, we had nothing but very positive remarks about how we respond to the carriers bringing people into Canada. They made very positive comments about how our folks are training people on the front lines, making sure anybody entering the system has immediate access to someone who is able to make a snap decision at that point. They have taken people aside and done courses with them on how to identify documents that are not accurate and we should be concerned about. The Americans and the Australians were very positive about the work we have done as well. So I had the opinion, when I was at our foreign offices, that we were well ahead of many other countries that have similar problems. We felt proud about that. All of us are very concerned that the image, as well as the operations, is at the best level possible, the most practical level. You can't have a fail-safe system, so we need to have an optimum point where we can work with the resources we have.

    Thank you very much for coming. We certainly look forward to your next report and the information you can bring forward to help us. The information you have brought to us today has been very helpful for our understanding of some of the very problems we've been dealing with over the last several months. Thank you.

  (1225)  

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you. We very much appreciate appearing before the committee and discussing these issues. And I thank you for your interest in our work.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Everyone, tomorrow at 3:30 is the next session, so we'll see you all.

    The meeting is adjourned.