:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm delighted that we're all here. We can begin very quickly.
Today's orders of the day are chapter 3, “Service Delivery”, of the fall 2010 report of the Auditor General. We have with us several individuals from the Office of the Auditor General. We have Monsieur Sylvain Ricard, assistant auditor general; Marian McMahon, assistant auditor general, and Mr. Glenn Wheeler, principal.
I never understood that, the principal and assistant, but anyway, you can give us that lesson later.
From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Mr. Neil Yeates, deputy minister, and Madame Claudette Deschênes, assistant deputy minister, operations.
I want to thank you all for coming. We will proceed almost immediately to the business of the day, but I guess I have to go through the appropriate pro forma, and that is, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, November 4, 2010, chapter 3, “Service Delivery”, of the fall 2010 report of the Auditor General of Canada, referred to the committee on October 26, 2010, here we are, ladies and gentlemen.
I think we're going to begin with Monsieur Ricard.
[Translation]
Do you want to begin? You have five to 10 minutes.
:
Yes, with a brief opening statement.
The Chair: “Brief”--voila. That's how we translate five to 10 minutes in French. Merci.
[Translation]
You have the floor.
Mr. Sylvain Richard: Mr. Chairman, Thank you for this opportunity to discuss Chapter 3 of our 2010 fall report, Service Delivery.
Joining me at the table are Marian McMahon, Assistant Auditor General, who was responsible for the portion of the audit that examined the Canada Revenue Agency, and Glenn Wheeler, Principal, who was also responsible for the audit.
All Canadians require the services of the federal government at one time or another, and research indicates that they expect high-quality service. At the same time, the government must balance clients' needs with policy requirements and available resources.
Our audit looked at the practices used by three organizations—Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency—to set their service standards, monitor and report on their service performance and act on this information to improve service quality.
[English]
We found that two organizations we examined, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency, have adequate practices in place to manage their service delivery, while a third, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, has yet to establish service standards for some of its major programs. We understand that the committee would like to focus today on the portion of the audit that examines Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada has been working to develop service standards since 2007. In April 2010 the department published a preliminary set of service standards and associated targets for four business lines.
This set of standards is very limited considering that the department provides more than 35 different services. There are no standards for some major services--for example, the citizenship program. Without a complete set of standards, the department cannot comprehensively evaluate its service performance and may not be able to ensure a consistent level of service to its clients. In the absence of standards, the department was using operational data such as intake, output, processing time, and inventories to provide some indication of performance.
We recommended that Citizenship and Immigration Canada ensure that all channels of communication provide consistent information on the time it takes to process applications for citizenship and requests for citizenship certificates; that it establish and communicate a comprehensive set of service standards for all key services it delivers; that it monitor and report on its service performance against these standards; and that it collect and analyze client feedback and complaints to identify systemic service issues.
[Translation]
The department has developed an action plan in response to our recommendation. In particular, we note that it plans to develop a comprehensive set of service standards and to begin reporting externally on them by spring 2013.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Neil Yeates, and I am Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. I am joined by Claudette Deschênes, Assistant Deputy Minister of Operations, at CIC.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to speak. Today I will focus my brief remarks on Chapter 3 of the Auditor General's report, and afterwards we will be happy to answer your questions.
[English]
First of all, CIC does agree with the Auditor General's recommendations related to improving service delivery in our department. To that end, our goal is efficient and effective service delivery that is integrated across our global network, is facilitated by technology and partnerships, and is guided by thoughtful risk management and quality assurance.
As the Auditor General observed in her report, the department has already taken some steps to improve our services to the public, both in Canada and overseas.
I would also like to mention our action plan for faster immigration, which is helping us improve our services for federal skilled worker applicants. As of March 31, 2010, the overall inventory of federal skilled worker applications has been reduced by 16% and processing times have dramatically improved.
Mr. Chairman, we have introduced and improved our service standards for our key business lines, but I'd like to take this opportunity to point out to the committee that it is challenging for us to introduce timely service standards for business lines when there is no control over intake. Our immigration plan sets limits on how many applications we will process in a given year. However, in many immigration streams, there is no limit on the number of people who can apply. This results in lengthy processing times and makes it challenging to set service standards.
This year we introduced a service declaration and service standards for four services. We will implement a second phase of service standards on April 1, 2011. The second phase will incorporate lessons learned and feedback from applicants during the implementation of phase 1 earlier this year.
We are also committed to establishing an online relationship between applicants and CIC through the use of electronic accounts, application forms, and status updates. This means that we would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Our aim is to make it easier for people to apply online by helping applicants overcome the often confusing information overload that may lead some to seek the services of an immigration consultant.
We expanded our online services and increased the use of online applications in order to provide more accessible and efficient services. Our online services are now also available on a mobile site, which provides a more convenient service to applicants using a mobile device.
[Translation]
The department also publishes the most current processing times on its website for applications in all immigration categories. This enables applicants to access accurate and timely information on their application.
For over a year, international students using our e-Suite of Services have been able to apply on line for an off-campus work permit, confirm their eligibility on line and extend their study permit on line while in Canada.
[English]
Building on the success and popularity of these online services, our e-suite of services has now been expanded beyond students, allowing 98% of in-Canada temporary residents, including workers and visitors, to apply for work permits or an extension of their visit here in Canada. Also, this fall we launched a new electronic form for temporary resident visa applications, which will make the application process easier and will reduce errors, making the application process faster.
Extending our online services has significantly improved the application process by providing faster, more accessible, more efficient services, and CIC intends to make all types of applications available online in the future.
CIC is also improving our online services in other ways. For example, we are developing an interactive online tool that matches individuals with the immigration option that best suits them.
As well, we are developing video tutorials that provide step-by-step instructions on completing application forms. In developing these, it is our goal to reduce applicants' dependency on paid immigration consultants. We also expect these videos to help increase efficiency in processing applications, since they will help reduce the number of errors on application forms.
Finally, the department has also entered the array of social media to further engage applicants and the broader public through Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. We have begun an ongoing dialogue with the public about our policies and programs.
In addition to improving our online services this year, we piloted initiatives that have shortened processing times for business visitors and many students through the business express program and the student partners program.
We also accelerated the processing of sponsorship applications from Canadian citizens and permanent residents who have close family members who were significantly affected by the earthquake in Haiti.
As well, the global case management system, GCMS, is currently being rolled out overseas. GCMS will replace two legacy systems and will improve our processing capabilities overseas, where the majority of applications are received.
[Translation]
In closing, I would like to highlight some of our progress to date in response to some of the Auditor General's specific recommendations.
[English]
We're ensuring that applicants for citizenship and citizenship certificates receive consistent and clear information on processing times. In May 2010, we made changes to the citizenship acknowledgment letters, which now refer applicants to our website for accurate processing times. This allows applicants to access more accurate and timely information.
[Translation]
CIC also began work this year to improve our collection and analysis of feedback and complaints from applicants, based on the recommendations from the audit.
[English]
We'll also launch a survey of applicants by the end of this fiscal year, and the results should be available in the 2011 fiscal year. These results will inform our future work in improving service standards and setting new ones. We plan to report on these results publicly.
These are just some of the ways we are working to improve our service and address the Auditor General's concerns in a timely way. I'd be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Good morning to everyone.
The overall focus for me today is going to be on service delivery and customer service, and particularly on issues in my constituency office with with respect to out-of-date and misguided information provided by CIC. That was further highlighted in the report by the AG.
My staff documents numerous examples--as you've probably come across through many MPs' office--of challenges and issues they face in simply getting responses to routine updates. In fact, many of the clients you refer to cannot get simple, routine updates and they come to us. This is a common problem that we face.
In light of all these concerns we raise with you from the constituency level--many of my colleagues from all political parties have raised this with me and it is a problem across the country--why is CIC's customer service being outsourced to MPs' offices? That's the feeling we get.
There's a great sense of frustration here. Why can't the system respond to simple, routine cases and let us focus on some of the more complex cases, where we can deal with the constituent in a more effective manner and allocate resources accordingly? Could you respond to that, please?
:
In fact, perhaps it's time for my friend Mr. Kramp to say how good a member I am and how good my research is. It's time, today. Thank you. Oh, oh!
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms. Meili Faille: I could use my English words: I'm astonished.
In fact, it's a pleasure to have the students from UQAM here today. Among other things, this morning, we talked about the various programs and the exercise being carried out by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Earlier I promised not to be too hard on Deputy Minister Deschênes. I know she has held various positions, in case management, among others, where she did a tremendous job, especially resolving the most complex cases.
Now you're facing a very complex challenge, Ms. Deschênes. The Auditor General didn't go easy on the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. You offer more than 35 services at the department. Only four services have service standards.
Can you tell us what measures you intend to take to ensure the other departmental services have standards? I believe you're aware of the problems that causes for the management of provincial programs as well.
Earlier my colleague talked about problems related to obtaining citizenship and passport services, but the question of the right to vote is just as important.
Often, particularly in reunification cases involving people in the refugee class, family reunification, there is already a long waiting period before the family is reunified with the person who has been accepted as a refugee. Until a family has been recognized or has its citizenship card, it cannot take advantage of government services. The problem remains intact.
Perhaps you can first give me an answer regarding service standards. What actual measures have been taken, apart from those related to the computer system? In concrete terms, with regard to the CIC registry, what measures are being taken to expedite services?
I can start and then Ms. Deschênes can add something.
I can tell students that
[English]
I as well studied political science, a very good thing to study. It's nice to see you here.
First of all, we started with four areas in our initial service standards: labour market opinions, family class cases, permanent resident cards, and grants and contributions.
[Translation]
We realize our services are very important for clients, of course. We accept that.
[English]
We're proceeding now to look at the rest of our business lines and basically phasing this in over the next two to three years. What it will mean initially is starting with our processing times, which we've been publishing for years, and basically converting them to service standards of one kind or another.
One of the challenges we've had as a department is that we have struggled with the issue of service standards versus processing times. We're not happy with the processing times, either. We face various challenges, whether it's our immigration levels—we only take in so many cases every year, so in some of our business lines, that is a boundary for us that affects processing times and will affect service standards—or others, such as citizenship, which we were just discussing. We've had other challenges in our capacity and the processes that we've had in place.
Our basic plan is to go through all of them systematically and establish service standards for each line of business.
Thanks to all of you who've come here today.
I noticed, Mr. Yeates, that you referenced what you call a “My CIC” account. I'm assuming that it's somewhat modelled on...I know it's now called the EI system, but it's the old UIC to me. I never believed in “employment insurance”, unless of course you were paying someone to let you keep your job. EI has a similar type of thing that you can access.
But my experience with that system—I'm making an assumption and I'm going to let you clarify if they're going to be modelled somewhat similarly in context--is that the intent of what that account intended to do is nowhere near the reality of what it actually does. It was going to actually let you turn your account on and off. In other words, you applied for EI, went back to work, and then went back out on EI. You could actually turn it on. That was the intention of the pilot program that I actually was involved in at one point when I worked for the union. It has never materialized. It's really an application intake process and a reporting process, period. It's not much more than that.
My question is, if you're using that as somewhat of a model, how much faith should we be placing in an account that starts out looking like it's the cure-all and becomes nothing more than an intake process that doesn't really help clients any more than that they've sent in an application...? As Mr. Bains said earlier, and as I'm sure the rest of my colleagues will acknowledge, they line up at our doors. I'm not suggesting that you outsourced it on purpose, but I'm here to tell you that you outsourced it to us. That's perhaps not on purpose, but you've simply outsourced it to us, because that's where they show up.
I think all of our staff would probably indicate to you that we spend somewhere between 40% and 60% of our day actually doing immigration. I don't think that's what we thought we were going to do when we set up, but that's our reality, so we're actually sharing your burden here. Perhaps you can tell me a little bit about what you intend to do with the My CIC account.
:
I have two questions that spring to mind from that.
One is my previous experience around when another department moved toward this interactivity of my account electronically, and what it does to folks who aren't quite as savvy, or who don't have the access. And I don't want to hear, quite frankly, what I've heard before, which is to “go to your public library”, because they'll simply line up at my office asking if I have a spare computer and if they can use it to access this from my office.
This becomes an issue that becomes a staffing issue, quite frankly, as offices actually start to shift personnel out, away from personal service and away from accepting paper, which you'll actually see at EI. It's illegal to refuse you paper, but try getting a piece of paper from EI. The laws says they must. They don't. I'm hoping we're not headed in that direction. I'll let you respond to that.
The other side of my concern with interactivity when it comes to the Internet is that it's a wonderful tool, except that it sets up what I call the McDonald's syndrome. I mean McDonald's not in the sense of “E-I-O”, the farm, but McDonald's of the golden arches, where one expects an instant return from an instant request. We end up with a system that gets inundated with folks who, once they have interconnectivity, continually send requests to you for updates, even though you're saying, “You're number Y and your waiting time is x”. They simply continue adding into it, and then they're looking for a response that they're not going to get, quite frankly. They will then come to us and say, “They're not responding to me and I sent in a request”. Since it's almost instant, they expect an instant reply.
The worst thing in the world about one of these is that when someone calls you electronically, they expect you to reply regardless of what you're doing. You may set up an unrealistic expectation of how quick you can actually do this. Have you thought about what you will do in reply to all of those bits and pieces of that interconnectivity?
Welcome to all.
If I may, I will certainly respond to the courtesy of Madame Faille. I absolutely will acknowledge, in the presence of my colleagues here, that while we do have an occasional difference of opinion or philosophical approach, for the most part Madame Faille comes here unbelievably well prepared, and we somehow find an accommodation to portray and exhibit results here, rather than sometimes the embarrassment that is normally seen in question period, which honestly is not a reflection of the work we do here.
Madame Faille, thank you.
Now I'll go to our colleagues here, and to our guests, perhaps to the CIC and Mr. Yeates or Madame Deschênes.
It was mentioned, of course, that regular processes are one thing, but in a humanitarian crisis, whether it's Haiti or a tsunami, your services were called upon to sort of do above and beyond.... Now, when you do that, do regular processes suffer? Do we start to fall behind in our regular processing or are you able to accommodate that with extra budget and/or extra allotment?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My question is for the representatives of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. I understand that you're overwhelmed. We read in the report that there are overwhelming situations.
One-third of the citizen files at my constituency office in Gatineau concern immigration in all its forms. This morning I was talking to my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier about the urban constituencies. Three-quarters of his files concern immigration and citizenship.
I'd like to get an answer from you. If you can't give it to me today, I would like a written response at some other time.
Why is the Citizenship and Immigration Canada office in Gatineau only open two hours a week? I repeat: two hours a week. I'm going to say it in Latin as well: two hours a week.
We know there are special immigration agreements in Quebec. People go to the Ottawa office and come back to my office because there are specific issues. We have to have this service. I'm about to tell Citizenship and Immigration Canada that, if they want to have an office in my office, that's not a problem for me, provided the office is open longer in order to process all the applications.
Is there a rule? Is it an exception that the office is open only two hours a week in Gatineau? I'd like to understand your point of view on this matter and with regard to the processing of applications?
:
We're going to check. We're quite willing to send people to you, but not two hours a week. People use public transit; they manage; it's not easy. These are often newcomers who don't know the mechanisms. So there's work to be done in this regard. As far as assistance goes, that would be very important.
I'm going to speak on behalf of my colleagues from the rural constituencies. I'm thinking, for example, of Serge Cardin, from the constituency of Sherbrooke. In 2007, 10,923 passport applications were filed; there were 10,436 in 2008, 12,186 in 2009 and, currently, 8,070 for 2010. You can look at the blues; I won't go back over the figures. On average, it's 10,000 applications a year, 27 a day.
Since the number of applications is very high, isn't there a way to get offices that meet the needs of the urban constituencies such as Sherbrooke, far from the major decision-making and processing centres—my office processes zero per year; I send them directly to the Hull office; it's easier and faster. We don't want to turn people down. When we've gotten to the point where we're processing 27 applications a day, 10,000 a year, it's no longer a constituency office... We're waiting for your quota for this work. I'd like to know your opinion on that subject.
Thank you, witnesses, for coming out.
I have a quick comment for Mr. Yeates. “CIC agrees with the Auditor General's recommendations”: that's a fairly standard comment that we hear, actually. Have you made this comment? Is this a standard comment that's been made?
What I'm wondering about is this. In saying that, have those comments and those recommendations been followed up on since the last one in 2000? Secondly, why are they being followed up on now? Which is good, quite honestly....
I have a second part. You've now developed an action plan that is taking us forward. I think that is great. I'm just wondering, why now? I think CIC has had years and years of problems, quite honestly, in terms of getting its act together.
Don't misunderstand me for my lack of bad words.... I understand the complexity of it, I really do, but it would seem now that there actually.... In fact, Mr. Yeates, as you said, it's a complex problem, but if we don't do this, we don't have a direction on which to base goals and objectives. Is that the thought process now?
There has been a significant push to actually get it together. Why hasn't there been before? Is there an issue about why these recommendations from 2000 on, for example, are just coming into play now?
:
Mr. Bains pointed out that there is a bottleneck. We know that 45 million people worldwide would like to come to Canada and--
Mr. Neil Yeates: Yes.
Mr. Terence Young: --that's unlikely to change.
But as well, we can only accept so many new citizens who can be fully integrated. We know, for instance, the funding to the provinces to help citizens become integrated is the highest in history. We know that the largest number in history came to Canada last year under our government. So there are things pushing on either side.
One of them is that immigrants, when they decide to immigrate to another country, make an application, and sometimes, unlike in the case of Mr. Allen, they do not want to come right away. Some of them know there's a waiting period so they apply in advance because they have a lot to do. They have to settle.... Sometimes somebody has to finish school or they have something they want to do in their job. There might be a bonus at the end of the year in their job. They have to sell property. They have to say goodbye to their friends. They have to prepare emotionally and pack their bags. There are a whole lot of things that might take time.
So in an ideal situation, if you get to where you want to be, what would be an ideal waiting time for someone to come Canada? What would it be, so that people don't defer and say they're not going to wait that long, that they're going to go to Australia, and so that on the other hand, they have time to deal with what they have to deal with? And then we would be able to absorb and help integrate those people into our society, to help them find homes and a job, and to get the children in school, etc.
I thought the question that I asked was a clarification question. The committee members all want to know what the Auditor General has in mind when the Auditor General presents an item.
But for your clarification, I went back, because you raised this before, and I went through the number of words that the chair has used over the course of this calendar year, without objections. I noted that on at least two occasions, the number of words, because that's the way you measure these, exceeded 1,000, and in one case 1,500—sorry, three occasions over 1,000. No objections.
Only once did I go over 1,000 and there was an objection. So I'm going to ask Mr. Ricard to finish answering the question and then we'll go on.
Mr. Ricard.