BEFORE
THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
2020 SPRING REPORTS OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
REPORT 1—IMMIGRATION REMOVALS
24
November 2020
1.
Madam Chair,
thank you for this opportunity to present the results of our audit report on immigration
removals. Joining me is Carol McCalla, the Principal who was responsible
for the audit, and Erin Jellinek, who led the audit team.
2.
This audit
examined whether the Canada Border Services Agency removed foreign nationals
found inadmissible to Canada. Examples include failed asylum claimants, visitors
who overstay their visas, or those with criminality. Timely removal supports
the fairness of Canada’s immigration system and may deter those who might seek
to abuse it. In the case of criminals, their timely removal is important to
protect public safety.
3.
Overall,
we found that the agency’s approach to managing removal cases had not resulted
in the timely removal of inadmissible foreign nationals. The accumulation of enforceable
removal orders has been a long-standing issue for the agency. We determined
that in April 2019, about 50,000 had accumulated, and many had been enforceable
for years. Also, the agency had not known the whereabouts of about two thirds
of the individuals ordered to leave.
4.
We found 2
key issues that were affecting the timely removal of foreign nationals. First,
the agency’s efforts were hindered by poor data quality, which meant that the
agency did not have the information it needed to track enforceable removal
orders. For example, orders that the agency should have been monitoring were
missing from the inventory. Some orders were delayed
because of the poor flow of information between Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the agency, while
others were filed in the wrong inventory. This meant that the agency did not
always know which orders to enforce.
5.
Second, poor
case management led to significant periods of inactivity for thousands of
cases. The agency did not have an effective system that pushed it to act on removal
cases, even high‑priority and time-sensitive ones. For example, we
estimated that in its working inventory of enforceable removal orders, the
agency had not acted on about 1,500 cases for at least 2 years simply because
they had been overlooked. The agency aims to remove failed claimants within a
year of a final negative decision. We found that most of these cases had, on
average, still been in the working inventory after 4 years and in the wanted
inventory of arrest warrants after 10 years.
6.
The agency’s
inability to effectively prioritize removal cases is concerning for the small
number of criminal cases that may pose a risk to public safety. Criminal cases
had been in the agency’s working inventory for an average of 5 years. We
estimated that almost 150 cases involving serious criminals had not been worked
on—either because they had not been assigned to an officer or because the
officer had not taken any action on the case.
7.
Further,
we found significant periods of inactivity among the 34,700 cases of foreign nationals
whose whereabouts were unknown. These included 2,800 high-priority criminal
cases, about 70 percent of which were not being investigated to determine whether
the individuals could be located. Agency officials confirmed that, in general, cases
in the wanted inventory are not a priority.
8. We made 3 recommendations. The agency agreed with all of them and has shared its action plan with us.
9. Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.