| Français | Contact Us | Help | Search | Canada Site | ||||
| Home | Printable Forms |
Service Locations |
FAQ | DFAIT | ||||
| Site Map | ||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||
|
Ombudsman's Annual report for 2003-2004
Adjudication and Conflict Management Office (ACMO) TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX
LETTER FROM THE OMBUDSMAN
Ms. Doreen Steidle Ms. Chief Executive Officer: We are pleased to submit the second Annual Report of the Adjudication and Conflict Management Office (ACMO). It will serve as an additional source of information to complement the information provided at our meeting following your recent appointment. At that meeting, we touched on ACMO's primary responsibilities, which this Report examines in detail:
The first of these responsibilities is the one for which the organization is best known. In fact, since its establishment, more than 150 security cases were adjudicated. The number of cases adjudicated dropped noticeably this year owing to the smaller number of cases referred. The Ombudsman services officially became operational this year. There are few public ombudsmen within federal government departments, although there are some in Crown Corporations (e.g.: Canada Post's public ombudsman) and there are internal ombudsmen (e.g.: Department of National Defence). To our knowledge, the Passport Office is the first Special Operating Agency to offer ombudsman services to receive and handle client complaints. The Office's services for mediating and adjudicating contract disputes and the function of Senior Officer responsible for disclosure of wrongdoing in the workplace should be more highly publicized. In the year ahead, we will make ourselves available to meet with the different branches, the Management and Executive Committees, and the union in order to raise awareness of these and other services we offer. Yours sincerely, Jocelyn Francoeur, LL.B. Executive summary
The Adjudication and Conflict Management Office (ACMO) was established chiefly to consider revocation and passport refusal recommendations in security cases other than those related to national security. Duties of procedural fairness and natural justice, which flow from well established principles of administrative law are at the basis of the creation of the function. According to those principles, institutional separation of the decision-making authority and operational authorities eliminates confusion between the roles of the authority that conducts investigations and the authority that hands down decisions concerning the withdrawal of benefits, advantages or services. This is the basis for the function of adjudication of security cases. This year, the number of cases referred to us in this area dropped by nearly half in comparison with last year. The focus and purpose of investigations also shifted and resources were assigned to priority issues. Since ACMO is institutionally independent from the Passport Office, it was the natural choice for incorporating the function of Public Ombudsman. In the last quarter of the year, we launched the Public Ombudsman pages on the Passport Office's website and handled over 100 telephone calls, faxes and pieces of correspondence. The Ombudsman is not a judge. The persuasive effect of the Ombudsman's work prompts responsible organizations to consider alternative methods for handling certain types of issues. Proactive organizations concerned with service quality use the Ombudsman's observations and mediation services as a further means of achieving the quality they are committed to delivering. In about 75% of cases, the problem was resolved either by directly providing information or by seeking the assistance of appropriate branches. In order to recognize the efforts of the divisions that were most often sought out, we have instituted an "Orange Award" for cooperation, which this year goes to JWC (Central Operations). Services for mediating or adjudicating contract disputes were not requested this year. As for our responsibility as Senior Officer in charge of protecting employees and conducting investigations pertaining to disclosure of wrongdoing in the workplace, a single case was brought to our attention. The case in question, which involved the interpretation and application of a clause of the collective agreement, was resolved in conjunction with Human Resources. With regard to privacy and access to personal information , ACMO is concerned that, under current arrangements, the Passport Office, which has no culture or expertise in these areas, may have difficulty obtaining support and advice from the Department's delegated authority. Last year, in preliminary discussions with FAC, consideration was given to producing joint recommendations regarding the delegation of Passport Office authorities in the areas of privacy and Access to information. The initiative was discontinued, however, as a result of a reorganization of the office involved within the Department and budget problems within the Passport Office. To begin with, that authority is already very busy with Foreign Affairs Canada (FAC) cases. In addition, it is physically and operationally removed from the Passport Office. This physical distance, as well as the fact that it does not sit as an observer (or in any other capacity) on the Management and Executive Committees could compromise or delay implementation of major initiatives at the Passport Office if, for example, privacy impact assessments are initiated when projects are largely already underway. In contrast, its physical and operational presence within FAC enables it to stay abreast of current and upcoming initiatives and to plan intervention or action in accordance with relevant policies and legislation. The Passport Office received funding for a research project on facial recognition technology this past year. The purpose of the project was to determine whether such applications present a real opportunity to improve the security of processes and thus ensure a higher degree of integrity for Canadian travel documents, thereby benefiting the travellers carrying them. The lead on this project was given to ACMO's Chairperson based on ACMO's institutional independence in overseeing the best interests of the Passport Office's clients. The key goals of the project were to document the effectiveness--or lack thereof--of the systems, with concrete evidence in support, to temper the impact on clients' privacy, and to make appropriate recommendations. The project was launched by issuing an invitation for proposals to industry. Testing of proposed software solutions started in March 2003, and the project wrapped up with the production of a detailed report on the effectiveness of the systems, the impact on privacy, and operating costs. The report was submitted during the fiscal year and the comments of the Privacy Commissioner are expected in the new fiscal year. 1. Adjudication of security cases Decisions to refuse or revoke a passport are in essence administrative decisions and, as such, are subject to the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness. At the Passport Office, these imperatives led to the introduction of separate procedures for investigating and ruling on security cases. In other words, the roles of the investigating authority and the designated authority, which at the Passport Office is an independent Adjudicator, are kept separate. The role of the Adjudicator is to rule on the applicability of the grounds for revoking or refusing passport services set out in the Canadian Passport Order (available on the website of the Passport Office, at www.pptc.gc.ca ), other than cases related to national security. 1.1 Investigation procedure The Security, Policy and Entitlement Branch of the Passport Office is an investigative body identified in the Privacy Act. The Security and Entitlement Review Section (the Section) is responsible for administering the investigation program. When the Section is advised of events that might constitute cases of abuse or unlawful use of passports or travel documents, a security file is opened and an investigation may be undertaken. The purpose of the Section's investigations is to gather facts and determine whether those facts seem consistent with the conditions for refusing or revoking a passport. If this is the case, the subject is given the opportunity to present a defence and respond to the Section's allegations. The Section sends the subject a letter setting out the facts alleged and inviting the subject to submit any information deemed relevant, either directly or through advisors or counsel. The Section has an obligation to consider this information in conducting its investigation. After considering all information available to it, the Section may authorize the issuance of a full validity passport or a passport for a limited period of time and containing certain conditions. Alternatively, if the Section considers that the information seems to support a conclusion that grounds for refusal or revocation apply, the Section can recommend that an Adjudicator, acting on behalf of the Passport Office, rule on the matter. The written submissions of each party are placed in the security and investigation file, which is forwarded to the Adjudicator for final ruling. 1.2 Adjudication/ruling As indicated earlier, except for cases related to national security, the Adjudicator rules on the matter based on the written submissions of the parties. Acting independently, the Adjudicator ensures compliance with the rules of natural justice. It is the Adjudicator's responsibility to ensure that the defendant (the subject) has been given notice of the Section's intentions. The alleged acts must therefore have been described in sufficient detail to enable the subject to produce a full answer and defence. In deciding on the merits, the Adjudicator considers the whole file and delivers a decision in writing supporting, in whole or in part, or rejecting the recommendations of the Section. Where the recommendations of the Section are upheld, the Adjudicator also makes a ruling on the length of suspension of the applicable services. The Adjudicator acts independently and informs the subject and his or her advisors or counsel of the ruling. A copy of the ruling is appended to the file, which is returned to the Section. A ruling by the Adjudicator is considered final from the date of receipt by the person to whom it is sent, that is, the subject of the investigation. The latter may challenge the ruling by filing an application for judicial review before the Federal Court of Canada within thirty (30) days of receiving said ruling. The Adjudicator may on occasion be called on to rule on a request for interim service on compassionate grounds pending completion of the investigation and joinder of issue in the main case. The Section may authorize such service without submitting the matter to the Adjudicator, but a refusal to provide such service must be confirmed by the Adjudicator. 1.3 Number and types of actions
In 2003-2004, only eighteen (18) cases were referred to the Adjudicator for a ruling, and 17 were in fact ruled on by the Adjudicator. This number was nearly 50% lower than in 2002-2003. We have been informed that this significant drop is the result of the temporary assignment of investigative resources to other priority functions and projects during the year, and to a slight shift in the focus and purpose of investigations. Six (6) of the cases referred were handled by counsel or an advisor on behalf of the subject. Of note is the fact that, for the first time, all of the recommendations made by the Section were upheld in whole or in part by the Adjudicator. This should not be interpreted as an indication that only the most clear-cut and least complex cases were identified for adjudication, especially since this year, in contrast to last year, two decisions became the subject of applications for judicial review. In any event, it seems quite logical that the body of decided cases is bearing fruit and that the Section is seemingly striving to refer to adjudication only those investigations that appear to meet the burden of proof developed and recognized by case law. This is to the advantage of Canadians, who are not inconvenienced without good reason. The danger, however, is that this could lead to an erroneous perception of bias on the part of the public, which might view the approval of the recommendations as indicative of too close an affinity between the views of the Adjudicator and those of the investigating section. Unfortunately, as everyone knows, there is little that can be said to allay such suspicions, even though some rulings could clearly demonstrate that the adjudication function is very much removed and independent from the investigative function. 1.4 Comparative overview of rulings As seen in the figure opposite, the main activity subject to investigation and referral for adjudication is assisting strangers or travellers impersonating immediate family members and carrying their travel documents. The person accompanying such persons acts as an escort for the third party or impersonator. Last year, 11 cases out of 32 were handled by counsel (32%). In 2003-04, this proportion remained virtually the same, at 6 out of 17 cases (35%).
Last year, we reported some problem situations with applications for interim services filed during the security investigation stage, before cases were formally submitted to the Adjudicator. To our knowledge, there were no similar cases this year. Finally, the following cumulative chart of activities subject to sanction, which reflects all decided adjudication cases, has been updated to include the activities that were the subject of sanctions this year. This chart was presented in our first annual report last year and will be updated every year.
1.5 Length of suspension of passport services A new table illustrates the diversity of the penalties, taking into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances in each individual case. The penalty examined here is the suspension of passport services imposed by the Adjudicator, which ranges from a maximum of five (5) years, or the maximum length of validity of a passport, to zero (0), naturally in cases where the recommendation of the Section is dismissed.
2. Office of the Ombudsman 2.1 Two-step complaint resolution process The Adjudication and Conflict Management Office (ACMO), established in 2002, includes the services of a public Ombudsman given the mandate of handling complaints from the public. In principle, any complaint against the Passport Office must first be directed to the Passport Office (Step 1). However, the Ombudsman may determine that referring a particular complaint to the first step would pose an injustice or major inconvenience, or might harden the positions of the respective parties, keeping them at odds. In such cases--provided by way of example--the Ombudsman may intervene immediately in order to help the Passport Office and the complainant more quickly understand the bases of their respective expectations, their motivation, and how far they are from a fair solution in compliance with the law. Any complaint that is not resolved in Step 1 may be referred to the Ombudsman (Step 2). Since the best solution is always the one arrived at by the parties, the Ombudsman fosters mutual gains negotiation between the parties. The procedure and different mechanisms are clearly described on the Ombudsman's "How to File a Complaint" page, on the Passport Office website. The Ombudsman's webspace became operational on January 9, 2004. 2.2 The Ombudsman: friend or foe? In a reflective piece on best business practices that appeared in La Presse on March 8, 2004 business section, two professors with the Pierre-Péladeau Leadership Chair at HEC de Montréal [Montreal school of advanced business studies] aptly examine the poorly understood, or misunderstood, roles of those whose function it is to take an independent, critical look at their environment. Their forerunner was the court jester of old, who was [translation] "the only person who could get away with denouncing unthinkable situations, power struggles, abuses and treason (...)." Obviously, introducing this type of observer, who used satire and jokes to make his points, into today's organizations is not possible. However, the writers note, to embrace different ways of thinking, [translation] "many organizations are calling on outside expertise, which is seen as more rational and detached." They point out that the independent observer today could advantageously come from within the organization, as this would not in any way prevent that person from taking a critical look at a situation. On the contrary, that person's knowledge of the organization could make his or her comments that much more pertinent. The idea of embracing different ways of thinking is an apt way of viewing intervention by a modern-day Ombudsman. Proactive organizations concerned with service quality use the Ombudsman's observations and mediation services as a further means of achieving the quality they are committed to delivering. Leaders and managers with foresight, self-assurance and a sense of commitment help build a culture where policies and practices with unfair effects are rightly challenged. An Ombudsman is not a judge. The persuasive effect of the Ombudsman's work prompts responsible organizations to consider alternative methods for handling certain types of issues. Unfortunately, in the last quarter of the year--the quarter in which we launched our activities--our intervention in a particular matter was described by one point of service as considerably complicating the issue. The client to whom this comment was made expressed concern about possible reprisals. Fortunately, there were none. It is clear that efforts to improve communication with the Passport Office will have to be made in the coming year, to raise awareness among staff in functional and operational divisions concerning our mandate and constructive approach. 2.3 The Ombudsman's day-to-day operations Happily, with the exception of the isolated case mentioned above, we enjoyed tremendous cooperation from the large number of Passport Office staff whom we approached in 2003-2004. Managers in the most cooperative divisions quickly followed up on any matters referred to them. Because several complainants approached the Ombudsman directly without going through Step 1 of the complaint process, the Ombudsman referred complaints to such sections, which reacted positively, most likely avoiding the subsequent filing of formal complaints. The "Orange Award" for the most cooperative branch of the year goes to Central Operations. Its mail-in application processing and production services received a large percentage of the client inquiries and requests for assistance forwarded by us. During the quarter in which we officially launched our Ombudsman operations in 2003-2004, almost none of the matters about which we received requests for intervention had been brought to the attention of the Passport Office directly in the form of a formal complaint (Step 1). Although citizens refer to their calls for help as "complaints," our experience has led us to divide them into three main classes: inquiries, requests for assistance, and formal complaints. Indeed, many "complaints" (about 50%) relate to problems in obtaining information. Most of the time, our office is able to provide the information, avoiding the need for further formalities. About a quarter of cases (25%) relate to problems in contacting someone who can follow up on an urgent travel situation, for example. These are one-time cries for help to deal with exceptional circumstances. We consider it better to pass on the information as requests for intervention or assistance rather than treating such cases as complaints and referring them to Step 1 of the process. In our experience, most of these cases are resolved through action by the appropriate division. In other words, three-quarters of the "complaints" received are resolved without resorting to the complaints process (Step 1 or 2). This leaves one quarter (25%) of the "complaints," which must actually be handled as complaints. Nearly all of them must be referred to Step 1 of the process, in accordance with our policy, which is posted on the website and discussed at the beginning of this section, under "Two-step complaint resolution process" (see subsection 2.1). Matters handled in last quarter of 2003-04
Trends observed:
Comments The Ombudsman's information line is bound to receive calls from people wanting answers to general questions, which will have to be referred to the Passport Office's call centre or other divisions. The number of people who are having trouble reaching the Passport Office by telephone is likely to result in formal complaints about system efficiency in the relatively short term. With regard to system efficiency in relating information about the status of applications, our office has noted some serious lag time. In one specific case, the system indicated that the passport has been issued, but could not specify whether or not the document had been produced and mailed. It took nearly half an hour to generate a search result that indicated that this had indeed been done. Needless to say, call centre staff cannot keep people on the line for half an hour. Investigations Under circumstances set out on the website, the Ombudsman may launch an investigation or mediation. During the short operating period in 2003-2004 (last quarter), only one investigation was officially instituted. The case is still pending, as we are awaiting answers to questions we asked the Passport Office. The purpose of these questions was to focus in on the rationale, expectations and considerations which we feel reasonably address the problem. Since we want to foster some serious thinking on the part of both complainants and the Passport Office, we have produced some preliminary observations on the case. Briefly, the complainant had challenged a policy regarding a transitional measure pertaining to the application of the new fee schedule for passport services established in December 2001. Two years later, the complainant had not received an answer and consequently turned to our office. 2.4 Some typical cases Some of the matters raised by complainants are likely to be of concern to a large number of Canadians. The Ombudsman's findings in such cases may provide clarification for other people who might be considering filing a complaint on the same grounds or issues. The following are some typical cases, which are examined in greater detail in the Appendix to this Annual Report. Case study 1 The complainant mailed his passport application four months prior to his travel date. His application was returned to him three times in the weeks that followed, as it was deemed incomplete or otherwise unacceptable. The client finally received his passport just in time for his trip. He nonetheless felt that the processing time far exceeded the service standards published by the Passport Office. Discussion on the application of the service standards and reasonable expectations on the part of the public. Cade study 2 The complainant, a member of a professional body recognized as an eligible guarantor for passport applications, wanted the Ombudsman to order that a supply of PPT-132 (Declaration in Lieu of Guarantor) forms be sent to his office, or at least that the form be made available electronically. Discussion regarding security requirements and the aims of the guarantor policy. Planned case study: Interpretation of joint and sole custody cases: appropriateness of requiring the consent of the other parent to issue a passport to a minor child, or of obtaining a court order... 3. Services for mediating or adjudicating contract disputes No requests for mediation or adjudication of disputes relating to goods or services contracts were received during this fiscal year. The Passport Office's legal counsel are aware of the services available from our office. We are confident that, in the event of a dispute, they would advise the contracting authority involved to use alternative dispute resolution methods, as advocated by the Department of Justice of the Government of Canada. 4. Disclosure of wrongdoing in the workplace In November 2001, the Treasury Board Secretariat adopted the Policy on the Internal Disclosure of Information Concerning Wrongdoing in the Workplace . The brochure which the Secretariat issued at that time clearly described the aims and commitment of the government: "This policy is part of the government's commitment to build a strong foundation of values and ethics in the Public Service. It is designed to help employees disclose alleged wrongdoing in a safe and constructive manner. It also ensures that they will be treated fairly and protected against reprisals when they make a disclosure in good faith." As indicated in last year's report, under this policy, government departments and agencies were to designate a Senior Officer responsible for receiving and examining allegations of wrongdoing, initiating investigations if necessary, and making recommendations. At the Passport Office, this responsibility has been entrusted to ACMO since it acts impartially with respect to the matters under its responsibility. The key steps in processing cases of disclosure are:
Policy, code and future legislation... In tandem with this policy, the Treasury Board undertook a review of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for the Public Service in 2002. As a result of this initiative, a new Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service came into effect in September 2003. Under the disclosure policy, breaches of the Code are one of the grounds for disclosure of wrongdoing. In the fall of 2003, the Public Service Integrity Officer recommended a legal framework for the protection for whistleblowers provided under the policy. A working group was accordingly set up and recommended a legislative regime for the disclosure of wrongdoing. On March 22, 2004, a public servants' disclosure protection bill was introduced in the House. Little activity in Passport Office: improved communication efforts Last year, we posted information on accessing the services and protection provided by ACMO in the area of disclosure on the Office's website. Human Resources actively promoted the policy this year, along with developments related to the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service and the disclosure bill. We appreciate those efforts. No disclosures were made in 2003-04. One consultation led to informal mediation, whereby Human Resources intervened in favour of an employee who was temporarily unavailable for work. The matter did not involve wrongdoing in the workplace, but rather the interpretation of article 46 of the collective agreement, concerning leave to accompany a relocated spouse. When the spouse is temporarily relocated, leave may be granted for up to five years, with the understanding that each new relocation entitles the employee to a new computation of the five-year period. In the case of permanent relocation, leave may be granted to up to one year. It is our intention to increase the visibility of the policy over the next year. The planned relocation of our offices to the building occupied by Passport Office staff should help in this regard. Certainly, in terms of visibility, the fact that our offices will be immediately next to the building's lobby will make it easy for employees to meet with us. Our location will foster "anonymous" consultations, in that we will not be surrounded by different divisions, which some people might find awkward. In matters involving disclosure, discretion may be the most important factor in winning employees' trust. It is to be hoped that once we have moved to our new premises, the layout of the offices and our physical separation from the different divisions will make us seem more approachable to staff. 5. Privacy and Access To Information 5.1 Coordinating Access To Information requests The Privacy Act and Access to Information Act enable Canadians to access information available in federal government data banks. The delegated authority in these matters lies with the Department of Foreign Affairs Canada (FAC). The Access to Information and Privacy Protection Division (DCP) receives and processes all requests received by the Department. It forwards requests under the Passport Office's purview to ACMO. Our office determines what divisions should respond to the access requests and asks them to perform the necessary searches. ACMO then compiles the information and forwards it to DCP. DCP reviews the information and determines what is to be disclosed, based on legislative requirements. Where the Passport Office recommends an exclusion, DCP performs an independent determination as to whether or not the exclusion is applicable. ACMO encourages Passport Office divisions to consult with Legal Services (JUSP) on the formulation of exclusion recommendations. Finally, after reviewing the entire file, DCP seeks the approval of the appropriate divisions with regard to the material to be disclosed. ACMO compiles and regularly updates records of access requests pending at the Passport Office, to ensure that such requests receive the necessary attention. In fiscal year 2003-2004, ACMO coordinated twenty-three (23) Access To Information requests, as well as twelve (12) consultations initiated by other departments in possession of information produced by the Passport Office. The latter cases involved access requests made to outside agencies, but requiring approval by the Passport Office. The table below shows which divisions were involved in responding to the Access To Information requests.
5.2 Privacy The government's privacy policy entrusts departments and agencies with the responsibility and duty to conduct impact studies on privacy for all major initiatives in the development stage. The function of providing expert advice in this area falls to the Privacy Protection Division (DCP), the delegated departmental authority. Its extensive mandate is of key importance to ensure the privacy of Canadians. DCP is institutionally independent from the branches of the department. The division also provides liaison with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. The close relations developed with that Office ensure a proper understanding of its expectations, which in turns enables DCP to provide the department with informed advice about plans under consideration. Foreign Affairs Canada is a major department with many areas of responsibility which keep DCP resources very busy. The specialized nature of the FAC's spheres of activity moreover means that DCP's expertise (relating to privacy issues) leans toward areas of expertise related to the department's fields of action. The Passport Office also operates in a very specific field--a field which many will acknowledge as having a visible, indeed very clear impact on privacy. The physical presence of DCP on FAC premises and its observer status at issue tables and even Management or Executive Committee meetings enable it to stay abreast of planned initiatives. DCP can then ask those responsible for upcoming projects to carry out privacy impact assessments and the consultations provided for under the relevant policy within appropriate time frames. The physical distance that separates DCP from the Passport Office does not foster the same kind of symbiotic relationship that seems to exist between FAC and DCP. The fact that the privacy policy is not promoted within the Passport Office impedes the Agency's capacity to meet the obligations prescribed by law and policy in an appropriate and positive manner. Having a delegated authority attend Passport Office issue tables or Management Committee meetings would ensure that the issue was afforded the same degree of importance as within FAC. This distance could potentially compromise certain initiatives planned by the Passport Office, if the point of no-return were reached before privacy considerations were taken into account in developing future programs. It is always more costly to fix problems than to prevent them. This state of affairs translates into a lack of access to privacy services and advice for Passport Office staff. To our knowledge, very few privacy impact assessments have been undertaken by the Passport Office. Yet there are a number of new initiatives underway. We are confident that the Passport Office wishes to meet government commitments relating to privacy. One indication of this is the fact that the Office of Legal Counsel of the Passport Office added a new member with expertise in privacy and Access To Information issues to its staff this past year. Resuming the review of administrative arrangements (framework agreements) between the department and the Passport Office in the area of privacy is no doubt in order. Indeed, the framework agreements in a number of fields of activity were never reviewed in 2003-2004. 6. Facial recognition technology research project Since the Passport Office (PPT) is a Special Operating Agency, the financial model normally applicable to it is a cost recovery model whereby it supports its operations with the revenues generated from the sale of travel documents. In 2002-2003, the Passport Office obtained funding to carry out a research project on facial recognition technology. In providing such funding, the government recognized that the issue of public safety and security extends beyond the population requesting passport services. The Canadian passport is a highly valuable document, the possession of which enables a traveller to cross many borders without need of further formalities (visas or other requirements) and guarantees the holder's readmittance into Canada. In the context of international standards laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is considering the inclusion of biometric data in passports to guarantee authenticity, the Passport Office had to commit to studying some applications. It chose to focus on facial recognition technology, as the data in question is the least aggravating or intrusive of the biometric data that may be gathered from its clients. It is also the data that all passport applicants submit voluntarily, in the form of a recent photo to be reproduced in the travel document to be issued. The purpose of the facial recognition technology research project was to determine whether facial recognition technology has real potential to improve the security of processes, ensuring enhanced integrity of Canadian travel documents. Passport integrity is crucial for international recognition of these documents. Passport integrity is assured not only by the controls placed over the issuance of passports, but also by the technical design and workmanship of the documents, which enables authentication at border posts while at the same time preventing forgeries or alteration. Such recognition cannot be taken for granted. Scientific progress cannot be ignored. Adjudication of security cases (see part 1 of this Annual Report) has revealed that offenders are making use of increasingly sophisticated commercially-available technology. This research project has a legitimate basis, as the Passport Office's mission is to issue secure and internationally recognized travel documents. Over the past year, a number of statements or comments were made that utterly condemned the use of biometric technology. We are concerned that a barrage of negative publicity may help build public resistance to any measures introduced to protect the interests and mobility of Canadians. A mere driver's licence contains much more personal information than a person's photograph. The photo is only useful if it is paired with identification data. If properly regulated, could the comparison of photos without the benefit of personal data prevent fraud? That is what the research project attempted to determine. Verification of the photos of travel document applicants would protect Canadians and residents of Canada against theft of identity and the use of false identification to obtain passports. As for the threat posed by cameras installed in public areas, there is no substance to the claim that such cameras would make it possible to track Passport Office clients. In fact, that would presuppose that PPT would share the photos in its possession with the users of the cameras, when in fact the Passport Office already has photos of its clients, which it is not permitted to share with third parties, pursuant to the Privacy Act . The key concerns in carrying out this project were to document, with concrete evidence in support, the effectiveness--or lack thereof--of facial recognition technology, mitigate the impact of such technology on the privacy of Canadian citizens and residents of Canada, and make appropriate recommendations. No decision about the use of such technology had been made when the research project was undertaken. The project culminated with a detailed report in 2003-2004 on the effectiveness of the systems, as well as their impact and measures for protecting privacy. The Passport Office has a duty to protect personal information about its clients that it has in its possession. Photos are a kind of personal information that has always been available to the Passport Office, yet that did not lead the agency to release those photos to outside sources. ACMO's foremost concern in regard to this project, should the response from central authorities be positive, would be to ensure the protection of personal information. Since the research definitely confirmed the value of the systems, a privacy impact assessment was conducted and the relevant documentation was submitted to authorities concerned. Decisions, comments and recommendations are expected over the course of next fiscal year. Information pertaining to privacy issues was submitted to the Office of Privacy Commissioner at year end. Their feedback is expected in 2003-2004. APPENDIX - Case study 1 Application processing time: equity and reasonable public expectations The Passport Office has set service standards for processing passport applications. According to those standards, turnaround time is 10 working days for over-the-counter applications made at a point of service, and 20 working days for mail-in applications. These standards enable members of the public to decide whether to request express or urgent services, where passports are needed in fewer than 10 days. A number of questions have been raised concerning the application of these service standards. Although the Office of the Ombudsman did not open any specific investigation into this case, which to our knowledge is a special case, we believe that Canadians and the Passport Office should be alerted to the possibility of misunderstandings arising from a mutual lack of comprehension concerning what is fair in way of commitment, versus what is reasonable in terms of public expectations. [Ref. 2-12] A person mailed in a passport application. There was a problem with the photos. The application was returned to the applicant, who received it 12 days after it was initially mailed to the Passport Office. In other words, during the 12 days in question:
The applicant promptly obtained new photos, and sent the application back to the Passport Office, which again returned the application because it was incomplete. The applicant received the returned application 11 days after the second mailing to the Passport Office. The steps and actions described above were repeated. By then, 23 days had elapsed, and the Passport Office had still not received a properly completed application. Questions raised: Were the time frames for returning the unacceptable application unreasonable? Should the "interim" periods required to process applications that are deemed incomplete or unacceptable be counted for purposes of the service standards published by the Passport Office? Discussion and points for consideration by the Ombudsman People who mail in their passport applications are dependent on the mail system and cannot know when their applications will be opened. In the case study discussed above, if 4 to 6 days are subtracted for the return post, the Passport Office took between 6 and 8 days to open the original application, perform a cursory examination to determine whether it was complete, and return it to the applicant. When people submit their applications in person at a point of service, a cursory examination of the request is performed and they are immediately told if there is a problem. People who mail in their applications don't have that advantage. This means that the mail from the applicant was opened during the first third of the (20-day) processing period for applications. No one expects the mail to be opened on the first day of the 20 working days allowed to process the application. However, the process of opening the mailed application and performing a cursory examination should be initiated within the first third of the processing period. In cases where problematic situations are anticipated--for example, when new requirements come into effect, such as new specifications for photos, or changes in citizenship or identification documentation requirements--or during peak periods (since people often apply at the last minute), it would even be wise to perform the cursory examinations of mailed applications within the first quarter of the turnaround time indicated in the service standard. According to our information, in 2003-2004, the Passport Office was able to open applications within 5 days of receipt. Beginning in February 2004, following verifications with the mail applications processing section, all applications received by mail have been opened and screened within five days of receipt. The second question raised by this case study is this: should the 11 or 12 days taken to return the incomplete application to the sender be included in the 20-day countdown (service standard)? The answer is no. It seems reasonable to consider the quality, adequateness and usefulness of any action that triggers a relationship between the service provider and the person seeking the service. If the action is complete--as in the case of the submission of an application that is complete and duly accompanied by the required valid documents--then the set time frames must be met by the agency that has published a service standard. As is the case for many organizations that have established service standards, rejecting incomplete applications is what makes it possible to meet the service standards. The application of the rejection policy seems reasonable: the Section makes three attempts to contact the person whose application is incomplete. If none of the calls are returned, the Section has no choice but to reject the application and return it to the sender. Service standards establish an obligation of diligence on the part of the service provider. The client's obligation is to submit a duly completed application. If the application is incomplete, or certain parts do not meet requirements, the agency cannot be expected to deliver the service within the time frame set out in the service standard. The people consulted about this matter expressed concern about the waste of time, for both parties, resulting from the need to perform a completely new examination of the application, starting back at square one, so to speak. Passport Office management will look into possible ways of avoiding this. Means to carry out a more complete examination of mailed-in applications with a view to avoid rejections in sequence, e.g. a first time on pictures, a 2nd time on some other ground, will be examined. Conclusions
Case study 2 Guarantor policy -- limited availability of Declaration in Lieu of Guarantor forms [Ref. 04-2-22] The complainant, a member of a professional body recognized as an eligible guarantor for passport applications, wanted to provide better client service by obtaining a supply of PPT-132 forms which could be sworn before him. The form in question is the Declaration in Lieu of Guarantor form, which enables an applicant who does not know an eligible guarantor to designate persons who can confirm the applicant's identity. Although this person's aims are perfectly understandable, they must be weighed against the Passport Office's aims. In determining the reasonableness of limiting the availability of the Declaration in Lieu of Guarantor form, we took the following factors into account:
It accordingly seems unreasonable to require the Passport Office to short-circuit a proven method of operating in a financially responsible manner. Incidentally, since the complainant was informed of our position on this matter, a bill (Bill C-212) has been introduced in the House with a view to making government institutions even more accountable in regard to the application of service fees. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
