ARCHIVED - Audit of the CIC-CBSA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

This page has been archived.

Final Report
July 2010

Table of Contents

• Executive summary
• 1.0 Introduction
  • 1.1 General
  • 1.2 Background
  • 1.3 Audit Risk Assessment
  • 1.4 Audit Objective and Scope
  • 1.5 Audit Methodology
  • 1.6 Audit Criteria
• 2.0 Audit Conclusion
• 3.0 Observations and Recommendations
  • 3.1 Governance and Accountability
  • 3.2 Risk Management
  • 3.3 Umbrella MOU Committee Processes
  • 3.4 Results and Performance
• Appendix A – Detailed Audit Criteria
• Appendix B – CIC-CBSA MOU Guiding Principles
• Appendix C – Responsibility for Policy and Service Delivery
• Appendix D – Management Action Plan as of June 2010
• Appendix E – Audit Timeline
• Appendix F – List of Acronyms Used

---

Executive summary

The Risk-Based Audit Plan 2009–2010 of both Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) included an audit of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CIC and the CBSA. A joint audit was conducted and the examination phase was conducted in the period of December 2009 to February 2010. To ensure an independent, objective and consistent methodology, an external auditor from Audit Services Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada, was engaged to lead audit team members from both organizations.

When the CBSA was created, an order-in-council was passed to transfer specific immigration responsibilities from CIC to the CBSA. The Canada Border Services Agency Act (November 3, 2005) legislated the responsibilities of the CBSA to deliver Canada's immigration and refugee protection program (hereafter referred to as the immigration program) at Canada's borders, overseas and inland. Subsequently an amendment to section 4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) (February 14, 2008) outlined the responsibilities of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, versus those assigned to the Minister of Public Safety.

To facilitate cooperation between the two organizations, and to ensure the effective administration of each organization's responsibilities under the IRPA, CIC and the CBSA signed an umbrella MOU on March 27, 2006. The umbrella MOU sets out the guiding principles and governance mechanisms including the establishment of a Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) and a Joint Management Committee (JMC). The umbrella MOU also clarified specific processes, such as consultation and dispute resolution.

Auditors planned and conducted the audit in accordance with the Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada.

The objective of the audit was to provide assurance that the governance framework and processes outlined in the umbrella MOU to manage the CIC-CBSA relationship were in place, adequate and worked as intended. The scope of the audit included the management of the CIC-CBSA relationship, following the inception of the umbrella MOU signed on March 27, 2006. The audit examined how horizontal issues related to governance, dispute resolution and consultation processes, risk management practices, and performance measurement were being addressed. The audit was conducted at the Headquarters of both organizations with regional operations providing input through survey.

The MOU was created to formalize the new relationship of the two organizations in a time when responsibilities were being transferred. Oversight committees were established in accordance with the principles outlined in the MOU. An ongoing and evolving relationship was established, with regular communication between the two organizations.

The audit concludes that the governance framework and processes, outlined in the MOU to manage the CIC-CBSA relationship, were in place and adequate. However, management attention is required in a number of areas.

The two organizations need to clarify accountabilities, roles and responsibilities for the committees' membership, and improve communication related to consultations and issues resolution. Establishing work plans in support of strategic directions, and developing an integrated risk management approach and performance indicators within each organization would help orient the committees' longer-term focus on priorities.

The key recommendations of the audit to strengthen the horizontal management of issues within both organizations are as follows:

• CIC and the CBSA should:
  • Articulate the accountabilities and responsibilities of the oversight committees;
  • Establish a communication protocol to ensure that the oversight committees receive relevant and timely information to fulfill their mandate;
  • Develop work plans for the oversight committees;
  • Develop a plan to regularly monitor the functioning of the MOU;
  • Develop an integrated approach to manage the risks; and
  • Ensure that appropriate performance indicators exist for their respective delivery of the immigration program.

Management action plans to address these recommendations were developed by CIC and CBSA management and are included as part of this report.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 General

The Risk-Based Audit Plan for 2009–2010 of both Citizenship and Immigration Canada's (CIC) Internal Audit and Accountability (IAA) Branch and the Canada Border Services Agency's (CBSA) Internal Audit and Program Evaluation Directorate (IAPED) identified the need for an audit of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CIC and the CBSA. The audit was identified as a priority as the MOU governs the working relationship of CIC and the CBSA in the delivery of Canada's immigration and refugee protection program (hereafter referred to as the immigration program). An internal audit of this MOU was not previously conducted by either CIC or the CBSA. Consequently, it was decided to conduct a joint audit, to promote a common approach and to produce a balanced report.

To ensure objectivity and consistency, an external auditor from Audit Services Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada, was engaged to lead audit team members.

1.2 Background

When the CBSA was created, an order-in-council was passed to transfer specific immigration responsibilities from CIC to the CBSA. This division of responsibilities is noted below. The Canada Border Services Agency Act (November 3, 2005) legislated the responsibilities of the CBSA to deliver the immigration program at Canada's borders. Subsequently an amendment to section 4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) (February 14, 2008) outlined the responsibilities of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, versus those assigned to the Minister of Public Safety.

Under section 4 of the IRPA, the responsibilities of each Minister under the IRPA are as follows –

• The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is responsible for the administration of the Act, except as otherwise provided in subsection 4(2) of the Act.
• Under subsection 4(2), the Minister of Public Safety is responsible for the administration of the Act as it relates to –
  1. examinations at ports of entry;
  2. the enforcement of the Act, including arrest, detention and removal;
  3. the establishment of policies respecting the enforcement of the Act and inadmissibility on grounds of security, organized criminality or violating human or international rights; and
  4. determinations under any of subsections 34(2), 35(2) and 37(2)[ 1 ] of the Act.

To manage their respective IRPA responsibilities, CIC and the CBSA signed an umbrella MOU on March 27, 2006. The CIC-CBSA MOU is an administrative understanding – not legally binding, which defines, in general terms, the basis for cooperation regarding:

1. the delivery of the immigration program within the two organizations;
2. information sharing; and
3. the provision of various services or lines of business via annexes.

In addition to the umbrella MOU, regions have local MOUs and Service Delivery Arrangements. A table of responsibilities for policy and service delivery is included as Appendix C. While CIC administers the IRPA legislation, the CBSA operationally delivers the IRPA legislation at ports of entry by processing over 90 million travellers a year and conducting over two million detailed immigration examinations[ 2 ]. The CBSA also manages the Migration Integrity Officer network that works overseas, and inland the CBSA and CIC both manage post arrival the files of irregular migrants.

Both organizations agreed to work cooperatively, keep each other informed of changes impacting the other, and meet regularly on a formal basis to resolve emerging issues. The MOU also clarified specific processes, such as consultation and dispute resolution. Annexes to the umbrella MOU were developed as needed to clarify particular services or agreements.

Furthermore, the umbrella MOU sets out the guiding principles and governance mechanisms that would allow the partnership to succeed and last. This includes the establishment of a Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) and a Joint Management Committee (JMC). MOU guiding principles are included in Appendix B.

Joint Consultative Committee (JCC)

The JCC is co-chaired by the Deputy Minister of CIC and the President of the CBSA (effective fall 2009) and consists of assistant deputy minister (CIC) and vice-president (CBSA) level officials responsible for policy development and operations in both organizations. Its mandate is to ensure that consultation takes place early in the policy and program development process. The JCC meets annually and as required to ensure that consultation takes place to:

• Contribute to each other's policy and program development at all stages of the process;
• Consult internally and plan for the impacts of the resulting changes on service delivery and on other programs in the client continuum, as appropriate; and
• Identify and plan in advance for submissions to central agencies where required.

Joint Management Committee (JMC)

The JMC is co-chaired by CIC and the CBSA and consists of senior officials (director general level) representing each sector of CIC and each branch of the CBSA. The JMC meets annually and as required to:

• Ensure that the MOU and its annexes are consistent with the strategic direction and priorities established by each organization;
• Monitor the functioning of the MOU, including periodic reviews;
• Review proposed amendments to the MOU or annexes;
• Assess the state of the relationship;
• Address disagreements in accordance with the dispute resolution mechanism outlined in the MOU; and
• Resolve issues resulting from the implementation or administration of regional or local MOUs or Service Delivery Arrangements that have national implications or that affect the relationship between CIC and the CBSA.

Umbrella MOU Committee Processes Related to Dispute Resolution and Consultation

The umbrella MOU processes related to dispute resolution and consultation are outlined in two sections of the MOU: section 8.2 under Governance and section 16.2 under Consultation on Policy and Operational Changes.

The dispute resolution process is a mechanism that applies to all disputes with respect to any provision of the umbrella MOU or an accompanying annex. This process gets activated when sustained efforts to resolve an issue by those responsible for the administration of the MOU are unsuccessful. Moreover, where issues or conflicts cannot be resolved at the lowest level of accountability, such as those with national implications, the matter is referred to the JMC for resolution. If the JMC cannot resolve the dispute, then the MOU directs that the dispute be elevated to the third level, the signatories to the MOU or annex.

The consultation process relates primarily to changes concerning the organizations' respective delivery of the immigration program, as well as to policy items that are associated with the IRPA. This process is initiated by individuals from both CIC and the CBSA who are designated as the “policy owner(s)” in the event any proposed changes arise. As per the JCC's mandate, the committee should ensure that consultation takes place early in the policy and program development process.

1.3 Audit Risk Assessment

The audit risk assessment, based on the Management Accountability Framework and preliminary findings and interviews with the two organizations, identified the following key risk areas:

• Governance and Accountability – There are risks that governance arrangements may not be adequate, strategic directions not sufficiently developed, and accountabilities not clearly defined.  
• Risk Management – There is a risk that critical events that could impact on the ability of both organizations to achieve their objectives have not been appropriately mitigated.
• Umbrella MOU Committee Processes – There are risks that disputes may not be elevated or resolved in a timely manner with proper analysis, or that adequate consultation may not take place.  
• Results and Performance – There is a risk that management within the two organizations may not have performance information to assess the delivery of the immigration program and the adequacy of controls.

1.4 Audit Objective and Scope

The objective of the audit was to provide assurance that the governance framework and processes outlined in the umbrella MOU to manage the CIC-CBSA relationship were in place, adequate and worked as intended. The scope of this audit included the management of the CIC-CBSA relationship, following the inception of the umbrella MOU signed on March 27, 2006. The audit examined how horizontal issues related to governance, dispute resolution and consultation processes, risk management practices, and performance measurement were being addressed.

1.5 Audit Methodology

The auditors conducted the examination phase of the audit of the CIC-CBSA MOU during the period of December 2009 to February 2010. The auditors:

• Reviewed and analyzed legislation, policies, procedures, guidelines and reports; examined minutes of meetings and records of decisions; assessed the control and progress of action items, consultations and disputes.  
• Reviewed and analyzed pertinent sections of the umbrella MOU, including whether annexes were signed.
• Conducted interviews with key stakeholders in CIC and the CBSA, specifically with members of the joint oversight committees and supporting secretariats. 
• Surveyed regions concerning the administration of the MOU.
• Documented and analyzed the reporting structure of the oversight committees, sub-committees, working groups; assessed whether they meet organizational needs.
• Documented, analyzed and assessed the adequacy of the governance framework and processes outlined in the umbrella MOU to manage the CIC-CBSA relationship with respect to horizontal issues, such as risk management practices, performance measurement, consultation and dispute resolution processes.

Auditors planned and conducted the audit in accordance with the Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada.

1.6 Audit Criteria

The audit criteria were established based on the requirements and expectations of the umbrella MOU, elements of recognized management control frameworks and the audit risk assessment. Detailed audit criteria are included in Appendix A.

2.0 Audit Conclusion

The audit concludes that the governance framework and processes outlined in the MOU to manage the CIC-CBSA relationship, were in place and adequate. However, management attention is required in a number of areas.

The two organizations need to clarify accountabilities, roles and responsibilities for the committees' membership, and improve communication related to consultations and issues resolution. Establishing work plans in support of strategic directions, and developing an integrated risk management approach and performance indicators within each organization would help orient the committees' longer-term focus on priorities.

3.0 Observations and Recommendations

3.1 Governance and Accountability

Based on the requirements and expectations of the umbrella MOU and elements of the core management controls, the audit examined the governance and accountability processes in relation to five criteria.

The audit expected to find that:

• Oversight bodies
  • were established and functioned as intended;
  • were comprised of designated CIC and CBSA senior management representation; their mandate and accountabilities included formal roles with respect to the management of horizontal issues related to governance, risk management and control;
  • requested and received sufficient and complete information for decision making, to fulfill their mandate;
• CIC and CBSA obligations were regularly monitored to re-evaluate the objectives, policies and control environments of both organizations; and
• Strategic directions were established, were adequately supported by formal plans, and were periodically revisited by the oversight bodies.

The audit found that the governance framework and processes outlined in the umbrella MOU partially met the audit expectations and there are opportunities for improvement for both organizations.

The intent of the MOU was to facilitate co-operation between the two organizations. The two oversight committees, the JCC and the JMC, were established. With respect to the principles outlined in the umbrella MOU, the committees have helped to foster a cooperative relationship between CIC and the CBSA to advance the delivery of the immigration program in each of their respective areas. Regions indicated in their survey responses that they had no significant problems with the operationalization of the MOU, and that they have local MOUs and Service Delivery Arrangements to fit their needs. While the two committees made an effort to support the evolving relationship, there were no mandates and accountabilities, which included formal roles with respect to the horizontal management of issues related to governance, risk management and control. Consequently, the audit found that over the years the committees were not functioning as well as intended.

According to the JCC records of decisions, it was decided that the JCC would take on strategic issues. The JCC members expressed their interest to further discuss each organization's priorities, taking into account the realities of each organization. However, the audit found that the committees had not established work plans aligned to their respective strategic directions in order to deliver the immigration program. Both JCC and JMC members commented that discussions in meetings were transactional rather than strategic.

In accordance with section 8.3, Review of the umbrella MOU, the JMC conducted a national review of the MOU during 2007. This review can be considered evidence of monitoring of the agreement. The results of the review have identified common themes that needed improvement such as communications, resources and information sharing. Other than periodic reviews, the JMC's monitoring role was unclear. The JMC did not meet in 2009 and there was no action plan or work plan to confirm that the committee had continued monitoring or had re-evaluated the objectives, policies or control environments based on the results of the MOU review.

Through the audit interviews and surveys, the auditors determined that informal mechanisms were in place to provide information to the oversight committees. However, no systematic mechanism was in place to ensure that the committees received sufficient and complete information to fulfill their mandates concerning consultations and issues resolution. Furthermore, lines of communication were diffused throughout the two organizations. These observations also affect the umbrella MOU dispute resolution and consultation processes as further described in section 3.3, Umbrella MOU Committee Processes.

A framework including clear responsibilities and accountabilities of the oversight bodies is important in achieving results. Establishing work plans aligned with respective strategic objectives would provide direction and help orient the committees' longer-term focus on priorities.

Recommendation 1

The co-chairs of the committees should:

• Articulate the accountabilities and responsibilities of the oversight committees, related to governance, risk management and control, to better address the  horizontal management of issues affecting both organizations;
• Establish a communication protocol through the secretariats to ensure that the oversight committees receive relevant and timely information to fulfill their mandate;
• Develop work plans for the oversight committees in line with the strategic directions of both organizations; and
• Develop a plan to regularly monitor the functioning of the MOU.

Management Response and Action Plan

CIC and the CBSA concur with this recommendation. Since the audit was conducted, both CIC and the CBSA have taken steps towards addressing some of the issues raised in the audit report. JCC meetings chaired by the CIC Deputy Minister and the CBSA President were held in February and June 2010. In addition, three Assistant Deputy Minister–Vice-President (ADM-VP) level JCC meetings and two JMC meetings were held in 2010. As a result of these meetings, CIC and the CBSA are taking steps to update the umbrella MOU to specify the mandate of the JCC. Deputies prescribed a JCC work plan. This work plan will be updated and reviewed on a regular basis. JMC is reviewing its terms of reference that include the JMC mandate, dispute resolution procedures, and items of business related to operational management concerns. Our specific response to recommendation 1 is outlined in the attached Action Plan.

3.2 Risk Management

In assessing risk management, auditors expected to find that an appropriately harmonized approach by the oversight committees would be in place to manage issues and risks related to the respective delivery of the immigration program.

The audit found that the risk management approach in place partially met audit expectations and needed improvement.

Risk management is briefly mentioned in section 5, Principles of the umbrella MOU (see Appendix B). It states that among other things, the effective and cost efficient use of risk management strategies are considered to continuously improve the service provided to clients.

A review of the JCC's and the JMC's records of decisions and other related documentation indicated that the members understood the risks facing the two organizations in the delivery of the immigration program. Interviews also indicated that the national review of the MOU in 2007 identified risks, and leads were tasked to develop, implement and report on action items. However, as previously mentioned, the JMC did not continue monitoring the risks or issues identified during the review.

The umbrella MOU does not provide guidance on what is expected of the oversight committees with respect to risk management. Accountabilities of the co-chairs and committee membership were not expressly written in the umbrella MOU.

During the course of the audit, both organizations expressed that an integrated approach to risk management would be an asset, and that a prioritization exercise would help the committees to identify risks on which they could focus their leadership, so that risks are appropriately mitigated.

Recommendation 2

The co-chairs of the committees should develop an integrated approach to manage the risks related to the immigration program.

Management Response and Action Plan

CIC and the CBSA concur with this recommendation. Preliminary discussions have taken place regarding the establishment of a working group to identify relevant risks in each organization and develop risk mitigation strategies. Mitigation plans will include the need for CIC and the CBSA to jointly review and monitor the identified risks on a regular basis. The attached Action Plan outlines steps we will take towards developing an integrated approach to manage the risks related to the immigration program.

3.3 Umbrella MOU Committee Processes

In assessing the umbrella MOU committee processes relating to consultation and dispute resolution, auditors expected to find that:

• the consultation process outlined in the umbrella MOU was clearly articulated, understood by stakeholders and worked as intended; and
• an adequate dispute resolution process was in place to address regional needs and to ensure that issues of national significance were elevated to the appropriate oversight body for resolution.  

The audit found that these umbrella MOU committee processes partially met audit expectations and needed improvement.

Audit interviews and surveys indicated that the consultation process has become a regular part of the day-to-day operations within both organizations and members of the committees and the regions did not note any deficiencies. However, committee members stated that discussions on policy matters were taking place outside the formalities of a “consultation process” and this was part of the day-to-day operations. The audit noted that there is a risk that this could result in changes to the program not being fully discussed or funneled upwards in a systematic manner.

A communication mechanism, managed by the JCC secretariats, would help ensure that the JCC is apprised of legislative or policy changes, and that complete and recorded consultations take place. This would also ensure there is a common understanding of the changes and their impact.

With regard to the dispute resolution process, members of the JMC stated they had not received any disputes of national implication to be resolved. The dispute resolution process was noted to be functional as regions indicated in their survey responses that they were able to resolve most, if not all matters of significance, by themselves.

However, several interviewees commented that ongoing “issues” had not been resolved. Examples are: the amendments to the Information Sharing and Information Management Annex and ongoing discussions related to Health Management for detainees for which there is no annex in the MOU. The audit found that these issues were never elevated to a higher level in accordance with the dispute resolution process of the umbrella MOU. The lack of a clear definition as to when an issue should be elevated for resolution may have caused these delays.

The audit recommendation under section 3.1 – Governance and Accountability should clarify the committees' accountabilities and responsibilities and improve communication related to consultation and dispute resolution.

3.4 Results and Performance

As indicated under section 17, Functional Guidance of the umbrella MOU, CIC and the CBSA should strive to work together to deliver the immigration program in a consistent manner nation-wide. Furthermore, performance measurement is a government-wide expectation and a core management control.

The audit expected to find that appropriate performance measures existed within each organization, were linked to planned results and were in place to provide and report on performance information, to support and assess the respective delivery of the immigration program.

The audit found that performance measures within each organization did not meet audit expectations and needed improvement.

Records of decision from both oversight committees indicated that discussions occurred related to the topic of performance measurement. For example, the JCC initiated a discussion on performance measurement in March and July 2007. A draft Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) was also presented to the JCC. As well, at a JMC meeting in June 2008, there was a proposal to develop an inventory of interrelated CIC-CBSA services and to identify where performance standards currently exist, and where additional performance standards may be required.

Interviews and supporting records of decisions validated the importance of having a PMF and established service-level standards in place. Although progress had been made, the PMF, mentioned above, remains to be completed due to competing priorities.  

Performance indicators and monitoring activities would allow CIC and the CBSA to measure how each organization administers and delivers the immigration program and would improve information for decision making.

Recommendation 3

The co-chairs of the committees should ensure that appropriate performance indicators exist to be able to monitor and report on their respective delivery of the immigration program.

Management Response and Action Plan

CIC and the CBSA concur with this recommendation. Existing documentation such as the Program Activity Architecture and Performance Measurement Framework will be used by each organization to identify relevant key performance indicators. Preliminary discussions have taken place regarding the need to establish a working group to address this recommendation and to ensure regular monitoring of the delivery of the program. The attached Action Plan outlines steps we will take towards developing a performance measurement framework to monitor and report on the delivery of the immigration program.

Appendix A – Detailed Audit Criteria

Governance and  Accountability	Oversight bodies for the respective delivery of the immigration program are established and function as intended. Oversight bodies are comprised of designated CIC and CBSA senior management representation; their mandate and accountabilities include formal roles with respect to the management of horizontal issues related to governance, risk management and control. Oversight bodies request and receive sufficient and complete information for decision making, to fulfill their mandate. CIC and CBSA obligations are regularly monitored to re-evaluate the objectives, policies and control environments of both organizations.  Strategic directions are established, are adequately supported by formal plans, and are periodically revisited by the oversight bodies.
Risk Management	An appropriately harmonized approach is in place to manage issues and risks related to the respective delivery of the immigration program.
Umbrella MOU Committee Processes	The consultation process outlined in the umbrella MOU is clearly articulated, understood by stakeholders and works as intended. An adequate dispute resolution process is in place to address regional needs and to ensure that issues of national significance are elevated to the appropriate oversight body for resolution.
Results and Performance	Within each organization, appropriate performance measures linked to planned results are in place to provide and report on performance information, to support and assess the respective delivery of the immigration program.

Appendix B – CIC-CBSA MOU Guiding Principles

As per section 5 of the MOU, the guiding principles of the CIC-CBSA MOU are:

• Uncompromising focus on working together to ensure that the objectives of the IRPA are met, and that Canada's immigration program is administered to further the objectives of the Government of Canada;
• Continuous improvement in client service through the effective and cost efficient use of human resources, technology, facilities, compliance, and risk management strategies;
• Ongoing opportunities for interaction between staff administering the IRPA in both organizations at all levels to facilitate and maintain a cooperative relationship.

Appendix C – Responsibility for Policy and Service Delivery

CIC Policy and Service Delivery	CBSA Policy and Service Delivery
All admissibility policies (except security, war crimes and organized crime) Business Immigration (including site visits for the purposes of confirming that conditions imposed have been met) Citizenship Extradition Humanitarian & Compassionate requests (with and without risk) Medical services – including Health policy for the immigration program Monitor Entrepreneur Conditions Non-status documents Permanent resident cards for existing Permanent Residents Permanent Resident Determination outside Canada Permanent resident processing (including in Canada and overseas) Refugee sponsorship Restoration of status Settlement Sponsorship (Family Class) Sponsorship Default Visa policy	Admissibility Hearings Appeals (of a Removal order by a Permanent Resident, a Protected person or a holder of a Permanent Resident visa) Arrest Designate Regime Detention Detention Review/Release Examination at Port of Entry (POE) Intelligence Investigations – Out of office (These investigations will be done by CBSA personnel only, with the appropriate tools and training.) Monitor Immigration Appeal Division stays of removal Prosecution pursuant to sections 117 to 129 of the IRPA Refugee Claim Minister's intervention Refugee Vacation Relief Removal order confirmation at POE Removal order deferral Removals Second level anti-fraud Security, war crimes and organized crime Transportation companies Warrants
CIC Policy and CBSA Service Delivery	CBSA Policy and CIC Service Delivery
Appeals (of a refusal of a family class application or of a negative residency determination) Removal order confirmation at mission	Refugee cessation
CIC Policy and Shared CIC-CBSA Service Delivery	CBSA Policy and Shared CIC-CBSA Service Delivery
Admissibility screening except security, war crimes and organized crime (Visa posts, Inland, POE and Enforcement) Authorize Return to Canada (Visa posts, POE, Inland) Criminality screening (Visa posts, Inland, POE and Enforcement) Danger opinion Deemed Rehabilitation (Visa posts, Inland, POE and Enforcement) Determination of Permanent Resident Status in Canada (Inland and POE) Equivalency of Foreign Criminality (Visa posts, Inland, POE and Enforcement) First level anti-fraud (Visa posts, Inland, POE, and Enforcement) Grant Permanent Resident Status (Inland and POE) Permanent Resident Card for new Permanent Resident (CIC with small role at POE) Pre-removal risk assessment Re-determination of refugee eligibility Refugee claim processing (Inland, POE and Hearings office) Rehabilitation (Inland and POE) Temporary resident permits (Visa posts, Inland and POE) Temporary resident processing, status and documents (Visa posts, Inland and POE) Witness Protection	A44 reports (CIC writes reports except for A34, A35 and A37.) Admissibility screening for war crimes and organized crime (Visa posts, Inland, POE and Enforcement) Desk investigations (first level verification of information provided, done through requesting documents, phone calls and interviews) Impose Conditions (including security deposits and Guarantees) Interdiction (Migration integrity officers and Visa posts) Ministerial Review under A44(2). CIC has delegated authority to review reports written by CIC officers. Police assistance Removal order issuance (CIC may issue removal orders for those reports it may review under A44(2).) Security certificates (shared service delivery at Deputy Minister and Minister level only) Security Screening Inland Security Screening Outside Canada Seized documents

Source: Appendix 1 of the CIC-CBSA MOU

Appendix D – Management Action Plan as of June 2010

Recommendation	Action Plan	Responsibility	Target Date
1. The co-chairs of the committees should: Articulate the accountabilities and responsibilities of the oversight committees, related to governance, risk management and control, to better address the horizontal management of issues affecting both organizations;	Develop over-arching MOU and terms of reference text to describe enhanced JCC mandate, which will include responsibilities related to governance, risk management and control.	JCC	Fall 2010
	JMC to review its terms of reference to describe its mandate and responsibilities relating to governance, risk management and control.	JMC	Fall 2010
Establish a communication protocol through the secretariats to ensure that the oversight committees receive relevant and timely information to fulfill their mandate;	Establish record of decision (RoD) protocol for JCC.	JCC	June 2010
	JMC to report regularly at ADM JCC.	JMC	June 2010
	JCC Secretariat to participate in both ADM and DM JCC  to produce RoD for distribution to CIC and CBSA Senior Management.	JCC Secretariat	June 2010
Develop work plans for the oversight committees in line with the strategic directions of both organizations; and	Develop work plans for JCC and JMC and review on a quarterly basis.	JCC and JMC	Fall 2010
Develop a plan to regularly monitor the functioning of the MOU	JCC to review revised terms of reference for JMC, including monitoring protocols and dispute resolution mechanism for MOU.	JCC	Fall 2010

 

Recommendation	Action Plan	Responsibility	Target Date
2. The co-chairs of the committees should develop an integrated approach to manage the risks related to the immigration program.	Review relevant risk management documents, including CIC Corporate Risk Profile, Integrated Risk Management Framework, CBSA Enterprise Risk Profile, and Program Risk Profile.	JCC ADMs and VPs and functional authorities for risk management within the CBSA and CIC.	Fall 2010
	Identify risks for CIC and the CBSA.		Winter 2010
	Develop integrated risk mitigation and management strategies to mitigate key risks and plan for monitoring.		Spring 2011

 

Recommendation	Action Plan	Responsibility	Target Date
3. The co-chairs of the committees should ensure that appropriate performance indicators exist to be able to monitor and report on their respective delivery of the immigration program.	Review relevant performance measurement documents, including CIC and CBSA Program Activity Architectures and Performance Measurement Frameworks.	JCC ADMs and VPs and functional authorities for specific programs where the CBSA and CIC are respectively involved in the delivery of the program.	Fall 2010
	Identify key performance measures and indicators to monitor and report on the delivery of the program.		Winter 2010
	Develop a performance report, and implement regular monitoring of the delivery of the immigration program.		Spring 2011

Appendix E – Audit Timeline

Audit planning	June 2009 to November 2009
On-site examination	December 2009 to February 2010
Clearance draft to Management for comments	April 16, 2010
Management action plan finalized	May 17, 2010
Report recommended by the Audit Committees for Deputy Minister and President Approval	June 18, 2010
Report approved by the Deputy Minister of CIC and the President of the CBSA	CIC – July 16, 2010 CBSA – July 21, 2010

Appendix F – List of Acronyms Used

ADM

Assistant Deputy Minister

CBSA

Canada Border Services Agency

CIC

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

DM

Deputy Minister

IAA

Internal Audit and Accountability

IAPED

Internal Audit and Program Evaluation Directorate

IRPA

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

JCC

Joint Consultative Committee

JMC

Joint Management Committee

MOU

Memorandum of Understanding

PMF

Performance Measurement Framework

POE

Port of Entry

VP

Vice-President

---

 

Notes

1. These sections clarify that the CBSA may allow a permanent resident or foreign national to enter or remain in Canada providing there is no detriment to the national interest. [Return to text]
2. Statistics extracted from the CBSA Customs Management Reporting System. [Return to text]