Audit of Governance - Ontario Region

Audit Report
Internal Audit and Accountability Branch
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
June 2009

Table of Contents

• 1.0 Introduction
  • 1.1 Background
    • 1.1.1 About the Department
    • 1.1.2 Ontario Region – organization
    • 1.1.3 Environmental context
  • 1.2 Audit objectives
  • 1.3 Audit criteria
  • 1.4 Audit scope
  • 1.5 Audit methodology
• 2.0 Audit conclusion
• 3.0 Observations and recommendations
  • 3.1 Governance processes
    • 3.1.1 Governance and strategic direction
    • 3.1.2 Accountability
    • 3.1.3 Values and ethics
    • 3.1.4 Results and performance
  • 3.2 Risk management
• Appendix A – Ontario Region Organization Chart
• Appendix B – Summary of Ontario Region Productivity versus the CIC Network
• Appendix C – Detailed Audit Criteria
• Appendix D – Ontario Region Committee Structure
• Appendix E – Committee Membership
• Appendix F – Management Action Plan
• Appendix G – Audit Timeline

List of acronyms

1.0 Introduction

Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s (CIC’s) Risk–Based Audit Plan includes the conduct of audits of governance. These audits focus on governance and risk management frameworks in place. The Department’s Internal Audit and Accountability Branch selected the Ontario Region for audit as a result of an analysis of operations from an audit perspective of risk factors. The on–site fieldwork for the audit was conducted on September 15 and 16, 2008.

1.1 Background

In 2003, the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) introduced the Management Accountability Framework to provide a basis for bilateral discussions between deputy heads and the Secretary of the Treasury Board to identify and agree on management issues requiring priority attention. This framework sets out expectations for management on how to manage towards the achievement of intended results.

1.1.1 About the Department

In simple terms, the Department is responsible for the selection and processing of applications to come to Canada on a temporary or permanent basis and for helping newcomers to Canada adapt to Canadian society and become citizens. Key statutes empowering the Department are the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act (1994), the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA, 2001) and the Citizenship Act (1997).

Through the Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, of the Department, the Operations Sector is responsible for the delivery of CIC programs. The Ontario Region is the largest of the five domestic regions in the Operations Sector that have this responsibility. Domestically, this translates into five operational business lines: the Immigration Program, the Temporary Resident Program, the Refugee Program, the Integration Program and the Citizenship Program. All of these programs are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

1.1.1.1 Immigration Program

Permanent residents (PRs)

IRPA lists four specific classes (live–in caregiver, permit holders, protected persons and spouses/common–law partners) under which a person may apply for permanent residence from within Canada.

Any foreign national in Canada who does not meet the criteria to be eligible for any of the four PR classes or who is inadmissible may request an exemption from any legislative or regulatory requirement on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

Applications for permanent residence in Canada are submitted through the Case Processing Centre in Vegreville (CPC–V). When CPC–V cannot process or conclude on a case, it is referred to a CIC local office in one of the five domestic regions for processing, based on specific referral criteria. In most cases, all fees are paid by the applicants when they send their applications to the CPC, but local offices accept payment in the form of cash, credit card or money order.

Business immigration – entrepreneur program

There are three separate programs within business immigration: self–employed, investor and entrepreneur. The entrepreneur program is the only program of the three with implications for domestic regions. The selection of entrepreneurs is done overseas, while the monitoring of conditions imposed on entrepreneurs is done by inland offices in domestic regions. Entrepreneurs are granted permanent residence but must meet the conditions imposed on them for a period of at least one year. Once the conditions have been met, the entrepreneur is required to apply to have the conditions cancelled.

Currently there are both pre–IRPA and post–IRPA cases being monitored in Canada. Pre–IRPA cases have two years to meet the terms and conditions, whereas post–IRPA cases have three years to do so.

Permanent resident cards

Since IRPA came into effect on June 28, 2002, new permanent residents of Canada have been provided with a PR card within weeks of becoming permanent residents. New immigrants selected under IRPA are automatically processed for a PR card as part of their application for permanent residence. Permanent residents who were landed before the new Act came into effect (pre–IRPA) are required to apply for a PR card.

Applications for PR cards are sent to CPC Sydney, Nova Scotia (CPC–S), where they are processed. A separate Card Production Facility produces the actual card. Once the application has been processed and the card is produced, it is sent directly to the permanent resident in the case of “post–IRPA” applicants, while PR cards of “pre–IRPA” applicants and PR card renewals are sent to the local CIC office for distribution to the client. The local CIC offices in the regions are responsible for distributing PR cards to clients as well as photo retakes and signature corrections for cards with errors. CPC Sydney also refers cases to the local office for residence obligation decisions whenever the applicant’s eligibility for permanent residence is questionable and follow–up with the applicant is required.

1.1.1.2 Temporary Resident Program

Temporary residents

Temporary residents include workers, students, visitors and temporary resident permit holders. Individuals may apply to extend or change their status as a temporary resident in Canada beyond the initial period of stay that was granted.

Applications for temporary resident extensions are processed by CPC–V, and only those cases requiring further clarification are referred to local offices in the regions.

1.1.1.3 Refugee Program

Inland refugee processing

A claim for refugee protection can be made at any port of entry or any CIC office in Canada. The role of the CIC officer is to determine whether or not a person is eligible to have a claim assessed by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Since the final determination for the applicant is made by the IRB and not CIC, this type of processing has also been called refugee “intake,” a type of prescreening of claimants for the IRB.

CIC officers refer eligible claimants to the IRB for final determination, while referring ineligible persons to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) for removal from Canada. A person who has been determined by the IRB to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection returns to CIC for processing towards permanent residence in the same fashion as all other applicants for permanent residence.

Pre–removal risk assessment (PRRA)

The PRRA process is triggered by a removal order issued by the CBSA. A CBSA officer sends a notification regarding PRRA to the individual facing a removal order, with the accompanying application and the address of the CIC office where the individual should send the application. There are no fees associated with a PRRA application.

PRRA is used to evaluate the risk that faces an individual upon returning to his or her country. Any person awaiting removal from Canada who alleges risk of persecution, torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to his or her country of nationality or former residence will not be removed prior to a risk assessment.

PRRA decision–makers are responsible for assessing the risk an applicant would face upon return to his or her country of origin. If the PRRA officer determines that there are no risks for the individual to return to his or her country, the person will be removed. In the case of a positive determination, PRRA offers the same protection as the IRB process.

1.1.1.4 Settlement and Resettlement Programs

There are three main settlement programs: Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC), the Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Program (ISAP) and the Host Program. These programs are delivered through contribution agreements with service providers. Contribution agreements with service provider organizations (SPOs) are generally managed by the local CIC offices.

The Resettlement Program offers related services exclusively to refugees and is delivered through the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP). This program is delivered to facilitate the resettlement of refugees in Canada, also through contribution agreements with SPOs.

Because of agreements between the federal government and certain provinces, there is variation in the extent to which each domestic region delivers these programs. While there is a Canada–Ontario Immigration Agreement (COIA) in place between the Government of Ontario and the federal government, the Ontario Region of CIC remains responsible for the full delivery of all of these programs.

1.1.1.5 Citizenship Program

Applications for granting and proof of citizenship are two major lines of business of the Citizenship Program. Other application types include applications to register and retain citizenship and applications to renounce or resume citizenship.

Applications for Canadian citizenship are sent to CPC–S, which ensures that all required documentation and fees are submitted with the application. Once the application is processed, it is forwarded onto the local CIC office in the region closest to where the applicant lives. The local office reviews the application to determine whether the applicant meets residence, criminality and security requirements. In addition, the office administers language and knowledge tests and, when necessary, arranges interviews with the citizenship judge. The final stage in granting citizenship takes place at a citizenship ceremony, where the applicant takes the oath of Canadian citizenship and receives the certificate of citizenship.

1.1.2 Ontario Region – organization

The Ontario Region is the largest domestic region in terms of staff and operational production. It comprises a regional headquarters and a network of local offices that offer a variety of services across the province. Appendix A shows the Region’s organization chart, while Table 1 below provides an overview of the Region by management area.

• [1] Numbers as of March 31, 2008 from 2008–09 HR plan.
• [2] As per 2008–09 Ontario Region work plan.

Regional headquarters comprises the following directorates, which support regional operations:

• Office of the Regional Director General
• Strategic Planning and Executive Services (SPEXS), which is responsible for a wide range of activities but leads the planning and accountability cycle for the Region
• Communications, which supports the communications needs of the Region
• Programs, which provides program support and advice to the field for all programs except settlement
• Finance, Administration and Informatics Services (FAIS), which supports regional operations through the provision of integrated corporate services in the areas of finance, administration and IT services
• Human Resources, which provides human resource services to the Region
• Settlement Programs, which provides program support to officers delivering settlement services by interpreting and setting policies on behalf of the Region
• Settlement and Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA), which is responsible for working with important stakeholders on integration matters and supports the settlement programs by measuring and monitoring performance

A network of local offices provide citizenship and immigration services to the public as described in section 1.1.1 above. These offices are grouped as follows:

• GTA West – Serving the west side of the greater Toronto area, it consists of the three offices located in Etobicoke, Mississauga and Peel–Halton.
• GTA East – Serving the east side of the greater Toronto area, it consists of the two offices located in Scarborough and Oshawa and the office located on St. Clair Avenue.
• GOA – This is the largest group of offices and serves all regions outside the Toronto area. In total there are 11 local offices that form part of GOA.
• PRRA – This office has primary responsibility for processing the PRRA cases for the Region. There is also a satellite office in the Niagara Falls area.
• Settlement – With the decentralization of settlement services in the Ontario Region, settlement services are delivered in combination with staff at local offices as well as centralized settlement officers located in settlement offices in the GTA.

1.1.3 Environmental context

This section of the report highlights some of the operating environment issues that face the Region. These are presented here for information purposes only and are not in any particular order.

The Ontario Region is the largest of the domestic regions in the Operations Sector of the Department in terms of staff complement and case load. Management highlighted the following operating environmental points in its 2008–09 regional work plan:

• Population diversity in Ontario – Ontario accounts for nearly 40% of the national population. According to 2006 Census data, Ontario received over half of Canada’s 1.1 million newcomers within the past five years. Newcomers arrived from more than 160 different countries, representing 60 different cultures and more than 90 languages. Foreign–born individuals make up 23.8% of Ontario’s population and 45.7% of Toronto’s. The majority of immigrants choose to settle in urban areas and help shape the landscape of our communities. In fact, Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Kitchener and London are five of the ten Canadian cities with the highest immigrant populations.
• Competition for skilled workers – With declining population growth and Canada’s ageing working population, Ontario’s reliance on immigration for population and economic development becomes increasingly significant. This will pose a challenge for Canada, particularly Ontario, given market globalization, advances in technology and increasing worldwide competition to attract skilled immigrants.
• Canada–Ontario Immigration Agreement – In 2005, the federal government signed the Canada–Ontario Immigration Agreement (COIA). This agreement establishes a framework for a long–term partnership on immigration and defines Canada’s and Ontario’s respective roles and responsibilities. The COIA will foster a fundamental change in intergovernmental relations and represents an opportunity for CIC to work with new partners, such as the City of Toronto, to strengthen collaboration and improve the delivery of the immigration program.
• Staffing – CIC’s ability to deliver its mandate through its programs is dependent on the knowledge, skills and dedication of its employees. Currently, CIC Ontario Region employs over 720 employees across all management areas. According to the CIC Integrated Corporate Plan: 2008–2011, one in every six CIC employees (16%) will be eligible to retire within the next two years, with the proportion growing to one in every four within the next five years. Consequently, the Region has developed an HR plan to address staffing issues.

The table in Appendix B provides an overview of the Region’s productivity in comparison to the rest of the Department. In terms of its achievements over the past fiscal year, the Ontario Region has:

• granted permanent resident status to 19,505 persons
• rendered 13,720 decisions on Applications for Permanent Residence (APRs) from all categories
• issued 27,798 permanent resident cards and conducted 125 PR card investigations
• processed 10,228 refugee claims
• granted 99,311 clients Canadian citizenship. Tests were administered to 79,160 persons, and 11,146 hearings were conducted by the citizenship judges.
• held 1,402 citizenship ceremonies, 278 in local community venues
• managed over 470 contribution agreements. Currently there are over 300 service provider organizations.
• increased its share of the contribution budget from $108 million in 2004–05 to the current $397 million
• received approximately 70% of PRRA applications nationally
• made decisions on 2,263 H&C With Risk cases and rendered 3,993 PRRA decisions
• served the following number of clients through Settlement Programs in 2007–08:
  • Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC): 32,932 clients were assessed and 40,567 new clients enrolled in a LINC class.
  • The Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Program (ISAP) served over 210,000 clients.
  • The Host Program served over 4,000 clients.

1.2 Audit objectives

The objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy of the governance framework in the Region.

1.3 Audit criteria

The criteria that were used in the audit are based on the Management Accountability Framework produced by the Treasury Board of Canada, as well as relevant Treasury Board and CIC legislation, policies and directives. The detailed criteria for the audit are presented in Appendix C.

1.4 Audit scope

The audit scope consists of activity in the Ontario Region under two lines of enquiry. The audit scope covered all significant aspects of Ontario Region operations and examined governance and risk management activities in the Region.

1.5 Audit methodology

The audit covered two lines of enquiry: governance processes and risk management practices.

As part of our examination of the governance framework and risk management, we interviewed staff, reviewed and analysed key governance and risk documentation and documented processes.

The audit was conducted to be in compliance with the Government of Canada’s Policy on Internal Audit as well as with auditing standards set out by the Institute of Internal Auditors.

2.0 Audit conclusion

We found that the Region had an appropriate governance framework in place to manage the operations in the Region. Specifically, we found that:

• Governance processes generally met our expectations. However, we identified some areas where practices should be strengthened.
• Risk management practices met our expectations.

Our detailed observations and recommendations are discussed in the following sections of the report.

3.0 Observations and recommendations

3.1 Governance processes

The audit examined four areas of governance: governance and strategic direction, accountability, values and ethics, and results and performance. We expected to find that a clearly articulated plan was in place, accountabilities were appropriate, values and ethics were promoted and information on results was gathered, used to make decisions and reported.

Overall, we found that the governance processes in place in the Region met our expectations.

3.1.1 Governance and strategic direction

In reviewing governance and strategic direction, we expected that operational plans were in place to achieve objectives and that communication protocols were in place for key internal and external stakeholders.

The audit found that operational plans were in place that supported the achievement of objectives. Planning within the Region proceeds from the top down and begins with the establishment of high–level priorities. We found that the Region works as a management team to ensure that linkages can be found between high–level priorities and operational work objectives established in the Region. Directorates then use these high–level priorities to develop their work plans, which are then rolled up into the regional work plan by SPEXS. Our audit found that the Region used templates to ensure that linkages exist between regional activities and high–level departmental strategies and that these activities were developed with assigned accountabilities. However, we noted some inconsistencies in practices, which are discussed in the sections on accountabilities (section 3.1.2) and results and performance (section 3.1.4).

We found that appropriate communication protocols existed for internal and external stakeholders. Internally, communication is disseminated through management committees and down through the directorates via meetings, although other means of communication such as e–mail are also used. Communication protocols are documented formally for key external partners. These agreements primarily set the guidelines for what information is to be shared. At the working level, communication revolves around staff involvement in working groups. Staff interviewed indicated that they were satisfied with the communication processes in place in the Region and that information required was being shared with the right individuals in a timely manner.

3.1.2 Accountability

In reviewing accountability, we expected that a clear organizational structure was established and documented and that processes existed to ensure that accountabilities were clearly delegated, understood and discharged.

We found that there was a clear organizational structure in place in the Region to manage operations (see Appendix A). Furthermore, the Region had supplemented this structure with the establishment of a corporate committee structure (see Appendix D). We found that the membership (see Appendix E) and the mandate for each committee were defined in established terms of reference. In reviewing committee meetings, we found that each committee was fulfilling its mandate through its meetings. However, when discussing accountabilities with staff, we found that there was some confusion regarding the interrelation of some committees.

As discussed above in section 3.1.1, Governance and strategic direction, we found that there is a sound planning process in place that sees the development of operational plans that are linked and support high–level strategies. However we noted some inconsistencies in practice with respect to the assignment of accountabilities within the Region. While in most cases, accountabilities had been assigned for the accomplishment of activities, the degree of delegation varied. For instance, some activities were delegated to a position, some to a directorate. In other cases, shared responsibility was assigned to two or more individuals or directorates.

While the accountability has been delegated, there is a risk that the achievement of a task may not be accomplished because of role confusion. Assigning a position to act as lead would be a better way to ensure that a task is accomplished and would allow for clearer direction to be set for the completion of a task.

3.1.3 Values and ethics

As part of our audit in this area, we expected to find that management promoted values and ethics.

The audit found that management supported the promotion of values and ethics in the Region. We found that the Region employed a variety of mechanisms to promote values and ethics, including recognition programs, managerial example, management of the human resource function and the use of communication technologies. However, the primary mechanisms used to promote values and ethics directly support operational delivery and included courses incorporating values and ethics materials, workshops and staff and managerial meetings.

At the time of our audit, we noted that the Regional Values and Ethics Steering Committee had not met in quite some time. Discussions with staff revealed that this was the result of staff turnover. Specifically, the previous committee chair had left, and as chairmanship was linked to an individual rather than specifically to a position, there was a lag in the communication of this responsibility. Consequently, no meetings had occurred. Discussions with the new chair revealed that the omission had recently been discovered and that the Region intended to reinstitute regular meetings in due time. Doing so would further strengthen the Region’s commitment to values and ethics.

3.1.4 Results and performance

The audit expected that planned results and outcomes were linked to organizational objectives, that management had identified appropriate measures linked to planned results and that management monitored performance against planned results and made adjustments as necessary.

The audit found that performance measures are established when operational plans are developed. Moreover, we found that the Region measures performance and reviews this information on an ongoing basis. Operational performance is captured mainly at the office level and communicated to regional headquarters through the Programs Directorate, which then shares this information within the management team on a periodic basis. Financial position and human resources management information is captured and shared within the management team on a periodic basis as well. This information is reviewed by the management team during various management committees, and adjustments are made accordingly. Consequently, we found that the Region had an appropriate process in place to monitor performance.

However, in reviewing operational plans (as mentioned in section 3.1.1., Governance and strategic direction), we noted two issues that would have an impact on the Region’s ability to monitor performance. The first was the large number of activities the Region identified in its work plan. Some of these activities were lower–level details that do not necessarily require senior management attention. Our review found that many detailed activities could be combined to better represent the activities delivered by the Region and reduce the number of activities to be monitored.

The second was the variance in the quality of performance measures established as part of the planning process, which may result in improperly specified performance measures. In some instances, measures of performance for an action are identified as outputs, are a statement of status or are identified as an end state, with no indication as to how the achievement of this end state will be measured. For example, some activities identify participation in working groups with the frequency of meetings as a measure of performance, while the measure of success for another activity might be improved understanding, without a defined way to determine whether this has been achieved. However, improved understanding may serve as the goal in both situations, with possible ways to measure success such as decreased error rate or decreased number of inquiries being the measure defined to determine whether the goal has been achieved.

Related to this is the distinction between measures of performance for ongoing activities and for project–driven activities with an end date. Ongoing activities require measures that indicate success and are largely aimed at defining satisfactory performance. Examples of these may include numerical targets and quotas. While this is also true for project–driven activities, clear, phased deliverables should also be defined, with anticipated completion dates that reflect the sequential nature of project lifecycles. This would affect many of the activities that involve the creation, development and implementation of something. By streamlining its measures of performance, the Region will be better able to determine whether the desired outcomes have indeed been achieved. Moreover, this will then strengthen and support managerial decision making.

Discussions with staff found that the understanding of performance measures varied. Also, while planning is a top–down process and does ensure linkages to high–level plans and priorities, scrutiny of individual plans is not as rigorous as we would have expected. Generally, the development of the overall plan is done through the development of individual plans, which are then compiled. We would have expected more review of individual plans prior to roll–up to ensure better streamlining and more accurate definition of accountabilities and measures of performance.

Recommendation 1

The region should streamline its planning process to more succinctly define its work activities, with related accountabilities and performance measures that more accurately assign responsibility and measure performance.

Management response

The Ontario Region recognizes the importance and value of integrated planning and has invested significant effort in the 2009–10 regional planning process, of which work plans are a part. SPEXS has reviewed the Ontario Region’s planning process and has worked closely with all business lines and management areas to prepare documents that are consistent in format and reporting, including the level of detail in which activities and accountabilities are reported. Currently our efforts are directed at finding a balance where sufficient but not excessive detail is presented.

The Ontario Region has identified the need to strengthen our performance and outcome measurements. As part of this process, we will approach our national colleagues at Corporate Planning and Reporting to provide a refresher or primer workshop on articulating outcomes and explore available learning opportunities. We will continue to actively participate in the national planning network and support the development of a tool and further improvement to next year’s process.

The Ontario Region has begun to invest significant effort to the 2009–10 regional planning process of which work plans are a part. A review of 2008–09 management area work plans was conducted and feedback was provided to the senior management team. In addition, the Director, SPEXS, provided one–on–one feedback to interested directors. These work plans will be reviewed during our mid–year review exercise. As well, the Regional Management Committee of Ontario (RMCO) will review our progress and accountabilities in the next fiscal year.

3.2 Risk management

As part of the audit of regional governance in the Ontario Region, we examined the adequacy of risk management processes and practices in place to support the achievement of the Region’s objectives. We specifically expected to see that processes were in place to identify, assess, mitigate and monitor risks, that management appropriately communicated risk and risk management strategies to key stakeholders and that planning and resource allocation considered risk information.

We found that risk management practices met our expectations. Generally, the Region begins its annual planning process by performing an environment scan that will include the identification of risks affecting the Region. While these risks are not formally monitored throughout the year, the environment scan is shared within the Region and is considered when the Region’s annual work plan is developed. The environment scan is developed and prepared by the Director, SPEXS.

On an ongoing basis, the various directorates and local offices will monitor operational risks through the conduct of their operations during the year. Monitoring at this level will be less formal and is not formally documented. Risk is discussed regularly in team and operational meetings. We were advised that mitigation strategies are developed accordingly and that formal documentation would occur only if a new business is required, in which case it would be documented in a business case that is submitted to the Budget Review Committee of Ontario (BRCO) for scrutiny and then referred to the Regional Management Committee of Ontario (RMCO) for approval. However, there is no central repository for risks that would allow for more systematic analysis and monitoring or for the transmission of corporate risk knowledge in the event of staff turnover.

The Integrated Risk Management Framework produced by the TBS and the Integrated Risk Management – Reference Guide produced by CIC set the expectation that managers:

• identify risks and opportunities in the environment
• assess the risks to estimate the probability of occurrence and the likely impact
• prioritize risks in terms of importance to allow the organization to establish risk tolerance levels and identify when management action is required
• mitigate risks in areas that exceed risk tolerance levels by developing a plan of action
• monitor and review the environment to ensure that risk information is still current

While our audit found that risk management practices in the Region do meet these expectations, the process could be further strengthened by documenting the monitoring and review process in a central repository, as this would allow for more systematic assessments, improved prioritization and development of mitigation strategies. As the Region manages as a team, this would also ensure that a common understanding exists with respect to not only the areas deemed to be of interest, but also related topics such as risk tolerance in the Region. It would also serve as a means to retain corporate risk knowledge in the Region in the event of staff turnover.

Recommendation 2

The Director, SPEXS, should document the results of risk monitoring on behalf of the Region to ensure risk information is more up to date and that a common understanding exists in the Region.

Management response

Risk management and monitoring is currently integrated into our operations and planning processes. The Ontario Region will improve its documentation of risk discussions and exercises. For example, risk reviews in place for Settlement Programs are robust, and business cases are presented to the RMCO (the Audit of Regional Governance refers to the BRCO, but this committee no longer exists). RMCO decisions and action items have clear accountabilities.

The Ontario Region understands the importance of documenting and analysing risk mitigation strategies and outcomes at the directorate and local levels. The Director, SPEXS, will identify an approach to formally maintain and monitor risk mitigation strategies and outcomes for future analysis.

Recommendation 3

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, should work with RDGs to develop a risk registry for all regional offices.

Management response

The Operational Management and Coordination Branch represent the Operations sector at the Risk Management Committee (RMC). The RMC was formed with the goal of reviewing the Integrated Management Framework and developing the annual Corporate Risk Profile.

The Operations sector supports this recommendation and will ensure that a compilation of risks from the regional offices is developed for further analysis and ongoing monitoring. The approach will be developed to build upon the existing planning cycles and to leverage existing information already available to avoid duplication of efforts.

Appendix A – Ontario Region Organization Chart

As of June 18, 2008

Text version: Organizational Chart

Appendix B – Summary of Ontario Region Productivity versus the CIC Network

• [1] Data is as per calendar year [back to text]
• [2] Data is for renewed cards and does not include first–time applicants [back to text]
• [3] Data is as per fiscal year (April 1 to March 31)[back to text]
• [4] Data is up to September 30, 2008 [back to text]
• [5] Data is up to July 31, 2008 [back to text]
• [6] Data as of October 31, 2008 [back to text]
• [7] Percentage of domestic total [back to text]

Appendix C – Detailed Audit Criteria

Governance Processes

Risk Management

Appendix D – Ontario Region Committee Structure

Text version: Committee Structure

Appendix E – Committee Membership

Appendix F – Management Action Plan

Appendix G – Audit Time Line