| Key Finding |
Response |
Action |
Accountability |
ImplementationDate |
| I. Program relevance |
| The PRRA program is well aligned with Government of Canada and CIC objectives and consistent with Canada’s international obligations. |
CIC agrees with this finding. |
|
|
|
| There is a need to provide an assessment of risk prior to removal, as evidenced by the 816 positive PRRA decisions. However, the PRRA program may no longer be providing an efficient response to this need, becoming in effect an additional step in the refugee status determination process. |
CIC agrees with this finding. |
(1) In order to deter abuse by those who are seeking to delay their removal, CIC will develop options to speed up the PRRA process, especially for cases where there is no evidence of changed circumstances. |
Refugees Branch/OMC |
Apr-09 |
| |
|
(2) CIC will continue to communicate to all partners and interested parties that PRRA is not an appeal mechanism of previous refugee determination decisions, but rather, in the case of failed refugees, it can look only at “new evidence” since the rejection of the claim at the IRB. |
|
|
| II. Program design and delivery |
| Common tools have been provided to ensure consistent application of PRRA policies and procedures. However, there was some variation with respect to how offices prioritize or sort their cases, and how H&C with risk cases are handled. |
CIC agrees with this finding. |
(1) CIC will further analyze regional PRRA procedures in order to identify the best practices at PRRA offices and to develop solutions for uniform PRRA and H&C file and case processing. Specialized training (decision writing) of officers is underway and Quality Assurance exercises will be resumed and conducted annually. |
OMC |
Nov-08 |
| Inadequate communication between CIC and CBSA at the NHQ level has led to challenges in managing the PRRA workload effectively. |
CIC agrees with this observation. |
(1) A number of communication initiatives both at NHQ and in the regions have been instituted over the past year including a national PRRA Coordinators’ workshop followed by regular teleconferences. CIC also participates in the National Inland Enforcement Committee meetings of the CBSA, staff of which have participated in PRRA co-ordinators workshops and, periodically, in PRRA teleconferences. CIC will continue regular liaison with CBSA on the related workload of the PRRA and Removals functions. |
OMC |
Done |
| Improved program data accessibility and/or additional pre-defined reports is needed to better monitor the PRRA program. |
CIC agrees with this observation. |
(1) CIC will investigate additional options with FOSS and NCMS for generating PRRA data and reports, and will seek the necessary resources to support this endeavour. |
OMC |
01-Mar-09 |
| There is a need for improved communication and coordination between PRRA offices and NHQ, with NHQ taking a more proactive role in facilitating information sharing and centralizing information resources. |
CIC agrees with this finding. |
(1) CIC will continue to seek improvements in all aspects of communication, including between NHQ and the field and between NHQ, regions and stakeholders. Monthly teleconferences, workshops and electronic information exchanges between NHQ and Regions have proven to be an effective mechanism to this end and will be strengthened. |
OMC |
01-Mar-09 |
| III. Program integrity |
| Program integrity, in terms of Crown success in defending challenges to PRRA decisions, has been sound. |
CIC agrees with this finding. |
|
|
|
| Between 2003 and 2006, case processing time increased from 125 to 202 days, with some offices experiencing much larger increases than others, and there has been a 59 percent increase in the number of cases in inventory. |
CIC agrees with this finding but notes that these persistent and growing inventories, despite efficiencies implemented or to be effected, may point to a need for more resources. |
(1) CIC will analyze the statistical data to see if more resources are in fact required in some offices, and if so to seek those resources. |
OMC |
Mar-09 |
| IV. Program results |
| While the resources dedicated to PRRA have increased, program uptake has risen steadily, and the PRRA program is a factor in the increasing time lapse between the rendering of a negative IRB decision and removal from Canada. |
CIC agrees in part with this finding. While the average time between the “triggering” of the PRRA application and the decision has increased since the introduction of PRRA in 2002, there has been success in some PRRA offices to diminish backlogs and inventories. |
(1) CIC will continue liaising with CBSA to improve the coordination of removals with the PRRA application process and the timely notification to applicants that a decision has been rendered. (2) CIC will encourage innovative ways to make the entire PRRA program more efficient. |
OMC |
Mar-09 |
| V. Cost-effectiveness |
| Additional FTEs have been allocated to PRRA offices that have had high application volumes, however, two offices (Mississauga and Niagara Falls) still receive a very high volume of applications relative to FTEs. |
CIC agrees with the observation. |
(1) Improvements are already taking place in the allocation of resources across the Ontario region and through work sharing among regions. |
OMC |
Done |
