We have archived this page on the web

The information was accurate at the time of publishing but may no longer reflect the current state at the Canada Border Services Agency. It is not subject to the Government of Canada web standards.

Archived

We have archived this page on the web.

Background information

Document navigation for "Standing Committee on Public Accounts: Spring 2020 Auditor General report"

In this section

Summary of Public Accounts Committee of Parliament appearances in the 42nd parliament

May 28, 2019: Report 2, Processing of Asylum Claims, of the 2019 spring reports

The audit examined how asylum claims were processed by the Canada Border Services Agency, by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, by and the Immigration and Refugee Board, the three main organizations involved in Canada's refugee determination system. The OAG found that Canada's refugee system has been unable to adjust to spikes in the volume of claims and is again faced with a significant backlog.

The Conservative Party of Canada focused their line of questioning on criminals being allowed to enter the country, and whether the CBSA was keeping track of asylum seekers with criminal records.

November 9, 2017: Report 2, Customs Duties, of the spring 2017 reports of the Auditor General of Canada

The audit focused on whether the Department of Finance Canada, Global Affairs Canada, and the Canada Border Services Agency carried out their roles and responsibilities in managing customs duties on the many goods imported into Canada each year. The OAG found that the CBSA was unable to assess all customs duties owed to the government because its import controls were not working adequately.

The Liberal Party of Canada focused on voluntary compliance at the border, regularity of reviewing our systems to make sure they are working, revoking of importers licences and imposing penalties on non-compliant brokers, and tracking mechanism for repeat offenders.

The Conservative Party of Canada focused their questions on the increase of online shopping (e-commerce) causing a surge at the border, ensuring proper verifications at the border, adequate information tracking, and the state of the policies currently in place.

May 29, 2017: Report 3, Preventing Corruption in Immigration and Border Services

The Auditor General (AG) began the hearing with a summary of his key findings, notably that Immigration and Refugees Canada (IRCC), the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Global Affairs Canada (GAC) had procedures and controls to monitor and assess risks, but should have monitored them more closely to ensure that they were followed or functioning as intended.

The Liberal Party of Canada focused their line of questioning on procedures at the border and mechanisms in place to ensure policies are followed.

The Conservative Party of Canadafocused their line of questioning on procedures at the border, and policies guiding the BSOs at the border.

The New Democratic Partyfocused their line of questioning on the lack of time for employees to properly do their job, how the CBSA handles matter pertaining to organized crime at the border, the training for the BSOs, and milestones from the audit that CBSA has achieved so far.

February 6, 2017: Report 1, The Beyond the Border Action Plan, of the fall 2016 reports

The audit examined the progress made by departments and agencies in meeting the commitments set out in the action plan and in achieving results toward the intended benefits. The OAG looked at how Public Safety Canada reported on progress, performance, and costs in their annual reports. The action plan had 19 initiatives that focused on enhancing security. The audit demonstrates departments and agencies faced challenges in completing a number of the initiatives, and they couldn't demonstrate that they had improved security at Canada's borders.

The Liberal Party of Canada focused their line of questioning on getting the performance measurement framework, and requesting an update on entry/exit program as well as the impact this will have with our US counterpart.

The Conservative Party of Canadafocused their line of questioning  on the internal perceptions on the audit, the single window initiative, whether CBSA changes its method of operating what impacts would that have on their US counterparts citing entry/exit, capabilities of existing technologies.

The New Democratic Partyasked about potential items to measure in the performance framework,

June 2, 2016: Report 2, Detecting and Preventing Fraud in the Citizenship Program

In the audit, the OAG examined whether Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada had adequate practices to detect and thereby prevent fraud in adult citizenship applications. They looked at practices intended to ensure that citizenship applicants met the program's residency requirements, that they had no criminal prohibitions, and that they were permanent residents of Canada. The lack of information sharing, guidelines and procedures, as well as database issues were central to the discussions. The OAG made five recommendations to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and two recommendations to both the department and its partners, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. All three organizations agreed with our recommendations and have committed to taking actions to implement them.

The Liberal Party of Canada focused their line of questioning  on the CBSA’s global case management system and looking into updating it.

Public Accounts Committee of Parliament overview

Committee mandate

When the Speaker tables a report by the Auditor General in the House of Commons, it is automatically referred to the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee selects the chapters of the report it wants to study and calls the Auditor General and senior public servants from the audited organizations to appear before it to respond to the Office of the Auditor General’s findings. The Committee also reviews the federal government’s consolidated financial statements, the Public Accounts of Canada, and examines financial and/or accounting shortcomings raised by the Auditor General. At the conclusion of a study, the Committee may present a report to the House of Commons that includes recommendations to the government for improvements in administrative and financial practices and controls of federal departments and agencies.

Government policy, and the extent to which policy objectives are achieved, are generally not examined by the Public Accounts Committee. Instead, the Committee focuses on government administration – the economy and efficiency of program delivery as well as the adherence to government policies, directives and standards. The Committee seeks to hold the government to account for effective public administration and due regard for public funds.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3) of the House of Commons, the mandate of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is to review and report on:

The Committee also reviews:

Other responsibilities:

Committee members

Chair

Vice-chair

Members

Meeting summaries

Thursday, February 27, 2020: Briefing with the Office of the Auditor General

The Committee met to receive a 90-minute introductory briefing from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG) and to discuss future Committee business in camera. The issue of adequate funding for the OAG figured most prominently in exchanges between Committee members and witnesses. The interim Auditor General echoed comments made during the previous Parliament suggesting his Office’s current funding has not allowed it to effectively deliver on its mandate or to keep pace with increases in Government spending. There was also discussion on the potential establishment of a separate independent funding process or mechanism through which the OAG could make funding requests, instead of having to make the request through the Department of Finance’s budget exercise.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020: Election of Chair

Dean Allison (CPC) was elected Chair of the Committee. Mr. Allison was a member of PACP in the first session of the 38th Parliament. Lloyd Longfield (LPC) was elected first vice-chair; Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (BQ) was elected second vice-chair by secret ballot. The Committee adopted a number of standard routine motions. Of note, the Committee adopted a motion requiring that organizations invited to appear on the topic of an OAG report submit their action plans to the Committee no later than 48 hours before their appearance (in the 42nd Parliament, this submission was required prior to an appearance, “when feasible.”) During discussion on future Committee business, Pat Kelly (CPC) raised the issue of perceived inadequate government funding of the OAG. The matter received some attention during the 42nd Parliament and has been raised in the 43rd Parliament in the context of the CPC Opposition Motion calling on the AG to conduct an audit of the Government’s “Investing in Canada Plan,” adopted by the House on January 29, 2020.

Chair
Kelly Block (Saskatchewan - Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek)
Conservative

Interest in the CBSA
43rd Parliament
Question period: Questioned the Government on how many suspected fake PPE shipments the CBSA has seized (April 2020)

First Vice-Chair
Lloyd Longfield (Ontario—Guelph)
Liberal

Interest in the CBSA
43rd Parliament
Nothing to note

Second vice-chair
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Québec—Rimouski-Neigette – Témiscouata – Les Basques)
Bloc Québécois

Interest in the CBSA
43rd Parliament
Nothing to note

Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L’Érable)
Conservative

Interest in the CBSA
43rd Parliament
Statement by Members: Criticized the Government was too slow to close to borders (October 2020)

Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South)
Conservative

Interest in the CBSA
43rd Parliament
Nothing to note

Len Webber (Calgary Confederation)
Conservative

Interest in the CBSA
43rd Parliament
Nothing to note

Matthew Green(Ontario—Hamilton Centre)
NDP

Interest in the CBSA
43rd Parliament
Nothing to note

Kody Blois (Kings—Hants)
Liberal

Interest in the CBSA
43rd Parliament
Nothing to note

Greg Fergus (Hull—Alymer)
Liberal

Interest in the CBSA
43rd Parliament
Government Orders: Defended the Government about the national approach to data collection, the Government’s response to COVID-19 and the control measures at the border (October 2020)

Francesco Sorbara (Vaughn—Woodbridge)
Liberal

Interest in the CBSA
43rd Parliament
Nothing to note

Jean Yip (Scarborough—Agincourt)
Liberal

Interest in the CBSA
43rd Parliament
Nothing to note

Ministerial statement

Minister Blair responds to the 2020 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada

From:Public Safety Canada

Statement

OTTAWA – July, 8, 2020 – Today, the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, issued the following statement:

“We thank the Auditor General for her Spring 2020 report, containing a chapter that examined how effective the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has been in removing foreign nationals who have no legal right to remain in Canada.

We accept all the recommendations made by the Auditor General in her report, and we are committed to taking action to do better.

The CBSA will take specific measures to address concerns raised and it has already taken steps to better deliver on its mandate in relation to removals. In addition to improving its removals strategy, the CBSA will also enhance the way it tracks and triages cases to ensure priority cases are actioned quickly. This includes continuing to implement a data integrity strategy to ensure that it can quickly identify the stages all cases are at so they can move forward in a timely fashion. The CBSA is taking steps to locate foreign nationals whose whereabouts are unknown by completing a review of all outstanding cases, prioritizing criminal cases, and focusing investigations on the most concerning cases. Finally, the CBSA will develop an incentive program to increase voluntary compliance.

The timely removal of individuals who have exhausted all legal avenues of appeal and due process plays a critical role in supporting the integrity of Canada’s immigration system and contributes to the Government of Canada’s security and public safety priorities.”

Contacts

Mary-Liz Power
Press Secretary
Office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
mary-liz.power@canada.ca

Media Relations
Public Safety Canada
613-991-0657
ps.mediarelations-relationsaveclesmedias.sp@canada.ca

Search for related information by keyword: GV Government and Politics | Public Safety Canada | Canada | Policing, justice and emergencies | general public | statements | Hon. Bill Blair

Message to employees

Auditor General 2020 Spring Report

Today, the Auditor General’s (AG) 2020 Spring Report was tabled. One of the chapters examined the CBSA’s approach to managing the removals of foreign nationals.

As you know, our agency has a legal obligation to remove individuals who have no right to stay in Canada. We must do this as soon as possible. As such, removal of the highest priority cases is always of the utmost importance to the CBSA.  We recognize that in spite of the many challenges to timely removals, more can be done to increase the number of removals by focusing on the highest priority cases. The Agency is committed to taking concerted action and will closely monitor performance against targets to ensure better results are achieved in the years to come.

We accept the AG’s findings and recommendations and we will strengthen the measures already taken to further address the concerns brought forward.

The report made observations and recommended that the CBSA:

While we realize that there is always room for improvement, the implementation of our removals strategy, which received funding in Budget 2019, has resulted in the highest number of removals in the past five years, and for this achievement, we acknowledge the diligent work of CBSA employees and recognize their immense level of effort. This work contributes to our country’s safety and security.

To further address the AG’s concerns, our agency will continue to evolve its action plans to increase removals. This includes continuing to roll out a data integrity strategy to ensure that our agency has a strong understanding of the case inventory, which will improve our ability to move cases in a timely manner.

We are proud to say that we are already well on our way to implementing the Auditor General’s recommendations.  Hard work by many of you in the Agency have resulted in initiatives and projects to manage removals in a more effective manner.  Thank you for all your efforts.

John Ossowski
President

Paul MacKinnon
Executive Vice-President

Media lines and questions and answers

Media lines

Topic: OAG audit on removals

Version date: November 16, 2020

The OAG is expected to release a negative report, in July 2020, on CBSA’s removals framework and performance. The report is expected to raise a number of questions about CBSA’s removals program, its numbers, its perceived inability to keep track of certain individuals under removal order, and data integrity.

Overview

The present media lines are anticipatory only. Should the CBSA receive an actual media query on this topic, a tailored response will be prepared using these lines as a base, and a separate formal approval will be sought as required.

Context

The report is summarized below:

Recommendation #1: CBSA should continue to refine its strategy to ensure the timely enforcement of new and accumulated removal orders, particularly for high-priority cases. To support these efforts, it should regularly track the timeliness of removal against performance targets.

CBSA response: Agreed. The Agency agrees that it should continue to refine its existing strategies to further ensure the timely removal of those found inadmissible to Canada, particularly for those persons found inadmissible on the most serious grounds, the CBSA’s established highest priority category for removals.

Final outcome: A refined removals strategy that further ensures the timely removal of those found to be inadmissible to Canada, with a particular focus on priority cases. Expected completion date: January 30, 2021.

Recommendation #2: CBSA should continue to explore options to encourage voluntary returns and assist the departure of foreign nationals to their country of origin in line with Canada’s international commitments to promote safe and orderly migration.

CBSA response: Agreed. While the immigration continuum is predicated on the expectation that individuals who no longer have status in the country, or who have been found inadmissible, will abide by our laws and leave Canada voluntarily, the reality is that a significant number of people fail to do so. The Agency strongly encourages voluntary compliance and has, accordingly, been working over the past year to establish initiatives specifically designed to support this outcome.

Final outcome: A dedicated immigration information help line that provides general and case specific information to foreign nationals. This increases knowledge of the removals program and support voluntary compliance.

Recommendation #3: CBSA should improve the integrity of its data and case management practices so that it can better manage the removals program. Specifically, it should:

CBSA response: Agreed. The Agency is committed to focusing its Inland Enforcement resources on removing people in a timely manner, while continuing to prioritize the most serious cases. In conjunction with increased funding provided for the program in Federal Budget 2019, the Agency has established a multi-year removals strategy. This strategy will lead to the implementation of an enhanced triage method to improve case identification and to ensure cases are processed in a timely and efficient manner based on removal priorities. In 2019, the CBSA developed the ability to report more accurately on the length of time cases are in its removal system and will further refine this capacity to ensure it is reflected in processes used to assign cases to its officers. The Agency will also conduct reviews of multiple removal inventories in order to identify and correct data integrity challenges. The Agency will also work with its partners to ensure the timely and accurate input of information in support of removals whether through system upgrades or additional training measures during the 2020-21 fiscal year.

Final outcome: A formalized quality assurance process that improves data accuracy and support better program management. Expected completion date: March 30, 2021.

Approach

When this was tabled, we took a reactive approach. We released a ministerial statement and answered questions from media only as asked. We will continue to take an approach of responding to media only as asked if questions come in as a result of the committee appearance.

Key messages

On the OAG report:

On the Removals Program:

If pressed on breakdown:

Enforced Removals under R240(1): 8,886

Administrative removals under R240(3): 2,558

Questions and answers

Q. The audit found that the agency removed only 6,700 cases from its working or wanted inventories in the 2018-19 fiscal year– and that while the agency confirmed the removal of about 9,500 foreign nationals that year, about 2,800 of those cases involved people who had been refused entry at the border. Is this true?

A. The statement that the Agency only removed 6,700 cases from its working or wanted inventories in 2018-19 lacks context that would help explain the situation.

The 2800 cases represent situations in which BSOs process travelers at the border and deny entry to those who are deemed inadmissible, forgoing the need to enter into any of the inventories that were the focus of the report.

It is imperative to note that, in fact, removal is not the only way a case can be resolved - and removed from the CBSA’s inventory. Often there are cases that the CBSA has been processing for removal for extended periods of time who are ultimately granted status by IRCC. While the Agency has spent time and effort on these cases, there may be no corresponding removal action.

Also, it should be noted that the OAG report does not count cases done right at the port of entry. These are situations in which BSOs process travelers at the border and deny entry to those who are deemed inadmissible, forgoing the need to enter into any of the inventories that were the focus of the report.

Q. The report notes that the number of accumulated cases in its working and warrant inventories remained largely unchanged. Is this true?

A. As noted in the report, the period under review witnessed a significant increase in the number of removals that occurred, a trend which has continued right up until the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the global situation. Despite these increases, it also occurred during a period when there were notable increases in new cases coming into the asylum system and moving through that process. As a result, the overall inventory volumes remained relatively static.

Additionally, while the total number of inadmissible individuals subject to a removal order has been increasing annually, the actual number of enforceable cases has remained stable

While the Agency has an overall target this alone is not the only consideration. Removals are prioritized based on a risk management regime and public safety remains paramount

Q. What are the different “inventories”?

A. Everyone found inadmissible to Canada is issued a removal order. Foreign nationals that are subject to a removal order that has not been enforced or voided through a positive permanent resident application are tracked in the removal inventory. In order to effectively manage this inventory, the CBSA tracks all cases through the use of various sub-inventories

Monitoring inventory
This inventory has individuals waiting for refugee determination from the IRB, or unenforceable removal orders. These people are waiting for permanent residence.

Stay inventory
This inventory has people whose removal order has been halted (or ‘stayed’) after a judicial process through the courts, or an immigration process (through IRCC). There are also Individuals in this inventory who would otherwise be removed to a country that is considered generally unsafe, and so the government has determined it will not remove people there.

Wanted inventory
This inventory has people who have been found inadmissible and have been issued a removal order, but have failed to appear for a removal proceeding. These individuals will normally have a warrant issued for their arrest.

Working inventory
This inventory has people who are at the initial stages of the actual removal process, and CBSA is monitoring to ensure the individual in question leaves the country. CBSA is seeking a travel document and is arranging travel.

The “actionable” inventory includes cases at the end of the process: the PRRA shows no reason for which the removal should not be enforced, and there are no other impediments. Individuals are expected to leave or CBSA will remove.

Note: As an example, a case could start in the monitoring inventory when someone makes an asylum claim and move to the stay inventory if the claim is rejected and the person applies to the Federal Court to review the decision. If the review is denied the removal order comes into force and the case would move to the working inventory. If the person were to abscond (or fails to appear before the Agency could enforce the removal), the case would move to the wanted inventory and an immigration warrant would be issued. Once located, should the individual file an application for leave and judicial review to Federal court accompanied by a stay motion and be successful they would move to the stay inventory. The process described above is a simplified example and does not represent the actual complexity of cases. The process is usually circuitous with cases moving in and out of the same inventory prior to resolution, either granting of status in Canada or removal.

Q. Did the audit truly focus only on cases where the CBSA should have been able to remove the individual unhindered? Is this true?

A. The OAG focused their audit on cases with enforceable removal orders, but the complexity of the system is not necessarily evident to readers of the report. In fact, what the OAG report describes as “enforceable” doesn’t always mean that the person is removal-ready. The definition of “enforceable” is an order that has come into force, however, many cases move in and out of the category of “enforceable” as they progress.

The removal process is not linear - individuals with enforceable removal orders may be at various stages of the removal process. It also involves interaction with the Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and, at times, Federal Court rulings.

Additionally, removals are often slowed down or impeded by various external factors outside the Agency’s influence. For example, the person may fail to report for a removal or refuse to confirm their identity, have extenuating circumstances such medical reasons impeding their removal, or have left Canada without notifying the Agency.

Foreign countries may be slow to issue travel documents or fail to accept individuals being removed, including countries with which Canada has limited or strained diplomatic relations. Air carriers may refuse to transport certain individuals (e.g. high-profile, criminal), limit of number of removals per flight, or not have flights to certain destinations.

As part of a balanced and equitable immigration program, the CBSA must also determine if it is safe for the individual to be returned to their country of origin, which is also subject to judicial review. Taken together, these and other factors impede the Agency’s ability to conduct timely removals.

Nonetheless, the Agency agrees that it should continue to work on action plans to increase removals, particularly for those inadmissible on the most serious grounds. The Agency agrees that timely removal is one of the most effective ways to deter those who might otherwise seek to abuse the system” and are working towards that objective.

Q. The report suggests that the process could be better managed. The process is characterized as: “For example, a case could start in the monitoring inventory when someone makes an asylum claim and move to the stay inventory if the claim is rejected and the person applies to the Federal Court to review the decision. If the review is denied the removal order comes into force and the case would move to the working inventory. If the person were to abscond (or fail to appear before the Agency could enforce the removal), the case would move to the wanted inventory and an immigration warrant would be issued.” Is this accurate?

A. Every asylum claim is unique and removal processes can be equally unique. The process described in the report is a simplified example and does not fully represent the actual complexity of many cases. In fact, because of the many avenues of recourse that can, in some cases, happen at the same time or more than once, the process is not linear as described and cases move in and out of the same inventory prior to resolution.

Q. The OAG also found significant periods of inactivity among the majority of cases missing travel documents in 3,400 cases—approximately a quarter of its working inventory—that lacked the travel documents needed for removal. Using representative sampling, we determined that the agency had taken little or no action to obtain the documents in about half of these cases, even for those involving serious criminality.

The OAG found that CBSA did little to obtain documents. Is this true?

A. As noted in our response to the report, we have accepted all of the recommendations in the report and are committed to addressing their findings, including making improvements in our capacity to obtain travel documents. We will continue to focus on ensuring that our processes for following up on these travel documents are robust. It remains important however to note that even when we are fully engaged with partners to seek to obtain travel documents, it may take years for officers to overcome challenges to removal and this level of effort is not always captured on file as the decisions required are on the part of foreign governments and not the CBSA.

In fact, in many cases, the CBSA’s capacity to carry out a removal order depends on cooperation from foreign governments. In some cases, countries of origin may take several years to issue travel documents, if at all, or be uncooperative about accepting the return of their nationals despite continued efforts by the Agency to encourage cooperation. While the CBSA works collaboratively with other Government of Canada departments to engage other countries, this is not always a simple task and can take time.

Q. The OAG found that CBSA did not have systems in place to better work with counterparts in the immigration system (namely IRCC and the IRB). Is this true?

A. Yes. The CBSA is aware of this issue and is working with other federal government departments, namely the IRB and IRCC, to address it. The CBSA and IRCC will develop clear information sharing procedures, to ensure information that could potentially influence the removal process is captured in a timely fashion, through interface or manual entry, to support the delivery of the removals program.

Q. The OAG notes that Agency did not know the whereabouts of a large number of foreign nationals who were subject to enforceable removal orders. Is this true?

A: Yes. This refers to those who have failed to appear for a removal and their whereabouts unknown. The CBSA works actively to locate these individuals, such as issuing warrants and working with other law enforcement offices.

Q. If there is a warrant out for a person, will that person be removed once located?

A. Not necessarily. In fact, individuals under warrants may still have access to due process or have logistical challenges to be resolved in their cases. When someone is subject to a removal order and fails to appear at any stage in the removal process (i.e. a reporting date, their refugee hearing, an interview with CBSA, etc.) and they abscond, a warrant may be issued.

Q. The OAG notes that data quality is poor and hindered the CBSA’s ability to enforce removals, and could not prioritize according to risk and complexity. Is this true?

A. The data challenge has been recognized by the Agency and initiatives were undertaken at the time of the audit period to address data integrity challenges. While the Agency agrees that data entry errors exists, without quantifying this the issue should not be portrayed as a blanket assessment of the inventories. Despite some errors, overall the inventory is reliable. Initiatives to address and mitigate data integrity challenges started in FY 2018-2019 and are ongoing.
Q. The OAG determined that about 1,500 cases had been inactive for at least two years. Close to 150 cases involving serious criminality had been inactive because of poor case management practices, such as not assigning cases to officers or not taking action to obtain travel documents.

In certain instances, a case may appear to be inactive when efforts are ongoing to resolve impediments to removal. While we are working diligently to overcome challenges that may delay a removal, it may take several years to advance a case and this level of effort is not always captured on file. In fact, the CBSA’s capacity to carry out a removal order often depends on cooperation from foreign governments. While the CBSA works collaboratively with other Government of Canada departments to engage other countries, this is not always a simple task and can take time.

Q. In the case of failed asylum claimants: 1 in 5 failed claimants were not removed within 1 year as a result of delays in assigning the case to a removals officer. Based on this sample, the OAG estimates that about 1,200 claimants had not been removed within a year because of avoidable delays in processing their case. Is this accurate?

A. The reference to a commitment to remove 80% of failed asylum claimants within a year was at one time (2012) a performance target, it did not exist during the audit period in FY 2018-19 and is not a commitment by the Agency.

Q. The report suggested increasing voluntary removals. How is the CBSA implementing that?
A major component to a successful removal is a foreign national’s co-operation and a better understanding of the removal process that may encourage greater compliance. To that end, the CBSA has set up a help line specifically for people under a removal order. Launched on August 10, 2020, the removal help line allows for the public to speak directly to CBSA officers who can respond to case-specific questions. Since the launch of the help line, 19 callers subject to enforceable removal orders have voluntarily left Canada in cooperation with the CBSA.
The CBSA is also looking to implement a program to encourage assisted voluntary removals. Building on a pilot project from a few years ago, the revitalized Assisted Voluntary Removal Pilot Program (AVRPP) will support the Government of Canada’s need to balance the integrity of both its immigration asylum and enforcement programs. The program is set to be implemented in the fall of 2021.

Initial draft

Comms Advisor: Kelly Crowe

Program-level approval

Manager: Rick Dvorski
Director: Sharon Spicer
DG: Chris Lorenz

Communications-level approval

Manager: Pat Giolti
Director: Nancy Archipow/Pat Giolti
DG: Caroline Marchildon
VP: Kathy Thompson (SPB)
Scott Harris (I&E)

Document navigation for "Standing Committee on Public Accounts: Spring 2020 Auditor General report"

Date modified: