I guess in broad strokes, a quality assurance framework can look very similar to an audit, really. In terms of looking at how the department assessed the applications, we looked to see whether they had done enough work to determine whether there would have been a Canadian available. In some cases they would have done enough, and in other cases there were indications that they did not.
A quality assurance framework would make sure that, in every case, those assessments were being done according to the policies and that they were looking at the things they should be looking at. With a quality assurance framework, you would have assurance that each case was being handled the same way, that each case was being handled the way it should be, that the people looking at the applications were properly trained so they knew what they had to do and they would follow the procedures to make sure the procedures were done, and that this would be consistent across the country. Those would be the types of things that a quality assurance framework would bring up or would give the organization assurance of, so that when we come along later on, or somebody comes along later on and does an audit, you don't find that, in some cases, yes, they questioned whether the advertisement was focused in on one person, and in other cases, they really just took the word of the employer.
I think we have one example here in paragraph 5.35 of somebody looking for a caregiver. The reason they gave in the application for not recruiting a Canadian was that the employer was looking for “someone who was trustworthy and with the ability to work without supervision”, and apparently there were no Canadians who met those criteria, and the department didn't question that.