As I indicated in my opening remarks, we take the Auditor General's report very seriously. An action plan had been put in place by the department back in 2012, in the absence of what previously had been in place in terms of a risk framework and in an attempt to put in better fraud control measures.
I think, as with any system, improvements can always be made. Certainly the Auditor General's report has provided some very invaluable guidance to us in terms of the various measures we have to do. In terms of lessons learned that have come from this, our guidance to officers has had to be improved. We actually always do issue guidance to citizenship officers, but clearly, I think, issues have arisen in terms of consistency across the system. We do provide significant training to our citizenship officers. They have to go through level one and level two training. They have to pass an exam before they can render decisions in cases.
We have actually already taken on board the recommendations that have been made. We have in fact updated our guidance. We have issued new program delivery instructions. We've strengthened the guidance on, for example, problem addresses; how to identify fraudulent documents; issues around fraud controls, trying to make the procedures more consistent in terms of inputting addresses and making it clear that the officers have to use Canada Post guidelines in terms of inputting addresses; and enhancing the training we have.
The other thing, as I mentioned, is that we have developed a much more enhanced program integrity framework, which we are sharing with staff as well, that includes quality control and quality assurance processes. That will include our ability to do random targeting, to clearly outline roles and responsibilities, and to also make sure that we are doing regular anti-fraud quality assurance and quality control exercises—