Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
Environment Canada
Chief Audit Executive and Director General,
Audit and Evaluation Branch
Annual Report
2010-2011
May 2011
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page i
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
KEY ACRONYMS
A&E
Audit and Evaluation
AEB
Audit and Evaluation Branch
CESD
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
CRP
Corporate Risk Profile
DEC
Departmental Evaluation Committee
DM
Deputy Minister
DPR
Departmental Performance Report
EAAC
External Audit Advisory Committee
EC
Environment Canada
MAF
Management and Accountability Framework
OAG
Office of the Auditor General
OCG
Office of the Comptroller General
OGD
Other Government Departments
PSC
Public Service Commission
RA
Risk Assessment
RBAEP
Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan
RPP
Report on Plans and Priorities
SPC
Strategic Planning and Coordination
TB
Treasury Board
TBS
Treasury Board Secretariat
Version Control
Document date:
E-file name:
July 15, 2011
"CAE AnReport_FinalDraft_v12"
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page i
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF AUDIT EXECUTIVE AND
DIRECTOR GENERAL, AUDIT AND EVALUATION BRANCH
1
1.
INTRODUCTION
3
1.1
1.2
Mandate and Context
Report Purpose
3
3
2
PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
3
2.1
2.2
Progress on Key Priorities
Key Performance Indicators
3
5
3.
AUDIT AND EVALUATION PERFORMANCE
6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Project Performance Summary
Internal Audit Projects
Evaluation Projects
External Audits and Projects
Monitoring Recommendations
6
7
7
8
9
4.
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES AND INITIATIVES
11
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Quality Assurance
Client Assessments
MAF Assessments
Lessons Learned and Challenges
Other Initiatives
11
12
14
14
16
5.
HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES
19
5.1
5.2
Human Resources
Budget and Project Resources
19
21
6.
MOVING FORWARD
24
APPENDICES:
A.
B.
2010-11 Audit and Evaluation Projects
Status of Management Action Plans
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
26
29
Page ii
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page iii
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF AUDIT EXECUTIVE AND
DIRECTOR GENERAL, AUDIT AND EVALUATION BRANCH
As Chief Audit Executive and Director General of the Audit and Evaluation Branch, I am pleased
to present this annual report on the performance of the Branch for 2010-11. The past year has
been a busy and challenging one. We have delivered a wide range of risk-based audits and
evaluations to meet the needs and priorities of senior management and the Deputy Minister. As
well, we have been fully engaged in the continued implementation of the Treasury Board Policy
on Evaluation and the evolving expectations under the Policy on Internal Audit. Supporting the
important ongoing functions of the External Audit Advisory Committee and the Departmental
Evaluation Committee also figured prominently in our priorities.
The demands on our services are growing while concurrently resource challenges are evermore present. Factors such as increased requirements for accountability-related services and
the pressures on our community, require that we remain fully knowledgeable of the needs and
priorities of the Department and maintain the capacity to address them in the most effective
manner.
In the past year, we have addressed these challenges through proactive actions and we have
progressed on a number of key professional practices initiatives and this is reflected in our
strong Management and Accountability Framework rating for the third consecutive year.
However, the challenges for the upcoming year are compounded by the current economic
reality. Accordingly, we will need to ensure all our future efforts and initiatives are grounded in a
solid risk-based perspective. As well, we will continue to work with the Treasury Board
Secretariat and other key stakeholders, internally and externally, to assist in evolving the
professional practices of audit and evaluation both within our Department and government-wide.
Collectively, these actions position us well to keep providing excellent value-added and resilient
professional services, which support our role as a strategic partner and advisor to management.
The External Audit Advisory Committee reviewed the performance of audit and strategic
planning and coordination outlined in the Annual Report and recommended it to the Deputy
Minister for approval. The Annual Report is presented to the Executive Management
Committee for information and shared with the Treasury Board Secretariat.
______________________________
Carol Najm
Chief Audit Executive and Director General,
Audit and Evaluation Branch
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 1
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 2
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
1.
1.1
INTRODUCTION
MANDATE AND CONTEXT
The mandate of Environment Canada's (EC) Audit and Evaluation Branch (AEB) is to support
the Deputy Minister (DM) and senior management in attaining the strategic objectives of the
Department by providing them with objective, independent, evidence-based information,
assurance and advice regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of departmental programs,
policies and operations. As well, the Branch provides important liaison services with external
auditors as well as oversight in responding to environmental petitions.
The AEB’s priorities and activities are reviewed annually and outlined in its Risk-Based Audit
and Evaluation Plan (RBAEP) which responds to the most significant risks and priorities
faced by the Department. The mandate and work of AEB is guided by its own Audit
Charter1 and Evaluation Policy2, as well as grounded in the Government's legislative and
policy framework which includes the Financial Administration Act and many pertinent
Treasury Board policies and directives3. As such, the Branch must respond to numerous
evolving requirements and obligations which drive the audit and evaluation functions in the
federal government.
1.2
REPORT PURPOSE
This annual report is presented by the Chief Audit Executive (CAE) and Director General - AEB
to provide the DM of Environment Canada, the External Audit Advisory Committee (EAAC) and
the Departmental Evaluation Committee (DEC) with a summary of the AEB performance and
achievements for 2010-11, relative to its commitments and priorities set out in the 2010 RiskBased Audit and Evaluation Plan. This report also reflects the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS)
requirements and criteria for the CAE Annual Reports.
2.
PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
In the past year, the AEB continued its pursuit of excellence and obtained very positive ratings
from TBS for both the effectiveness of the Department’s internal audit function and the quality
and use of evaluations through the MAF assessment (see section 4.3). This section highlights 2
other key elements of our performance for 2010-11: progress in achieving our strategic priorities
for the year and results against our principal performance indicators.
2.1
PROGRESS ON KEY PRIORITIES
In carrying out its mandate, the AEB has focused resources and efforts on a number of priority
areas that collectively enabled us to address evolving policy requirements as well as ensure that
our services remain abreast of new developments and are responsive to the needs of
Environment Canada's senior management and Central Agencies. We made significant
1
2
3
Internal Audit Charter, 2010. Audit and Evaluation Branch.
Departmental Evaluation Policy, 2009. Audit and Evaluation Branch.
Mainly the 2009 Treasury Board (TB) Policy on Internal Audit, the 2009 TB Policy on Evaluation,
the 2008 TB Policy on Transfer Payments, and the Institute of Internal Auditors International
Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards).
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 3
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
progress in 2010-11 on all our planned priorities, most of which are ongoing in nature and two of
which are now considered complete. The following table summarizes progress against key
priorities identified in the 2010 RBAEP, and provides reference to sections of this report where
additional information is presented (where applicable).
2010 RBAEP
KEY PRIORITY AREAS

Providing ongoing support to the
EAAC and the DEC

Preparing for the first CAE annual
overview report to the Deputy
Minister and the EAAC on
departmental controls,
governance and risk management

Implementing the new TBS Policy
on Evaluation

Implementing the
recommendations from the
external practice inspection

Proactively auditing activities
under the economic stimulus
package, in order to ensure
adequate controls are in place
before the funds are expensed

Piloting a joint audit and
evaluation project using
collaborative approaches
PROGRESS AND PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
(AND REFERENCES)
Status: Ongoing
Strategic Planning and Coordination provided ongoing support
to senior committees and their members, mainly through:
 4 EAAC meetings and 5 teleconferences;
 6 DEC meetings.
Refer also to Section 4.5 D.
Status: Significant Progress
 Progress has been made to develop the overview report and
approach, and key information has been gathered on risk
management in the context of the risk management audit.
 However, this initiative was delayed due to TBS guidelines
and direction which were provided later than previously
anticipated (OCG Practice Advisory issued March 31, 2011).
Refer also to section 4.5 B.
Status: Significant Progress / Ongoing
 Developed a pre-evaluation evaluability assessment process
to gather information on program performance
measurement.
 Improved evaluation coverage in compliance with policy
requirements reflected in the 2011 RBAEP.
Refer also to Section 4.5 A (Evaluation).
Status: Completed
 Completed the Internal Audit action plan to address
recommendations provided in the 2009 external quality
assessment report.
Status: Significant Progress / Ongoing
 Completed audit of the Economic Action Plan - Part I in
2010-11.
 The Economic Action Plan audit Part II is being completed
and will be finalized in early 2011-12.
Refer also to Appendix A.
Status: Significant Progress
 Planning phase of Joint Project completed. There were
already some lessons learned identified (for example the
differences in the processes).
 The project reports – Marine Transportation - are in progress
(nearing completion) and is scheduled to be tabled to
EAAC/DEC in late 2011-12.
Refer also to Appendix A.
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 4
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
2010 RBAEP
KEY PRIORITY AREAS

Improving accuracy of project
timelines and reducing unplanned
carry-overs

Strengthening AEB performance
indicators

Further developing the RBAEP to
provide the Department with a
robust plan to maximize on the
utilization of AEB resources in
support to the Department.
2.2
PROGRESS AND PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
(AND REFERENCES)
Status: Ongoing
 Based on the generic timeline for audit projects (presented
to EAAC), the timelines presented in the 2011 RBAEP are
improved and more realistic as the plan has also taken into
consideration current budget limitation and potential impact
on capacity.
 The Branch is also better scoping projects and closing
projects sooner once evidence is sufficient to conclude. It
was estimated that 91% of audit plan was completed.
Refer also to Section 3.1.
Status: Significant Progress
 Branch logic model and performance measurement
framework were presented to EAAC in June 2010.
 Branch reviewed and streamlined the number of
performance indicators.
Refer also to Section 4.5 G.
Status: Completed for 2011 RBAEP
 Number of significant improvements were made to the 2011
RBAEP approved in March.
 The 2011 RBAEP received positive endorsement from
EAAC and from TBS.
Refer also to Section 4.5 E.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Consistent with EAAC suggestions, we have improved this Annual Report by focussing on a set
of key performance measures. The following table highlights the AEB's results and
performance against 5 key indicators.
PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
AND REFERENCE
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Planned budget versus actual
expenditures

Planned full-time employee (FTE)
versus actual

Number of project scope changes

Number of recommendations
accepted

Post-project client survey
responses


AEB had final year-end budget surplus of $185K (5%).
Budget performance is reviewed and major variances
explained in Section 5.2.
 AEB utilized approximately 32 FTEs compared to its initial
budget of 33 FTEs.
 FTEs and Person-months are reviewed in Section 5.2.
There were 2 significant project scope changes during the year:

Audit: Governance of IT Resources;

Evaluation: Clean Air Agenda Horizontal Roll-up.
Refer to Appendix A;
 100% of all audit and evaluation recommendations made
during the period were accepted by the clients.
Refer to Section 3.5.
Client responses to both audit and evaluation post-project
surveys were very favourable:
 Audit: large majority of respondents confirmed the quality of
audit products and services, and value of audits;
 Evaluations: large majority of respondents confirmed the
quality of products and services, and value of evaluations.
Refer to Section 4.2 for more information and analysis.
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 5
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
3.
3.1
AUDIT AND EVALUATION PERFORMANCE
PROJECT PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
This section and the following table summarize the progress the AEB made in 2010-11
delivering audits and evaluations against those projects approved in its audit and evaluation
plan (RBAEP). A more detailed summary is attached (Appendix A), which presents information
on the individual projects completed or in progress during the year.
Overall, AEB very successfully delivered the large majority of the projects planned for 2010-11.
An estimated 91% and 97% respectively of the audit and evaluation plans were completed,
notwithstanding that some additional (unplanned) projects and activities were undertaken during
the period. In a few instances, projects planned to be completed during the year were still in
progress as at March 31. However, these were for the most part largely completed at year end.
As well, delays encountered in completing projects were most often attributable to factors
outside AEB's control, as outlined in the subsequent audit and evaluation sections.
2010-11 SUMMARY
PLANNED AND COMPLETED PROJECTS
Projects Planned:
 Projects to be Completed in 2010-11
 Projects to be Carried-Over into 2011-12
Total Planned Projects per the 2010 RBAEP
Projects added subsequent to the RBAEP
Total Number of Planned Projects – 2010-11
Projects Completed or in Progress in 2010-11:
 Projects Completed as at March 31, 2011
 Projects in Progress – Unplanned carry-over
Sub-Total
Projects in Progress – Planned carry-over
Projects in Progress – Added subsequently
Total Projects Completed or in Progress in 2010-11
Performance Summary
 Number of Projects Completed in relation to Plan
 Estimated Completion of the Plan
 Estimated Average Completion of Unplanned Carry-Overs
 Project Person-Months Planned
(See Section 5.2)
 Project Person-Months Utilised
(See Section 5.2)
Notes and Explanations:
NOTES
Ref.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
AUDIT
EVALUATION
10
2
12
19
5
24
2
26
12
[5]
[6]
[1]
[7]
6
4
10
2
12
14
5
19
5
2
26
60%
91% avg
76% avg
64.5 PM
55.0 PM
74%
97% avg
90% avg
84.5 PM
78.5 PM
[8]
[51]
[9]
[10]
[5] "Projects Completed" are those initially Planned to be Completed during the year ([1]) and that were effectively
reviewed by EAAC or DEC and approved by the DM prior to March 31, 2011.
[6] "Projects in Progress – Unplanned carry-over" are those projects that were initially Planned to be Completed in
2010-11 (ie [1]), but not fully completed or finalized as at March 31, 2011 per the definition above ([5]).
[9] "Estimated Completion of the Plan" represents an average of the estimated percentage of completion of all projects
planned to be completed during the year (re average of projects completed [5] and unplanned carry-overs [6]).
Refer to Annex A.
[10] "Estimated Average Completion of Unplanned Carry-Over" represents the average estimated percentage of
completion of only those projects initially planned for completion by March 31 but carried-over to 2011-12 (i.e. [6]).
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 6
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
3.2
INTERNAL AUDIT PROJECTS
The 2010-11 audit plan consisted of twelve (12) audit projects of which ten (10) were initially
planned to be completed in 2010-11 and two (2) audits were planned to be completed in 201112. Of the ten (10) projects to be completed in 2010-11, six (6) were fully completed at the end
of the year and four (4) were unplanned carry-over into 2011-12. The individual projects are
identified in Appendix A.
The 4 unplanned carry-overs into 2011-12 were nonetheless all mostly completed at the end of
the fiscal year (average 76% completed), and experienced delays for the following reasons:

Governance of Information Management: delays due mainly to procurement process
issues. The project was estimated to be 60% completed at year-end, and is now
expected to be finalized by the second quarter of 2011-12.

Information Technology Financial Controls: delays encountered in securing the
necessary expertise. Project was estimated to be about 75% completed at year-end and
will be completed by June 2011.

Service to Marine Transportation (joint audit/evaluation project): unexpected delays
during the planning phase and added complexity of a joint audit/evaluation project. The
project was about 80% completed at year-end and will be completed by September
2011.

Funding Received through Canada’s Economic Action Plan – Part 2: delayed to
incorporate recommendations from EAAC. Was 90% completed at year-end and will be
finalized by June 2011.
Overall, the internal audit directorate completed an estimated 91% of its 2010 plan based on the
average of the estimated completion percentage of all projects that were to be completed during
the year. To deliver on its plan, audit utilised a total of 55 person-months out of the 64.5
person-months it had planned to use (see Section 5.2)
3.3
EVALUATION PROJECTS
The evaluation plan for 2010-11 consisted of a total of twenty-four (24) evaluation projects, and
an additional two (2) projects were subsequently added in the fourth quarter of 2010-11. Of the
twenty-four projects initially planned, nineteen (19) were to be completed in 2010-11 and five (5)
were planned to be carried-over and completed in 2011-12.
Of the nineteen projects initially planned for completion in 2010-11, fourteen (14) were actually
completed (3 evaluation plans and 11 reports), and five (5) were unplanned carry-over into
2011-12. These 5 projects were nonetheless all mostly completed at the end of the fiscal year
(average 90% completion, see Appendix A). These projects experienced delays for the
following reasons:

Service to Marine Transportation (joint audit/evaluation project): unexpected delays
during planning stages and due to complexity of joint audit/evaluation. Project was
approximately 75% complete by March 31, 2011 and is planned to be finalized in the
2nd quarter of 2011-12.
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 7
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011

Pilot Project on Reducing Emissions: delays due to contracting issues. Project was
approximately 95% complete by March 31, 2011 and is planned to be finalized in the first
quarter of 2011-12.

Vehicle Scrappage: because of contractor delays encountered, project was 95%
completed at year end. The project is planned to be finalized in the first quarter of 201112.

Chemicals Management Plan: will be completed in the first quarter of 2011-12 due to
contractor delays. Project was estimated to be 90% complete at year end.

2010 Olympics Games: project was delayed by the late receipt of a revised report from
Heritage Canada. It was 95% complete at year end and is planned to be completed in
the first quarter of 2011-12.
As indicated, however, two other projects were initiated in 2010-11 that were not included in the
initial evaluation plan. These 2 projects were lead by other federal departments and
requirements were not fully communicated to the AEB in time for inclusion in the 2010 RBAEP.

Health of the Oceans: project in progress and approximately 35% completed at year
end, scheduled to be completed by March 31 2012.

Policy on Green Procurement: project in-progress and approximately 30% completed,
scheduled to be completed by March 31 2012.
Overall, the Evaluation Directorate completed an estimated 97% of its plan during the year, and
also started two additional projects. The directorate utilised a total of 78.5 person-months out of
the 84.5 person-months it had planned to use (see Section 5.2)
3.4
EXTERNAL AUDITS AND PROJECTS
During the past year, the AEB continued to coordinate activities with the Office of the Auditor
General (OAG) and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
(CESD) through regular discussions with their representatives concerning their audit work plan
and its impact on the Department’s internal audit work plan.
As well, the AEB continued to build on its good working relationships with other external
auditors such as the Public Service Commission (PSC), the Commissioner of Official
Languages (COL), and the Office of the Comptroller General (OCG). In total, EC was involved
in 5 external audits that were tabled in 2010-11:

CESD Report - Fall 2010:
Chapter 1 - Oil Spills from Ships
Chapter 2 - Monitoring Water Resources
Chapter 3 - Adapting to Climate Impacts

OAG Report - Spring 2010:
Chapter 2 - Modernizing Human Resource Management
Chapter 4 - Sustaining Development in the Northwest Territories
Furthermore, 6 external audits or studies that are to be tabled in 2011-12 were initiated and inprogress in 2010-11:
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 8
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011

CESD Planned Reports:
May 2011:
Audit of Managing Climate Change Plans under the Kyoto Protocol
Implementation Act
Dec. 2011:
Audit of Environment Canada’s Enforcement of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, 1999
Dec. 2011
Audit of Science Informed Decision Making to Support Environmental
Management
Dec. 2011:
Study of Federal Environmental Monitoring Systems

OAG Planned Report:
June 2011:
Audit of Internal Audit

PSC Planned Report:
Oct. 2011:
Public Service Employment Act
3.5
MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS
To strengthen departmental reporting and accountability for the implementation of
recommendations, the AEB has developed a common approach for monitoring management
action plans in response to recommendations of internal and external audits and evaluation
reports, and for reporting on the status of recommendations. The EAAC has previously noted
the progress made with regards to the quality of management responses and action plans as a
result of the AEB's efforts.
The AEB's recommendations follow-up processes have been enhanced and reporting on the
status of past recommendations has been improved. The reporting provides comprehensive
information on the status of management action plans for each outstanding audit and evaluation
recommendation. Both audit and evaluation directorates have transferred their follow-up
recommendations to TeamMate - an audit software application implemented in 2010-11.
Follow-up on recommendations is conducted on an ongoing basis to ascertain the degree to
which management action plans have been implemented, and to determine outstanding
gaps/risks. Regular progress reports are provided to the EAAC, the DEC, the Executive
Management Committee and the Deputy Minister.
The following table (next page) presents a comparative summary of recommendations issued
and followed-up during the year, and more detailed information on the status of
recommendations of individual audit and evaluation reports is included in Appendix B.
Internal Audit
During the reporting period there were 89 active internal audit recommendations, and follow-up
was conducted on 65 recommendations. Of these 30 were completed, 14 demonstrated
significant progress, 10 moderate progress, 7 some progress, and 4 with no progress. Overall,
30 followed-up recommendations out of 65 were closed (46%).
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 9
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
External Audit and Review
There were 71 active recommendations. Follow-up was conducted on 43 recommendations
which were assessed as follows: 19 were completed or closed, 7 demonstrated significant
progress, 8 moderate progress, 8 some progress, and 1 with little/no progress. Overall 19
followed-up recommendations of 43 were closed (44%).
Evaluation
In 2010-11, there were 72 active management actions stemming from evaluation
recommendations. Follow-up was conducted on 50 management actions, while completion
dates for the remaining 22 management actions had not yet come due. Of the 50
recommendations that were followed up: 1 demonstrated some progress, 17 demonstrated
moderate progress, 29 demonstrated significant progress, and 3 were completed. Thus, 6% of
the management actions assessed in 2010-11 were fully implemented, while 58% showed
significant progress towards implementation.
Summary of Recommendations and Follow-up
NUMBER OF
INTERNAL AUDIT
RECOMMENDATIONS (RECS) 2009-10
(DEC.)
Total Recs Issued
Recs Accepted
Recs Already Completed
Recs Outstanding/Active
Recs Followed-up:
Closed or Completed
Significant Progress
Moderate Progress
Some Progress
Little/No Progress
Total Followed-up
For Future Follow-up
EXTERNAL AUDIT
EVALUATION
TOTAL
2010-11
(DEC.)
2009-10
(DEC.)
2010-11
(DEC.)
2009-10
(FEB.)
2010-11
(NOV.)
2009-10
2010-11
81
81
0
81
96
96
7
89
60
60
2
58
71
71
0
71
80
80
2
79
84
84
12
72
221
221
4
218
251
251
19
232
35
7
16
2
57
48
30
14
10
7
4
65
24
4
12
3
5
24
54
19
7
8
8
1
43
28
12
12
10
1
6
41
36
3
29
17
1
50
22
51
31
29
8
10
129
138
52
50
35
16
5
158
74
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 10
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
4.
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES AND INITIATIVES
4.1
QUALITY ASSURANCE
As part of its Quality Assurance Program, the AEB conducts annual Internal Quality
Assessments (IQA) to ensure conformance with accepted professional standards and policy
requirements. The IQA standards and criteria for quality assessment are based on the Institute
of Internal Auditors’ (IIA) International Professional Practices Framework in order to establish a
similar self-assessment process for both the audit and evaluation functions.
Internal Audit (IA)
The 2010-11 IQA confirmed that the IA function conforms to the IIA standards, but noted the
following two areas of non-conformity with the requirements of the TB Policy on Internal Audit
and the Internal Auditing Standards:

Nature of Internal Audit: the IA function must evaluate the Department’s ethics-related
objectives, programs and activities and how the Department manages fraud risk4. The
AEB will address these issues as follows:
1IA will audit the Values and Ethics process within the Department as part of the
Governance audit planned for 2011-12;
2IA plans to conduct a fraud risk assessment in 2013-14 as recommended per the
2010 TBS Internal Audit Practice Guide on Fraud.

Annual Overview Report: the AEB is required to implement the process for supporting
an annual overview report by the CAE5. Given the very recent guidance provided by
OCG (March 2011), IA will implement an approach to support and annual overview
report in 2011-12.
In addition, the recommendations of the 2009 External Quality Assessment Report on the IA
function were fully implemented in 2010-11, and presented to the EAAC in June 2010.
Evaluation
In 2009-10, the new TB Evaluation Policy and associated standards came into effect, which
prompted revisions to EC’s own Evaluation Policy to better align with new TBS policy guidance.
While the current IQA continues to reflect IIA standards where possible, it also integrates these
new and updated evaluation policies and professional standards.
The IQA results for 2010-11 indicate that the Evaluation Division is meeting all identified
standards. Furthermore, the Evaluation Division has fully implemented the two
recommendations stemming from the OAG Report of Fall 2009, which dealt with the need to
ensure that ongoing program performance information is collected to support effective
evaluation.
4
5
Per IIA International Standards for The Professional Practice of Internal Auditing; Standards 2110.A1
and 2120.A2
Refers to Internal Audit Policy section 4.2.5; and the Directive on CAE, Internal Audit Plans and
Support to the Comptroller General, section 4.1.2
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 11
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
4.2
CLIENT ASSESSMENTS
During the year, both audit and evaluation used similar approaches to obtain clients' feedback
and assessments of the quality of the AEB products and services, and the value of our work.
Both IA and evaluation send surveys to clients after completion of each project in order to
assess their products and services. In summary, the AEB received very positive responses with
a small number that were unfavourable. Clients also provided a few comments on areas for
improvement. A more detailed description of the assessment results follows, and the survey
results and criteria used are also summarized in the following table (next page).
Internal Audit Surveys
Internal audit surveys request managers to provide feedback on the quality of the audit products
and services. The responsible Assistant Deputy Ministers (ADMs) are asked about the value of
the audit. During this past year, the IA Division sent out surveys for nine audits and received
fifteen responses from ADMs and managers.
Overall, managers' responses were very favourable indicating positive agreement (strongly
agree or agree) to questions concerning both the quality and value of the audit. The surveys
also garnered a fair amount of “neutral” responses and a small number of negative responses
(disagree) that may indicate some areas for possible improvement. Comments indicated that
clients were impressed with the professionalism of the auditors and the value added by audit
services. Comments also indicated a few areas where improvements could be made: efforts
could be made to reduce overburdening clients during heavy workload times of the year, and
increase information sharing with managers and directors. Also, it was suggested that client
feedback and suggestions could be better incorporated in the audit process, and the process
has been improved accordingly.
Evaluation Surveys
Similarly, the evaluation surveys ask Evaluation Committee members to provide feedback on
the quality of evaluation products and services, and the value of the evaluations. As well, ADMs
responsible for the corresponding programs are asked about the value of the evaluation.
Surveys were sent out for eight evaluations and the Evaluation Division received responses
from Evaluation Committee members for 88 percent of the evaluations, and from ADMs (or
other senior managers) for 75 percent of the evaluations.
In terms of the quality of evaluation, survey results show that all respondents “strongly agree” or
“agree” that evaluators demonstrated most of the evaluator competencies measured6 and with
the quality of the evaluations’ delivery7 . Although more than four-in-five respondents also
agreed with the clarity and conciseness of evaluation products and the evaluators’ knowledge of
their program area, one respondent disagreed with these statements, thus suggesting continued
areas for review or improvement.
Respondents’ feedback concerning the value of evaluations was also positive, both in terms of
how evaluations are used - all agree that evaluations supported program renewal, and internal
decision making - and the value of the resulting product8. In only four areas were negative
6
7
8
Evaluator competencies: objectivity, professionalism, and openness of communications
Evaluation delivery: the timeliness of evaluation results, the effective use of committee time, the
reasonableness of the evaluators’ requests, and the clarity of roles and responsibilities
Value: credibility of conclusions and the fairness/objectivity/validity of findings and conclusions
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 12
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
responses noted: the timeliness of results, the utility of recommendations, the importance of
issues addressed and the overall utility of the evaluation. While a majority agreed with these
statements, the results identify possible areas for continuous improvement.
The potential areas for improvement identified via the surveys will continue to be taken into
consideration as part of the ongoing evaluation activities.
Summary – Survey Results
SURVEY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
NUMBER OF RESPONSES
AND OVERALL PERCENTAGES
INTERNAL AUDIT
1) Quality of Audit Products and Services
Findings are credible
Products were of good quality
Report completed in a timely fashion
Effectively used meeting time
Maintained open communications
Knowledgeable about the program
Professional interactions with program
Remained objective
Category – Overall Percentages
11111711111511
1311111811114 1
1151111191111
111171111117111
111171111117111
211161111151112
11611111191111
113111171111411
Agree: 80%
Disagree: 3%
2) Value of Audits
Helpful and added value to organization
Opportunities for improvement
Recommendations are useful
Conclusions are credible
Addressed important issues facing the function
Category – Overall Percentages
21141111511
1311411131
1141121131
1121141131
2111511131
Agree: 70%
Disagree: 4%
EVALUATION
1) Quality of Evaluation Products and Services
Products were clear and concise
Results available in a timely fashion *
Effectively used committee meeting time *
Maintained open communications
Requests were reasonable, allowed time for response *
Roles and responsibilities were clear
Knowledgeable about the program
Evaluators were professional
Evaluators remained objective
Category – Overall Percentages
1111511
21
111511
1116111
21131
1141131
121141
111711
111711
Agree: 96%
Disagree: 4%
2) Value of Evaluation
Contributed to program renewal
211111113111111
Conclusions were credible *
1131
Contributed to internal decision-making
1161111117111
Results available in a timely fashion *
1115111141
Contained valid, evidence-based findings/conclusions * 115111141
Recommendations are useful
2111411117111
Addressed important issues
2111511116111
Evaluation was useful *
211311141
Category – Overall Percentages Agree: 93%
Disagree: 2%
Notes:
* These questions have a reduced response set due to mid-year changes in the survey questionnaire.
1] Category – Overall Percentages: % Agree, includes both “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” responses;
% Disagree, includes “Disagree” responses.
Colour codes:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Page 13
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
4.3
MAF ASSESSMENTS
The Department has steadily demonstrated strong and continuous improvement of its internal
audit and evaluation functions through the last several TBS assessments of its Management
Accountability Framework (MAF). Accordingly, the Department obtained a perfect score for its
internal audit function and the quality and use of evaluation in Round VIII of the MAF.
The following table provides the comparative results of the last three Rounds of MAF
assessments.
MAF
AREAS OF M ANAGEMENT AND CRITERIA
ROUND VI
(2008-09)
ROUND VII
(2009-10)
ROUND VIII
(2010-11)
5. Effectiveness of Internal Audit Function
5.1 An Internal Audit governance structure is
fully developed with sufficient capacity to
sustain performance
5.2 Internal Audit work is performed in
accordance with the Policy and Directives on
Internal Audit
5.3 Internal Audit is contributing to improvements
in risk, control, governance and
organizational performance
Acceptable
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Opportunity for
Improvement
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Acceptable
Acceptable
Strong
Acceptable
Acceptable
Strong
6.
Quality and Use of Evaluation
6.1 Quality of evaluation reports
6.2 Governance and support for the evaluation
function
6.3 Evaluation coverage of the organization’s
direct program spending
6.4 Use of evaluation in support of decisionmaking and reporting
In addition however, the MAF Round VII assessment of Area of Management 17 ("Effectiveness
of Financial Management and Control" - discontinued in round VIII) identified the need to
improve the number and quality of independent financial reviews. The AEB committed to
ensure related internal audits would be of a more substantive nature, and addressed this issue
in its 2011 RBAEP through a planned pilot project that will examine the potential for broader
scope functional audits.
4.4
LESSONS LEARNED AND CHALLENGES
Many of the lessons learned identified in the course of audit and evaluation work conducted in
2010-11 reflect ongoing challenges related to the delivery of programs, initiatives and internal
services. As such, this section represents a blend of lessons learned and ongoing challenges
which closely mirror those identified through previous annual reports, as well as fresher insights
based largely on observations from the past fiscal period.
A.
DEPARTMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Clearly articulated governance, roles and responsibilities allow all delivery partners to
work in concert toward the achievement of program or internal services objectives.
Various 2010-11 audits and evaluations identified issues resulting from poorly articulated
roles, responsibilities and governance. This is particularly relevant to interdepartmental
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 14
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
initiatives, given the complexity of coordinating the activities of different partner
departments. Evaluations clearly demonstrate that partner engagement is enhanced
through clearly communicated program objectives, a strong governance framework to
facilitate coordination, and roles and responsibilities that are clearly understood.

The availability and effective use of financial and performance information remain
challenging for many Departmental managers. As previously reported, program areas
often experience challenges to consistently use existing tools to track financial resources
and expenditures in order to demonstrate the efficiency and economy of their programs.
Both the availability and effective use of comparable and current financial and
performance information remain a challenge.

Early planning for evaluation reduces burden on program managers and evaluators
alike. To improve the efficiency of evaluations and reduce the burden on programs, the
Evaluation Division will continue to work with programs to encourage the early adoption
of tools and processes to facilitate their participation in evaluations (e.g., using preevaluation evaluability checks) and to streamline data collection and analytic processes
through the use of novel methodologies.
B.
AEB LESSONS LEARNED
Audit

In response to a previous MAF assessment9 recommendation to improve the quality of
independent financial reviews, the internal audit team has implemented a more rigorous
approach to analyzing risks and planning audit engagements. This has proven
beneficial to more effectively scope projects and ensure their added value.

Senior managers are increasingly requesting audit briefings, which indicate a sound
appetite for partaking in the internal audit process. Building on this interest, the internal
audit team is working towards improving their communication strategy with senior
management and audit entities. For instance, with respect to department-wide audits,
processes will ensure that all ADMs will be consulted during the audit planning phase.

Early engagement of senior managers is a critical factor for effectively coordinating
external audit, and helping ensure the audit will effectively address issues that are of
concern to the Department. Managers' early engagement also supports the branches
ability to prepare and respond to the audit as well as engage partners in other
government departments where appropriate. In this context, the outreach activities
conducted by the AEB to familiarize other branches with external audit requirements and
processes play a useful role.
Evaluation
In response to expanding requirements for evaluation coverage of both direct program spending
and transfer payments program, the Evaluation division has adopted a new approach to plan
and conduct evaluations at the PAA level (i.e. PAA sub-activities and sub-sub-activities).
Although still in its early stages, experiences to date have yielded clear lessons which will be
monitored to ensure the success of the new approach:
9
MAF Round VII, Area of Management 17, Line of Evidence 17.5
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 15
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011

Program activities aligned to the same PAA element are not always planned or
implemented in concert, such that governance, performance measurement, program
design (i.e. logic models) are often not coordinated. The efficiency with which an
evaluation can be conducted depends largely on the maturity of the PAA element and the
level of integration of the implicated program areas.

Broad evaluations of PAA elements reduce the Evaluation Division’s flexibility to remain
responsive to the needs of all implicated program areas. The timing of PAA-level
evaluations is often guided by mandatory evaluation requirements (e.g. TB commitments)
of one specific program area. As such, the timing of an evaluation may not always be ideal
for all program areas implicated in a PAA-level evaluation.

For PAA-level evaluations, the trade-off between the breadth of scope and the depth of
analysis that can be sustained has the potential to adversely affect the utility of evaluation
in support of decision-making. The Evaluation Division will continue to explore novel
information sources and strategies (e.g. evaluability assessments, online surveys, open
data portals, leveraging external meetings and group interviews and teleconferencing)
which will help gather more detailed information using fewer resources. This will partially
assist in alleviating the scope trade-off.
4.5
OTHER INITIATIVES
A.
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES DEVELOPMENT
Audit
The IA Policy aims to professionalize the internal audit function across government.
Accordingly, expectations for strong professional practices and capacity building within the AEB
are high and remain a priority. IA continued to foster professional and practices development10
during the year through various activities, for instance:

Continuous development of the TeamMate software to improve the process for the
follow-up of management action plans arising from internal audit recommendations;

Promoting the increased use of established standard audit criteria based on the Core
Management Controls defined by the OCG;

Initiated a review of past continuous auditing practices within the Department in light of
the OCG’s Internal Audit Practice Guide on Continuous Auditing issued in May 2010;
and

Reviewed the updated International Standards for Professional Practice of Internal
Auditing (Standards) issued by The Institute of Internal Auditors in October 2010, to
determine its impact on our practice.
10 Also refer to section 5.1B. and 5.1 D.
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 16
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
Evaluation
In April 2009, the TB Policy on Evaluation came into effect and has been a major driver of the
activities of the Evaluation Division. While many aspects of the new Policy were already in
place at EC, the new Policy also brought with it a number of new requirements for the
Evaluation Division. To address these requirements, an implementation plan was created in
order to put timelines and milestones into place for the following activities to ensure compliance
with the new policy:

Five-year evaluation plan: Full evaluation coverage on a rolling five-year cycle will be
required beginning in 2013-14. In 2010-11, a five-year departmental evaluation plan
was created for 2011-12 to 2015-16, linked to the new 2011-12 PAA and including 93%
of all direct program spending and 100% of all grant and contribution programs over the
five-year timeframe.

Resource calibration: To improve the accuracy of overall evaluation planning and
project resource allocation the Evaluation Division has developed a resource calibration
approach and criteria to provide better estimates of the resources required to address
different types of evaluations.

Development of Guidelines for the Review of Cabinet Documents: A guideline
document was developed for the review of TB submissions and memoranda to cabinet
to ensure the quality of Evaluation Division advice that is consistent with the Policy on
Evaluation and internal planning processes.

Performance measurement activities: The Department’s first annual report on the
state of performance measurement in support of evaluation was presented to the DEC in
June 2010. The Evaluation Division has since implemented an approach to meet the
new Evaluation Policy requirement for the availability of appropriate performance
measurement in support of evaluation. This included:
Delivery of 27 performance measurement information sessions to over 200
department managers;
Participation in 3 pilot projects to develop guidelines for performance
measurement strategies;
Completion of a baseline inventory of all performance measurement activities
throughout the Department; and,
Conduct eight pre-evaluation evaluability checks to assess readiness of
programs evaluation.
The Department’s RBAEP has been expanded to include the ongoing monitoring of
performance measurement to support future evaluations. However, current resource
constraints suggest that this may be re-considered for the 2011-12 fiscal period.
B.
ANNUAL OVERVIEW REPORT
The TB Policy requires11 the CAE to provide an independent annual overview report to the
Deputy Minister and the audit committee on the adequacy and effectiveness of risk
management, control and governance processes. In order to prepare for the overview report,
the AEB has taken the following steps:
11 TB Directive on CAE, Internal Audit Plans, and Support to the Comptroller General
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 17
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011

All past and new recommendations from internal audits, evaluations and external audits
have been recorded in a database (TeamCentral) and have been categorized against
the MAF core controls in order to collect adequate information;

The 2011-14 RBAEP risk-based audit plan links each audit project to the corporate risk
profile, corporate priorities and corresponding elements of the MAF, in order to ensure
coverage and to help reporting;

Specific projects were included in the RBAEP to support coverage of governance, risk
management and control processes; and

The OCG guidance was introduced in March 2011 “Practice Advisory: Annual Overview
Reporting by the Chief Audit Executive” and will be used in fiscal year 2011-12 for
developing an appropriate approach and the CAE’s first annual overview report.
C.
CONTRIBUTION TO COMMUNITIES
In 2010-11, the AEB supported the internal audit and evaluation communities in the federal
government in a number of ways. These included:
Audit




Held a TeamMate User Group session in order to share best practices, including other
government departments and agencies;
CAE presented at the OCG sponsored Professional Practices Forum;
AEB hosted the CAE Working Group sessions; and
Participated in the OCG software evaluation group for internal practice management.
Evaluation




D.
Participated in a TBS working group on competencies;
Hosted the third annual Environmental Evaluators Network (Canada) Forum;
Presented at the Canadian Evaluation Society Annual National Conference, and to the
Heads of Evaluation on best practices as highlighted in the OAG Audit of Evaluation;
and
Participated in the development of guidelines and a handbook for Performance
Measurement and Evaluation Plans for regulatory initiatives.
AUDIT AND EVALUATION COMMITTEES
In 2010-11, the AEB (SPC Division) provided ongoing secretariat, consultative and strategic
support to the EAAC, with four meetings and five teleconferences and to the DEC with six
meetings. The EAAC meetings were designed to ensure that audit committee fulfilled the
requirements of their mandate and charter, and included consultations with external assurance
providers such as the OAG, OCG, CESD and the Procurement Ombudsman.
The AEB also worked in collaboration with the OCG to support the renewal and the appointment
of the EAAC members.
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 18
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
E.
PLANNING AND REPORTING
The 2011 multi-year RBAEP was further strengthened through the following key improvements
and changes:




Improved efficiency by coordinating with Corporate Management Directorate to align the
RBAEP and the Corporate Risk Profile risk assessment methodologies, timelines and
processes;
Better targeting consultations with EC’s senior managers at the ADM/RDG level;
Expanding the PAA-based planning universe for internal services through further
breakdown into key sub-areas and functions, and better linkages to the MAF; and
Better integrating the evaluation coverage of both ongoing Grants and Contributions
programs and direct program spending over the next five-year planning period (Policy
requirements).
The AEB Annual Report for 2009-10 has also been improved to include additional information
related to: the implementation of recommendations; client survey results; progress towards
preparing for the annual overview reporting; and person-months and costs incurred for each
projects. Building on the strength of the 2009-10 report which the EAAC has noted as a good
report that demonstrated continuous progress, this report has been further improved.
The AEB also provided input to departmental corporate documents such as the Report on Plans
and Priorities, Departmental Performance Report, Corporate Risk Profile, Integrated Corporate
Plan, Departmental Human Resources Plan and MAF.
F.
ENVIRONMENTAL PETITIONS
In addition, the AEB (SPC Division) provided ongoing coordination of the Department’s
response to the CESD Environmental Petitions addressed to the Minister of the Environment.
EC was one of the most petitioned departments with eighteen petitions received in 2010-2011.
Eight were completed and responded within legislated timeframe, one was for information, and
nine are planned for response in 2011-12.
G.
AEB PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT STRATEGY
The AEB performance measurement strategy including logic-model and indicators was
presented to the EAAC in June, 2010. Following recommendations of the EAAC, the
performance measurement strategy was revised. As the performance measurement activities
of the AEB matures, the strategy will continue to be refined to ensure relevant and efficient data
collection that adequately measures the performance of the AEB and allows for continuous
improvement.
5.
HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES
5.1
HUMAN RESOURCES
Integrated human resources (HR) planning is important to ensure that AEB is equipped with the
capacity required to deliver on its mandate. The AEB HR plan is aligned to the departmental
HR priorities and examines current and future HR requirements as well as identifies strategies
to help the AEB achieve its priorities and mandate. Progress towards implementing the
strategies identified in the 2010-11 integrated HR Plan during the year included the following:
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 19
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
A.
STAFFING AND RECRUITMENT
An important objective of the HR plan is to ensure the AEB positions were fully staffed. A total
of six new employees joined the AEB during 2010-11, while there were three departures and
one secondment to another organization. Details of staff turnover were the following:




Two permanent employees left Internal Audit Division, one returned from language
training and three new auditors were hired;
Another four permanent employees left the Evaluation Division, one senior evaluator is
on secondment until August 2011, and two new evaluators were hired;
One new planning officer joined the Strategic Planning and Coordination (SPC) Division;
and
A senior employee (executive) also joined the AEB on a temporary assignment.
In addition, the AEB hired eleven students through the Co-op Program to expose students to
the audit and evaluation professions. Overall the AEB was successful in using 32 of its 33
planned FTEs (see Section 5.2).
B.
LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
During the year, the AEB continued to ensure employees have appropriate professional
qualifications and skills, and opportunities for training and development to maintain and develop
their competencies. Overall, the AEB employees spent a total of 18 person-months on training
and training related activities (an average of more than 2 weeks per employee), and highlights
the AEB priority and continued efforts on employee development.
As well, each employee is required to develop an annual learning plan and overall, twenty eight
employees (88%) had developed a learning plan in 2010-11. About two-thirds of employees
had either fully completed or completed the large majority of their plans during the year (i.e. over
70% completed). The other third completed smaller proportions of their plans, for various
reasons including: evolution of training needs; planned training activities no longer relevant or
available; and issues related to employees' availability. In addition, a number of unplanned or
group training activities were conducted that are not captured against individual learning plans.
For instance, as part of the in-house Learning Series, three well attended sessions were
provided to employees on topics such as software skills and federal government financial
management. Learning and development will remain an essential AEB HR priority for the
coming year
C.
PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEE SURVEY
To address issues raised through the Public Service Employee Survey, the AEB developed an
Employee Engagement Strategy to improve dialogue between management and staff, and to
address other areas for improvement. The main actions focused on better communication,
participation and workload management, and were articulated in the integrated HR Plan.
Progress is monitored and shared with all employees, and the Engagement Strategy and
actions will be reviewed and updated periodically. Another Public Service Employee Survey will
be conducted in 2011 and results will be reflected in the next CAE/DG AEB Annual Report.
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 20
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
D.
CERTIFICATION AND DESIGNATION
To ensure the highest standards of professional activity, the AEB continued to support and
encourage the attainment of employee professional designations, particularly with respect to the
audit function. In 2010-11, there were six (36%) employees of the IA Division who had a
professional designation:




Two Certified Internal Auditor (CIA);
One CIA / Certified Government Auditing Professional (CIA/CGAP);
One Certified Information System (CISA); and
Another employee is currently completing a CIA designation
In addition to the audit division, other accounting/audit designations were held by the AEB staff
or management:



One CIA
One CA and CFE (senior employee on assignment)
One CA / CISA / CISM12
5.2
BUDGET AND PROJECT RESOURCES
A.
AEB BUDGET SUMMARY
The AEB 2010-11 initial budget, as presented in the 2010 RBAEP, was for a total $3.6M and 33
full time equivalents (FTEs). The actual expenditures for the year totalled $ 3.4M, leaving a
surplus of approximately $222K or 6% in relation to the initial planned budget. However, the
budget was subject to various adjustments during the year, and the final budget was lower by
$ 37K, resulting in a slightly smaller year-end surplus of $185K or 5%. The principal reasons for
the year-end surplus were:

The major difference is due to an underutilization of the Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) budget caused mainly by reduced use of professional services, travel
(Government travel spending cap), training, as well as early termination of an
Interchange Canada agreement.

As well, less was spent by the EAAC mainly because there were less teleconferences
than originally planned, reducing both salaries and communication costs. Also the
EAAC budget was planned as O&M, but expenses include both salary and O&M. This
explains the overall difference between total planned and actual AEB salaries.
The AEB utilised 32 FTEs of its planned total of 33 FTEs to carry its activities. The small
variance of one FTE is due to some staff turnover, mostly in evaluation, as outlined previously in
section 5.1.A. The following table provides a summary of the AEB planned and the actual
resources for 2010-11.
12 CA = Chartered Accountant; CISM = Certified Information Security Officer;
Information Systems Auditor; CFE = Certified Fraud Examiner
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
CISA = Certified
Page 21
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
Summary - Planned and Actual FTEs and Budget
2010-11
DIVISION
PLANNED BUDGET ($ 000)
ACTUAL EXPENDITURES ($ 000)
PLANNED
ACTUAL
FTES
FTES
DG Office
3
3
Audit
13
13
1,026
244
1,270
998
186
1,184
Evaluation
13
12
985
394
1,379
1,044
313
1,357
SPC
4
4
299
131
430
313
104
417
Subtotal
33
32
2,599
857
3,456
2,640
644
3,284
170
170
91
29
120
SALARY
$
289
O&M
$
EAAC
TOTAL
1]
2]
3]
B.
33
32
$
2,599
$
TOTAL
88
1,027
$
$
377
3,626
SALARY
$
$
285
2,731
O&M
$
$
TOTAL
41
673
$
$
326
3,404
Notes:
Planned FTEs and Budget represent information included in the 2010-11 RBAEP. Budget information presented
is based on permanent allocations (A-base) and excludes any temporary funding received during the year for
specific projects or evaluations (B-base).
Actual FTEs and Expenditures were taken from the Branch year-end final reports.
EAAC Salary is funded through transfer of O&M budget
PERSONNEL RESOURCE UTILIZATION
The AEB had planned to use a total 205 person months (PM) in 2010-11 to carry out audit and
evaluation projects, and strategic planning and coordination activities. The AEB has actually
used a total of 207.6 PM during the year. The following figure (next page) provides the
breakdown of the planned and actual PM used to carry out the various AEB activities.
Overall, 71% of productive employee time was dedicated to: internal audit (22%), external audit
(7%), evaluation (27%), strategic planning and coordination (9%), support provided to EAAC
(7%) and other activities (29%). Time utilization and related variances are explained in the
following paragraphs.
Internal and External Audit
The IA Division had planned a total of 64.5 PM to complete its internal audit projects and 4 PM
were targeted for recommendations follow-up. Approximately 55 PM were actually used for
projects and 8 PM for follow-ups. The total variance of 5.5 PM was due to a combination of
some projects requiring more time than planned, and others requiring less. More time than
planned was also required to follow-up on recommendations.
The coordination and liaison of external audit had planned for approximately 16.9 PM to
complete its audit commitments, but an additional 2.5 PM was required for managing external
audits because of some unforeseen activity and complexity.
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 22
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
Summary - Planned and Actual Person Months for 2010-11
Planned and Actual Person Months
64.5
Internal Audit
55.0
16.9
19.4
External Audit
Follow-up on Audit
Recom.
4.0
8.3
81.3
78.5
Evaluation
Follow-up on Eval.
Recom.
3.3
1.3
Stategic Planning &
Coordination
EAAC Support
Planned
Actual
19.6
25.4
15.3
19.7
Other Activities
73.7
84.6
Notes and Explanations:
Internal Audit includes all PM dedicated to internal audit engagements.
External Audit includes PM dedicated to the coordination of audits being carried out by the OAG, the CESD
and other organizations.
Follow-up on Audit Recommendations includes all PM dedicate to follow-ups on the recommendation
management action plans (includes internal and external audit).
Evaluation includes all PM dedicated to evaluation projects and those required for projects led by other
departments and agencies.
Follow-up on Evaluation Recommendations includes all PM dedicate to follow-ups on the recommendation
management action plans.
Strategic Planning & Coordination includes PM dedicated to the DEC, RBAEP, AEB Reporting, corporate
planning and reporting (e.g. MAF, RPP, DPR, Integrated Business Plan, Branch HR Plan).
EAAC Support includes PM dedicated to provide support to the EAAC (part of SPC).
Other Activities include PM dedicated to activities such as: Training; Internal meetings and management;
Client consultations; HR and staffing; Maintenance of Time Recording System (TRS) and TeamMate (3%);
and various miscellaneous administrative activities.
Evaluation
The Evaluation Division had originally planned for 81.3 PM to complete its evaluation projects
and 3.3 PM for recommendations follow-up. In 2010-11, the Evaluation Division actually used
78.5 PM towards evaluation projects and approximately one person month for follow-ups. The
PM utilization was lower due to staff departure, time required for staffing vacancies plus the
need to spend more resources than anticipated on corporate activities.
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 23
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
Strategic Planning & Coordination (SPC) and Other
The SPC Division planned for 19.6 PM to complete its projects and 15.3 PM to support the
EAAC, but used 25.4 PM towards projects and 19.7 PM for EAAC. The variance of 5.8 PM is
due primarily to the unplanned assignment of a senior staff. The difference of 4.4 PM for the
EAAC was related to EAAC appointments and renewal activities, as well as response to OAG
Evaluation of the IA Policy.
The 84.6 PM used for other activities represents about 29% of the AEB's productive time and is
used for the following: Training (6%); Internal meetings and management (7%); Client
consultations (3%); HR and staffing (2%); Maintenance of TRS and TeamMate (3%); and
various miscellaneous administrative activities (8%).
C.
PROJECT RESOURCES AND VARIANCES
The resources planned and utilised on individual projects, either project completed or inprogress during the year, are presented in Appendix A. We have also explained major
variances pertaining to completed projects. Overall, the variances in projects resources (person
months) and costs (professional services) represent trade-offs that tend to balance each other
out. Most variances are due to either changes in scope, complexity or timing of projects, or
situations outside the AEB's control.
6.
MOVING FORWARD
The AEB will continue to build on lessons it learned during the year from its various activities
including its audit and evaluation work, client surveys and consultations, planning and risk
exercise. As such, the recent 2011 RBAEP13 reflects some of the improvements stemming from
these activities and lessons. In the current context of fiscal restraint, the new plan continues to
focus on areas of highest risk while ensuring that it captures key departmental and governmentwide priorities and challenges.
Next year 's AEB priorities and projects reflect the highest risk areas, align with senior
management's priorities and challenges, and take into consideration key policy requirements.
According to past practice, the work of external assurance providers is integrated in our plans to
ensure effective coverage, as well as minimize duplication of efforts, and audit and evaluation
fatigue.
The AEB remains committed to conducting audit engagements and evaluation projects of the
highest quality to support the improvement of management practices and program design and
delivery in the Department. As well, the AEB is committed to continually strengthening its
services and professional practice to respond to changing demands and requirements. In 201112, the AEB will focus its resources and efforts on the following priorities areas:
•
Provide the best possible value-added services to the Department in light of resource
constraints;
•
Meet the needs of the EAAC and the DEC (including EAAC renewal);
13 The Departmental Audit and Evaluation Plan for 2011–13 can be found at: www.ec.gc.ca/ae-ve/ .
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 24
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
•
Further improve the internal audit professional practices, consistent with IIA standards:
-
Improve accuracy of project timelines and minimizing unplanned carry-overs;
-
Complete the development of the approach and pilot report in support of annual
overview reporting on governance, risk management and control processes;
-
Pilot performing a wider-scoped functional audit of Grants and Contributions, including
both finance and the program areas;
-
Undertake a pilot project to provide auditees (Branches) direct access to TeamCentral to
access status updates on the implementation of their management action plans;
•
Complete the implementation of the TB Policy on Evaluation, maintain the quality of
evaluation services, and strive to meet required evaluation coverage of direct program
spending by 2013; and
•
Further strengthen the AEB performance indicators and periodic reporting.
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 25
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
APPENDIX A.: 2010-11 AUDIT AND EVALUATION PROJECTS
Overview
The table on the next 2 pages presents the individual internal audit and evaluation projects completed or
in progress in 2010-11. The summary table also provides planned and actual project resources used to
date (over life of the project at March 31 2011). The projects resources include person-months and
professional services costs. Major variances between the planned and actual resources of completed
projects are highlighted (yellow) and briefly explained in the following paragraphs.
Completed Audits – Key Variances:

Governance of IT Resources: Up front commitment from the involved ADMs help progress this file
more quickly resulted in a positive variance of 3.8 PM.

Economic Action Plan - Part I: Additional work required to assess compliance of the Section 33 and
34 of the FAA, led to a 2.6 variance (deficit) in person-months.

Physical Security: The conduct of this audit was stopped during the planning phase because of other
priorities. By the time the project was restarted, a new policy suite had been implemented resulting in
having to redo the planning phase. In addition, the audit project entailed multiple editions of reports
and negotiations with the client entity, which accounts for the majority of the variance in personmonths utilised.

Classification Process: This project was stopped at the planning stage which accounts for the surplus
in terms of time and money spent on this project.
Completed Evaluations – Key Variances:

Clean Air Agenda (CAA) Management and Accountability, Great Lakes Action Plan and the
Freshwater Initiatives Evaluation Plan: In each of these 3 cases, the decision was made to outsource
significant aspects of these projects to contractors, after completion of the 2010 plan. The resulting
shift from use of internal resources (PM) to external consultants (cost) is the principal reason for the
variations in person-month and costs.

Improved Climate Change Scenarios: The person-month deficit resulted from the fact that the
evaluation was more complex than anticipated, and unforeseen delays were encountered to negotiate
revisions and evaluation approvals.

Clean Air Regulatory Agenda (CARA): Due to the complexity of the evaluation, a portion of the
evaluation (approximately half of the key informant interviews) was contracted out, after the
completion of the 2010 plan, while the remainder of the evaluation was conducted using in-house
resources.

CAA Horizontal Roll-up: The person-month variation was due to a change in the scope of the
evaluation to address delays in reporting from other government departments and ensure timely
reporting to the DEC.

Weather Predictions Program: The 2009 and 2010 Risk-Based Evaluation Plans budgeted $90,000
for professional services needed to conduct the evaluation. However, the evaluation was conducted
by internal resources due to existing staff expertise related to previous evaluations of Meteorological
Services of Canada programs.

Adaptation Thematic Evaluation: The evaluation was conducted using fewer human resources than
previously anticipated due to careful planning with other government departments to ensure that all
interdepartmental evaluation data were delivered on time.

Genomic Research and Design Initiative: This was an interdepartmental evaluation, led by another
government department, that required fewer human resources than originally anticipated.
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 26
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
Summary – Planned and Actual Project Resources to Date
2010-11 PROJECTS
Start Dates
& End Dates
Planned
Cost
PM
$000
Actual
Cost
PM
$000
Variance
Cost
PM
$000
%
Complete
(estimate)
INTERNAL AUDIT
Projects Completed
Governance of IT Resources
Q2 2009-10
Q2 2010-11
Economic Action Plan Part I
Q2 2009-10
Q2 2010-11
Physical Security
Q2 2009-10
Q2 2010-11
Compliance Audit of the
Q4 2009-10
Procurement Process
Q2 2010-11
Review of Employee Separation Q2 2009-10
Clearance Procedures
Q2 2010-11
Classification Process
Q2 2010-11
Q4 2010-11
Sub-Total / Average
13.0
$ 0.0
9.2
$ 0.0
3.8
$ 0.0
100%
5.0
0.0
7.6
0.0
(2.6)
0.0
100%
10.0
0.0
12.8
0.0
(2.8)
0.0
100%
1.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
(0.6)
0.0
100%
3.5
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.8
0.0
100%
6.0
45.0
1.3
0.0
4.7
45.0
100%
38.5
$ 45.0
35.2
$ 0.0
3.3
$ 45.0
13.0
$ 65.0
7.3
$ 31.2
60%
10.0
0.0
12.3
0.0
80%
2.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
90%
Information Technology
12.0
Financial Controls
Average Completion
Average – Projects Planned for Completion in 2010-11
50.0
6.9
0.0
75%
100% avg
Projects In Progress – Unplanned Carry-Overs
Governance of Information
Management
Services to Marine
Transportation
Economic Action Plan Part II
Q4 2009-10
Q2 2011-12
Q1 2010-11
Q2 2011-12
Q1 2010-11
Q2 2011-12
Q1 2010-11
Q2 2011-12
76% avg
91% avg
Projects in Progress – Planned Carry-Overs
Risk Management
Life Cycle Management of
Assets
Average Completion
AUDIT AVERAGE
Q3 2010-11
Q3 2011-12
Q1 2009-10
Q3 2011-12
9.0
$ 0.0
6.3
$ 0.0
85%
13.0
25.0
8.1
0.5
85%
85% avg
90% avg
EVALUATION
Projects Completed
Improved Climate Change
Scenarios
CARA-Thematic Evaluation
CAA-Management &
Accountability
Great Lakes Action Plan
Freshwater Initiatives Plans
CAA-Horizontal Roll-Up
Weather Predictions Program
Water Management - Plan
Wildlife Habitat Foundation
CAA-International Actions -
Q1 2009-10
Q3 2010-11
Q3 2009-10
Q2 2010-11
Q1 2009-10
Q3 2010-11
Q1 2009-10
Q1 2010-11
Q1 2009-10
Q1 2010-11
Q1 2010-11
Q3 2010-11
Q2 2009-10
Q4 2010-11
Q2 2009-10
Q2 2010-11
Q3 2009-10
Q4 2010-11
Q2 2009-10
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
7.0
$ 0.0
16.2
$ 1.7
(9.2)
$ (1.7)
100%
5.5
10.0
5.0
41.2
0.5
(31.2)
100%
3.5
25.0
3.8
93.3
(0.3)
(68.3)
100%
7.0
0.0
5.3
67.9
1.7
(67.9)
100%
7.0
0.0
3.5
40.5
3.5
(40.5)
100%
5.3
25.0
1.8
25.9
3.5
(0.9)
100%
18.0
90.0
16.6
1.8
1.4
88.2
100%
7.0
25.0
8.3
0.0
(1.3)
25.0
100%
7.8
60.0
6.5
60.7
1.3
(0.7)
100%
4.8
8.0
4.1
78.4
0.7
(70.4)
100%
Page 27
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
2010-11 PROJECTS
Planned
Cost
PM
$000
Start Dates
& End Dates
Evaluation
Adaptation Thematic Evaluation
Q3 2010-11
Q1 2010-11
Q2 2010-11
Genomics Research and Design Q4 2009-10
Initiatives Evaluation
Q4 2010-11
Clean Energy Dialogue
Q4 2009-10
Q4 2010-11
Public Confidence in Pesticide
Q4 2009-10
Regs and Access to Pest
Q4 2010-11
Management Products
Sub-Total / Average
Actual
Cost
PM
$000
Variance
Cost
PM
$000
%
Complete
(estimate)
5.3
0.0
2.1
0.0
3.2
0.0
100%
4.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
3.3
0.0
100%
4.0
75.0
3.4
63.4
0.6
11.6
100%
0.3
0.0
0.7
0.0
(0.4)
0.0
100%
86.5
$318.0
78.0
$474.8
8.5
(156.8)
2.3
0.0
0.4
0.0
95%
8.5
50.0
7.8
0.0
75%
1.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
95%
9.5
0.0
4.6
0.0
90%
4.3
100.0
5.9
70.0
95%
100% avg
Projects in Progress – Unplanned Carry-Overs
Pilot Project - Reducing
Emissions
Services to Marine
Transportation
2010 Olympics Games
Chemical Management Plan Evaluation
Vehicle Scrappage
Q2 2010-11
Q2 2011-12
Q1 2010-11
Q2 2011-12
Q1 2009-10
Q1 2011-12
Q3 2009-10
Q1 2011-12
Q1 2010-11
Q1 2011-12
Average Completion
Average - Projects Planned for Completion in 2010-11
90% avg
97% avg
Projects in Progress – Planned Carry-Overs
Waste Reduction and
Management
Species at Risk
Q1 2010-11
Q2 2011-12
Q1 2010-11
Q1 2011-12
Regulatory Improvements for
Q2 2010-11
Major Resource Projects
Q3 2011-12
Freshwater Initiatives Evaluation Q1 2010-11
Q2 2011-12
Performance Measurement
Ongoing
Provisions
Average Completion
11.5
25.0
11.4
0.0
60%
11.8
120.0
5.4
142.3
75%
4.8
0.0
0.2
0.0
15%
4.8
150.0
1.1
64.3
50%
6.5
50.0
5.7
0.0
90%
58% avg
Projects in Progress – Added Subsequently
Health of the Oceans
Policy on Green Procurement
Q4 2010-11
Q4 2011-12
Q3 2010-11
Q4 2011-12
TBD
0.1
0.0
35%
TBD
0.7
0.0
30%
Average Completion
EVALUATION AVERAGE
33%
Notes and Definitions
1]
2]
3]
The start and end-dates represent the actual quarter and year the project was initiated and completed (approved).
PM = person-month (corresponds to 21 person-days).
Cost = the cost in thousand dollars ($000) of professional services including outside resources/consultants and minor services such as
translation and HTML conversion costs.
4] Planned PM and Costs are determined from the corresponding audit and evaluation plans (RBAEP). For projects that were unplanned
carry-overs, the planned PM and Cost represent the initial planned amount for the total project.
5] Actual PM determined from the Branch's TRS as of March 31, 2011, and Actual Cost was taken from Branch year-end final reports.
Actuals are cumulative totals to March 31 2010, and not just 2010-11 PM or costs.
6] "Projects Completed" are this projects planned to be completed per the 2010 Risk-Based Audit & Evaluation Plan (RBAEP) and
completed as planned in 2010-11. Variances between [planned and Actual are presented for Completed Projects only.
7] "Unplanned Carry-Overs" represent projects that were planned to be completed in 2010-11, but still in progess as of March 31, 2011.
8] "Planned Carry-Overs" represent projects that were planned to be started in one year and completed in the next.
9] Projects "Added Subsequently" represent projects that were not included in the 2010 RBAEP but approved and initiated during the year.
10] "% Complete" represents an estimate of the percentage of completion of the project as of March 31, 2011 (rounded to the nearest 5%).
FINAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 28
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
Total number of
current follow-ups
Obsolete
TOTAL
# OF
RECS
Complete/ Full
Implementation
DUE
(YRS)
Moderate Progress/
Preparation for
implementation
Significant Progress/
Substantial
Implementation
EAAC/
DEC
PAST
Some Progress/
Planning Stage
AT
BRANCH
CURRENT ASSESSMENT
Little/ Insignificant or
No Progress
REPORTS WITH OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS
For Future Follow-up
YEAR
Already Competed
APPENDIX B:STATUS OF MANAGEMENT ACTION PLANS
APPENDIX B: STATUS OF MANAGEMENT ACTION PLANS
Internal Audit (December 2010)
Information Management Review
CIOB
2001
3*
0
Capital Assets Valuation Audit - Phase III
FCB
2005
6
0
FCB (4) &
HRB(1)
2006
5
4
1
FCB
2005
4*
0
1
CIOB (2) /
FCB (1)
2008
3
0
Audit of the Delegation of Financial Signing
Authorities
FCB
2008
7
3
1
Audit of Accounts Receivable
FCB
2009
8
0
1
Audit of the Efficiency of Contracting Processes
FCB
2009
5
0
5
Audit of the Efficiency of Staffing Operations
HRB
2009
11
0
HRB(13)/
FCB(2)
2009
15
0
FCB /
2010
3
0
Audit of Environment Canada’s Financial and
Staffing Activities - 11th Session of the Conference
of the Parties
Follow-up to the Audit and Evaluation of Class
Grants and Contributions
Audit of Information Technology Security - MITS
Audit of Occupational Health and Safety
Management Framework
Audit of Environment Canada’s Costing and Pricing
3
6
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
3
7
1
10
11
12
15
3
3
6
4
3
* To be closed due to current and upcoming audits.
AUDIT WORKING PAPER DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 29
Processes
Total number of
current follow-ups
Obsolete
TOTAL
# OF
RECS
Complete/ Full
Implementation
DUE
(YRS)
Moderate Progress/
Preparation for
implementation
Significant Progress/
Substantial
Implementation
EAAC/
DEC
PAST
Some Progress/
Planning Stage
AT
BRANCH
CURRENT ASSESSMENT
Little/ Insignificant or
No Progress
REPORTS WITH OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS
For Future Follow-up
YEAR
Already Competed
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
Others
Audit of Specified Purpose Accounts
FCB
2010
5
0
Audit of the National Hydrometric Program
MSC
2010
8
0
2
Review of Employee Separation Clearance
Process
CIOB
2010
4
0
4
Audit of the Physical Security
FCB
2010
5
0
5
Audit of the Competitive Procurement Process
FCB
2010
3
0
3
Audit of Life Cycle Management (Interim Report)
FCB
2010
1
0
96
7
TOTALS
4
24
1
4
7
1
3
10
1
14
5
1
6
1
1
30
65
External Audit (December 2010)
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Chapter 6—Environmental Petitions (Genetically
engineered fish)
S&T
2004
1
0
1
Chapter 1—Managing the Federal Approach to
Climate Change
FCB
2006
3
0
3
Chapter 2—Adapting to the Impacts of Climate
Change
S&T
2006
2
0
2
Chapter 4—Ecosystems—Federal Protected Areas
for Wildlife
ESB
2008
1
0
0
Chapter 7—Ecosystems—Areas of Concern in the
Great Lakes Basin
Ontario
2008
2
0
2
Chapter 12—Previous Audits of Responses to
Environmental Petitions—Listing of Species at Risk
ESB
2008
1
0
0
EB/ESB
2008
3
0
2
Chapter 1—Managing Air Emissions
AUDIT WORKING PAPER DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page 30
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
0
6
ESB/EB
2009
5
0
0
Chapter 2 - Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act
SPB
2009
4
0
0
Chapter 2—Risks of Toxic Substances
ESB
2009
3
0
0
Chapter 3—National Pollutant Release Inventory
S&T
2009
5
0
0
Chapter 1 – Oil Spills from Ships
ESB
2010
3
0
3
New recommendations from December 2010 tabling
Chapter 2 – Monitoring Water Resources
S&T/MSC
2010
5
0
5
New recommendations from December 2010 tabling
Chapter 3 – Adapting to Climate Impacts
SPB/ ESB/
S&T/ MSC
2010
3
0
3
New recommendations from December 2010 tabling
Chapter 1—Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Programs
AEB
2009
2
0
0
2
Chapter 6—Land Management and Environmental
Protection on Reserves
ESB
2009
2
0
0
Chapter 4—Sustaining Development in the
Northwest Territories
ESB
2010
1
0
1
MSC/HR
2008
8
0
0
Chapter 1 - Protecting Fish Habitat
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
3
1
2
Total number of
current follow-ups
7
TOTAL
# OF
RECS
Obsolete
2008
DUE
(YRS)
Complete/ Full
Implementation
MSC
EAAC/
DEC
PAST
Moderate Progress/
Preparation for
implementation
Significant Progress/
Substantial
Implementation
For Future Follow-up
Chapter 2—Managing Severe Weather Warnings—
Environment Canada
AT
Some Progress/
Planning Stage
BRANCH
YEAR
Little/ Insignificant or
No Progress
REPORTS WITH OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS
Already Competed
CURRENT ASSESSMENT
1
1
3
1
414
3
5
Auditor General
1
2
1
2
Commissioner of Official Languages
Audit of the Bilingual Weather and Environmental
Services Provided on the Environment Canada
Automated Telephone Network
14
15
1
7
815
New KPIA audit being conducted – to be tabled in Spring 2011
Follow-up conducted by the OCOL.
AUDIT WORKING PAPER DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 31
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
0
1
1
2
4
Audit of Executive Appointments
HR
2008
616
0
0
1
1
4
6
71
0
28
8
7
18
DUE
(YRS)
TOTAL
# OF
RECS
Total number of
current follow-ups
0
EAAC/
DEC
PAST
Obsolete
4
AT
Complete/ Full
Implementation
2009
BRANCH
Moderate Progress/
Preparation for
implementation
Significant Progress/
Substantial
Implementation
HR
REPORTS WITH OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS
Some Progress/
Planning Stage
For Future Follow-up
Audit of the Federal Student Work Experience
Program and subsequent appointments through
bridging mechanisms
YEAR
Little/ Insignificant or
No Progress
Already Competed
CURRENT ASSESSMENT
Public Service Commission
TOTALS
1
8
1
43
Evaluation (November 2010)
A. CURRENT: Summer 2010
Air Quality Health Index (AQHI)
WES
2010
N/A
6
0
2
1
3
4
Habitat Stewardship Program (HSP)
ESB
2009
N/A
8
0
1
2
5
7
Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan
ESB
2009
N/A
8
1
0
Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC)
Transition Project
MSC
2008
N/A
8
0
1
2
5
7
Intellectual Property Management
FCB
2006
3
3
0
0
1
2
3
Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program (CSSP)
S&T
2007
2
6
0
0
5
5
2
7
B. OVERDUE
1
6
Originally due fall 2009/winter 2010 - Continued Monitoring Deferred to Fall 2010:
Regulation of Smog-Causing Emissions from the
Transportation Sector
16
ESB
2008
1
6
2
0
3
1
4
No recommendation made to EC but the department developed an action plan based on the findings of the audit (6 items)
AUDIT WORKING PAPER DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
Page 32
3
0
Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators
SPB
2009
1
4
0
1
EcoAction Community Funding Program
ESB
2009
1
3
0
0
Class Grants and Contributions
FCB
2009
0.5
6
3
Invasive Alien Species (IAS)
ESB
2009
0.5
4
Enforcement Program
ENF
2009
0.5
Environmental Emergencies Program (EEP)
ESB
2008
Improved Climate Change Scenarios Program
(ICCS)
S&T
Clean Air Regulatory Agenda (CARA)
Clean Air Agenda – Management & Accountability
(M&A)
DUE
(YRS)
TOTAL
# OF
RECS
Total number of
current follow-ups
4
EAAC/
DEC
PAST
Obsolete
1
AT
Complete/ Full
Implementation
2008
BRANCH
Moderate Progress/
Preparation for
implementation
Significant Progress/
Substantial
Implementation
ESB
REPORTS WITH OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS
Some Progress/
Planning Stage
For Future Follow-up
Enhanced Security for the Transboundary
Movement of Hazardous Waste (PSAT)
YEAR
CURRENT ASSESSMENT
Little/ Insignificant or
No Progress
Already Competed
Environment Canada
Audit and Evaluation Annual Report 2010-2011
1
1
2
3
1
3
0
3
3
1
2
1
1
4
0
1
1
2
3
0.5
5
2
3
2010
N/A
3
3
ESB
2010
N/A
2
2
FCB
2010
N/A
4
4
17
29
1
2
C. FOR FUTURE FOLLOW UP
TOTALS
AUDIT WORKING PAPER DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
84
12
22
0
1
3
0
50
Page 33