Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
www.tbs-sct.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Breadcrumb Trail
ARCHIVED - Office of the Auditor General of Canada
This page has been archived.
Archived Content
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
Section II—Reporting on Results
Our performance indicators and measures
Our strategic outcome is to contribute to well-managed and accountable government by conducting independent audits and studies that provide objective information, advice, and assurance to Parliament, government, and Canadians.
We measure and monitor our performance against our results chain (see Section IV—Supplementary Information). It links what we deliver—audits, reports, studies, opinions, information, and advice—to our strategic outcome (long-term result).
The Office has established a set of core indicators of impact and measures of organizational performance to help guide management decision making through an understanding of the organization's ongoing results.
Our indicators of impact help us to assess the extent to which
- our work adds value for the key users of our reports,
- our work adds value for the organizations we audit,
- key users of our reports are engaged in the audit process, and
- key users of our reports and the organizations we audit respond to our findings.
Our measures of organizational performance help us monitor the extent to which
- our work is delivered on time and on budget,
- our quality management framework is operating effectively, and
- we provide a respectful workplace.
In addition to measuring the Office's ongoing performance, we identified three priority areas for 2006–07:
- Implement our expanded mandate. In 2005, Parliament expanded our mandate. We have integrated these changes into our audit planning and operations resulting in an increased number of financial audits and special examinations of Crown corporations. As well, we now consider federally funded foundations in our performance audit planning.
- Improve our audit products. An electronic file management system has been introduced for the management of audit working papers. In addition, the implementation of a risk-based audit planning approach, whereby we identify significant issues for audit, has significantly progressed.
- Maintain our strong workforce. Our results related to this priority are set out under four objectives (see We provide a respectful workplace).
We also had two significant long-term commitments:
- Sustainable development. The Office has developed its own sustainable development strategy to ensure that the environmental consequences of its activities, as well as those of the federal government, are considered as we plan, conduct, and report our audits. (see Sustainable development commitments and results).
- International involvement. The Office has continued to work with the international community in developing professional standards, building capacity, sharing knowledge, and conducting audits of international institutions (see Our international contributions).
Exhibits 10 and 11 provide a summary of the Offices' most recent results.
|
Objectives and indicators |
2006–07 |
2006–07 |
|---|---|---|
|
Our work adds value for the key users of our reports |
|
|
|
Percentage of parliamentary committee members who find our performance audits add value |
92 |
No target established1 |
|
Percentage of audit committee chairs who find our financial audits add value |
75 |
75 |
|
Percentage of board chairs who find our special examinations add value |
87 |
No target established1 |
|
Our work adds value for the organizations we audit |
|
|
|
Percentage of departmental senior managers who find our performance audits add value |
61 |
60 |
|
Percentage of Crown corporation and large department senior managers who find our financial audits add value |
66 |
75 |
|
Percentage of Crown corporation chief executive officers who find our special examinations add value |
78 |
75 |
|
Key users of our reports are engaged in the audit process |
|
|
|
Number of parliamentary hearings and briefings we participate in |
64 |
No target established |
|
Percentage of performance audits reviewed by parliamentary committees |
63 |
60 |
|
Key users of our reports and the organizations we audit respond to our findings |
|
|
|
Percentage of performance audit recommendations fully implemented four years after their publication |
46 |
50 |
|
Percentage of qualifications that continue from one financial audit to the next |
0 |
0 |
|
Percentage of significant deficiencies that continue from one special examination to the next |
0 |
0 |
Our indicators of impact
By using selected indicators, we attempt to gather information on the impact of our work. The indicators involve various external aspects and are therefore not entirely under the control of the Office.
Our work adds value for the key users of our reports
For this indicator, we survey the key users of our reports:
- members of key parliamentary committees for performance audits,
- audit committees and other bodies having financial reporting oversight responsibility for financial audits, and
- boards of directors of Crown corporations for special examinations.
We began to report the survey results under this methodology of performance assessment in our 2003–04 Performance Report. While the response rates to our surveys are within normal expectations, the actual number of respondents is quite small. Therefore, variances in results year over year should be compared with a degree of caution. Given the population size of respondents, even a small number of changes in responses may appear as a relatively significant change in the overall rating. (For details on the methodology used, see methodological endnotes 1 and 2 under Section IV—Supplementary Information.)
Survey respondents were asked to rate, on a five-point scale ranging from either "very poor" to "very good" or "almost never" to "almost always", many aspects of our audits and our interactions with them. The results of our surveys for the specific items that we use to define the term "add value" are shown in exhibits 12, 13, and 14.
Survey results for performance audits. In July 2007, we completed our first survey of parliamentarians under this methodology. It related to our performance audits tabled in 2006–07 (Exhibit 12). We plan to seek feedback from parliamentarians on an annual basis.
|
Exhibit 12—Performance audits add value for parliamentary committee members |
|---|
|
|
We surveyed the members of the four key parliamentary committees that review our reports—the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee and the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, as well as the Senate Finance Committee and the Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee. Of the 47 members asked to respond to our survey, 24 responded. Although the sample size was small, therefore requiring that the findings be interpreted with some degree of caution, there was a decided leaning toward the positive: the average satisfaction rate for the five questions we use to define "add value" was 94 percent. In our 2006–07 Report on Plans and Priorities, we did not establish a target for this indicator. The Office will analyze the results of the survey in detail and develop an action plan to address any areas of concern.
Additional feedback on Parliament's response to the work produced by the Office was included in a report by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts tabled in the House of Commons on 29 May 2007, which examined the Auditor General's 2005–06 Performance Report and 2006–07 Report on Plans and Priorities. The Committee stated:
"The Public Accounts Committee continues to be very satisfied with the work of the Office of the Auditor General, which performs a vital and indispensable role. The OAG's budget of approximately $85 million is a small fraction of the government's overall expenditures of over $200 billion. There is little doubt that the OAG represents good value for money in that it operates economically and efficiently and has saved the government, and the taxpayers that support it, considerable sums of money."
Survey results from financial audits. To determine the value of our financial audits, we regularly survey the chairs of audit committees and other bodies with financial reporting oversight responsibility (Exhibit 13).
|
Exhibit 13—Financial audits add value for audit committee chairs |
|---|
|
|
In our 2006–07 Report on Plans and Priorities, we established a target of 75 percent as the percentage of responding committee chairs that we hoped would consider our financial audits to have added value (that is, the percentage of items included in the survey that were ranked as good or very good). Responses to three of the five questions are essentially above 80 percent for the first two sets of biennial surveys related to our financial audits. For the items "The audit identified good opportunities for improvement" and "The audit assisted in improving the quality of financial reporting," we are reviewing the possible reasons for the relatively modest score and will be closely monitoring the results of future assessments.
Survey results for users of special examinations. To determine the value of our special examinations to Crown corporations, we survey their board chairs (Exhibit 14). We did not establish a target in our 2006–07 Report on Plans and Priorities for the percentage of audited organizations that found our special examinations added value. For all four items surveyed, more than 80 percent of respondents rated our performance as good or very good, for an average score of 87 percent.
|
|
Our work adds value for the organizations we audit
The Office regularly surveys representatives of the organizations we audit to determine their assessment of the added value of our work. We have identified three key representatives of the organizations we audit:
- senior managers (for example, chief financial officers or chief executive officers) of Crown corporations subject to our financial audits;
- chief executive officers of the Crown corporations subject to special examinations; and
- senior management (for example, deputy ministers or commissioners) of departments or agencies substantially involved in performance audits.
The items used to define the term "add value" are the same as those included in the surveys of report users. The overall result is that most of the organizations we audit believe that our reports add value.
Performance audit results. Since 2003–04, we have surveyed organizations subject to our performance audits after tabling the applicable report in Parliament (Exhibit 15).
|
Exhibit 15—Performance audits add value for senior management |
|---|
|
|
The target for performance audits, established in our 2006–07 Report on Plans and Priorities, was to have 60 percent of respondents rate our audits as good or very good. The most recent survey responses provided an average score of 61 percent. Results were near or above the target for all but one of the items: about 50 percent rated our audits as good or very good in identifying opportunities for improvement.
Financial audit results. We survey the senior managers of Crown corporations subject to a financial audit and senior managers of large departments every two years (Exhibit 16).
|
|
Our target was to have 75 percent of respondents consider that our audits added value (rate them as good or very good). The individual results were very near the target for two of the five items, and greater than 60 percent for all but one of the items. Again, our lowest score was on the item "The audit identified good opportunities for improvement."
Special examination results. In our 2006–07 Report on Plans and Priorities, we established a target of 75 percent for the percentage of audited organizations that consider our special examinations add value. The average overall score was 78 percent, thereby exceeding our target (Exhibit 17). Once again, the lowest score (57 percent) related to the reports being seen as good or very good at identifying good opportunities for improvement. For all of our audits, senior management of the Office is undertaking further analysis to understand the relatively low score on this dimension and to identify if specific action is required.
|
Exhibit 17—Special examinations add value for chief executive officers |
|---|
|
|
Key users of our reports are engaged in the audit process
For this indicator, we once again focus on the key users of our reports:
- members of key parliamentary committees for performance audits,
- audit committees and other bodies having financial reporting oversight responsibility for financial audits, and
- boards of directors of Crown corporations for special examinations.
Involvement with parliamentary committees. While many parliamentary committees draw on our work, the Office's main relationship is with the Public Accounts Committee. Our appearances before committees assist parliamentarians in fulfilling their oversight role and give us the opportunity to increase awareness and understanding of the issues in our reports.
For performance audits, we monitor the level of involvement of parliamentary committees by tracking the number of audits reviewed by committees. We also assess the committees' level of interest in our reported findings by looking at how frequently they ask us to appear before them to further elaborate on our findings. It is important that the key users of our reports be engaged in the audit process, understand the nature and objectives of our work, and understand our reports and follow up on issues presented in them.
Parliamentary committee hearings also encourage departments and agencies to implement our recommendations. Following a hearing, the committee may report and make recommendations to the government. Departments and agencies are expected to report back to the committees on what they have done in response to these recommendations.
In 2006–07, we participated in 64 hearings and briefings (Exhibit 18): 28 with the Public Accounts Committee and 36 with other committees. This represents a significant increase from previous years, both in the total number of hearings and in the percentage of hearings relative to the number of parliamentary sitting days (49 percent in 2006–07 versus 26 percent in 2005–06 and 38 percent in 2004–05). This is due in part to a few high profile chapters from our reports each of which was the subject of multiple hearings. Also, we note that, generally speaking, other standing committees have shown greater interest in our work this year.
|
Exhibit 18—We participate in parliamentary hearings and briefings |
|---|
|
|
In terms of coverage, parliamentary committees reviewed 63 percent of our 2006–07 performance audits, a substantial increase from 48 percent the previous year and 52 percent in 2004–05. (For further details see methodological endnote 3 under Section IV—Supplementary Information.)
Committee hearings covered a wide range of topics and audit reports, including, for example, National Defence recruiting and retention, programs for First Nations, the Canadian Firearms Program, collection of tax debts, and acquisition of leased office space. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development usually appears before both the House of Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Other committees will also call upon the Commissioner if they are studying matters that have been audited by the Commissioner. This year, the Commissioner participated in hearings on climate change, ecological integrity in Canada's national parks, and oceans management.
Involvement with Crown corporation boards and other bodies. Throughout the financial audit process, we work closely with Crown corporation audit committees that have oversight responsibility for financial reporting. We engage these committees in our audit work to help them fulfil their oversight responsibilities.
We brief them regularly on the progress of our work. The committees will normally review the audit plan, including the audit scope, strategy, and procedures. Discussions include, among other things, how the plan addresses the corporation's significant risks, as well as other matters of interest that may have an impact on our work. In finalizing our audit report, we meet with the committees to discuss any significant findings and recommendations together with management's response and follow-up action.
We believe that the quality of our audit products greatly benefits from this open communication and active participation of audit committees and other bodies having oversight responsibility for financial reporting.
Involvement of boards of directors for special examinations. As with financial audits, we work closely with the boards of directors of Crown corporations and with their associated committees having oversight responsibility. We seek input from these committees in preparing our audit plans and solicit feedback from them as part of our post-examination process. We use the results of this feedback to assess our effectiveness and improve our practices.
Key users of our reports and the organizations we audit respond to our findings
For this indicator, the Office assesses the extent to which users of our reports respond to our findings. To do this, we monitor the extent to which
- Parliament considers the issues raised in our reports,
- the organizations we audit implement the recommendations in our performance audits,
- the organizations we audit address qualifications in our financial audits and significant deficiencies in our special examinations,
- departments implement their sustainable development strategies, and
- departments respond to environmental petitions on time and in a manner that addresses the issue raised.
The Office has limited control over the extent to which the above-noted items occur. Nonetheless, we track this information to the extent feasible as input to certain key internal management processes, such as the planning process.
Parliament considers the issues raised in our reports. We monitor how our performance audits help Parliament hold the government to account by identifying examples of how Parliament considers issues of accountability, performance, compliance with authorities, and environment and sustainable development in its legislative and oversight work.
The following example illustrates how our 2006–07 work has contributed to the legislative and oversight work of Parliament. Further examples are included in Section IV—Supplementary Information.
|
Allocating Funds to Regulatory Programs—Health Canada (November 2006 Report, Chapter 8) Background. This chapter reported that Health Canada had not established program baselines for three regulatory programs. Therefore, the Department did not know if it was fully meeting its responsibilities as the regulator of drug products, medical devices, and product safety. Program managers had indicated to senior departmental officials that some core compliance and enforcement activities were insufficient to protect Canadians' health and safety. In the absence of a baseline, program managers were limited to using their experience and knowledge of the programs to report on funding shortfalls and unfulfilled regulatory responsibilities. Result. In February 2007, the Public Accounts Committee held a hearing on this chapter. The committee fully supported our report, including the recommendations. The Committee believed that there were lessons learned that could be applied across government. Therefore, it recommended that the Treasury Board develop a policy by 31 December 2007 requiring all regulatory programs of the Government of Canada to establish clear program baselines that set out the required level of activities, performance, and resources needed to meet regulatory responsibilities. In response to our recommendations, Health Canada agreed to review the funding allocated to regulatory programs. The Committee recommended that Health Canada make risk assessments an integral part of the review of its regulatory programs. Health Canada must provide the Public Accounts Committee with the results of its review immediately upon completion. At the request of the Committee, the Department agreed to provide an action plan to the Office of the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. It also agreed to provide the Committee with progress reports every six months on the implementation of recommendations made by the Auditor General, beginning in September 2007 and continuing until the recommendations are fully implemented. |
Organizations implement our performance audit recommendations. Departments and agencies are responsible for taking corrective action and improving their management practices. We have established that a period of four years is a reasonable period of time for an organization to fully implement our recommendations. Annually, we request an update from these organizations on their progress in implementing these recommendations. The information we receive is self-reported by the organizations and is not subject to any formal review or audit. Therefore, the Office does not verify the reliability of the information provided.
In 2006–07, departments reported that they had fully implemented 46 percent of the performance audit recommendations we tabled four years ago and had substantially implemented 26 percent (Exhibit 19). (See methodological endnote 4 under Section IV—Supplementary Information.)
|
Exhibit 19—Percentage of performance audit recommendations implemented four years after their publication (unaudited) |
|---|
|
|
We hope that this percentage will increase over time. It is important to note that we have refined the presentation of the implementation rates. The values shown no longer include recommendations that have become obsolete since the time of tabling. In addition, we have separated out the percentage of recommendations for which we have insufficient information to report a level of implementation.
Organizations address opinion qualifications and significant deficiencies. For our financial audits and special examinations, we monitor the corrective action taken in response to opinion qualifications, significant deficiencies, and other significant matters contained in our reports. Our indicator is the number of qualifications or significant deficiencies that continue from one report to the next. Ideally, this number would be zero.
For our financial audits in 2005–06 and 2006–07, no qualifications were issued. For the four special examinations reported this year, two reports noted a significant deficiency. We have not reported on these two organizations previously.
Departments implement their sustainable development strategies. Twenty-seven departments and agencies tabled sustainable development strategies for the period 2007 to 2009. Four other organizations, including our Office, tabled their sustainable development strategies voluntarily.
In 1995, section 23(2)(a) was added to the Auditor General Act, directing us to monitor and report on the extent to which departments have met the objectives and implemented the plans set out in their sustainable development strategies.
In 2006, we assessed the actions of 21 organizations in implementing selected commitments from their 2001 and 2004 strategies. Some of the organizations could clearly demonstrate efforts to plan for achieving their commitments; however, as we have reported in previous years, difficulties frequently arose in implementing and/or monitoring them. Departments and agencies could often point to initiatives that address a commitment generally, but they had difficulty demonstrating specific results.
For our next chapter on sustainable development strategies, in addition to monitoring implementation of selected commitments, we have conducted a more detailed audit to determine if the intentions underlying the 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act have been realized. The results of this audit are scheduled to be reported to Parliament in October 2007.
The environmental petitions process contributes to the federal management of specific environmental matters. The 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act require that we monitor and report annually to Parliament on environmental petitions received from Canadians. The petitions process allows Canadians to voice their concerns about environmental matters and to address questions to federal ministers and obtain responses. Twenty-nine federal departments are required by the Auditor General Act to respond to petitions.
In 2006–07, the Office received 37 environmental petitions. Ministers of federal departments are required to respond to petitioners within 120 days. They responded on time to 96 percent of the petitions received in 2006–07.
Canadians have been submitting petitions and ministers have been responding to them for 11 years. This year we looked at past experience to develop future options for strengthening the petitions process. We surveyed petitioners and federal departments, and we interviewed officials of the departments most often petitioned and of other organizations with similar citizen engagement processes. The results of this retrospective are scheduled to be reported to Parliament in October 2007.
Our measures of organizational performance
Through selected measures designed to evaluate organization performance, we gather information on how efficiently and effectively the Office itself is functioning (Exhibit 20). The measures involve items for which the outcome is largely under the control of the Office.
|
|
Our work is delivered on time and on budget
On time. For performance audits, the Office determines when individual audit reports will be tabled in the House of Commons; thus, there are no statutory deadlines for these reports. However, we do communicate to the Public Accounts Committee our planned tabling schedule for performance audits for the coming fiscal year. In our 2006–07 Report on Plans and Priorities, 36 performance audits were listed as planned. Of these, 6 were cancelled. Of the remaining 30, 3 were delayed and reported in May of 2007–08. The remaining 27 performance audits were tabled on the planned reporting date. In addition, there were 2 territorial performance audits planned and reported that had not been explicitly listed as planned in the 2006–07 Report on Plans and Priorities. Finally, there were 5 additional performance audits tabled in 2006–07 that were not originally planned. In summary, of the original 38 planned performance audits, 6 were cancelled, 32 were actually completed, 3 were delayed and 29 (91 percent of the 32 completed audits) were delivered on time. Details of the audits tabled are included in Section IV—Supplementary Information.
For most of our financial audits and for special examinations, there are statutory dates set for the transmission of our reports. In 2006–07, we completed 86 percent of our financial audits of federal organizations and 53 percent of our financial audits of territorial organisations prior to the required deadline. We continue to work with organisations in the northern territories to improve the timeliness of financial statement reporting.
We completed four special examinations during 2006–07; only one of these was delivered by the statutory deadline. One of our management committees received a report on this situation. Many reasons have been identified for why these reports have not been completed on time, including the following:
- challenges in dedicating resources at the necessary time, with the necessary expertise, given the cyclical nature of the workload associated with special examinations;
- long time frames involved in confirming the facts found in the reports and in discussing our findings with management of the corporations being examined; and
- long time frames in scheduling reviews of our reports by the boards of directors or audit committees due to the infrequency of their meetings.
A decision was made to plan to transmit future completed reports six months before the statutory date. In addition, a set of key principles to be applied in planning special examinations and an action plan to redress this situation has been developed.
On budget. In all instances, being on budget is defined as completing the audit within 15 percent over the originally budgeted hours for the audit. This figure recognizes that factors outside the control of the audit team, such as client readiness and the number and complexity of audit issues identified, can affect performance.
For performance audits completed during 2006–07, 59 percent were completed on budget. The federal election in early 2006 resulted in our February 2006 status report being delayed. This in turn delayed subsequent reports tabled during 2006–07. Due to these delays, we needed to revisit previous audits that had been completed but not yet tabled in order to ensure that the information published was current. This additional work led to certain budget overruns.
For financial audits, the percentage of reports on budget was 57 percent for federal organizations and 54 percent for territorial organizations. We have started implementing a more rigorous budget setting and management process in an effort to improve our performance in this area.
Finally, for special examinations, none of the reports were completed on budget during 2006–07. The Office is currently implementing significant changes for allocating and overseeing budgeted audit hours, in an attempt to improve the budget setting and management process.
Our quality management framework is operating effectively
Our audit work is guided by a rigorous methodology and quality management framework. External and internal reviews, based on our framework, provide reasonable assurance that our audits are conducted in accordance with established standards of professional practice.
External reviews. In 1999, we hired an audit firm to assess our quality management system for annual financial audits. In 2003, an international team of legislative auditors carried out a peer review of the Office's quality management framework (QMF) for performance auditing. Both reviews found that our frameworks were suitably designed and operating effectively. The review of our QMF for performance auditing highlighted some good practices and made suggestions for improvement. Our action plan to address these suggestions has been completed and is available on our website under About Us. We have started planning for the next review of our quality management framework for all of our audit product lines and related services, and we intend to have the review carried out in 2009–10.
In addition, the provincial institutes of chartered accountants review our compliance with professional standards for financial audits about every four years and determine whether our training of chartered accounting students meets their requirements. The reviews concluded that we were following professional standards and met their requirements.
Internal practice reviews. We conduct practice reviews of our financial audits, special examinations, performance audits, and assessments of agency performance reports by assessing their quality and compliance with our quality management frameworks. The frameworks are based on Office policies and professional standards. The reviews assure the Auditor General of the quality of our audits and that they are being conducted according to our quality management frameworks. They also provide managers with suggestions for improvement.
In 2006–07, we completed 11 internal practice reviews of financial audits, performance audits, and assessments of agency performance reports conducted in 2005–06. The reviews concluded that the audits and assessments were conducted according to our quality management frameworks. Suggestions for improvement focused on documentation and the quality reviewer function in both financial and performance audits and on control testing and reliance in financial audits. Suggestions for improving the assessment of agency performance reports focused on improvements practice-wide, such as improving guidance and reducing costs.
We also completed the review of progress toward a new approach to auditing the summary financial statements of the Government of Canada. Suggestions for improvement focused on clarifying the strategic direction for the audit and improving risk analysis and control assessment work. As they are completed, we publish the summaries of results of our practice reviews on our website under About Us.
Internal audits. We also audit our management and administration practices. These audits assure the Auditor General that the Office is complying with government and Office policies. They also provide managers with assessments and recommendations.
In 2006–07, we worked on the third year of our three-year internal audit plan. A summary of our three-year plan is available on our website under About Us. Originally, three internal audits were slated for completion; however, resource constraints in each of the areas to be audited prevented carrying out the plan. As a result, we completed and reported on the management of the human resources and professional development function. We found that the function was adequately managed and we suggested improvements in planning, training, and reporting. As they are completed, we publish the summaries of results of our internal audits on our website under About Us.
We provide a respectful workplace
The Office has set four objectives for providing a respectful workplace, each with its own indicators and targets:
- Provide a workplace environment where employees are satisfied and engaged.
- Promote a bilingual workplace.
- Assemble a workforce that represents the Canadian population.
- Ensure that qualified, capable employees are available to carry out our mandate.
Satisfied and engaged employees. Our target for this objective is to maintain a minimum level of 70 percent employee satisfaction. Our 2006 employee survey had a 90 percent response rate, which is well above the 69 percent rate in 2004 and the 65 percent norm for most organizations. The results show a significant increase in overall employee satisfaction from 70 percent in 2004 to 82 percent in 2006. Most employees—92 percent—say they feel proud to work for the Office and consider the Office to be well run and characterized by good clarity of direction and strong support for vision and values. (See methodological endnote 5 under Section IV—Supplementary Information.)
Our challenge during the next year will be to maintain the positive momentum and continue to look for ways to improve. In response to the 2006 Employee Survey, the Executive Committee committed to taking action in the following six areas: supervisory effectiveness, training, promotion process (AP to APL), career development, staffing, and effective communications. Implementation of the Corporate Action Plan began in December 2006. Our goal is to ensure that all the initiatives identified are well under way or completed before our next employee survey in the spring of 2008.
A bilingual workforce. The Office has improved its bilingual capacity in the management group, particularly for assistant auditors general and principals, with an increase from 62 percent to 82 percent from 2005–06 to 2006–07. Emphasis will continue to be placed on second language training in 2007–08. A new curriculum is in place to help employees achieve the desired level. (See methodological endnote 6 under Section IV—Supplementary Information.)
A representative workforce. In increasing its workforce from the previous year, the Office has been able to improve its relative levels of representation for two of the four designated groups. Efforts are still needed to increase representation of visible minorities.
Retention rate. The retention rate of 86 percent has increased slightly in the past year compared with 2005–06 and remains below our target of 90 percent. A Retention and Recruitment Strategy was developed and greater attention was focused on specific target groups, especially in the accounting field, in order to increase our retention capacity.
Other results
The Office also monitors activity in certain other key areas. This information is used, when possible, to improve the operations of the organization.
Informing the media and the public
Many Canadians learn about our reports through the media; therefore, it is important that the media understand our reports and present them accurately to the public. We monitor and analyze our media coverage on an ongoing basis. Most media coverage focused on our reports to Parliament. We found that our reports were well understood and, with a few exceptions, reported accurately.
Our international contributions
The Office of the Auditor General has more than 50 years of experience in working with the international community in developing professional standards, building capacity, sharing knowledge, and conducting audits of international institutions. These activities have helped improve the Office's own legislative audit practice, fostered the transfer of knowledge and skills between audit offices, and strengthened organizations in the United Nations system. Our international strategy guides the international activities of the Office while positioning the Office to meet new opportunities and challenges in the future.
International accounting and auditing standards are influencing Canada's public and private sector standards. Setting of accounting and auditing standards is shifting from the domestic to the international arena. The Office plays an active role in shaping these standards, particularly as they relate to the public sector.
The Office is a member of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) and is a member of several of its committees, including the Professional Standards Committee. The Auditor General chairs its Subcommittee on Supreme Audit Institution Independence. In April 2007, the Code of Independence that it helped develop was approved by the Professional Standards Committee and will become an International Standard of Supreme Audit Institutions in the fall of 2007.
The Office is also a member of the Financial Audit Guidelines Subcommittee supporting and actively contributing to the work of developing high-quality guidelines for financial audit that are globally accepted for the audit of financial statements in the public sector.
Employees in the Office participate in various task forces of the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) to revise and develop International Standards on Auditing (ISA). This expert participation helps to build public sector considerations into these international standards.
The Auditor General currently chairs the INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing (WGEA). The working group assists supreme audit institutions to better understand environmental issues as well as to build their capacity to conduct audits of their governments' environmental protection and sustainable development activities, by preparing guidance materials, training auditors, and facilitating knowledge sharing among members. The Auditor General will continue to support WGEA activities in the future and will provide particular assistance to the Auditor General of Estonia, who becomes the next WGEA Chair in late 2007.
The International Audit Office Assistance Program of the CCAF-FCVI Inc. was established in 1980 to strengthen performance auditing in national audit offices. Funded by the Canadian International Development Agency, the program brings auditors from national audit offices to Canada for nine months of training in performance auditing, accountability, and governance. Training is provided by our Office and that of the Vérificateur général du Québec. Since 1980, the program has trained over 179 fellows from 50 developing countries.
The Auditor General has recently completed its audit mandate of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and will shortly complete its audit mandate of the International Civil Aviation Organization.
In early 2007, the Office was selected as the external auditor of the International Labour Organization effective in 2008.
Sustainable development commitments and results
Our 2007–2009 Sustainable Development Strategy was tabled in Parliament in December 2006. It can be accessed online at: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/other.nsf/html/200612sdse.html. It presents our plans to further integrate environmental considerations into our audit selection and planning decisions and our operational decision making. Work has begun on all the initiatives presented in the strategy, with efforts to date indicating that we are on track to meet all of our targets (Exhibit 21).
