This page has been archived.
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.
The Auditor General has received the staffing authorities of the Public Service Commission directly through the Auditor General Act. Since the Commission must report annually to Parliament for the previous fiscal year on matters under its jurisdiction, the Office of the Auditor General believes it should also report annually on the Office's staffing.
The table below takes into account the Public Service Commission's Staffing Management Accountability Framework. It summarizes the five areas of accountability and identifies the indicators present in the Office. The framework is intended to ensure a values-based staffing system through which the principles of merit and non-partisanship are applied in accordance with the core values of fairness, transparency, and access.
Governance: The process of exercising authority and establishing a well-defined structure and administration in order to support the achievement of desired results. | |
1. Roles and responsibilities in staffing are clearly defined. |
|
2. The Office is resourced to deliver on its staffing priorities. |
|
3. The Office has implemented practices that ensure continuous learning on the subject of staffing. |
|
4. A structure and/or mechanisms are in place to facilitate decision making by senior management on staffing issues, and enable the collaboration of all stakeholders, including bargaining agents. |
|
Planning: In a staffing environment, planning is defined as a process that identifies current and future staffing needs for an organization to achieve its goals. | |
1. Senior management gives clear direction and sets priorities that enable values-based staffing. |
|
2. Human Resources planning, integrated with business planning, enables the organization to identify its current and future human resource needs. |
|
3. Staffing is consistent with Human Resources planning and variances can be explained. |
|
Policy: Appointment decisions must first and foremost adhere to the new Public Service Employment Act and other pertinent statutory instruments, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights Act, Official Languages Act, and Employment Equity Act. | |
1. The Office implements and maintains policies that help it address significant issues in its appointment processes. |
|
Communication: Communication ensures the integrity of the appointment process by being transparent, easy to understand, timely, and accessible, and by including the relevant stakeholders. | |
1. Stakeholders have access to timely staffing information, including information about staffing strategies and decisions. |
|
Control: In a staffing context, control means the ongoing monitoring of information, the assessment of actual performance in relation to planned results, the correction of deviations, and the reporting of results. | |
1. Quality and timely human resources information is available to support staffing strategies and decisions. |
|
2. The delegated organization monitors staffing on a continuing basis. |
|
The following is a list of the performance audits planned for in our 2007–08 Report on Plans and Priorities and the performance audits that were actually completed.
Performance audit |
Included in |
Reported in |
---|---|---|
Farm income support programs |
Spring 2007 |
√ |
Management of human resources at Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
Spring 2007 |
√ |
Federal loans and grants for post-secondary education |
Spring 2007 |
√ |
Use of acquisition and travel cards |
Spring 2007 |
√ |
Legal services for the Government of Canada |
Spring 2007 |
√ |
Modernizing Canada's NORAD system—National Defence |
Spring 2007 |
√ |
Management of forensic laboratory services by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police |
Spring 2007 |
√ |
Training and learning at Canada Revenue Agency |
Fall 2007 |
√ |
Balancing security and facilitating trade by Canada Border Services Agency |
Fall 2007 |
√ |
Military health care at National Defence |
Fall 2007 |
√ |
Management of the 2006 Census |
Fall 2007 |
√ |
Management and control practices in small entities |
Fall 2007 |
√ |
The industrial security policy of Public Works and Government Services Canada |
Fall 2007 |
√ |
The Inuvialuit Final Agreement |
Fall 2007 |
√ |
Research and innovation |
Fall 2007 |
Cancelled |
Environmental petitions |
Fall 2007 |
√ |
Are sustainable development strategies making a difference? |
Fall 2007 |
√ |
Managing selected substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act |
Status Report 2008 |
√ |
Managing selected aspects of pesticides |
Status Report 2008 |
√ |
Managing selected aspects of federal contaminated sites |
Status Report 2008 |
√ |
Federal protected areas for wildlife |
Status Report 2008 |
√ |
Protection of species at risk |
Status Report 2008 |
√ |
Aquatic invasive species |
Status Report 2008 |
√ |
Areas of concern in the Great Lakes |
Status Report 2008 |
√ |
International environmental agreements |
Status Report 2008 |
√ |
Strategic environmental assessments |
Status Report 2008 |
√ |
Greening of government operations |
Status Report 2008 |
√ |
Environmental petitions |
Status Report 2008 |
√ |
Northwest Territories Housing Corporation |
May 2007 |
February 2008 |
The Financial Assistance for Nunavut Students program |
June 2007 |
√ |
2007 Canada Winter Games (Yukon) |
November 2007 |
February 2008 |
√ = tabled as planned |
Special examination |
Completed on time |
Less than 3 months late |
3 months late or more |
---|---|---|---|
Atlantic Pilotage Authority |
√ |
|
|
Blue Water Bridge Authority |
|
|
√ |
Cape Breton Development Corporation |
√ |
|
|
National Capital Commission |
√ |
|
|
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited |
√ |
|
|
Farm Credit Canada |
√ |
|
|
Great Lakes Pilotage Authority |
|
√ |
|
The International Development Research Centre |
√ |
|
|
Defence Construction (1951) Limited |
|
See note1 |
|
VIA Rail Canada Inc. |
|
See note1 |
|
Parc Downsview Park Inc. |
See note1 |
|
|
√ = reported as planned 1 These examinations were planned to be reported in 2007–08 though they were not due until 2008–09. Accordingly, they are not included in our on-time statistics for 2007–08. |
Title |
Date reported |
---|---|
Use of Public Funds by the Former Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec |
June 2007 |
Audit of the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation Activities |
November 2007 |
Government of Yukon's Investment in Asset-backed Commercial Paper—Department of Finance |
February 2008 |
1. The Office conducts post-audit surveys for major products, including financial audits, performance audits, and special examinations. Surveys for financial audits have been conducted biennially since 2002–03, surveys for performance audits have been conducted after each tabling since 2003–04, and a survey for each special examination has been conducted since October 2002. As a result of the review of the survey process, no data was collected for financial audits for 2006–07. The table below summarizes the data quality parameters for the data reported in the current performance report. The confidence intervals (CI) are calculated for a 90 percent confidence level, and assume a result of 50 percent.
Audit type |
Population type |
Period |
Population size |
Responses |
Response rate |
CI at 90% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Financial | Audit committee chairs |
2002–03 |
52 |
30 |
58% |
9.8% |
Financial | Chief financial officers and presidents |
2002–03 |
83 |
63 |
76% |
5.1% |
Financial | Audit committee chairs |
2004–05 |
48 |
29 |
60% |
9.6% |
Financial | Chief financial officers and presidents |
2004–05 |
80 |
59 |
74% |
5.5% |
Performance | Deputy ministers and commissioners |
2003–04 |
103 |
80 |
78% |
4.3% |
Performance | Deputy ministers and commissioners |
2004–05 |
76 |
54 |
71% |
6.0% |
Performance | Deputy ministers and commissioners |
2005–06 |
57 |
49 |
86% |
4.4% |
Performance | Deputy ministers and commissioners |
2006–07 |
90 |
75 |
83% |
3.9% |
Performance | Deputy ministers and commissioners |
2007–08 |
69 |
52 |
75% |
5.7% |
Special Examination | Chief executive officers |
2002–03 |
6 |
3 |
50% |
26.9% |
Chief executive officers |
2003–04 |
6 |
2 |
33% |
38.0% |
|
Chief executive officers |
2004–05 |
8 |
8 |
100% |
N/A |
|
Chief executive officers |
2005–06 |
9 |
6 |
67% |
15.5% |
|
Chief executive officers |
2006–07 |
6 |
2 |
33% |
38.0% |
|
Chief executive officers |
2007–08 |
7 |
6 |
86% |
12.7% |
|
Special Examination | Board chairs |
2002–03 |
6 |
3 |
50% |
26.9% |
Board chairs |
2003–04 |
6 |
2 |
33% |
38.0% |
|
Board chairs |
2004–05 |
9 |
8 |
89% |
7.8% |
|
Board chairs |
2005–06 |
9 |
8 |
89% |
7.8% |
|
Board chairs |
2006–07 |
6 |
4 |
67% |
19.0% |
|
Board chairs |
2007–08 |
7 |
4 |
57% |
26.9% |
2. In the spring of 2008, we surveyed parliamentarians who were members of four key parliamentary committees at the time our reports were reviewed at those committees. The four committees were the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance, and the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
The survey was conducted in written form, with responses collected and analyzed by an independent consultant to ensure the anonymity of the respondents. In 2008, 46 questionnaires were sent out. A total of 24 responses were received, for a response rate of 52 percent. This provides a margin of error of +/- 14.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. In 2007, 47 questionnaires were sent out. A total of 24 responses were received, for a response rate of 51 percent. This provides a margin of error of +/-14.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
3. When we count the number of hearings and briefings in which we participate, we consider our appearances before all committees of the House of Commons and the Senate. The other indicator (performance audits reviewed by parliamentary committees) is a ratio of 2007–08 audits that resulted in a hearing to the total number of audits published in the same fiscal year.
To calculate the percentage, we consider all parliamentary hearings held on one audit as one hearing. A hearing can occur in a subsequent fiscal year, but it would contribute to the Office's performance for the year that the report was published. This is the case for 2006–07, raising the percentage of audits reviewed from 63 percent, as previously reported, to 66 percent. For 2005–06, the percentage increases from 48 to 52.
4. When we report on the implementation of our performance audit recommendations, we use a four-year interval between the year the report is tabled and the year we ask departments to make their assessment. This is because our data shows that departments and agencies often need this time to complete action on our recommendations.
To determine the status of outstanding recommendations, the Office asks departments and agencies to provide us with a description of the actions undertaken toward the implementation of each recommendation. This year we also asked organizations to assess each recommendation's degree of implementation as at 31 March using one of five categories: no progress had been achieved, the recommendation was in the planning stage, preparations were under way for implementation, there had been substantial implementation, or there had been full implementation. In the past, our audit principals assessed the level of implementation based on information provided by departments.
The Treasury Board Directive on Departmental Audit Committees states, in section 4.2.6.2, that the chief audit executive shall report periodically to the audit committee on whether management's action plans to address audit recommendations have been implemented and whether the actions taken have been effective.
We believe this new approach is better aligned with departmental responsibilities to monitor and report on their responses to our recommendations. As a result of this change, the numbers presented represent a new baseline for this indicator.
5. An independent consulting firm conducted a survey of Office employees. A total of 597 employees were invited to participate, and 555 employees completed the survey. The overall response rate was 93 percent. The overall margin of error for the survey was 1 percent, 18 times out of 20.
6. These percentages do not include employees who have been excluded from the language requirement because they will retire within three years or have disabilities that do not enable them to learn an additional language. For principals and assistant auditors general, 4 of 70 were excluded; for directors, 2 of 109 were excluded.
Many items that may be of interest and complement the reporting of our performance are available at the following websites.