Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
www.tbs-sct.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Breadcrumb Trail
ARCHIVED - Industry Canada - Supplementary Tables
This page has been archived.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.
Response to Parliamentary Committees and External Audits
Response to Parliamentary Committees
On May 28, 2009, Competition Bureau officials appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food regarding its study, Competitiveness of Canadian Agriculture. The Chair of the Committee requested that the Bureau provide recommendations for the powers, tools and resources it needs to address the competitive issues raised by this Committee. These issues include captive supply, high-input costs, margin squeeze, access to retail grocery space, dominance in the retail and processing sectors and others. The Bureau provided a letter of response, dated June 8, 2009. In addition, the Committee members requested a copy of the Abuse of Dominance Provisions, sections 78 and 79 of the Competition Act, as applied to the Canadian Grocery Sector guidelines, which were sent to the Committee Clerk in both official languages for distribution to the members.
On November 18, 2009, Competition Bureau officials appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology regarding its study on credit cards, debit cards and Interac. The Bureau officials committed to providing the Committee with a statistical breakdown of complaints received during the past year by enforcement line, as well as information on the impact of credit card company practices in foreign jurisdictions when they have entered into the debit market. The Competition Bureau responded with a letter dated December 7, 2009.
The Industry Canada Associate Deputy Minister appeared before the Public Accounts Comittee (PAC) in November 2009 to table the joint IC/TBS management action plan to address issues raised in the OAG Chapter Intellectual Property. The key items discussed were the adequacy of monitoring and meeting the objectives of the TBS policy on Title to Intellectual Property Arising Under Crown Procurement Contracts.
Response to the Auditor General (including to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development)
Spring 2009 Report of the Auditor General – Chapter 2 – Intellectual Property
Intellectual property includes rights resulting from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields. This includes all intellectual creation legally protected through patents, copyright, industrial design, integrated circuit topography, and plant breeders’ rights, or subject to protection under the law as trade secrets and confidential information. The federal government generates intellectual property as a component of activities carried out under federal contracts to procure goods and services. Intellectual property is also generated by the federal government through its own science and research activities.
The audit also looked at the roles of Industry Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat in monitoring the application of the federal policy governing intellectual property that arises under Crown procurement contracts.
The audit found that the federal government is not in a position to know whether the objective of the 8-year-old policy on Title to Intellectual Property Arising Under Crown Procurement Contracts is being met. It does not know how much intellectual property is generated externally in the course of contracted work. None of the entities audited adequately identify and report whether work performed under contract is likely to generate intellectual property. Based on the audit, Industry Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat have not adequately fulfilled their obligations to monitor the application of the policy, with a focus on cases where exceptions were involved, and to evaluate the policy.
The management action plan in response to the recommendations of this audit was presented to the Departmental Audit Committee in 2009–10.
Recommendations and Industry Canada Responses:
2.25 Recommendation: Industry Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat should work with federal entities to improve the monitoring of the application of the policy on Title to Intellectual Property Arising Under Crown Procurement Contracts, with a focus on cases where exceptions were invoked. They should work with federal entities to ensure that intellectual property data are accurately interpreted and that reporting systems correctly report ownership to support a future evaluation of the policy.
Industry Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s response: Industry Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat agree with the recommendation. Industry Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat agree to work with federal entities to ensure that they are aware of the need for accurate and comprehensive data collection to allow for a future evaluation of the policy’s effectiveness. Pursuant to the Treasury Board of Canada policy on Title to Intellectual Property Arising Under Crown Procurement Contracts (Section 10), deputy heads are accountable for implementing the policy and ensuring that reporting responsibilities are met.
In 2007, Industry Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat took action to ensure necessary modifications were made to the reporting systems for procurement contracts. A Contracting Policy Notice was subsequently sent to departments and agencies advising of these changes. In addition, activities were undertaken to help federal entities understand these modifications, including a revision of the Implementation Guide for the Policy, the preparation of frequently asked questions, and the development of an e-learning product on intellectual property. These actions will help ensure the collection of more accurate data, which will be examined on an annual basis, to support an evaluation of the policy as planned in 2011.
2.33 Recommendation: Industry Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat should coordinate their ongoing and planned assessments of the existing intellectual property policies to provide better and more efficient support for common issues relating to the management of intellectual property.
Industry Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s response: Industry Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat agree with the recommendation. Industry Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat will work together to ensure assessments of existing intellectual property policies are coordinated and comprehensively address common issues. Industry Canada will share with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and other departments, through the Assistant Deputy Minister Committee on Science and Technology, assessments of federal intellectual property policies emanating from the work of the interdepartmental Knowledge Translation and Commercialization Working Group, which is co-chaired by Industry Canada and the National Research Council Canada. The working group was established following the release of the 2007 federal Science and Technology Strategy.
Spring 2009 Report of the Auditor General – Chapter 3 – Health and Safety in Federal Office Buildings
Responsibility for ensuring the health and safety of federal employees working in a federally administered office building is shared among many parties. Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) is responsible for ensuring that federally occupied buildings, their operating systems and equipment remain safe in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), through its Labour Program, is responsible for administering and enforcing fire protection policy and standards in federally occupied buildings. In addition, individual departments are responsible for the health and safety of their employees working in these buildings.
The audit also assessed whether departments were planning for fire emergencies in compliance with key requirements of the Treasury Board Standard for Fire Safety Planning and Fire Emergency Organization (the Standard), including conducting required fire drills. In addition, the audit looked at the activities of Fire Protection Services (formerly called the Fire Commissioner of Canada), the division within HRSDC’s Labour Program responsible for administering and enforcing this standard. The audit also looked at the role of the Labour Program’s regional and district offices in reviewing fire safety plans for buildings occupied by the federal government.
The audit found that although departments are required to hold annual fire evacuation drills to train employees and test evacuation procedures, in 33% of the 54 buildings reviewed, the departments could not demonstrate that they were doing so. Furthermore, the departments occupying almost all of the high-rise buildings we reviewed are not carrying out the additional drills required. Departments do not comply with key requirements of the Standard for Fire Safety Planning and Fire Emergency Organization. For example, fire safety plans for the majority of buildings in the audit had not been submitted to HRSDC’s Labour Program — the federal government’s technical authority on fire safety — for review and acceptance.
HRSDC’s Labour Program does not fully administer and enforce the Standard for Fire Safety Planning and Fire Emergency Organization. There is no government-wide monitoring of participation in fire evacuation drills. In addition, the Labour Program does not have adequate management systems in place to ensure that it reviews fire safety plans for all government buildings to determine whether they are able to evacuate employees in an emergency. The Labour Program had reviewed the plans for only 19 of the 54 buildings included in the audit (35%) and only 10 of these plans met the requirements of the standard and were accepted.
Recommendations and Industry Canada Responses:
3.80 Recommendation: Departments should ensure that fire safety plans are prepared and administered in accordance with established federal legislation and Treasury Board policies and standards.
Industry Canada’s response: Agreed. The Department assumed responsibility as the major occupying department in the Heritage Building in February 2007. Since then, first priority was given to transforming a partially staffed Fire and Emergency Organization into a fully revamped and trained unit. The second priority was to improve the existing fire safety plan by reviewing it and making it compliant with the Treasury Board Standard. The fire safety plans for the C.D. Howe Building and Heritage Building were sent to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada in November 2008 for approval.
Once the review process is completed, it will be sent to the senior officer for approval.
3.88 Recommendation: Departments should ensure that all evacuation drills are held as required by federal legislation and Treasury Board policies and standards.
Industry Canada’s response: Agreed. Designated staff drills are conducted in the form of classroom training every 2 months in the C.D. Howe Building in accordance with the Treasury Board Standard. Supporting documentation is available.
Drills every 3 months for adjoining groups of floors have not been conducted in the C.D. Howe Building since October 2000, when Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) placed the C.D. Howe Building on interim emergency procedures due to the lack of a fully functional voice communication system in the building. The direction provided by HRSDC indicated that the evacuation procedures for fire alarms in the building had to be changed from a phased evacuation to a full evacuation. In order to conduct a phased evacuation, the building voice communication must be fully operational and audible on all floors. This allows instructional fire evacuation for adjoining floors. The C.D. Howe Building is currently undergoing a retrofit, during which the renewal of the voice communication system will be completed during fiscal year 2012–13.
As for the Heritage Building, designated staff drills and the drills every 3 months for adjoining groups of floors will be implemented in March 2009.
3.93 Recommendation: Departments should ensure that building fire emergency organizations are established and administered as required by federal legislation and Treasury Board policies and standards.
Industry Canada’s response: Agreed. The Department already establishes and administers building fire emergency organizations for the C.D. Howe Building and the Heritage Building.
2009 Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development – Chapter 1 – Applying the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
Environmental assessment is a process used to predict and mitigate the adverse environmental effects of a project before it is carried out. Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, projects that must undergo environmental assessment include the construction, operation, modification, demolition or abandonment of a physical work, or other physical activities specified by regulation. The Act applies to projects for which a federal department or agency (referred to as a responsible authority) has decision-making authority, whether as project proponent, regulator, land manager or funding source.
The federal organization is then responsible for conducting an environmental assessment, from defining the scope of the project, consulting with the public where deemed appropriate, carrying out the environmental assessment, determining the significance of the environmental effects and ensuring their mitigation. There are effectively 3 types of environmental assessment — screenings, comprehensive studies and review panels. In total, some 6,000 federal environmental assessments are carried out annually by more than 100 federal organizations that must apply the Act.
The audit examined whether federal organizations are complying with the environmental assessment process established by the Act.
For the comprehensive studies and review panels examined, responsible authorities have complied with the Act. However, it is not clear that screenings — the most common type of assessment — are meeting all of the Act’s requirements. In half the files reviewed, the rationale or analysis was too weak to demonstrate how the environmental effects of projects had been considered, their significance assessed and decisions reached. The assessment of cumulative effects remains a challenge for all types of environmental assessment.
For projects where there is more than one authority responsible, disputes about project scope may cause serious delays in the environmental assessment process, with related consequences for project implementation. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has worked with parties in trying to resolve such disputes, with limited results. The Agency does not have the authority to impose a resolution.
No official response was required of Industry Canada.
Industry Canada was asked by the Office of the Auditor General to provide updates on the progress of implementing recommendations from past performance audits. The following update was provided:
- 2008–05 Chapter 1 – Management of Fees in Selected Departments and Agencies, Recommendation 1.46: The Department has fully implemented the recommendation.
The Department has developed a multi-year plan to review all fees under the Radiocommunication Regulations and spectrum licence fees set under the Department of Industry Act. Due to the number of fees, only a select number of fees will be evaluated each year. The plan was implemented in 2009–10. One of the challenges these reviews will face is that there is no policy guidance from the Treasury Board Secretariat with respect to fees for rights and privileges; however, there is indication that a policy that includes fee level analysis may be forthcoming.
- 2008–05 Chapter 1 – Management of Fees in Selected Departments and Agencies, Recommendation 1.73: The Department has fully implemented the recommendation.
The Department has implemented improved reporting in the 2008–09 Departmental Performance Report and its 2009–10 Report on Plans and Priorities. These documents provide more detailed performance information and transparency with respect to fees.
2009 Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development – Chapter 4 – Environmental Petitions
The environmental petitions process provides Canadians with a formal means to bring their concerns about environmental issues to the attention of federal ministers and departments and to obtain a response to their concerns. On behalf of the Auditor General of Canada, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development manages the environmental petitions process and monitors responses of federal ministers. As required by the Act, the Commissioner reports annually on the quantity, nature, and status of petitions received and on the timeliness of departmental responses. The Annual Report on Petitions and Responses covers the period between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009.
The report indicated that 8 of 9 responses from Industry Canada were received an average of 50 days late. It also indicated that the CESD raised concerns about unanswered questions in Industry Canada’s response to Petitions 255 and 255-B.
2009–10 Activities
Response
Petition 287 — Potential environmental and public health impact of a federally funded municipal sewage project in L’Isle-Verte, Quebec
Additional information provided
Petition 255B — Potential impact on human health of electromagnetic radiation emanating from telecommunication towers on Triangle Mountain, British Columbia
External Audits
Note: These refer to other external audits conducted by the Public Service Commission of Canada or the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
