Archived – Audit - DFO Class Grants and Contributions Program


Archived information

The Standard on Web Usability replaces this content. This content is archived because Common Look and Feel 2.0 Standards have been rescinded.

Archived information is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Project Number 6B095
Final Audit Report
September 16, 2008

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms

DFO - Fisheries and Oceans Canada
DCGCP - Departmental Class Grants and Contributions Program
TB - Treasury Board
PTP - Policy on Transfer Payments
FAA - Financial Administration Act
ADM, CS - Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services
PAD - Program Approval Documentation
CA - Contribution Agreements
GA - Grant Agreements
G&C - Grants and Contributions
T&C - Terms and Conditions
TBS - Treasury Board Secretariat
NCR - National Capital Region

Top of page

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

Transfer payments are transfers of money from the federal government to individuals, organizations or other levels of government, to further government policy or program delivery.  Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has a Departmental Class Grants and Contributions Program (DCGCP) Authority from which a wide variety of relatively low dollar and low risk Grants and Contributions (G&C) are issued in support of the achievement of the Department’s program mandate.  G&C must be established and delivered within the scope of Departmental Authorities and in accordance with the Treasury Board (TB) Policy on Transfer Payments (PTP)

DFO first received its DCGCP Authority April 1, 1987.  To become compliant with the PTP, effective June 1, 2000, TB approval was sought and obtained for a five year period covering April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2009.  This Authority allowed DFO to increase its Class Contributions Authority, if required, annually to a maximum of $4 million and to increase its Class Grants Authority, if required, annually, to a maximum of $1.5 million.

Since 1995, Departmental budgets have declined and demands from external parties to develop solutions to common problems have increased.  DFO has made use of the DCGCP Authority to facilitate the participation of external stakeholders in the development of resolutions to common issues.  Greater emphasis has been placed on working with stakeholders and other interested parties, in order to facilitate the achievement of program objectives, and encourage greater involvement by and acceptance of responsibility for fisheries and oceans management.  Partnering has also encouraged greater understanding and acceptance of the Department’s position and advice on issues, permitted a more collaborative approach to address common challenges, and has resulted in a more efficient and cost effective way to achieve the same results.

The Terms and Conditions (T&C) for the DCGCP Authority require that an internal audit be conducted in 2008-2009.  The T&C for the Program Authority expire on March 31, 2009, and the results of the internal audit will be used in the renewal approval. 

1.2 Objective and Scope

The objective of the audit is to provide assurance that:

  • Payments are made in compliance with the T&C of the Program and the Financial Administration Act (FAA);
  • G&C are established in compliance with the T&C of the Program, the PTP, and Departmental processes and procedures; and
  • The appropriate funding instrument is being utilized.

A preliminary survey was conducted, including document review and analysis, and interviews with Headquarters Finance officials.  As a result, the audit included a detailed review of thirty-seven Grants and forty Contributions active during the 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 fiscal years in the Pacific and National Capital regions.  These regions were selected based on the results of the preliminary survey including the fact that 65% of the DCGCP funds were expended in these two regions during the period under review.

1.3 Statement of Assurance

In our opinion, sufficient and appropriate procedures were completed and sufficient evidence was gathered to support the conclusions contained in this report.  The conclusions were based on a comparison of the situations against the audit objectives as they existed at the time of the audit.

1.4 Summary of Observations and Recommendations

The audit found no instances in which payments exceeded the amount stated in the Agreements.  However, we observed a lack of documentation to support payments.  The file review and interviews found the application of Sections 33 and 34 of the FAA were performed to varying degrees of rigour.  The Management Control Framework for the Program was assessed and found to be well designed, however it was not always followed as intended and the development of tools and templates would ensure more consistent application.  The audit found that the funding instrument selected was appropriate.  As the results of the audit will inform the renewal process for the Program, recommendations have been developed that will enhance the Program delivery and administration.

With respect to payment compliance, the audit found the supporting documentation was not always sufficient to support the payment request.  Master files with all relevant documents were not maintained.  In addition, activities and costs were often broadly defined in the Program Approval Documentation (PAD) making it difficult to assess validity of the payment request.  A key control in the Payment Certification Process is the requirement that Payment Requests be signed by a Program Manager with the appropriate delegated authority; the audit found instances in which the Program Manager requesting the payment did not have the required authority.  To address these deficiencies, it is recommended that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services (ADM, CS):

  • ensure Program Managers are made aware of the requirement to maintain on file, all documentation required to support payment requests;
  • ensure that supporting documentation requirements for activities and costs are more precisely defined in the future PAD; and
  • not process payment requests that have an invalid Section 34 signature.

Currently, Departmental procedures restrict Agreements to one year duration.  The audit found eight Contribution Agreements (CA) that were multi-year Agreements.   Other Agreements, subject to a risk assessment of the recipient and project, could be funded with multi-year Agreements.  It is recommended, that the ADM, CS:

  • lead a review involving all departmental stakeholders in the DCGCP to assess whether multi-year Agreements based on a risk assessment of the applicant and project should be allowed under the T&C of the Program.

A Management Control Framework contains elements to ensure that a program is well designed and complies with legislation and policy.  The audit found the PAD, Grant Agreements (GA) and CA were missing T&C required by the PTP.  To ensure consistent application and delivery of the Program, the Department included processes and procedures as part of the PAD.  Adherence to these requirements varied.  It is recommended, that the ADM, CS:

  • ensure the renewed PAD is fully compliant with the PTP requirements and that Program Managers are made aware of the requirement that Contribution and Grant Agreements be fully compliant with the PAD; and
  • develop application and Briefing Note Templates, along with an information package detailing the information that must be included in the Templates.

The audit found no instances in which Programs were funded as G&C when a Contract should have been used.  The Departmental Finance 101 web-site along with guidance and advice provided by Financial Officers has helped ensure the appropriate funding instrument is utilized.  Periodic reviews by Regions/Sectors with Finance also ensure that the funding instrument being used remains appropriate. 

Top of page

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Background

Transfer payments are transfers of money from the federal government to individuals, organizations or other levels of government, to further government policy or program delivery.  DFO issues transfer payments in the form of G&C.  The G&C must be established and delivered within the scope of Departmental Authorities and in accordance with the TB PTP.  Prior to 1986, DFO regularly sought, through individual submissions, TB approval for a wide variety of relatively low dollar value and low risk G&C in support of the achievement of the Department’s program mandate.

In 1986, in light of the nature of these individual G&C, the low risk involved, and in keeping with Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) initiatives to reduce workload and encourage administrative efficiencies, a proposal was prepared to establish a DCGCP Authority.  The Program Authority was established to:  1) consolidate these individual proposals into a concise program and 2) increase the number of transfer payments to stakeholders in response to the growing demand to have cost-sharing arrangements and collaborative agreements.  The DCGCP Authority provides the vehicle for the Department to further its mandate through partnering.

DFO first received its DCGCP Authority April 1, 1987, in which the total value of the Program Authority that year was $2,645,500; $769,000 in Grants and $1,876,500 in Contributions.  As a result of the 1994 Program Review exercise and the merger of the Canadian Coast Guard with DFO in 1995-96, the Program Authority was revised effective April 1, 1995.  In March 2003, TB approved an increase to the DCGCP Authority by $4.6 million for the 2002-03 fiscal year.

To become compliant with the PTP effective June 1, 2000, TB approval was sought and obtained for a five year period effective April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2009.  This Authority allowed DFO to increase its Class Contributions Authority, if required, annually to a maximum of $4 million and to increase its Class Grants Authority, if required, annually, to a maximum of $1.5 million.  However, DFO has never expended its annual authority for Grants or Contributions.

The following table is a summary of the number of G&C issued for each fiscal year of the Program Authority and the associated expenditures.

Fiscal Year Contributions Grants Total
  Number $ Number $ Number $
2004-05 39 $1,680,492 22 $299,465 61 $1,979,957
2005-06 33 $1,598,632 8 $207,874 41 $1,806,506
2006-07 29 $1,865,993 18 $881,572 47 $2,747,565
2007-08 22 $916,436 13 $394,596 35 $1,311,032
Total 123 $6,061,553 61 $1,783,507 184 $7,845,060

Since 1995, Departmental budgets have declined and demands from external parties to develop solutions to common problems have increased.  DFO has made use of the DCGCP Authority to facilitate the participation of external stakeholders in the development of resolutions to common issues.  Greater emphasis has been placed on working with stakeholders and other interested parties, in order to facilitate the achievement of program objectives, and encourage greater involvement by and acceptance of responsibility for fisheries and oceans management.  Partnering has also encouraged greater understanding and acceptance of the Department’s position and advice on issues, permitted a more collaborative approach to address common challenges, and has resulted in a more efficient and cost effective way to achieve the same results.

Beyond encouraging partnering and increasing stakeholder involvement in program delivery, the DCGCP Authority has also been utilized to support the Department’s change agenda.  In addition, the DCGCP Authority has also been utilized in support of broader Government wide initiatives such as the national volunteer initiative and projects in support of the Interdepartmental Panel on Official Language Communities.

The T&C for the DCGCP Authority require that an internal audit of the Program be conducted.  The T&C for the Program expire on March 31, 2009 and the results of the internal audit will be used in the renewal approval. 

2.2 Objective and Scope

The objective of the audit is to provide assurance that:

  • Payments are made in compliance with the T&C of the Program and the FAA;
  • G&C are established in compliance with the T&C of the Program, the PTP and Departmental processes and procedures; and
  • The appropriate funding instrument is being utilized.

A preliminary survey was conducted, including document review and analysis and interviews with Headquarters Finance officials.  As a result, the audit included a detailed review of thirty-seven Grants and forty Contributions active during the 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 fiscal years in the Pacific and National Capital regions.  These regions were selected based on the results of the preliminary survey including the fact that 65% of the DCGCP funds were expended in these two regions. 

2.3 Methodology

The engagement complied with generally accepted auditing practices and was carried out in accordance with the Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada.  The work included interviews with Departmental officials responsible for the development and implementation of the Program, along with officials responsible for the administration and delivery of the Program.  Detailed file review was conducted to provide assurance related to the processes utilized to certify payments and the compliance with applicable policies and the Program T&C. 

The following table summarizes, by fiscal year, the number of G&C included in our sample and dollar values for the Programs.

Fiscal Year Contributions Grants Total
  Number $ Number $ Number $
2004-05 10 $570,271 6 $49,465 16 $619,736
2005-06 8 $503,630 7 $205,874 15 $709,504
2006-07 10 $1,313,936 15 $836,572 25 $2,150,508
2007-08 13 $645,486 9 $399,596 21 $1,045,082
Total 40 $3,033,323 37 $1,491,507 77 $4,524,830

Top of page

3.0 observations and recommendations

3.1 Statement of Assurance

In our opinion, sufficient and appropriate procedures were completed and sufficient evidence was gathered to support the conclusions contained in this report.  The conclusions were based on a comparison of the situations against the audit objectives as they existed at the time of the audit.

3.2 Payment Compliance

The audit found no instances in which payments exceeded the amount stated in the Agreement, however the application of Section 33 and 34 of the FAA were performed to varying degrees of rigour.

3.2.1 Account Verification

Senior financial officers in conjunction with senior program managers should develop efficient and effective accounting and other procedures to ensure that payment requests meet the requirements of the Policy on Account Verification relating to Sections 33 and 34 of the FAA and the Payment Requisitioning Regulations.  In addition, payments must also be made in accordance with the Program T&C.

To provide assurance that payments were made in compliance with the Program T&C and the requirements of the FAA and the Payment Requisitioning Regulations, payment documentation was reviewed.  As part of the review, the audit team was assessing whether the documentation submitted was in accordance with the requirements set out in Agreements and whether the documentation was sufficient to support the payment.  As well, payments were assessed to determine if they were calculated correctly and if payments were issued for eligible expenses.  Payments were verified to determine if they were certified under Section 34 of the FAA by a manager with the delegated authority.

The audit found that the account verification for the certification of Section 34 of the FAA was done to varying degrees of rigour.  The level of documentation on file to support payments varied and was not always consistent with the requirements as defined in the CA.  The audit found that 74% of Contribution files reviewed had sufficient documentation on file to support all the payments for the Agreement.  The file review found that 76% of the Grant files reviewed contained a payment request.

Based on interviews with Program Managers, the audit team was advised that in many Programs, due to the collaborative nature of the Program being funded, accountability and responsibility for the administration and delivery of the Program was dispersed.  Within Programs it was not uncommon to have an employee dealing with the recipient on the technical aspects of the Program (determining whether project deliverables were in accordance with agreement specifications) and a different employee dealing with the administrative aspects (determining payment eligibility based on documentation submitted and processing payment requests).  As a result, documentation for files was often with more than one employee and no complete master file was maintained.

The involvement of subject matter experts in the delivery of Contribution Programs ensures that the deliverables as defined in the Agreements are being carried out and the Department is being made aware of what was achieved.  However, the manager certifying Section 34 must also have assurance that in addition to deliverables being met, that the funds were spent as intended.  In addition, the manager certifying Section 34 must be aware of what documentation is required by the CA to support payment requisitions and have access to it.  Where accountability for the delivery and administration for the Program is dispersed, a master file with all supporting documentation must be maintained to support the payment certification processes.    

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the ADM, CS ensure Program Managers are made aware of the requirement to maintain on file, all documentation required to support payment requests.

3.2.2 Agreement Compliance

As part of the audit program, files were reviewed to determine if payments were calculated correctly.  The audit found no instances in which funds were paid in excess of the Grant or Contribution Agreement amount.  The audit found two Grants (totalling $20,000) and two Contributions (totalling $110,500) that were approved after the end of the fiscal year from which the funds were issued.  All GA and CA must be approved in the same fiscal year from which the funds are expended. 

The review of payment files found that many payments were not made in accordance with the payment schedules included in Agreements; payments were issued to cover multiple periods.  The DCGCP differs from other Programs in that it is funded from existing Region/Sector Allocations.  As part of the Supplementary Estimates process, Regions/Sectors must convert Operating Funds (Vote 1) to Grant/Contribution Funds (Vote 10).  This process occurs twice a year, in the fall and winter depending upon Parliamentary timetables.  As payments cannot occur until this conversion has taken place, payments often are not in accordance with payment schedules included in Agreements therefore it would be advisable when drafting Agreements to take this into consideration.  Notwithstanding, when payments covering multiple periods are issued, all supporting evidence as detailed in the Agreement must be received. 

The audit found eight Contributions which were multi-year agreements.  The PAD does not specify that Agreements must only be for one year; however procedures on the Departmental Finance 101 web-site for the DCGCP specify that if a proposal extends beyond the fiscal year, a new application and new approval is required.  Therefore these eight Contributions totalling $1,040,000 are not in compliance with Departmental requirements for the Program. 

The administrative requirements to establish Class Grants and Contributions are extensive for both applicants and the Department.  There are a number of Class G&C that are established annually, including funding arrangements to cover multi-year collaborative arrangements and annual memberships.  As part of the renewal effort, the Department should investigate allowing multi-year Agreements based on a risk assessment of the applicant and the project proposal.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the ADM, CS lead a review involving all departmental stakeholders in the DCGCP to assess whether multi-year Agreements based on a risk assessment of the applicant and project should be allowed under the T&C of the Program.

3.2.3 Payment Certification

As part of the audit, the Accounts Payable Managers were interviewed to determine what processes are in place for Section 33 of the FAA, Payment Certification.  National Capital Region (NCR) Finance has implemented Pre-Audit verification for all G&C Payment Requests.  Pacific Region conducts Section 33 Pre-Audit verification for every 100th transaction and for all G&C Payment Requests over $100,000.  In the NCR, all G&C Payment requests must contain the GA or CA as well as the supporting documentation (including such documents as cash flow forecasts, reports, etc.).  In the Pacific Region, Finance has copies of all GA and CA on file.  Despite these processes, NCR approved two Grant payment requests in fiscal year 2007-2008 for Agreements that were signed after the end of the fiscal year.  These payments totalling $20,000 should not have been processed.

Section 34 of the FAA stipulates that no payment shall be made unless a person with the proper delegated authority certifies that the payee is eligible or entitled to the payment.  A review of the payment requisitions found that 14% of Grant Payment Requests and 21% of Contribution Payment Requests contained a Section 34 signature of a manager who did not have the delegated authority to certify the payment request.  Similar findings have been identified in previous audits.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the ADM, CS not process payment requests that have an invalid Section 34 signature.

3.2.4 Payment Eligibility

A review of payments to determine if they were for eligible items was difficult to assess as the PAD provided very broad categories of eligible costs that are subject to interpretation.  In addition, the CA often did not require the recipient to provide detailed information to support payment requests.  For example, the CA did not require that invoices detail expenditures.  The review of the payments did not find any costs that could not be reasonably attributed to the costs defined in the current PAD.  As the Program goes forward for renewal, the eligible costs and activities should be more precisely defined. 

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the ADM, CS ensure that supporting documentation requirements for activities and costs are more precisely defined in the future PAD

3.3 Management Control Framework

The audit found the Management Control Framework to be well designed, however it was not always followed as intended and the development of tools and templates would ensure more consistent application.

3.3.1 Policy on Transfer Payments Compliance

The DCGCP Authority is utilized by all Regions/Sectors.  To provide assurance that all G&C are established in compliance with the T&C of the Program and the requirements of the PTP and Departmental processes and procedures, these requirements were defined in the PAD.  As part of the PAD, the Department established roles and responsibilities along with application, assessment and approval processes. 

The audit program was developed to provide assurance on whether an effective and efficient Management Control Framework for the Program was established and to determine if it was implemented as intended.  Specifically, the audit program was designed to determine if the PAD was developed in accordance with the requirements of the PTP, whether G&C agreements were developed and delivered in accordance with the requirements of the PAD and whether Regions/Sectors adhered to Departmental processes and procedures.

A Management Control Framework contains elements to ensure that a Program is well designed and complies with legislation or policies.  The PTP specifies the minimum T&C that must be included in the PAD.  The PAD contained all the required T&C for Grants and was missing the following T&C for Contributions:

  • The disposition of any assets acquired through the contribution and;
  • The Minister’s right to conduct an audit of a contribution agreement, even though an audit may not always be undertaken.

The T&C in the PAD establishing G&C are key elements of the Management Control Framework.  The GA or CA defines the T&C for the Program management, the funding arrangements and the performance and reporting requirements for the recipient.  It is essential that the GA or CA accurately reflects to the recipients the T&C set out in the PAD. 

To assist program managers, National Finance has developed a Class CA Template that is available on the Finance 101 web-site.  Despite the availability of the CA Template, the audit found CA that were missing various T&C resulting in Agreements that were not in accordance with the requirements of the PTP.

Program managers must be made aware of the PTP requirement to include in all required PTPT&C in CA.  Program managers must be made aware that the Agreement Template contains all the required T&C of the Policy and that these must not be deleted. 

The PAD specifies that GA may take the form of a formal written agreement or a letter identifying the Grant, the eligibility criteria, the specific purposes or objectives of the Grant as well as a schedule of the instalment payments.  However, the PAD contains additional T&C for Grants and these must be communicated to recipients, however these were not included in the letter that was sent to recipients. 

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the ADM, CS ensure the renewed PAD is fully compliant with the PTP requirements and that Program Managers are made aware of the requirement that Contribution and Grant Agreements be fully compliant with the PAD. 

3.3.2 Departmental Procedures Compliance

The DCGCP Authority is available for use by all Regions/Sectors.  To ensure the Program is delivered in a consistent manner, the PAD defined roles and responsibilities.  Regions/Sectors are responsible for receiving applications and assessing the proposal from a program perspective.  If a Region/Sector is supportive of a proposal, they are responsible for preparing a Briefing Note and the CA/GA for the approval of the Deputy Minister (for Contributions) and the Minister (for Grants).  As part of the Briefing Note process, the Senior Financial Officer (ADM, CS) is required to review the Briefing Note prior to approval by the Deputy Minister or Minister for compliance to the PTP and the T&C for the PAD. 

The DCGCP Authority is an applicant driven Program.  The PAD details the information that must be included in the application submitted by prospective recipients.  The PAD also details the information that must be included in the Briefing Note as well as the approvals required.  Having complete applications and Briefing Notes ensures that decisions are based on complete documentation.

File review found that adherence to the application process varied from files containing applications that met all the defined requirements, applications that were missing some elements, to Programs for which there were no applications on file.  Similarly, the audit found the completeness of Briefing Notes also varied.  The audit also identified files in which there was no evidence of Senior Financial Officer review and four Grants which did not contain approval by the Minister.  The quality and completeness of the information contained in applications and Briefing Notes varied depending on the relationship with the recipient and the type of Program being funded.  In files where the Class Program was used to fund a long standing Program or a collaborative agreement (for which there was Memorandum of Understanding or other Program specific document), required elements were often missing.  For items such as membership fees, these files tended not to have an application on file.

The following table is a summary of the findings related to the completeness of information contained in the applications and Briefing Notes as well as the level of compliance to the requirement for the Senior Financial Officer review.

  Complete Incomplete Not on File SFO Review
  Contrib-utions Grants Contributions Grants Contrib-utions Grants Contrib-utions Grants
Applications 14% 19% 54% 54% 32% 27%    
Briefing Notes 43% 51% 57% 43% 0 6% 89% 54%

The DCGCP differs from traditional G&C Programs in which there is a pool of money and many applicants submit proposals which are then assessed against established criteria.  Many of the Class Programs are long standing Programs that are funded on an annual basis.  The majority of the Programs funded are strategically selected in that the Department has an existing working relationship with the organization and the organization is best placed to carry out certain activities. 

The DCGCP Authority is available for use by all Regions/Sectors, therefore, to ensure consistent use of the Program the inclusion of application, assessment and approval procedures in the PAD are necessary.  A well designed and functioning Management Control Framework defines roles and responsibilities and has elements to ensure that decisions are based on complete information that is documented.  However, the varied nature of the Programs funded has resulted in the procedures not always being followed as intended.  To ensure CA and GA are approved based on complete information, applications and Briefing Notes must contain all of the required elements. 

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the ADM, CS develop application and Briefing Note Templates, along with an information package detailing the information that must be included in the Templates.

3.4 Funding Instrument

The audit found the funding instrument selected was appropriate.

3.4.1 Selection of Funding Instrument

Transfer payments are transfers of money, goods, services or assets made from an appropriation to individuals, organizations or other levels of government, without the federal government directly receiving goods or services in return.  The DCGCP Authority includes both Grants and Contributions.  The PTP defines Contributions as conditional transfer payments to an individual or organization for a specified purpose pursuant to a CA that is subject to being accounted for and audited.  Grants are defined as a transfer payment made to an individual or organization which is not subject to being accounted for or audited, but for which eligibility and entitlement may be verified, or for which the recipient may need to meet pre-conditions.

The DCGCP is an applicant driven Program whereby an application must be submitted to the Department.  The supporting Region/Sector must then assess the proposal from a program perspective.  As part of this assessment, the Region/Sector must assess the proposal to determine what would be the most appropriate funding mechanism.  All proposals must also be reviewed by the Senior Financial Officer which includes an assessment as to whether the appropriate funding instrument is being proposed by the Program Manager.  The Departmental Finance 101 web-site also includes information to assist the Region/Sector in selecting the appropriate funding mechanism.   

The PAD includes the following criteria to assist Regions/Sectors in determining if the request is best funded as a Grant:

  • there is no specific project or deliverable other than the advocacy or support of a Departmental strategic objective; and
  • the funds are being provided for general support and not reimbursement of any particular eligible cost

As part of the audit program to determine if the appropriate funding instrument was utilized, files were assessed against the following key elements of Transfer Payments as defined in the Policy on Transfer Payments to determine if:

  • there was a direct benefit to the Department;
  • the project was a core service;
  • the recipient was acting on behalf of the Department; and
  • the funds were subject to the recipient meeting conditions.

The file review found no instances in which G&C yielded a direct benefit to the Department which would require a contract as opposed to a Grant or Contribution.

3.5 Conclusion

The audit examined thirty-seven Grants and forty Contributions and found no instances in which payments exceeded the amount stated in the Agreements.  However, we observed a lack of documentation to support payments.  The application of processes to support Sections 33 and 34 of the FAA must be strengthened.  In addition the audit found the Management Control Framework to be well designed, however processes were not always followed as intended and the development of additional tools and templates would assist in its application.  The audit found no instances in which Programs were funded as G&C when a Contract should have been used. 

As the PAD expires March 31, 2009, the recommendations included in the report are intended to improve the administration and delivery of the Program as it goes forward for renewal.

Top of page

4.0 Management action plan

Recommendations Management Action Plan Status Report Update
Actions Completed Actions Outstanding Target Date
1.  It is recommended that the ADM, CS ensure Program Managers are made aware of the requirement to maintain on file, all documentation required to support payment requests.  The DG F&A will develop training and communication materials that clearly identify file document requirements necessary to support payment requests and, with the support of RDGs and ADMs, promulgate these materials to Program Officers.      Renewal of class G&C program - expected April 2009
2.  It is recommended that the ADM, CS lead a review involving all departmental stakeholders in the DCGCP to assess whether multi-year Agreements based on a risk assessment of the applicant and project should be allowed under the T&C of the Program.
  
Staff from the Finance and Administration Directorate will lead a working group that includes program stakeholders in determining whether multi-year Agreements based on a risk assessment of the applicant and project should be allowed under the T&C of the Program.     Renewal of class G&C program - expected April 2009
3.  It is recommended that the ADM, CS not process payment requests that have an invalid Section 34 signature. The ADM CS is currently revising the Account Verification management control framework, policy, procedures and quality assurance processes.  This will include improving the tools and procedures for verifying that only properly delegated employees approve documents.     September 2008
4.  It is recommended that the ADM, CS ensure that supporting documentation requirements for activities and costs are more precisely defined in the future PAD.  The ADM CS will ensure that supporting documentation requirements for activities and costs are more precisely defined in the future PAD.     Renewal of class G&C program - expected April 2009
5.  It is recommended that the ADM, CS ensure the renewed PAD is fully compliant with the PTP requirements and that Program Managers are made aware of the requirement that Contribution and Grant Agreements be fully compliant with the PAD. 

The ADM CS will ensure that the renewed PAD is fully compliant with PTP requirements.

The ADM CS will develop and, with the concurrence of ADMs and RDGs, promulgate policies and procedures that regulate the circumstances and approvals required to deviate from the use of approved, standard Terms and Conditions that are consistent with the PAD.

   

Renewal of class G&C program - expected April 2009

Renewal of class G&C program - expected April 2009

6.  It is recommended that the ADM, CS develop application and Briefing Note Templates, along with an information package detailing the information that must be included in the Templates. The ADM, CS will develop and promulgate Application and Briefing Note Templates, and instructions for completing the templates that state the type and degree of detailed information that must be included.     Renewal of class G&C program - expected April 2009

Top of page