ARCHIVED - MAF Assessment: Natural Resources Canada - 2008

1.1 Leadership: Strong

• Regarding Values and Ethics Leadership, the organization is maintaining its Round V (2007-08) assessment of Strong. It has submitted a Management Assertion to CPSA that no significant changes have occurred within the organization to affect this rating.

1.2 Infrastructure: Acceptable

• Organization has a plan that includes a strategy championed by senior management with medium-term activities to raise awareness of the importance of public service values and ethics.
• Risks in regard to possible breaches in public service values and ethics are regularly assessed, documented and followed up with mitigation plans and action by management.

1.3 Culture: Acceptable

• Organization has a good understanding of the current state of public service values and ethics as evidenced by qualitative or quantitative information.

2.1 PAA Consistency: Acceptable

• The Strategic Outcome statement(s) can be understood within and outside the department as a benefit to Canadians, however its/their clarity should be improved.
• The Strategic Outcome(s) reflects the departmental area of influence and is/are adequately aligned with the organization’s mandate.

2.2 Measurability: Acceptable

• An adequate Program Activity Architecture has been developed with some issues to be resolved.

2.3 Quality:

• The organization has developed a weak performance measurement framework.

3.1 Business Plan: Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization has identified the need for a corporate business plan (or TBS accepted equivalent) and is making progress in its development.

3.2 Governance Structure: Acceptable

• Management oversight of the organization's program activities is clearly evident.
• Organization's corporate governance structure is fully aligned to the organization's PAA.
• Senior management sets priorities for and is briefed regularly on the work of the supporting governance structure.
• The synergy between senior corporate management and the supporting governance structures is evident.

4.1 Leadership of Priority Initiatives: Strong

• The organization shows strength in leadership of its priority interdepartmental initiative.

4.2 Participation in Priority Initiatives: Acceptable

• The organization contributes effectively to priority interdepartmental initiatives.
• Senior management is engaged in all the initiatives.

4.3 Portfolio Coordination: Opportunity for Improvement

• Substantial communication occurs between Deputy Minister and portfolio deputy heads.
• The Department’s portfolio coordination is lacking in some respects.

TBS has assessed NRCan with regards to its leadership of the Improving the Performance of the Regulatory System for Major Resource Projects initiative - Strong, with regard to its participation in Public Service Renewal - Acceptable, the Web of Rules Initiative - Strong, the Clean Air Agenda - Strong, and the Federal Science and Technology Strategy - Acceptable, and with regard to its portfolio management responsibilities.

5.1 Supporting Information: Acceptable

• Adequate information is submitted for business cases.
• Funding information aligns fairly well with project authorities.
• Information aligns fairly well with TBS financial data.
• Organization has the capacity to respond effectively to most TBS feedback.
• Policy and budget authorities are usually identified.
• Submission contains an adequate level of detail.

5.2 Analysis: Acceptable

• Established capacity for analysis on implementation is evident.
• Generally, the correct policy authorities are used.

5.3 Consultations: Acceptable

• Established capacity to initiate consultations with TBS with sufficient lead time is evident.
• Organization is usually able to avoid lateness by predicting and planning for uncontrollable factors.
• Submissions are usually on time (six weeks before TB meetings).

5.4 Quality control: Opportunity for Improvement

• All important information is usually included in the first draft.
• Generally rigorous and effective quality control process is in place and is usually followed for TB submissions.
• Good writing and translation standard have been used.
• TBS feedback is usually fully addressed.

6.1 Quality: Acceptable

• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS consistently address questions of program relevance, success and effectiveness.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS include a management response and an action plan detailing timelines and management accountabilities.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS use multiple lines of evidence. Evaluations reflect the diversity and perspectives of multiple program stakeholders.

6.2 Neutrality: Strong

• Head of Evaluation has explicit authority to submit evaluation reports directly to the Deputy Head and has direct and regular access to the deputy head.
• Senior management committee is in place to support, oversee and monitor the evaluation function and management accountabilities arising from evaluations and evaluation related products. The committee is chaired by the deputy head or senior level designate. The committee meets regularly during the year and is attended by designated committee members.

6.3 Coverage: Acceptable

• The organization has shared its risk-based evaluation plan with TBS. The evaluation plan has information on evaluations planned, completed and carried over. It also includes links to the organization's PAA.

6.4 Usage: Acceptable

• The results of evaluations are usually brought for consideration in TB submissions, Memorandum to Cabinet, RPPs, DPR and Strategic Reviews.

7.1 MRRS Basis: Acceptable

• Good links between performance and plans are present.
• Linkages between resources and results are adequately demonstrated in the reports.

7.2 Credible information: Opportunity for Improvement

• DPR generally provides independently verifiable evidence-based performance information. Some information on the validity and credibility of data used is provided.
• DPR is not sufficiently based on the PAA, i.e. performance is not reported consistently by Program Activity (PA) or at the PA level.
• Linkages between PA and Strategic Outcome (SO) level performance are not consistently made.

7.3 Context: Opportunity for Improvement

• DPR is not balanced – a few negative aspects of performance may be reported but insufficient explanation is provided.
• DPR uses some comparisons, but they are not effective.
• Reports adequately present the strategic context and operating environment information including challenges, risks, opportunities and capacities.
• There is insufficient discussion of lessons learned.

8.1 Change plan: Strong

• Established and robust capacity is in place to evaluate whether or not change is required.

8.2 Engagement: Strong

• Employees and stakeholders are actively engaged at all phases and are committed to advancing strategies and initiatives.

8.3 Assessment: Acceptable

• Change plans and strategies are included in Performance Management Agreements of Senior Executives.
• Change plans and strategies are priorities across the organization.

Since 2006, the department has been implementing a department-wide renewal initiative, internally referred to as “NRCan Renewal” or “North Star.”

The department has made substantial efforts to engage the entire organization, including regional offices. It has used a variety of communications tools including face-to-face sessions, videos, intranet, wiki, podcasts and others.

9.1 Engagement: Acceptable

• Senior management reviews the organization’s Risk Management approach within the current three-year planning cycle.
• The organization has a common risk assessment approach and it has been approved by senior management.
• Senior management ensures that the organization’s Risk Management approach is tailored to the specific needs of the organization and is adjusted as required.
• Each year, senior management reviews/approves the Corporate Risk Profile more than once.
• Senior management encourages effective Risk Management and a risk-smart culture.
• Accountability for key risks is assigned to senior management and performance is assessed.

9.2 Implementation: Acceptable

• The organization’s Risk Management approach is inconsistently communicated to staff and stakeholders.
• The Corporate Risk Profile is systematically (horizontally and vertically) implemented into all operational levels across the organization.
• Risk Management guidance and tools that enable the organization’s risk management approach are made available to staff.

9.3 Integration: Acceptable

• Risk information is inconsistently considered and consulted for senior management decision-making.
• Risk information and Risk Management principles influence planning and resource allocation decisions.
• Operational level risks are prioritized into key risks and are adjusted as required.
• Risk information and Risk Management principles are adequately captured in senior management reporting.
• The organization makes course corrections on an ongoing basis based on Risk Management performance and new information.

9.4 Continuous Improvement: Acceptable

• Most relevant external sources are consulted during the development of the organization’s CRP.
• Key risk information was adequately gathered from internal sources of the organization for preparing the CRP.
• Corporate risks are consistently linked to the organization’s strategic outcomes.
• The CRP provides a reliable assessment of the quality of risk information used.
• The organization adequately builds on past experience, better practice, and adjusts to fit any changes in management structures, priorities or strategic direction.
• The organization has implemented most recommendations provided during its last MAF assessment.

NRCan’s integrated planning process, and alignment of key risks to strategic outcomes and the PAA, enable the CRP to be systematically implemented into all operational levels, and enable prioritization of operational level risks into key risks. Senior management proactively reviews its CRP through Mid-Year Reviews of risk status, and annual updates to the CRP.

10.1 Fair: Acceptable

• Organization is undertaking action to improve the classification program in accordance with its level of risk.
• Evidence shows that labour relations matters are consistently and appropriately managed/addressed.
• Evidence shows that the organization exceeds standards of timeliness in payments to employees.
• Evidence shows that the organization is in compliance with Labour Relations and Compensation Operations direction (terms and condition of employment, collective agreements and/or applicable legislation).

10.2 Enabling: Strong

• Organization has made progress in comparison to the previous year's representation, recruitments and promotions of the four employment equity groups.
• Organization is representative of all four employment equity designated groups.
• Promotions among employment equity groups are greater than or equal to previous year's performance.
• Separations among employment equity groups are equal or greater than previous year's performance.

10.3 Healthy and safe: Opportunity for Improvement

• Employees feel recognized for positive performance.
• Evidence shows that the organization has an inadequately managed program to protect employees' occupational health and safety.

11.1 Productive: Acceptable

• A sufficient number of employees indicate their organization supports their career development and learning needs.

11.2 Principled: Strong

• Organization is representative of all four employment equity designated groups.
• Progress against the previous year's performance on recruitment, promotion and separation for employment equity groups equal the organization's average for all employees.
• Promotions among employment equity groups are less than representation for at least one group.

11.3 Sustainable: Acceptable

• Evidence indicates human resources planning integrated with business planning is generally in place and governance/organizational infrastructure generally exists to support it.

11.4 Adaptable: Acceptable

• A sufficient number of employees indicate their organization encourages continuous learning, improvement and innovation.

12.1 Governance: Strong

• IM requirements are fully integrated as a part of the approval, development, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of departmental policies, programs, services, and projects and mechanism are in place to continuously evaluate and modify the requirements.
• IM is fully represented in the corporate-wide governance structure and in the corporate-wide governance or approval committee(s).
• Extensive participation is evident in GC-wide approaches and initiatives related to developing, implementing, sharing, and leveraging IM policies and practices.

12.2 Strategy: Strong

• An approved and resourced IM strategy identifies support to business priorities and operations, information needs and accountabilities, IM policy considerations and is integrated with corporate strategies, plans, and planning cycles.
• An IM strategy implementation plan, including timelines and resources, is underway and achievements are evident. Mechanisms are in place to continuously evaluate and modify the plan.
• An IM awareness campaign or strategy is underway and all staff and executives are informed of their IM roles, responsibilities and accountabilities, and most have attended awareness/training sessions.

12.3 Privacy Act: Opportunity for Improvement

• Significant collections of personal information under the control of the organization have not been appropriately identified or described in accordance with the Privacy Act.
• Organization submitted an Annual Report to Parliament but did not address all of the mandatory reporting requirements.

12.4 Access to Information Act: Opportunity for Improvement

• A significant number of institution-specific Classes of Records do not meet Treasury Board Secretariat requirements.
• Organization submitted an Annual Report to Parliament but did not address all of the mandatory reporting requirements.

Although the overall rating for NRCan is Acceptable, the department has not met several of the assessed statutory requirements of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts.

13.1 Leadership: Strong

• Senior official for information technology has responsibility and accountability for virtually the full scope of information technology responsibilities.
• Organization actively participates and demonstrates leadership in setting government-wide directions for information technology.

13.2 Planning: Acceptable

• Acceptable information technology plan is in place that aligns with the government-wide directions for information technology and departmental business needs.
• Organization has aligned corporate and information technology governance structures and has an integrated planning process.

13.3 Value: Strong

• Organization analyzes and plans for the appropriate use of information technology shared services to an optimal extent.
• Organization demonstrates management commitment to service costing, asset management, performance measurement and reporting to ensure value delivery.

14.1 Investment Planning: Acceptable

• The organization has a current long-term investment planning document that has been approved by the proper authority.
• The organization has a planning document that ranks priority investments.
• The investment planning process integrates investments decisions across all asset classes.

14.2 Real Property Management: Acceptable

• All elements of a real property management framework are implemented.
• Governance structures, approval processes and authority limits are documented and disseminated.
• Comprehensive internal policies are documented and disseminated.
• Reliable and integrated information systems are in place.
• Certification of information in the DFRP is received and accepted.
• Certification of information in the FCSI is received and accepted.
• Contaminated site management is consistent with policy and program guidelines.
• A culture of continuous improvement is evident.
• Indicators of real property performance are monitored and performance measurement is ongoing.

14.3 Materiel Management: Strong

• All elements of a materiel management framework are evident.
• Governance structures, approval processes and authority limits are documented and disseminated.
• Comprehensive internal policies are documented and disseminated.
• Reliable and sufficiently integrated information systems are in place.
• Some indicators of materiel performance are monitored.
• New and evolving best practices are introduced.
• Experience and best practices are shared internally and government-wide.

15.1 Governance and Oversight: Acceptable

• Business cases support some project proposals, but are not required for all projects.
• Project governance and oversight mechanisms are limited and there are inconsistent links between approved projects and the strategic plans and priorities of the organization.
• There is no evidence that the organization has exceeded Treasury Board project approval limits, or failed to notify TB/TBS when it did.

15.2 Effective Management of Project Resources: Acceptable

• There is evidence of some processes and procedures which support resource management. However, these are largely informal and do not extend across the organization.
• There is no evidence that the organization has failed to meet TB conditions regarding projects.
• While project management related training is made available by the organization for employees, there are no processes to ensure that employees with project management responsibilities are encouraged to complete relevant training and the number of qualified project managers is unknown.
• While there is evidence that some managers prepare a staffing plan, it is not required prior to project execution.

15.3 Effective Management of Project Results: Acceptable

• The organization requires that project milestones, deliverables and outcomes are documented for major projects.
• There is evidence that the organization monitors project performance and uses this information to support corrective action.
• While lessons learned are used to improve project management governance and oversight in some instances, there is no formal or organization-wide mechanism which supports continuous improvement.

16.1 Governance and Oversight: Acceptable

• Effective and accountable procurement management processes and controls are in place (e.g., contract review mechanisms, documented decision making, guidance documents, appropriate delegation instruments or proper use of delegated authorities).
• Inconsistent links exist between procurement activities and the organization-wide program plans, priorities and long-term investments.
• Organization prepares an annual procurement plan.

16.2 Meeting Operational Requirements: Acceptable

• Clear links to human resources planning are established (e.g., succession planning and recruitment strategies for procurement staff).
• Consistent procurement training is evident.
• Efficient and integrated procurement information systems and processes are in place.
• Informed decision making and oversight exist.
• Procurement processes that contribute to cost savings and value for money are in use.
• Qualified procurement human resources exist.
• Results and reviews are used to continuously adjust current procurement management activities and future procurement plans.
• Some staff enrolled in the Professional Development and Certification program.
• Timely and accurate procurement financial and non-financial reports have been submitted.

17.1 Authorities and Policies: Acceptable

• Audit report results show evidence of deficiencies that are of some concern.
• Departmental procedures, tools, training and support for those individuals delegated with Section 34 authority show evidence of solid financial management practices.
• Departmental processes for classification of moneys, internal controls for receiving and recording money and depositing money show evidence of solid financial management practices.
• Departmental processes for informing those delegated with Section 33 authority of their responsibilities and dealing with requests for payments that are problematic show evidence of good financial management practices.
• Departmental processes to provide individuals delegated Section 33 authority with the information necessary to assess and approve specific transactions and to assess the adequacy of Section 34 account verification show evidence of solid financial management practices.
• The reporting of external user fee information shows only a few omissions in relation to reporting guidelines.

17.2 Public Accounts Reporting: Acceptable

• Eighty to 89% (grade B) of Public Accounts reporting plates submitted on time.
• No errors found during the course of the OAG Public Accounts audit.
• Several Financial Management Reporting System (CFMRS) coding errors.

17.3 Management Capacity: Acceptable

• A significant amount of training is provided for the financial management organization.
• All, or almost all, FIs and management team members in the financial management organization have current, approved learning plans.
• Positions, the duties of which are being performed by an individual indeterminately appointed to that position, comprise a low proportion of the FI segment of the financial management organization.
• Positions, the duties of which are being performed by an individual indeterminately appointed to that position, comprise all, or almost all, of the positions on the management team of the financial management organization.
• Some processes in support of a sound succession plan for key positions are in place.
• There is a position (or positions) established in the financial management organization that is dedicated to community management and development.
• There is a weak functional relationship between the CFO/SFO and FI positions that exist outside the financial management organization. *This row is only applicable where the department or agency indicates there are FI positions outside the financial management organization.

17.4 Financial Statements: Acceptable

• Several known financial internal control weaknesses remain unremedied.
• The Financial Statements are compliant with Treasury Board Accounting Standard 1.2 – Departmental and Agency Financial Statements and reporting deadlines were met.
• The organization lacks a detailed action plan to address concerns identified in the financial audit readiness assessment.

17.5 Internal Reporting: Acceptable

• The internal financial reporting package is accompanied by a comprehensive discussion and analysis.
• The internal financial reporting package is presented to senior management less than one month after period end.
• The internal financial reporting package is presented to senior management six to seven times per year.
• The process for reviewing information before it is presented to senior management to ensure no material errors or omissions is well established.
• The scope of the internal financial reporting package is comprehensive.

17.6 Other Initiatives: Strong

• Evidence of some initial measures taken towards implementing the Guide to Costing.
• The organization has identified financial management initiatives in such areas as policies, reporting, systems and community development.

The department was able to improve its overall rating from and OFI to an Acceptable by significantly improving the quality, timeliness and accuracy of reporting for the Public Accounts.

18.1 Internal Audit governance: Acceptable

• There is a draft Internal Audit Charter in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.
• The Implementation Plan covers all of the required policy elements.
• Ongoing monitoring of, and progress in implementing, key elements of the plan are on track with planned timelines.
• Chief Audit Executive reports solely and exclusively to the Deputy Head.
• An independent Departmental Audit Committee has either recently been established or is scheduled to be in place and is on track with planned timelines.
• A draft Departmental Audit Committee Charter exists and is in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.

18.2 Internal Audit Professional Practices: Opportunity for Improvement

• The Risk-Based Audit Plan was approved by the Deputy Head and sent to the Office of the Comptroller General in a timely manner.
• Annual Risk-Based Audit Plan methodology is evident and applied.
• There is evidence of preparation to provide for holistic assurance.
• There is limited identification of post-engagement follow-up activities.
• Majority of planned work is on audit assurance versus other types of activities.
• Continuity of previous years work is not clearly identified, or there is limited identification of status and rationale.
• Approved assurance products are not consistent with policy and internal audit standards requirements, containing two or more key methodological deficiencies or no reports have been submitted.
• Reasonable completion rate of assurance products (number of assurance audit reports) against 2007-2008 Risk-Based Audit Plan.
• Internal Quality Assurance and Improvement Program has not been documented.
• Assurance products (reports) are produced in a somewhat timely manner.
• The department or agency provides limited notification to the Treasury Board Secretariat on issues of importance.
• Approved assurance products are made accessible to the public in a somewhat timely manner.
• The department or agency provides limited notification to the Treasury Board Secretariat on the posting of reports.

18.3 Administration of the Internal Audit Function: Strong

• Some elements of a comprehensive Human Resources Plan have been documented, and evidence of recruitment and external resourcing activity exists.
• Investment in Certified Internal Auditor certification, learning and training exceeds 10% of FTE salaries.
• Planned spending, * was given to the Office of the Comptroller General. When comparing current spending of 2008-2009 with planned financial resources of 2007-2008, resource levels identified exceeds the resource level identified in 2007.
• Planned FTEs dedicated to internal audit have grown comparatively to 2007-2008. They exceed the resource level identified in the planned internal audit function’s budget for 2008-2009.

18.4 Internal Audit Performance: Strong

• A Chief Audit Executive Annual Report for 2007-2008 was presented to the Departmental Audit Committee and the Deputy Head and submitted to the Office of the Comptroller General.
• Regular periodic reporting on the follow-up of Management Action Plans is evident.

The department has made some progress towards the achievement of the requirements of the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit. Improvements have been made to the areas of Internal Audit Governance and Professional Practices.

19.1 Departmental Security Program: Strong

• Organization's security program is fully developed and sustainable, and comprises all key policy elements.
• Organization demonstrates leadership and contributes to the government-wide security program.
• Organization's security strategy is completely aligned and integrated with its corporate priorities and business plan.

19.2 Management of IT Security (MITS): Acceptable

• Organization has achieved the three priority objectives that form the foundation for Management of Information Technology Security (MITS) and complies with most MITS requirements.
• No significant deficiencies in meeting key MITS requirements.

19.3 Business Continuity Planning (BCP): Strong

• Organization has a fully developed and sustainable ability to provide for the continuity of critical business operations and services.
• Completed and approved plans are in place for Pandemic and Information Management/Information Technology emergency preparedness.

20.1 Management Engagement – Service and CLF: Opportunity for Improvement

• The institution may have committees or sub-committees which consider and/or make decisions about service. Such committees or sub-committees may not be composed of senior management accountable for services. The institution, however, does not have a committee which is responsible for making decisions about and overseeing service at the institutional level.
• There are expectations set by senior management for an institutional focus on meeting the needs of clients, specifically with respect to service standards and client satisfaction measurement.
• There are priorities and goals for service, but not always at the institutional level; these limited priorities and goals are set by senior management based on the use of limited performance evidence.
• There is limited monitoring of progress by senior management towards the achievement of the goals for service, making course correction difficult.
• There is little monitoring by senior management to ensure that the requirements of CLF 2.0 are being met institution-wide; there is limited information on which to make decisions and course correction.

20.2 Public/client views: Acceptable

• Evidence of incorporating feedback in the implementation of its services, programs, policies or initiatives.
• Evidence of making consultation results available to the public.
• Few tools used to obtain views from clients.
• There are plans to obtain views from clients.
• There is a clearly identified target clientele for public consultations.

20.3 Official Languages: Strong

• Analysis of the Annual Review on OL shows the institution is fully meeting its obligations.
• Audits reveal very good performance in active offer and service delivery in both OL.
• No complaint or minimal number of founded complaints exits.
• The institution has the necessary linguistic capacity to serve the public in both OL.