Section B: Alberta Region

In addition to the consolidated findings, conclusions and recommendations found in the main body of this report, this appendix provides an overview of results that are specific to the Alberta region. This appendix must be read in context of the main report. This appendix provides observations specific to the Canada-Alberta agreements.

Overview and Criteria Results

The audit found that the joint infrastructure programs were well managed in Alberta. Sound systems and controls are in effect at the Joint Secretariat and WD. Some exemplary practices include: process checklists, appropriate documentation, and sound environmental processes. Commendable risk based audit frameworks for financial project audits and environmental assessments have been developed since the last internal audit in 2006. Alberta is the only region that has a risk-based environmental assessment plan in place. A transparent and fully documented environmental assessment matrix and follow-ups were found to be very effective and noteworthy.

The ranking and selection processes for MRIF projects were done in a strategic, comprehensive, transparent and fully documented manner. Interaction between WD and provincial partners, INFC, and program recipients was well documented. Staff roles and tasks among WD and provincial counterparts were detailed in organization charts and task sheets.

Results of selected audit criteria used to assess key risks and control elements, which impact achievement of program objectives, are summarized as follows:

Risk and Control Element	Assessed Criteria Results
Governance and Administration	Criteria mostly met
Risk Management	Criteria met
Financial Management	Criteria met
Stewardship and Project Management	Criteria met
Information and Performance Reporting	Criteria mostly met
Communication	Criteria met
Compliance with Agreements and Policies	Criteria met

Observations

The agreements require that membership vacancies should be filled within a reasonable time, communicated and documented appropriately. In the case of one federal member, it was not clear whether he was still a member of the management committee or not. The auditors’ understanding is that he had moved away. The member only attended one meeting in 2006 out of the seven meetings held during the audit period. There was no documentation of an appointed replacement.

The secretariat, on a day-to-day basis, used a parallel provincial system to capture and report project management information. The auditors assessed that the generated information to be reliable and meeting the secretariat’s needs. The Joint Secretariat later populated the SIMSI database as required. However in some cases, staff found differences between SIMSI data and the parallel spreadsheet system. The region was challenged with the technical issues that arise in SIMSI on the day-to-day basis that questions SIMSI user-friendliness and reliability.

In the Canada-Alberta agreement, there was a requirement that any material change to project outcomes as described in the contribution agreement needs to be reviewed by the Management Committee. However, some contribution agreements did not list the numerous intended benefits. The auditors felt it would be difficult to report on program performance in those cases.

The financial Risk Based Audit Framework scoring needs to be reviewed from time to time to balance the selection of project audits, which was weighted heavily towards project dollar aMOUnts. There are other risk factors apart from dollar materiality that need to be periodically assessed and weighted accordingly.