Section D: Manitoba 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 Manitoba region. This appendix must be read in context of the main report. This appendix provides observations specific to the Canada-Manitoba agreements.

Overview and Criteria Results

The audit found that the Management and Agreement Oversight Committees and the Joint Secretariat had established sound governance, risk mitigation mechanisms and controls for the successful management of the programs. The conscientious effort by the parties to centralize resources and establish a co-located Joint Secretariat, known as Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Programs office, has facilitated effective program delivery and satisfied clients’ desire for a one-stop shop. Comprehensive annual reports were produced, communicated and publicized for use by various stakeholders. The report is exemplary of first-class transparency. Contribution agreements were found to be comprehensive, outlining project parameters, emphasizing limited liabilities and total costs of projects and communicated effectively. Key project and administrative decisions and other matters were documented.

Results of selected audit criteria that were 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 mostly 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. There was no up-to-date documentation of all current appointed agreement oversight committee members that could be supplied to the auditors. WD Management needs to work with INFC to formalize the current Management and Oversight Committee appointments in compliance with the provisions in the Canada-Manitoba agreements.

The secretariat, on a day-to-day basis, used a spreadsheet to capture and report project management information. The auditors assessed the periodic 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, the 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 Manitoba, the auditors discovered one ICP project that was approved five years ago but had not started. Staff confirmed that there were a total of four ICP projects in the same situation. The funds were being reserved for the projects, but no funds had been expended yet. Some risks are associated with this approach: other ranked projects possibly had to forego funding and these projects being in jeopardy due to rising costs and scarcity of tradesmen. Staff informed the auditors that once the projects are announced they cannot be pulled back or the funds reallocated. The issue of time delays is discussed more in section 4.2 of this report.

The region has not yet produced a functional organization chart with detail documentation and clarification of roles, tasks and job descriptions. Roles and responsibilities of the combined WD-Manitoba staff were not clear from documents supplied to auditor even though the work still gets done. A functional organization chart with detail documentation and clarification of roles, tasks and job descriptions is a good management practice.

Two key Joint Secretariat staff retired in 2008. The region should consider developing a procedures manual to allow for smooth succession planning and training of new staff.

The auditors found three minor exceptions were during their file review: not demanding quarterly financial statements from small clients; project officers failing to document project discussions before formal adjustments take place; and some files were missing insurance documentation prior to claims being processed. These exceptions were judged to be minor and inconsequential.