This website will change as a result of the dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. Consult the new Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada home page or the new Indigenous Services Canada home page.
This website will change as a result of the dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. Consult the new Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada home page or the new Indigenous Services Canada home page.
This Web page has been archived on the Web. Archived information is provided for reference, research or record keeping 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.
Date: June 27, 2008
PDF Version (311 Kb, 33 Pages)
This document represents the three-year Risk-based Audit Plan of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for 2008-2011.
The plan was reviewed by the Audit and Evaluation Committee (AEC) at its April 25, 2008 meeting and, upon the recommendation of the Committee, subsequently approved by the Deputy Minister.
On June 1, 2008 the former Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada (IRSRC) department became part of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. As a consequence, the Audit and Evaluation Committee at its June 27, 2008 meeting approved the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive's recommendations with respect to incorporating appropriate Resolution Sector (IRS) audit coverage into this Risk-based Audit Plan.
In preparing the 2009-2012 Audit Plan, a complete identification and risk assessment of Resolution Sector auditable units will be completed.
The plan focuses primarily on the provision of assurance services to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's AEC and Deputy Minister while ensuring that appropriate audit attention is directed to addressing areas of government-wide interest, such as fundamental controls and financial reporting, as directed by the Office of the Comptroller General (OCG).
The plan is intended to support an annual opinion from the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive (CAEE) on departmental governance, risk management and control processes.
The Audit and Assurance Services Branch within Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) is engaged in achieving full compliance by April 1, 2009 with Treasury Board's (TB) Internal Audit Policy.
The 2006 Internal Audit Policy places considerable emphasis on:
This second three-year audit plan is a fundamental element of the new mandate, providing a strong and credible audit regime that contributes to effective risk management, sound resource stewardship and good governance in the delivery of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's programs and activities.
The internal audit function plays an important role in supporting departmental operations. It provides assurance on all important aspects of risk management strategy and practices, management control frameworks and practices, and governance. Where control weaknesses exist and where the achievement of objectives is at risk, internal audit plays a role in providing constructive insight and recommendations for the strengthening of operations. In this way, internal audit contributes to enhanced accountability and performance.
The Government of Canada's standards for the professional practice of internal audit stipulate that the role of internal audit is to provide assurance that the system of internal control is adequate and effective to manage risk at a level that is acceptable to management. In this way, the internal audit function will provide the Deputy Minister and the Audit and Evaluation Committee with confidence that the risks to their objectives are being managed effectively. The internal audit function has a vital role to play in supporting the principles of modern comptrollership.
Internal control is defined broadly and encompasses those elements of an organization (including its resources, systems, processes, culture, structure and tasks) that, taken together, support the achievement of the organizational objectives.
The scope of the internal audit function is broad and includes those systems of internal control that are in place to achieve the following objectives:
In preparing this second three year audit plan within the context of the 2006 Treasury Board Internal Audit Policy, the Audit and Assurance Services Branch employed the same risk-based planning methodology as developed for the 2007-2010 Plan. The methodology is described below and is consistent with professional standards for the development of risk-based audit plans.
The methodology consists of:
While employing the same methodology to ensure consistency over time, care was taken to:
In the case of auditable units for which there has been little or no recent relevant audit or evaluation activity, the Branch will continue to undertake preliminary surveys as a first step in the audit process to identify the management control framework as well as potential risks that would be suitable for audit attention.
The Branch will also continue the practice of recommending a small number of audit projects that examine key issues or risks from a horizontal or cross boundary perspective.
Consultations were held with the senior management of all sectors in INAC to explain and verify the identification of auditable units and to present the recommended audit projects that affect their sector or their interests as corporate managers.
Based on the results of the risk-based prioritization of auditable units, a formal three-year audit plan has been developed, taking into consideration the known planned activities of external parties. The Three-Year Audit Plan (Table 1) sets out the recommended projects over the period from 2008-2009 to 2010-2011.
Prior to each subsequent fiscal year, the risk assessment of auditable units and the identification of projects will be updated to ensure that audit attention continues to be devoted to those areas of greatest risk that are suitable for examination.
The audit plan for 2008-2009 is presented in Table 2 with each project described in terms of its nature, its objective, its estimated timeframe, and its rationale. Regional coverage for each project will be determined as part of the planning phase.
The status of audit projects which began in 2007-2008 but have not been substantively completed is identified as carried forward in Table 3. Projects from the 2007-2008 Audit Plan which had not begun, e.g. due to unavailability of suitable contractors or contracting vehicles, and which are still considered as high priority have been included in the 2008-2009 Plan in Table 2.
|Auditable Unit||Risk Profile||2008-2009 Audit Project||2009-2010 Audit Project||2010-2011 Audit Project|
|Self Government/Claims||High risk: significant materiality including contingent liabilities, highly complex to negotiate and implement, highly sensitive due to time and resources invested, new specific claims process to be implemented.||Preliminary Survey for Audit of Self Government, including Comprehensive Claims||Audit of Specific Claims||Audits
|Band Support Funding||Moderate risk: significant materiality, moderately complex, potentially sensitive if funding misused||Audit of Band Support Funding|
|Capacity Development||High risk: moderate relative materiality (>$100 million) but significant impact on INAC's agenda and highly complex due to numerous initiatives; sensitive to public if results not evident||Audit of Capacity Development (Carry Forward from the 2007-2008 Plan)|
|Capital Facilities and Maintenance||High risk: major materiality (approaching $1 billion) with significant infusion, highly complex delivery model, sensitive to beneficiaries and public||Audit (Scope TBD)|
|Economic Development||High risk: moderate relative materiality with significant challenges of refocusing programming, inherently highly complex to pick "winners" in multi-jurisdiction environment, moderate sensitivity if failures highlighted||Preliminary Survey for Audit of Economic Development – Non Proposal Driven||Audit (Scope TBD)||Audit of Proposal Driven Programming|
|Office of the Federal Interlocutor (OFI) and Urban Aboriginal Strategy (UAS)||Moderate risk: lower relative materiality, however, highly complex due to challenges of mandate, expanded Urban Aboriginal Strategy and central agency interest. Internal audit in 2007-08 found controls essentially in place. UAS contributions excluded from 07-08 Audit Scope||Audits of OFI Contribution Programs (focusing on Urban Aboriginal Strategy)|
|Emergency||Low risk: normally low materiality, some complexity in implementing appropriate responses, low sensitivity unless responses mismanaged||Audit of Emergency|
|Natural Resources and Environmental Management||Moderate risk: lower relative materiality with potentially increased significance due to contingent liabilities, complex because of competing demands – environment vs. development, public sensitivity if environment threatened||Preliminary Survey for Audit of Natural Resources and Environmental Management||Audit
|Child and Family Services||High risk: significant materiality, highly sensitive to beneficiaries and public, complex and challenging delivery models; OAG audited in 2007-08||Audit of Child and Family Services (Enhanced Prevention Focused Approach)|
|Income Assistance||High risk: major materiality, highly sensitive to public – living conditions and potential for abuse; decentralized and devolved delivery; program being revitalized (e.g. active measures) and Preliminary Survey in 07-08 identified need for strengthened control framework||Audit of Income Assistance|
|Elementary and Secondary Schools and Other Education||High risk: major materiality (> $1 billion), sensitive to beneficiaries and public, challenge to meet standards and improve results, renewal underway, e.g. enhanced accountability||Audit of Elementary and Secondary Schools and Other Education|
|Post Secondary Education||High risk: significant materiality, more complex delivery than elementary/secondary education, sensitive to beneficiaries (demand) and public||Audit of Post Secondary Education (Carry Forward from the 2007-2008 Plan)|
|Family Violence and Other Social Services||Low risk: moderate materiality, some complexity due to number of authorities, little specific sensitivity||Audit of Family Violence and Other Social Services|
|Registration and Membership||High risk: low direct materiality but highly significant in terms of potential impacts, complex to determine eligibility, highly sensitive in the event of fraud or abuse, roll out of new CIS-IRS||System Under Development Audit of CIS-IRS||System Under Development Audit of CIS-IRS, continued|
|Grants and Contributions Horizontal Departmental Controls||High risk: highest materiality and significance representing approximately 85% of INAC budget, highly complex and sensitive (variety of authorities and delivery mechanisms)||Audit of Intervention Policy and Quality Assurance (Carry Forward from the 2007-2008 Plan)
Recipient Audit Framework
|Horizontal Departmental Audit – (Scope TBD)||Horizontal Departmental Audit – (Scope TBD)|
|Financial Planning and Budgeting||High risk: significant since no basis in place for the preparation of budgeted allocations, complex in a decentralized organization, highly sensitive once basis of allocation established and resulting competition for resources.||Audit of Financial Planning and Budgeting|
|Financial Forecasting||Moderate risk: potentially significant particularly at year-end, complex in a decentralized organization, little sensitivity.||Audit of Forecasting|
|External Reporting – Financial Statements Audit Readiness (including: Public Accounts, Audited Financial Statements, DPR/RPP, Proactive Disclosure, Contingent Liabilities)||High risk: high degree of sensitivity because OAG and TBS are interested, highly complex because of decentralized organization and tight timeframes.||Audit of Liabilities||Audit (Scope TBD)||Audit (Scope TBD)|
|Delegation of Financial Authority||Low risk: low significance since currently in reporting phase under OCG horizontal audit. Activity is of little complexity although enforcement can be somewhat challenging. Limited sensitivity as primarily an internal to government issue.||Audit of Delegation of Financial Authority|
|Expenditure Management||High risk: highly significant due to potential weakness of internal controls, highly complex because of decentralized organization, highly sensitive due to nature of some expenditures (e.g. hospitality).||Audit of Expenditure Management Monitoring||Audits of Travel and Hospitality
Audit of Procurement and Contracting
|Fraud Risk and Control Strategies||Moderate risk: moderate significance and complexity although included in OCG's horizontal audit, highly sensitive due to media attention.||Audit of Fraud Risk and Control Strategies||Audit of Assets and Property Management|
|Assets and Property Management||Moderate risk: moderate significance due to INAC's challenge in documenting its own assets; moderate complexity as policies and procedures exist governing expected practices; somewhat sensitive if existence of some assets cannot be determined.|
|Revenues||High risk: area may have significance if revenues not maximized; can be complex if numerous sources of revenue and need to ensure proper receipt and credit; not normally sensitive unless failure to collect revenues owed becomes a public issue.||Audit of Revenue Management|
|Trust Accounts||High risk: significant custodial responsibility with high degree of sensitivity among First Nations; moderately complex to track and manage accounts.||Preliminary Survey for Audit of Trust Accounts||Audit
|Loans, Loan Guarantees and Accounts Receivable||Moderate risk: function can be quite significant if large dollar value of loans and accounts receivable not actively managed to ensure timely receipt; moderate complexity in determining estimates on allocation; moderate sensitivity if INAC not seen as managing funds well.||Audit of Loans, Loan Guarantees and Accounts Receivable|
|Human Resource Planning and Resourcing||High Risk - Significant in that INAC is facing serious workforce shortages and competition for skilled workers in some areas; coupled with challenges in capacity issues in human resources; can be quite complex in terms of identifying future requirements, establishing plans to address them, and implementing resourcing strategies in a complex and controlled environment; initiatives are underway however, still at an early stage; can be sensitive with respect to Aboriginal recruitment.||Audit of Staffing and Payroll for Non-Advertised Appointments and Acting Appointments||Audit of Human Resource Planning, Resourcing and Leadership Development||Audit of Advertised Appointments|
|Organizational Design and Classification||Low Risk - Activity relates indirectly to achievement of INAC's objectives; moderate complexity to achieve most effective structures and appropriate levels; classification modernization underway with conversions to generic job descriptions for various groups such as the EC group; capacity issues for Classification Advisors; little sensitivity as primarily an internal issue.||Audit of Organizational Design and Classification|
|Learning and Development||Medium Risk - Can be significant if next generation of managers/leaders not adequately trained; activity not complex on its own but some complexity introduced because of challenges in obtaining commitment and ensuring learning occurs; little sensitivity as an internal activity; employees may be dissatisfied if opportunities not made equitably available.||Audit of Training and Development|
|Security||Moderate Risk – potentially significant to achievement of INAC business objectives if employees and assets not adequately safeguarded; can be complex to keep abreast of threats and in the conduct of threat risk assessments; highly sensitive if major threats or security violations occur.||Audit of Personnel and Physical Security||Audit of IT Security|
|IM/IT Governance||High risk: highly significant because of potential impacts on program delivery and corporate services; highly challenging for senior management to establish a governance regime that can set priorities and meet competing demands; sensitive if needs not met||Audit of IM/IT Governance|
|IM/IT Applications||Moderate risk: potential for significant impact if corporate or program systems not reliable or effective; system development can be quite complex; sensitivity usually moderate||Post-Implementation Audit of First Nations and Inuit Transfer Payment System
Preliminary Survey for Audit of PeopleSoft (may be System Under Development in nature)
|Audit of Systems Under Development or Application in Place – Enterprise Data Warehouse, Specific Claims Data Base||Audit of Systems Under Development or Application in Place – Financial Systems|
|Information Management||Moderate Risk – potentially significant in terms of achieving efficient and effective information management to support program and service delivery; complex to implement consistently across a large decentralized organization; not normally sensitive unless breaches occur.||Audit of Information Management (CIDM focus)|
|Strategic Policy and Planning||Fairly high risk: function can be significant in terms of determining and achieving INAC policies and programs; highly complex in terms of identifying, obtaining, and effectively utilizing required inputs; relatively low sensitivity unless proposals generate discussion.||Preliminary Survey for Audit of Strategic Policy and Planning||Audit
|Official Languages||Low Risk - Activity relates indirectly to achievement of INAC's objectives; little complexity to adopt existing policies yet practice can result in lapses in a large organization; moderate sensitivity, especially among Francophone community.||Audit of Official Languages|
|Entity Level Controls||High risk: entity level controls with potentially significant indirect impacts across INAC; highly complex to inculcate across a large decentralized organization, failure can result in high sensitivity; directly linked to Internal Audit Policy requirements|
|Complaints and Allegations||Moderate risk: moderate complexity to determine facts and appropriate course of action; significant in terms of INAC's integrity and responsiveness||Post Implementation Audit of Forensic Audit Policy and Revised Complaints and Allegation Policy|
|Continuity of Operations||Normally, activity relates only indirectly to achievement of INAC objectives; complexity revolves around challenge of maintaining plans current; sensitivity low except in the case of a major failure||Audit
|Communications||Moderate risk: indirectly significant to achievement of INAC objectives; complex to communicate consistent messages across a large decentralized organization and with numerous stakeholders; sensitive when attention focused on INAC||Preliminary Survey For Audit of Internal and External Communications||Audit of Communications
|Regions||Potential disconnects between strategic direction and program implementation in highly decentralized organization||Management Practices Reviews – B.C., SASK, ONT, QUE, NWT, NUNAVUT||Audit of Management Practices
|Audit of Management Practices
|Headquarters Sectors||Sectors are key to providing effective policy framework and direction to regions and for setting the tone at the top||Management Practices Reviews, LTS, NA, AED, SEPRO, TAG||Audit of Management Practices – Remaining Sectors/Key Branches||Audit of Management Practices
|Audit Project||Audit Objective||Timeframe||Rationale|
|Audit of Capacity Development (Carry Forward from the 2007-2008 Plan)||Provide assurance that Capacity Development programs and authorities are being implemented in a well controlled and coordinated manner and in accordance with approved authorities and terms and conditions.||Spring 2008||
|Grants and Contributions – Horizontal Departmental Controls – Audit of the Intervention Policy and Quality Assurance (Carry Forward from the 2007-2008 Plan)||Provide assurance to senior management that:
|Audit of Post Secondary Education (Carry Forward from the 2007-2008 Plan)||Provide assurance as to the adequacy and effectiveness of the management control framework of the program and of controls for managing related contribution agreements.||Spring 2008||
|Financial Audit of Settlement Allotment||Provide Assurance that expenditures recorded were for valid purposes||Spring 2008||
|Audit of Staffing and Payroll for Non-Advertised Appointments and Acting Appointments||Provide assurance that core values and principles are being respected and that policies are being complied with.||Spring 2008||
|Audit of Band Support Funding||Provide assurance on the adequacy and appropriateness of the management control framework||Summer 2008||
|Audit of Expenditure Management Monitoring||Provide assurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of departmental controls for monitoring and managing expenditures on a risk-informed basis, including both transfer payments and operational expenditures.||Fall 2008||
|Audit of Information Management (CIDM focus)||Provide assurance that information is created, stored and managed in accordance with government policy and standards||Fall 2008||
|Post-Implementation Audit of First Nations and Inuit Transfer Payment System||Provide assurance that the system has been implemented as intended, is fulfilling its objectives, and has appropriate controls.||Fall 2008||
|Audit of Elementary and Secondary Schools and Other Education||Provide assurance as to the adequacy and effectiveness of the management control framework of the program and of controls for managing related contribution agreements.||Winter 2009||
|Audit of Liabilities||Provide assurance on the adequacy and effectiveness of controls for accurately quantifying and reporting liabilities and contingent liabilities.||Winter 2009||
|Audit of Revenue Management||Provide assurance that INAC revenues are adequately identified, recorded and received||Winter 2009||
|System Under Development Audit of CIS-IRS||Provide assurance that implementation of the new Certificate of Indian Status card includes appropriate controls as recommended by earlier audit and Threat Risk Assessment studies||Dependent Upon Project Status||
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of Self Government, including Comprehensive Claims||Document the sector's programs, activities and risks and recommend objectives and priorities for future audits of claims and self government (survey to exclude specific claims as this process already covered)||Spring 2008||
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of Trust Accounts||Document the sector's programs, activities and risks and recommend objectives and priorities for a future audit(s) of trust accounts||Spring 2008||
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of Economic Development – Non Proposal Driven||Identify associated risks, determine whether the management control framework is adequate to mitigate them, and recommend whether additional audit work is required.||Spring 2008||
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of Natural Resources and Environment Management||Prepare the Audit and Assurance Services Branch to carry out audits of the numerous programs, authorities and responsibilities related to Natural Resources and Environmental Management||Summer 2008||
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of PeopleSoft||Determine whether the existing management control framework is adequate to support upgrading or whether additional audit attention is required.||Summer 2008||
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of Strategic Policy and Planning||Identify the mandates and scope of Strategic Policy and Planning, determine associated risks, and document the management control framework||Fall 2008||
|Forensic Audit Policy||Implement a Forensic Audit Policy framework that supports accountability for use of public funds||Spring 2008||
|Update of the Corporate Risk Profile||Facilitate a process that will result in an updated Corporate Risk Profile and a framework for improved integration of risk management across INAC||Spring 2008||
|Values and Ethics – An Organizational Risk Assessment||Identify and assess the impacts of contribution funding associated values and ethics risks in terms of management controls and make recommendations to address gaps||Spring 2008||
|Recipient Audit Framework||Develop an approach to implementing recipient audit in INAC in conjunction with other federal funders||Ongoing||
|Management Practices Reviews (LTS, TAG, AED, SEPRO, NAP, BC, SK, ON, PQ, NWT, NUNAVUT)||Review the management practices of INAC's Regions and Sectors to identify best practices and control weaknesses in the specific areas within scope||Throughout 2008-09||
|Audit Project||Audit Objective||Status as of April 30||Rationale||Resource Requirements|
|Follow-up of Aboriginal Business Canada||Provide assurance regarding the implementation of the management action plan||Planning Phase||
|Capital Facilities and Maintenance||Provide assurance on the adequacy and appropriateness of the management control framework||Fieldwork
|Community Economic Development||Provide assurance to senior management that:
The Audit and Assurance Services Branch will carry out the approved 2008-2009 audit engagements on a systematic basis. Having laid a solid foundation with the implementation of the 2007-2008 Plan and the establishment of a limited number of firms pre-qualified to provide audit services on a priority and timely basis, the Audit and Assurance Services Branch is well positioned to initiate and complete projects on a timely basis.
Audits will be carried out in accordance with the Professional Standards for Internal Audit as outlined in the TB Policy on Internal Audit.
The risk-based audit plan will be updated, where justified on the basis of risk and urgency, as departmental and governmental risks evolve. Modifications to the plan will be presented at AEC meetings and submitted to the Deputy Minister for approval. As part of its ongoing monitoring of implementation of management action plans, the Audit and Assurance Services Branch may decide to conduct formal audit follow-up activity.
The Audit and Assurance Services Branch will also continue to monitor the scope and timing of external audits (e.g. OAG, OCG, Public Service Commission, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages) in order to optimize coverage and minimize duplication of effort.
The Three-Year Plan identifies that approximately 20 audit projects will be carried out on an annual basis. While the level of audit effort will vary from project to project, it is the Audit and Assurance Services Branch's professional opinion that this level of activity is the minimum necessary to provide adequate and meaningful risk-based coverage of the programs and corporate functions of INAC and to meet the requirements of the Treasury Board Policy. Appendix B illustrates how the audit projects proposed for 2008-2009 will provide coverage of the Management Accountability Framework elements.
The Branch has been advised that this level of activity is commensurate with that required and undertaken in other government departments of similar size.
For purposes of identifying initial resource requirements, the Audit and Assurance Services Branch has assumed, based on experience, that its average portfolio of twenty audit projects will normally be comprised of 4-5 large projects at an expected cost of $250,000 each (in contract dollar terms), 6-8 medium size projects with an expected cost of $150,000 each, and 6-8 small projects with an expected cost of $75,000 each. These assumptions result in an annual requirement for a budget equivalent to approximately $3,000,000 in contract funds (exclusive of the costs of forensic and recipient audits). Due to delays in implementing the 2007-2008 Plan the Branch is carrying-forward a number of projects. To avoid a one-time shortfall, recommended audit average has been adjusted over the three years of the Plan. Appendix C details the anticipated costs of audit projects in 2008-2009.
In addition to the resource requirements for the carrying out of audit projects, the Audit and Assurance Services Branch also faces significant demands on its existing resource base to:
The Audit and Assurance Services Branch recognizes that its recommended Plan continues to be very ambitious, but believes that it is essential to achieving full compliance with the Internal Audit Policy by April 1, 2009.
The extent to which the Branch is able to achieve full implementation of the Plan is dependent, however, on a number of factors:
The Audit and Assurance Services Branch will continue to provide an update to the Audit Committee at each of its meetings on the progress it is making in implementing the Plan and the challenges it is facing in so doing.
Human Resources Management and Services
Information Management and Technology
|1 Public Service Values||2 Governance and
and Change Management
|6 Risk Management||7 People||8 Stewardship||9 Citizen-
|Carry-forward from 2007-
Aboriginal Business Canada
|Capital Facilities and
|Community Economic Development||x||x||x||x||x|
Capacity Development (Carry Forward from the
Contributions – Horizontal Departmental Controls – Audit of the
Intervention Policy and
Quality Assurance (Carry Forward from the
Post Secondary Education (Carry Forward from the
|Financial Audit of
Advertised Appointments and
Band Support Funding
Expenditure Management Monitoring
Information Management (CIDM
Implementation Audit of
First Nations and
Inuit Transfer Payment System
|Audit of Elementary and
Secondary Schools and
|Audit of Liabilities||x||x|
|Audit of Revenue Management||x||x|
|System Under Development
Audit of CIS-IRS
|Preliminary Survey for
Audit of Self
Government, including Comprehensive Claims
|Preliminary Survey for the
Audit of Trust Accounts
|Preliminary Survey for
Audit of Economic Development
for Audit of Natural Resources and
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of PeopleSoft||x||x||x||x|
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of Strategic Policy and Planning||x||x||x||x||x||x||x|
|Forensic Audit Policy||x||x|
|Update of the Corporate Risk Profile||x||x||x||x||x|
|Values and Ethics – An Organizational Risk Assessment||x||x||x||x||x||x|
|Recipient Audit Framework||x||x||x|
|Management Practices Reviews
(LTS, TAG, AED, SEPRO, NAP, BC, SK,
ON, PQ, NWT, NUNAVUT)
|2008-2009 Audit Activities||Contract Dollars|
|Audit of Capacity Development (Carry Forward from the 07-08 Plan)||$ 250,000|
|Grants and Contributions – Horizontal Departmental Controls – Audit of the Intervention Policy and Quality Assurance (Carry Forward from the 07-08 Plan)||$ 250,000|
|Audit of Post Secondary Education (Carry Forward from the 07-08 Plan)||$ 150,000|
|Financial Audit of Settlement Allotment||$ 75,000|
|Audit of Staffing and Payroll for Non-Advertised Appointments and Acting Appointments||$ 250,000|
|Audit of Band Support Funding||$ 150,000|
|Audit of Expenditure Management Monitoring||$ 150,000|
|Audit of Information Management (CIDM focus)||$ 75,000|
|Post-Implementation Audit of First Nations and Inuit Transfer Payment System||$ 150,000|
|Audit of Elementary and Secondary Schools and Other Education||$ 150,000|
|Audit of Liabilities||$ 150,000|
|Audit of Revenue Management||$ 75,000|
|System Under Development Audit of CIS-IRS||$ 75,000|
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of Self Government, including Comprehensive Claims||$ 25,000|
|Preliminary Survey for the Audit of Trust Accounts||$ 25,000|
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of Economic Development – Non Proposal Driven||$ 25,000|
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of Natural Resources and Environment Management||$ 50,000|
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of People Soft||$ 25,000|
|Preliminary Survey for Audit of Strategic Policy and Planning||$ 25,000|
|Forensic Audit Policy||$ 25,000|
|Update of the Corporate Risk Profile||$ 100,000|
|Values and Ethics – An Organizational Risk Assessment||$ 25,000|
|Recipient Audit Framework||$ 25,000|
|Management Practices Reviews (LTS, TAG, AED, SEPRO, NAP, BC, SK, ON, PQ, NWT, NUNAVUT)||$ 700,000|
|Total Requirements||$ 3,000,000|
|Current Contract Allocation||$ 3,233,861|
1. This Table excludes projects from the 2007-2008 Plan for which little audit activity was conducted during 2007-2008. Those audits are included in the 2008-2009 Plan (identified as Carried Forward) or have been recommended to the Audit and Evaluation Committee for replacement by other audit activity. (return to source paragraph)