• Aucun résultat trouvé

Cross-Government Audits Conducted In Specific Ministries

The following audits are highlighted in this section because they have cross-government impact.

Shared Services Shared services are the provision of services by one

government organization to another. Services provided may be in areas such as administration, finance and human resources.

Information on shared services can be found on page 108 of this report.

Capital Asset Management During the year we reviewed the capital asset management systems of several ministries. The results arising from this work can be found in the following sections:

• Infrastructure (page 179)

• Learning (page 205)

Information Technology During the year we examined the information and technology systems of the Ministry of Innovation and Science. For details of this work see page 192 of this report.

Managing for Results

Ministries and their organizations use business planning to allocate resources, manage activities and control expenditures

The quality and usefulness of business plans and annual reports depend on the underlying management processes within ministries. Ministries and their organizations use business planning to allocate resources, manage activities, and control expenditures. Performance measurement enables ministries to determine the impact of their activities, set targets, and assess how well they are achieving them. Through reporting processes, ministries track performance, exercise control, and demonstrate accountability. Human resource processes link individual efforts to ministry goals and encourage employees to contribute to them. These processes must be successful within ministries for government

accountability to be effective.

Experience has led to preferred practice

To date, ministries have been allowed considerable flexibility in preparing and presenting their accountability information.

This experimentation has allowed experience to be gained and preferred practice to emerge. Now it is time to review the approaches taken.

We audited one ministry in depth

For these reasons, we undertook an audit of business planning, performance reporting, human resource management, and governance of agencies, boards and commissions in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (the Ministry). The objectives of the audit were to:

• identify good practices in the Ministry’s planning, reporting, human resource, and governance systems

• report opportunities and make recommendations for further improvement

• determine if the Ministry had implemented the

recommendations made in the Cross-Government and Executive Council sections of my Annual Reports, 1996 to 1999, which were accepted in principle by government A detailed report of our findings and recommendations is included in the Ministry section on page 33.

Guidance to reader

The Ministry consists of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the following nine agencies, boards, and commissions:

• Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC)

• Agriculture Products Marketing Council

• Alberta Dairy Control Board

• Alberta Grain Commission

• Alberta Opportunity Company (AOC)

• Farmers’ Advocate

• Irrigation Council

• Land Compensation Board

• Surface Rights Board

In 1999-2000, the Ministry recorded expenses of $832 million (1998-99 $531 million), offset by revenue of $454 million (1998-99 $343 million), for a net operating result (deficit) of

$378 million (1998-99 $188 million). Most of the expenses are in the Department ($343 million, excluding transfers to

AFSC and AOC) and AFSC ($402 million). The Ministry develops and implements programs designed to facilitate sustainable development of the agriculture and food industry and of rural communities. These programs include agricultural trade, agricultural statistics, rural development, financial services, technology transfer, public land management, food safety, irrigation development, support to agricultural organizations, and monitoring regulatory compliance. To deliver these programs, the Department has approximately 1350 full-time equivalent staff and AFSC 500.

In the last four years, we have made numerous government-wide recommendations regarding business planning,

performance measurement, and human resource management.

The government has accepted these recommendations. To assess how successfully these recommendations have been implemented, we have examined how the Ministry of

Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has addressed these important issues; we call this project “Managing for Results”.

Agriculture was chosen because of its reputation for quality in these areas. As a result of our work, we have been able to highlight existing good practices and make recommendations that will benefit the Ministry as it continues to improve its accountability systems.

As part of the annual Departmental financial statement audit, we identified two areas where controls can be enhanced. The Department is responsible for a fleet of about 960 rail hopper cars. The Department does not actively manage the fleet;

rather, this is done under contract by two railway companies.

In recent years, the monitoring and reporting of the activities and status of these rail cars by the Department has declined.

The Department should reinstate a level of review appropriate to the size and risk of the rail hopper car program. As well, the Department is able to segregate human resource functions within IMAGIS (the government-wide financial and human resource system). We believe that this segregation of duties would strengthen controls in the Department’s Human Resources Division.

During our annual financial statement audit at AFSC, we focused considerable attention on the Farm Income Disaster Program (FIDP). FIDP is a farm income safety-net program that, for the 1999 crop year, is expected to pay approximately

$163 million to Alberta’s farmers. We noted that documentation supporting the analysis of claims can be improved. As well, we examined AFSC’s monitoring of its outsourced computer services. These computer services are critical to AFSC’s program delivery. We believe that AFSC

should seek objective evidence that its computer services provider is delivering a well controlled and managed computer environment.