Audit of the Canada Lands Survey Program - AU1905

Presented to the Departmental Audit Committee (DAC)
September 26, 2019

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
  • Introduction
  • Strengths
  • Areas for Improvement
  • Internal Audit Conclusion and Opinion
  • Statement of Conformance
• Introduction
  • Audit Purpose and Objectives
  • Audit Considerations
  • Scope
  • Approach and Methodology
  • Criteria
• Findings and Recommendations
  • Governance Mechanisms and Stakeholder Needs
  • Program Delivery Processes
  • Information Management (IM) and Information Technology (IT)
• APPENDIX A – Audit Criteria

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The Surveyor General Branch, within the Lands and Minerals Sector of Natural Resources Canada, comprises the Canadian Geodetic Survey, the Canadian Section of the International Boundary Commission, and the Surveyor General for Canada Lands. The focus of this audit was on the Surveyor General for Canada Lands (the Program), which manages the Survey Registry, as well as surveys on Canada Lands.^{Footnote 1}

Under the Canada Lands Surveys Act, the Minister of Natural Resources has the administration, direction, and the control of surveys, and also appoints the Surveyor General. The Surveyor General of Canada is responsible for the management of surveys on Canada Lands, which establish official boundaries defining the extent of ownership, or other rights in land.

The Program provides instructions for Canada Lands surveyors (the surveyors) and establishes the National Standards for the survey of Canada Lands. The Program has the responsibility to ensure the quality of the completed surveys and related documentation in advance of approving and entering them into the registry of legal survey documents. The Program recently went through a modernization of the Canada Lands Survey System as part of which the Canada Lands Surveys Records, a legal archive containing land survey and legal boundary records dating pre-Confederation, has migrated to an electronic environment.

The Surveyor General has legislative responsibilities in more than 20 pieces of federal and territorial legislation, along with Indigenous land claim agreements, to manage property and boundary survey programs for the Government of Canada. Providing expertise for legal boundaries and property systems, the Program manages the implementation of large cadastral survey programs on behalf of other government departments (OGDs). Another important element of the Program is aiding Indigenous Services Canada in supporting the First Nations Land Management Act. The First Nations Land Management Act is a means for First Nations to take responsibility for the management and control of their Reserve lands and resources. As a result, these groups can manage their own lands as an alternative to falling under the land management provisions of the Indian Act. The research and land description reports prepared by the Program are intended to support the transition to First Nations Land Management.

The Program also provides consulting services to diverse groups such as territorial governments, OGDs, and Indigenous organizations; and conducts legal surveys as required, most of which are carried out through contracts to external surveyors. As a result, the Program has established a structure of regional offices who are responsible for upholding collaborative agreements and partnerships with these groups.

The Audit of the Canada Land Survey Program was included in the 2018-2021 Risk-Based Audit Plan, approved by the Deputy Minister on April 12, 2018.

STRENGTHS

Overall, roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities are clearly defined, documented, and communicated, and effective processes are in place to develop and manage agreements with stakeholders. Performance measures have been established to assess and monitor the Program’s achievement of key results, and the Program maintains close relationships with its stakeholders, which helps to identify their needs.

The audit team also found that the Program employs IM/IT solutions to support efficient business operations. The Program implemented the Canada Lands Survey System (CLSS) to manage survey plans, and has effective processes in place to ensure that the integrity of the survey records is maintained and that survey records are available in a timely manner. The Program also developed effective processes to maintain the National Standards for Survey of the Canada Lands (the Standards) and to ensure that surveys undertaken on Canada Lands are conducted in accordance with the Standards; and that Program’s activities are in compliance with key legislative instruments.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Although there is a positive rapport with stakeholders in differing regions, opportunities exist to reinforce the relationships between the Program and some of its stakeholders; and to ensure that the Performance Information Profile adequately measures accessibility to survey records and information.

Opportunities also exist to improve the CLSS IT security controls; to finalize the Strategic Human Resources Plan and the Land Surveyor Development Program to ensure adequate succession planning; and to assess the impact of various modernization trends emerging in the Program environment.

INTERNAL AUDIT CONCLUSION AND OPINION

In my opinion, the Program has established effective and efficient processes to support the achievement of results and to address stakeholders’ needs, in compliance with key legislative instruments. Opportunities for improvement include enhancing IT security controls and succession planning; and tailoring services to stakeholder needs.

STATEMENT OF CONFORMANCE

In my professional judgement as Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive, the audit conforms with the Institute of Internal Auditors' International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing and the Government of Canada’s Policy on Internal Audit, as supported by the results of the Quality Assurance and Improvement Program.

Christian Asselin, CPA, CA, CMA, CFE
Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive
September 26, 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The audit team would like to thank those individuals who contributed to this project and, particularly employees who provided insights and comments as part of this audit.

INTRODUCTION

The Surveyor General Branch, within the Lands and Minerals Sector of Natural Resources Canada, comprises the Canadian Geodetic Survey, the Canadian Section of the International Boundary Commission, and the Surveyor General for Canada Lands. The focus of this audit was on the Surveyor General for Canada Lands (the Program), which manages the Survey Registry, as well as surveys on Canada Lands.^{Footnote 2}

Under the Canada Lands Surveys Act, the Minister of Natural Resources has the administration, direction, and the control of surveys, and also appoints the Surveyor General. The Surveyor General of Canada is responsible for the management of surveys on Canada Lands. Legal Surveys establish official boundaries defining the extent of ownership, or other rights in land. More than 20 pieces of federal and territorial legislation set out property rights systems that rely upon the work of the Surveyor General.

The Program provides instructions for Canada Lands surveyors (the surveyors) as well as establishes, maintains and develops the National Standards for the survey of Canada Lands. All surveys on Canada Lands are required to be carried out by licensed surveyors, and the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors is responsible for licensing surveyors. The Program has the responsibility to ensure the quality of the completed surveys and related documentation in advance of approving and entering them into the registry of legal survey documents. The Program recently went through a modernization of the Canada Lands Survey System as part of which the Canada Lands Surveys Records, a legal archive containing land survey and legal boundary records dating pre-Confederation, has migrated to an electronic environment.

The Surveyor General is mandated through federal and territorial legislation, along with Indigenous land claim agreements, to manage property and boundary survey programs for the Government of Canada. Providing expertise for legal boundaries and property systems, the Program manages the implementation of large cadastral survey programs on behalf of other government departments (OGDs).

The Program also provides consulting services to diverse groups such as territorial governments, OGDs, and Indigenous organizations; and conducts legal surveys as required, most of which are carried out through contracts to external surveyors. As a result, the Program has established a structure of regional offices who are responsible for upholding collaborative agreements and partnerships with these groups. These offices are located across Canada including main offices in Ottawa and Edmonton, as well as in Amherst, Quebec City, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Vancouver, Iqaluit, Yellowknife, and Whitehorse.

Another important element of the Program consists of aiding Indigenous Services Canada in supporting the First Nations Land Management Act. The First Nations Land Management Act is a means for First Nations to take responsibility for the management and control of their Reserve lands and resources. As a result, these groups can manage their own lands as an alternative to falling under the land management provisions of the Indian Act. The research and land description reports prepared by the Program are intended to support the transition to First Nations Land Management.

The Program was also involved with two new initiatives in 2018: the Land Surveying Capacity Development, which is an in-community consultation and mentorship in surveying initiative with First Nations communities; and the Boundary Dispute Resolution Unit. The Boundary Dispute Resolution Unit intends to examine and compare dispute resolution practices domestically and internationally, and to consult with Indigenous organizations and communities to determine what dispute resolution practices would best address their needs and desired outcomes.

The Program’s total expenditures for 2017-18 were $11.4M (including $10.0M in salaries and benefits, and  $1.3M in operations and maintenance costs (O&M)); and the total budgeted expenditures for 2018-19 are estimated at $15.5M (including $13.4M in salaries and benefits, and $1.6M in O&M). The increase in budget is primarily due to the introduction of the two initiatives mentioned above.

The Audit of the Canada Land Survey Program was included in the 2018-2021 Risk-Based Audit Plan, approved by the Deputy Minister on April 12, 2018.

AUDIT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of key processes supporting the delivery of the Program, the achievement of Program results, and addressing stakeholders’ needs, in compliance with legislative instruments.

Specifically, the audit assessed whether:

• Effective governance mechanisms are in place to support the delivery of the Program, and the achievement of results;

• Effective Program delivery processes are in place and are in compliance with key legislative instruments; 

• Effective processes are in place to address stakeholder needs; and 

• The Program has employed information technology tools and systems to support efficient operations, in compliance with departmental and governmental policies, including privacy requirements.

AUDIT CONSIDERATIONS

A risk-based approach was used in establishing the objectives, scope, and approach for this audit engagement. The following areas were identified as having significance in the achievement of the Department’s objectives, and were therefore assessed as increased areas of risk for this audit:

• Effective governance mechanisms are necessary to ensure the proper delivery of the Program, and the achievement of key results.

• Effective Program delivery processes that comply with the Canada Lands Surveys Act, First Nations Land Management Act, and related legislative instruments requirements are necessary to ensure the proper delivery of the Program.

• The significant service delivery component of the Program requires effective processes to ensure that stakeholders’ needs are appropriately considered (e.g. OGDs, First Nations and Indigenous Communities, provincial and municipal entities, and professional bodies).

• The delivery of the Program’s services to its stakeholders and OGDs, requires the management of a large volume of information that must be kept secure (e.g. personal information of users).

• The use of information technology and the offer of online delivery methods is necessary for the efficient, accurate, and secure processing of information.

SCOPE

The scope of the audit focused primarily on the Program activities from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2019. Considerations were also given to preceding periods for Information Management and Technology processes.

This audit did not assess the Land Surveying Capacity Development as well as Boundary Dispute Resolution Unit, as these initiatives are currently in the initial stages of being developed.

The results of previous advisory, audit, and evaluation projects on related topics were also considered by the audit team.

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The approach and methodology followed the Institute of Internal Auditors' International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing and the Government of Canada’s Policy on Internal Audit. These standards require that the audit be planned and performed in such a way as to obtain reasonable assurance that audit objectives are achieved. The audit included tests considered necessary to provide such assurance. Internal auditors performed the audit with independence and objectivity as defined by the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.

The audit included the following key tasks:

• Interviews with key personnel and site visits;
• Review of the Program’s documentation and business processes; and
• Review of key legislative instruments.

The conduct phase of this audit was substantially completed in June 2019.

CRITERIA

Please refer to Appendix A for the detailed audit criteria. The criteria guided the audit fieldwork and formed the basis for the overall audit conclusion.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS AND STAKEHOLDER NEEDS

Summary Finding

Overall, the audit team found that roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities are clearly defined, documented, and communicated, and that the Program has effective processes in place to develop and manage agreements with stakeholders. Opportunities exist to finalize and implement the Strategic Human Resources Plan and the Land Surveyor Development Program to ensure adequate succession planning.

The audit team also found that performance measures have been established to assess and regularly monitor the Program’s achievement of key results, and that the Program maintains close relationships with its stakeholders, which helps to identify their needs. However, opportunities exist to reinforce the relationships between the Program and some of its Indigenous stakeholders. Opportunities also exist to ensure that the Performance Information Profile (PIP) include indicators to measure the accessibility of survey records and other information.

Supporting Observations

Due to the nature of its business, the Program interacts with various stakeholders, including external surveyors, the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors (ACLS), Indigenous stakeholders, OGDs, provincial, territorial and municipal entities to uphold its responsibilities. The audit sought to determine whether the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of the Program are clearly defined, documented, and communicated; whether the Program has effective processes in place to seek input from stakeholders in order to identify their needs; and whether performance measurements have been established to assess and regularly monitor the Program’s achievement of key results. The audit also sought to determine whether the Program has effective processes in place to develop and manage agreements with stakeholders; and to assess its resource requirements.

Roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities

The Program is responsible for the management of all surveys on Canada Lands, the custody of all documentation related to these surveys, and the verification of surveys. Overall, the audit team found that the Program’s roles, responsibilities and accountabilities are clearly defined, documented and communicated, mainly through the Canada Lands Surveys Act (CLS Act).

As defined in the Canada Lands Surveyors Act, the Surveyor General of Canada is a member of the council of the ACLS and as a result the Program works in close collaboration with the Association. The ACLS is responsible for licensing and ensuring the professional competency of its members, as well as conducting regular practice reviews to assist with the quality assurance process of Canada Lands surveys, which the Program relies on. The audit team found that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Program and the ACLS establishes a working relationship in the field of cadastral surveying and land administration with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. The MOU between the two parties was signed in September of 2011; however, it only remained effective for five years after signing.

The audit team also found that the Program has established two internal committees; the Management Board, and the Planning and Operations Committee (POC). The Management Board is responsible for overseeing the Program’s strategic planning and reporting activities such as the integrated business plan, the monthly dashboard’s results tracking the Program’s progress, as well as human resources and finance requirements. The POC oversees operational-level activities, such as the review of the monthly dashboards prepared by the Program, which is a detailed listing of all major projects that are occurring within the Program, with timelines, descriptions, and commentary on the progression of the particular project.

In addition, the Program collaborates with OGDs in delivering their land management responsibilities, provides advice, manages surveys and prepares legal descriptions for use in land transfer documents. In the course of its operations, the Program develops agreements with its stakeholders, including interdepartmental letters of agreement with OGDs for exchange of funds, and memoranda of understanding with non-governmental stakeholders. The audit team reviewed a sample of agreements, and found that specific templates were used by the Program to develop their agreements, with clearly defined roles, responsibilities, deliverables, and timelines.

The audit team found that the ongoing monitoring of the stakeholders agreements is performed informally. Each responsibility center manager is responsible for his or hers region’s agreements, and due to the close relationship with stakeholders, the monitoring of agreements is completed informally. This approach was found to meet the Program’s needs. All key projects are discussed at POC meetings, and lessons learned are shared across the regions through this committee.

In order to support their stakeholders, the Program sometimes prepares detailed Statements of Work and carries out project management tasks in addition to issuing survey instructions. In the past, the OGDs administrating these projects included a 20% fee in the project contracts, which was payable to the Program. This enabled the Program to recover some of their O&M and salary costs. However, in recent years, some of these projects began to be funded through grants and contributions, which resulted in the Program no longer being able to recover costs for these projects. While the Program has continued to provide these services without receiving funding, this situation creates a pressure on the Program’s resources and reduces its ability to support its stakeholders.

Stakeholder Needs

Overall, external stakeholders reported positive relationships with the Program. Territorial governments in particular are reliant on the Program’s support and expertise. The external surveyors also reported good relationships with the Program. The audit team found that the Program consulted with stakeholders and end-users when initially developing their digitized system for survey records (i.e. myCLSS). External stakeholders report that the online system continues to be aligned with their needs. Many stakeholders indicated that they had regular contact with the Program and felt comfortable in providing informal feedback. Stakeholders indicated that overall, there is a positive relationship between Indigenous groups and the Program. However, stakeholders perceived that communications between the Program and Indigenous groups have declined in recent years with less person to person contact and the increased use of digital technology such as emails. They also noted that there has been an increase in new staff who have less experience with Indigenous groups. External stakeholder groups stated that the Program needed more personal communications mechanisms with these groups.

The audit team assessed the key outcome of the Program – accessible, timely, and accurate boundary information to enable the transfer of property rights and effective land management – and found that the Program is achieving this outcome. External surveyors were satisfied with the quality and timeliness of Program’s expertise, advice and support (e.g. survey instructions).

However, some regional inconsistencies in quality and timeliness of Program support and information (e.g. facilitating the identification of survey needs, information to help prepare survey contracts) to stakeholders were noted.  It was reported that there were variations in the degree that information and support was aligned with Indigenous needs and the degree in which the appropriate amount of detail was provided. A noted best practice was the provision of sketches or maps of the proposed area to be surveyed and provisional survey instructions. This type of preliminary information was cited as useful in preparing survey contracts, but is not provided in all regions. These perceived inconsistencies were attributed to varying levels of understanding of the Indigenous cultures and insufficient Program human resources capacity. It was suggested that stated that awareness and capacity building workshops by Indigenous representatives in each region would be helpful to ensure an adequate understanding of Indigenous cultures and information needs.

Some external stakeholders expressed an opinion that the Program’s survey process and who was responsible for the various phases of the process was not clear. In addition, changes in personnel were not always communicated to stakeholders, making access to the Program information more challenging.

External stakeholders also reported other benefits as a result of the Program, including:

• Land surveying is the basis for economic development - land surveying was frequently cited as “invisible infrastructure” necessary for economic development.
• Increased capacity of stakeholders (e.g. other government departments, territories, and FN organizations) to conduct land surveys and to make informed land management decisions.
• In the Yukon, the Program has played an important and active role in supporting the territory’s Land Modernization Initiative.
• In some cases it was reported that the Program went above and beyond their role in supporting their organizations (for example, assuming an intermediary function between different stakeholder groups).

Performance measurement

The audit team found that an appropriate performance measurement strategy (i.e. the Performance Information Profile -PIP) has been established for the program to assess and monitor its key results, but it requires some enhancements. The logic model elements are clearly stated, include the key outputs and outcomes for the program, and these elements have plausible causal linkages. For the most part, the indicators and the targets are clear and appropriate. However, the audit team found that the PIP did not include indicators to adequately measure the accessibility (e.g. adequacy of search function) of survey records and other pertinent information and support provided by the Program. Currently indicators contained in the PIP (pertaining to the outcome - accessible, timely, and accurate boundary information) focus on the timeliness of the information.

The audit team also found that the data collected by the program is aligned with the performance measurement strategy. The metrics collected for the Program are related to timely access, availability of survey records, survey management, and Canada Lands Survey Records usage. In addition, the Program collects information with respect to meeting Land Claim and Treaty Land Entitlement and First Nations Land Management Obligations.

Resource requirements

The functional group comprising the Canada Lands Surveyors is currently considered to be a shortage group, with 45% of the surveyors employed with the Program being eligible to retire within the next 5 years. In addition, a review of the Program’s organizational chart showed that approximatively 33% of the surveyor positions were vacant in 2018-19. The audit team noted that the Program developed a Strategic Human Resources Plan for the period of 2018 to 2022. This plan is intended to outline various employment considerations, risks, strategies and action plans. However, the audit team found that the Strategic Human Resources Plan is in the early stages of development.

The Program also developed the Land Surveyor Development Program in 2017, to help with succession planning and recruiting by hiring and training new graduates in land surveying, and assisting them in acquiring the mandatory work experience to become certified surveyors, with a focus on Indigenous and First Nations students. Even though the Land Surveyor Development Program had not been finalized at the time of the audit, the audit team found that the Program supported 14 participants through this initiative, out of which 7 have obtained their Canada Lands Surveyor certification. 

RISK AND IMPACT

A lack of formality with regards to human resource planning can result in capacity and succession planning issues, loss of corporate knowledge, and have an impact on overall Program delivery.

The absence of a formal agreement, or mechanisms to collect feedback from stakeholders can affect the ability of the Program to identify their needs and to consider them. In addition, a PIP without all relevant indicators can result in the Program being unable to measure their performance and may alter the desired Program results.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R1 : It is recommended that the Surveyor General ensure that:

1. The Program finalizes and implements the Strategic Human Resources Plan and the Land Surveyor Development Program in a timely manner;
2. The Program updates its MOU with the ACLS; and
3. The Program discusses funding for cost recovery with OGDs.

R2 : It is recommended that the Surveyor General improve mechanisms to identify stakeholder needs and to monitor Program effectiveness through the following means:

1. Regularly consult with key stakeholders and end-users to identify needs and to monitor Program effectiveness;
2. Develop and implement a communications strategy aligned with requirements of external stakeholder and end-user groups; and
3. Strengthen the PIP by including indicators to better measure stakeholder accessibility to the Program’s information.

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND ACTION PLAN

Management agrees with R1

1. The branch’s Strategic Human Resources Plan is close to completion. Integration with the Sector Human Resources Plan is well underway, estimated for completion by the end of the fiscal year. Management decided on final program design for the Land Surveyor Development Program in August and completion of the design is imminent;



Position responsible : DG of SGB
Timing: March 31, 2020



2. SGB will initiate work in updating the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors (ACLS) in this fiscal year;



Position responsible : DG of SGB
Timing: March 31, 2020



3. SGB will review Other Government Department (OGD) cost-recovery activities considering new funding approaches used by OGDs and stakeholder needs. SGB will compile data and quantify regional office funding pressures with OGD related work. SGB will present data and identify funding gap in cost-recovery activities to OGDs as agreements are negotiated and renewed, typically early in fiscal year. Review of cost-recovery activities and compilation of fund pressure data will be completed by March 31, 2020.



Position responsible : DG of SGB
Timing: March 31, 2020

Management agrees with R2

1. Working with the Communications and Portfolio Sector, SGB will reinstitute bi-annual user feedback surveys to seek input on the effectiveness of our services and tools, and unmet user needs, from key stakeholders and end-users, specifically land surveyors, OGDs, Indigenous organizations, Indigenous end-users, and Territorial governments. The survey will be developed this fiscal year and implemented next fiscal year (2020-2021). Results of the survey will be reported back to SGB by March 31, 2021. This survey will also enable SGB to address recommendation #6;



Position responsible : DG of SGB
Timing: March 31, 2020



2. SGB will develop and implement a formal communications strategy to align with stakeholders request for greater person-to-person contact. SGB supports and recognizes the benefits of in-person communications. Increased in-person liaison with stakeholders will require travel by SGB and this presents challenges that will be overcome through strategic engagement planning and participation in targeted events. SGB will also formally track in-person communication efforts to better document efforts and to identify regional or user-group gaps;



Position responsible : DG of SGB
Timing: March 31, 2020



3. SGB will strengthen the PIP by including indicators to measure stakeholder accessibility to the Program’s information. A section to the user feedback surveys will seek feedback on stakeholder accessibility and seek to determine which user interfaces or functional features require improvements. Based on the results, SGB will evaluate the practicality of modifying the user interface and adding additional or modifying functional features to our on-line tools.



Position responsible : DG of SGB
Timing: User Feedback survey – March 31, 2021 /  Improvements to on-line tools 2021-2022

PROGRAM DELIVERY PROCESSES

Summary Finding

Overall, the audit team found that the Program has effective processes in place to develop and maintain the National Standards for Survey of the Canada Lands (the Standards). In addition, effective processes are in place to ensure that surveys undertaken on Canada Lands are conducted in accordance with the Standards, and that Program activities are in compliance with key legislative instruments. Opportunities exist to publish the existing service standards to which the Program holds itself accountable in order to clarify expectations for external stakeholders, and to track the actual percentages of service standards met.

The last significant update to the CLS Act occurred in 1985. Since then, the Program’s environment has been constantly evolving, mainly due to the advancement of technology, and to the enacting of the First Nations Land Management Act in 1999, which allows First Nations to manage lands within their respective Reserves. The audit team noted that there is currently no comprehensive strategy to assess the impact of the various modernization trends emerging within the Program environment. The audit team also encourages the Program to assess whether there is a need to modernize key legislative instruments.

Supporting Observations

As per the CLS Act, surveys of Canada Lands must be made in accordance with the instructions of the Surveyor General. The Standards provide surveyors with the technical standards that apply to surveys undertaken on Canada Lands and for lands required to be surveyed under provisions of the CLS Act, and constitute the instructions of the Surveyor General for surveys of Canada Lands. The audit team sought to determine whether the Program has effective processes in place to develop and maintain the Standards; and whether effective processes are in place to ensure that surveys undertaken on Canada Lands are conducted in accordance with the Standards. The audit team also sought to determine whether the Program’s activities are in compliance with key legislative instruments.

Developing and Maintaining Survey Standards  

The audit team found that the Program has effective processes in place to develop and maintain the Standards. Modifications to the Standards can be proposed by individual surveyors, regional groups, departments, agencies, or specific working groups. Throughout the Program’s review of survey plans and communications with surveyors, the Program may also perceive a need to clarify the Standards. Proposed modifications can be submitted to the Program through a template available on the Program’s website. The proposed modifications are then forwarded to the ACLS’s Standards of Practice Committee, and assigned to a working group for assessment, unless they are considered to be administrative in nature. After their review, the working group makes a recommendation to the Program on whether or not to implement the proposed modifications. The proposed modifications are subsequently reviewed by the Surveyor General.

When the modifications are approved by the Surveyor General, addendums to the Standards are published on the Program’s web site, and they are eventually integrated into future versions of the Standards. In addition, the ACLS sends out announcement emails to all its members on regular basis, which include all updates on Standards. This ensures that the Standards updates are communicated in a timely manner to surveyors. While the responsibility for the approval of Surveys updates remains with the Surveyor General of Canada, this collaboration with the ACLS ensures that industry experts are consulted on the matter.

Compliance of surveys to the Standards 

The Program is also responsible for ensuring that all surveys undertaken on Canada Lands are in compliance with the Standards. The audit team found that the Program has established effective processes to conduct the review of survey plans. The CLSS is used to issue survey instructions, and to communicate with surveyors. It also allows the surveyors to submit their survey plans, which are then reviewed and approved by the Program, and digitally archived.

Through the plan review process the Program identifies any non-compliance with the plan to ensure the surveys are conducted in line with the Standards. The audit team found that the Program tracks all instances of non-compliance through a live dashboard in CLSS. The audit team tested a sample of these cases and found that they were all reviewed, properly logged, clearly documented, communicated to the surveyor, and rectified. The audit team selected a sample of survey plans and noted that instructions had been issued, and that a plan review had been conducted by the Program for all plans selected.

Service standards are important to help clarify expectations for clients and Program employees, and support client satisfaction. In order to support efficient and effective service delivery, the Program has implemented service standards to clarify expectations for Program employees. The audit team noted that these service standards are applied internally, but are not shared with external stakeholders.

Compliance with key legislative instruments  

The Program has several legislative requirements comprised in federal and territorial legislation, including the CLS Act. Although the First Nations Land Management Act is the responsibility of Indigenous Services Canada, the Program plays a role in supporting First Nations Land Management.

The audit team reviewed the key legislative instruments, the Program’s documentation of their responsibilities as they relate to the legislation. The audit team also reviewed the process in place to ensure alignment of the Program with the legislation. The audit team found that the Program has effective processes in place to ensure that its activities are in compliance with these legislative instruments. Specifically, the Program has created a legislative responsibilities worksheet, whereby all pieces of legislation that are applicable to the Program’s activities are listed, as well as the requirements of the Program. In addition, the Program also uses a Regulatory Framework and an on-line Delivery workflow (using MyCLSS) to denote all legislative requirements. The audit team reviewed these two documents, and found that all legislative requirements were captured.

The last significant update to the CLS Act occurred in 1985. Since then, the Program’s environment has been constantly evolving, mainly due to the advancement of technology, the developing needs of stakeholders, and emerging opportunities to take advantage of the information being collected. For instance, a number of provincial registries and countries have already adopted a structure where the survey data constitutes the legally authoritative record, as opposed to the survey plans, which results in a management of survey information, as opposed to a management of survey plans. The First Nation Land Management Act was also enacted in 1999 to allow First Nations to manage lands within their respective Reserves, which resulted in changes with respect to the registration of their legal interests. The audit team noted that there is currently no comprehensive strategy to assess the impact of these various modernization trends emerging within the Program environment.  

RISK AND IMPACT

When service standards are not clearly communicated to external stakeholders or tracked, there can be a disconnect between expected timelines and actual ones, as well as inconsistencies in the quality of the services provided. 

A lack of a comprehensive strategy to assess the impact of various modernization trends emerging within the environment can result in missed opportunities, and impact the delivery of the Program.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R3 : It is recommended that the Surveyor General publish the existing service standards to which the Program holds itself accountable online in order to clarify expectations for external stakeholders, and track the actual percentages of service standards met.

R4 : It is recommended that the Surveyor General develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to assess the impact of various modernization trends emerging within their environment, including collaborating with Territories, Provinces and Indigenous communities, provincial and territorial governments; and to assess whether there is a need to update key legislative instruments.

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND ACTION PLAN

Management agrees with R3

SGB will publish the existing service standards on our webpage and MyCLSS online portal. Actual percentages of service standards met will be tracked internally and reported on in our published annual reports.

Position responsible : DG of SGB
Timing: March 31, 2020

Management agrees with R4

Management agrees with the recommendation for a comprehensive strategy to assess the impact of emerging trends in our environment in collaboration with provincial, territorial and indigenous stakeholders.   Management agrees to assess whether there is a need to adapt key legislative instruments by December 31, 2021.

Position responsible : DG of SGB
Timing: December 31, 2021

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (IM) AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT)

Summary Finding

The audit team found that the Program employs IM/IT solutions to support efficient business operations. The Program implemented the CLSS to manage survey plans, and has effective processes in place to ensure that the integrity of the survey records is maintained and that survey records are available in a timely manner. While external stakeholders generally reported good access to the Program’s online products and information, an opportunity exists to improve ease of use for moderate to infrequent users of myCLSS.

Overall, the audit team also found that the CLSS was implemented in compliance with key IT departmental and governmental policies. However, the audit team noted that the CLSS was operating in the production environment before a number of security controls were implemented, and that vulnerabilities were not addressed in a timely manner. As a result, the CLSS continues to pose a risk to the department.

Supporting Observations

The use of information technology tools and systems can enhance the efficiency of a program’s operations. The audit team sought to determine whether the Program employs IM/IT solutions to support efficient business operations, and whether the implementation of the online delivery of survey data was completed in accordance with departmental and governmental policies. The audit team also sought to determine whether the Program has effective processes in place to ensure that the integrity of the survey data is maintained and that it is accessible in a timely manner; and whether the information collected by the Program is managed in accordance with departmental and governmental privacy requirements.

Integrity of Canada Lands Survey Records

As per the CLS Act, the Program is responsible for the custody of all original plans, journals, field notes, and other papers connected to surveys conducted on Canada Lands^{Footnote 3}, or a certified true copy of these records, consisting of approximatively 1,700,000 documents. In the past, these records, some of which were dating back to the early 1800’s, were kept in paper format. In 2014, the Program launched a project to convert all survey records to a digital format. As part of this conversion, all survey records were scanned by an external third party, and migrated to an electronic environment.

The audit team found that the Program developed a rigorous quality assurance review process in consultation with an actuary to ensure the integrity of the survey records during the conversion of the documents to an electronic format. This quality assurance review process ensured a 97.5% confidence level with the integrity of the survey records, and was performed by a Program employee deployed at the external third party facilities during the conversion of the records. Management informed the audit team that only four errors were discovered with the electronic survey records since the completion of the conversion on March 31, 2017. At the time of the audit, three out of these four errors were corrected, and the Program was working towards correcting the outstanding one. In addition, an Entrust Secure Digital signature was apposed on each converted plan to ensure that no edits were made to the plans once the documents were converted. The audit team reviewed a sample of converted survey plans. In all cases, the Entrust Secure Digital signatures were intact.

 In order to provide authoritative quality to the electronic alternative of the original survey documents and drawings that were submitted in hard copy format, the Surveyor General of Canada requested the amendment of Schedule 2 to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) on April 1, 2019. The addition of subsection 3(2) of the CLS Act to Schedule 2 of PIPEDA provides the legal framework required for the use of authoritative electronic alternatives to hard copy format in the delivery of the mandate of the Surveyor General of Canada. As a result, the digital documents are now the authoritative and legal Canada Lands Survey Records. The paper plans that were converted are now stored at Library and Archives Canada, and only hold historical value.  

The CLSS is the IT solution implemented by the Program to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of survey plans, survey projects and the verification and confirmation of resulting survey documents in support of the Surveyor General’s obligation under the CLS Act. The CLSS consist of 18 applications to support a number of internal and on-line services. The CLSS internal portal is used by the Program personnel to manage survey projects and to access the official registry of all survey plans.

The CLSS external web tools includes the MyCLSS portal interface used by surveyors across Canada to submit their survey plans. The survey plans are uploaded into MyCLSS with the surveyors’ e-signature on the plan created. Once the plan has been reviewed by the Program, the reviewer also electronically signs the plan, and finally a member of the Land Survey Registry validates the plan with the plan number and date. The audit team tested a sample of survey plans, and found that all surveys tested had the three required authorizations. A CLSS public website is also available for the public to retrieve and consult approved survey plans or view the survey plans on a map browser.

Given that these records form the basis of legal land transactions on Canada Lands, they require high integrity safeguards. Since the conversion process, the records are managed within the Government of Canada standard electronic documents and records management solution (GCDocs, on the hosted service through Public Services and Procurement Canada). Through the Program’s Directive on Security Assessment and Authorization (SA&A) process, it was determined that the GCDocs currently lacks the Long Term Data Presentation (LTDP) functionality for the Canada Lands Survey Records. In order to safeguard NRCan assets and maintain the high integrity standards required for digital records, the Program is planning to build a Trusted Digital Repository in GCDocs to replace the existing backup strategy supported by the microfilm system.

Canada Lands Survey System

Overall, the audit found that the system implemented to manage land survey records meets business needs and supports efficient business operations. Except for some bandwidth issues and some difficulties in using an IT system by some users, interviews with a number of stakeholders including internal and external users, have revealed a general satisfaction with the CLSS.

External stakeholders reported good access to the Program’s online products and information (e.g. CLSS and MyCLSS). Generally users reported that the system enabled them to find survey records easily and quickly. More infrequent users of MyCLSS indicated that the system was not as intuitive for them and they had to relearn the system each time they used it. It was suggested that a ‘quick tips’ user aid would be helpful in resolving this issue.

The audit team also found that the survey plans reviewed were available in a timely manner, through the CLSS and its workflow. Digital versions of the plan reviewed were found to be accessible on the public facing website on average 13 days after the Program supervisor reviewed the plan, which is within the Program’s service standard of 14 days. External stakeholders sometimes reported issues with respect to the registration of survey plans and the updating of reserve plans and maps, but these appear to be beyond the control of the Program.

The CLSS is currently hosted by Shared Services Canada (SSC) in four different data centres including two data centres located at 580 Booth that are designated as legacy data centres and targeted for closure in 2020 (anticipated date).  While the CLSS is working well at the moment, the Program is presently considering the options of moving the system to a cloud solution or moving to an SSC end state data centre when the legacy data centres will be closed. However, at the time of the audit, no decision had been made for the data centre relocation. As the 2020 deadline is approaching rapidly, the audit team encourages the Program to make a decision in time to ensure an effective transition to either a data centre relocation or a cloud solution.

Compliance with privacy requirements and IT policies

The audit team found that the information collected by the Program is managed in accordance with departmental and Government of Canada privacy requirements. All information on surveyors is managed by the ACLS and is separately stored in an external environment. The CLSS does not collect, process, or make use of personally identifiable information and consequently, a Privacy Impact Assessment was not required when the system was implemented.

The audit team reviewed the key IT policy instruments in order to assess if the implementation of the online delivery of survey data was completed in accordance with departmental and Government of Canada policies. These included the TB Policy on Government Security (PGS); the CSE ITSG-33: IT Security Risk Management Guidance; the TB Management of Information Technology Security (MITS) standard; as well as NRCan Directive on Security Assessment and Authorization (SA&A).

Overall, the audit team found that the CLSS was implemented in compliance with departmental policies, directives and procedures. However, the audit team noted that the system was operating in the production environment before a number security controls were implemented, and that known vulnerabilities were not addressed in a timely manner. Specifically, NRCan SA&A includes all requirements of PGS, MITS and ITSG-33 in terms of security assessment and requires that business owners ensure that a security authorization has been performed prior to allowing operational status of any application under their responsibility. The directive also requires a security plan to be developed to address the implementation of selected security controls, required evidence and mitigation measures to address vulnerabilities or areas of risk identified in the Security Assessment and Authorization Report (SAAR).  In addition, the directive requires business groups to prepare a security plan to document their plan of action to remediate risks and vulnerabilities identified in the SAAR.

The original SA&A report for the CLSS was prepared in October 2016.  Because it contained vulnerabilities creating a risk of compromise for the department, CLSS was only granted an interim authority to operate, which expired in December 2017. The required security plan following the 2016 SA&A report, which is required to be completed three months after SA&A date, was completed in September 2018 and the SA&A was reviewed in March 2019 (i.e. 14 months after the expiry date).

At the time of the audit, 56 security controls were identified to meet the assessed Security Assurance Level (SAL) for the CLSS. The most recent Security Controls Traceability Matrix (SCTM) prepared by the business owner shows that 44 controls were met, nine were partially met, and three were not met. However, CIOSB indicates that evidence to support many of the security controls has not yet been provided (the audit did not re-perform an assessment of the security controls) and all three vulnerabilities identified in the 2016 SA&A report remain to be remediated. The current SA&A report still provides an Interim Authority to Operate (IAO) that will need to be reviewed by March 31, 2020 and the September 2018 security plan was not updated at the time of the audit (May 2019). As a result, the CLSS continues to pose a risk to the department.

A similar observation was raised by AEB in the 2017 audit of NRCan Cyber Security (AU1802) where it states: “There are currently no checkpoints in departmental project gating processes to help ensure that systems go through the Security Assessment and Authorization process and include security controls in their design.”

RISK AND IMPACT

As per the CLS Act, the Surveyor General is responsible for the custody of survey records. Failure to implement key IT security controls could result in the integrity and availability of system information being compromised.

When stakeholders have difficulties using a system, it can result in inefficient use of the Program resources.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R5 : It is recommended that the Surveyor General, in consultation with the Chief Information Officer, ensure that all security controls are implemented before the current conditional authority expires.

R6 : It is recommended that the Surveyor General ensure that the Program improves ease of use for moderate to infrequent users of myCLSS.

Management Response AND Action Plan

Management agrees with R5

The Security Assessment and Authorization Report (SAAR) of March 2019 identified a list of controls to be met by March 14, 2020. SGB is currently working with NRCan Security towards meeting all security control requirements identified on the Security Control Traceability Matrix (SCTM). Implementation of some of these Security Controls are dependant on internal (CIOSB and SSC) and external (ACLS) partners. SGB will update the IT security plan with progress up to March 2020 and will work with stakeholders to mitigate all residual risks.

Position responsible : DG of SGB in conjunction with CIOSB and SSC
Timing: March 2020

Management agrees with R6

SGB is currently working with the Communications and Portfolio Sector of NRCan to issue a contract to develop improved help tools for our online services including tools for moderate to infrequent users of MyCLSS. The Sector will issue a contract, through a competitive process, to an Indigenous Service Provider to prepare user-focused help documents for external and infrequent users of our on-line tools. These products will be received by March 31, 2020 and subsequently provided to users on our website, and through other avenues.

Position responsible : DG of SGB
Timing: July 31, 2020

APPENDIX A – Audit Criteria

The criteria were developed based on key controls set out in the Treasury Board of Canada’s Core Management Controls, in conjunction with the Canada Lands Surveys Act, First Nations Land Management Act, and related legislative instruments. The criteria guided the fieldwork and formed the basis for the overall audit conclusion.

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of key processes supporting the delivery of the Program, the achievement of Program results, and addressing stakeholders’ needs, in compliance with legislative instruments.

The following audit criteria were used to conduct the audit:

Audit Sub-Objectives	Audit Criteria
Sub-Objective 1: To determine whether effective governance mechanisms are in place to support the delivery of the Program, and the achievement of results.	1.1 Roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities are clearly defined, documented, and communicated.
	1.2 The Program has effective processes to assess resource requirements and take corrective actions when required.
	1.3 Performance measurements have been established to assess and regularly monitor the Program’s achievement of key results, and whether these key results are being achieved.
Sub-Objective 2: To determine whether effective Program delivery processes are in place and are in compliance with key legislative instruments.	2.1 The Program has effective processes in place to develop and maintain survey standards applying to surveys undertaken on Canada Lands, under provisions of the Canada Lands Surveys Act.
	2.2 The Program has effective processes in place to ensure that surveys undertaken on Canada Lands are conducted in accordance with the National Standards for Survey of the Canada Lands.
	2.3 The Program’s activities are in compliance with key legislative instruments.
Sub-Objective 3: To determine whether effective processes are in place to address stakeholder needs.	3.1 The Program has effective processes in place to develop and manage agreements with stakeholders.
	3.2 The Program actively seeks input from stakeholders to identify and consider their needs.
	3.3 The Program has effective processes in place to ensure that the integrity of the survey data is maintained and that it is available in a timely manner.
Sub-Objective 4: To determine whether the Program has employed information technology tools and systems to support efficient operations, in compliance with departmental and governmental policies, including privacy requirements.	4.1 The Program employs IM/IT solutions to support efficient business operations.
	4.2 The implementation of the online delivery of survey data was completed in accordance with departmental and governmental policies.
	4.3 The information collected by the Program is managed in accordance with departmental and governmental privacy requirements.