Audit of the Management of NRCan’s Scientific Activities

Presented to the Departmental Audit Committee (DAC)
July 22, 2021

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 Structures, Strategic Direction, and Coordination of Scientific Activities
  • HR and Financial Planning Processes
  • Performance Measurement, Monitoring, and Reporting
• Appendix A – Audit Criteria
• Appendix B – NRCan’s Scientific Governance Structure (January 2021)
• Appendix C – NRCan’s Revised Scientific Governance Structure (April 2021)

Executive Summary

Introduction

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) is a science-based department, with approximately 48% of employees working as scientists or technicians and with more than 61% of the Department’s budget devoted to science and technology activities.^{Footnote 1} NRCan collaborates with other government departments (OGDs), Indigenous communities & organizations, academic institutions, and industry to conduct science and research to ensure the country’s abundant natural resources are developed sustainably, competitively and inclusively. The Department does this by building strategic projects to create new jobs and opportunities while protecting the environment, respecting local communities and advancing Indigenous reconciliation.

The planning and conduct of scientific programs and activities at NRCan is managed by its five science sectors: the Canadian Forest Service (CFS), Energy Technology Sector (ETS), Lands and Minerals Sector (LMS), Strategic Policy and Innovation Sector (SPI), and Strategic Petroleum Policy and Investment Office (SPPIO). Within the science sectors, the Department manages 19 laboratories/science centers across Canada where research and development (R&D) and related science activities (RSA) take place.

The Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) also plays a role in the management of the scientific activities. Currently, the Department’s internal website, The Source, states OCS’ role as “We provide leadership in development and implementation of approaches to build capacity within the NRCan scientific community, promoting both a departmental vision for Science and Technology (S&T) and assessment of future needs.”

In addition, the Department has several forums to discuss scientific priorities and share ideas through various governance committees which, at the time of the audit included the ADM-level Science and Technology Board (STB), and the Director General Science and Technology Committee (DGSTC). Some science sectors have also established their own networks of committees and groups to discuss scientific activities. Through the OCS and science sectors, NRCan also participates in interdepartmental committees.

As of April 2021, new governance structures and mechanisms within the Department have been implemented. The audit focused on governance structures that existed during the scope of the audit, from August 2018 to January 2021.

In 2019, the Department adopted and is currently implementing the NRCan Scientific Integrity Policy (SIP) to promote scientific integrity within the Department. The SIP sets out key principles and requirements that are to be upheld by NRCan employees.

The objective of the audit was to assess the overall effectiveness of governance, management processes, and controls supporting the delivery of NRCan’s scientific activities in accordance with its core responsibilities and Government of Canada (GoC) priorities.

Strengths

Overall, there are HR and financial planning processes and mechanisms in place to support and enable the management of NRCan’s scientific activities. There are also clearly defined processes and metrics to measure and assess the performance of the Departments’ scientific activities as well as established processes that enable the effective monitoring of results. Science sector management have also established internal processes to integrate contextual information into reporting tools to make strategic decisions on scientific activities. In addition, OCS, in consultation with science sectors, has developed and is in the process of implementing the Department’s SIP.

Areas for Improvement

While governance structures exist to facilitate collaboration between OCS, science sectors, and OGDs, there are opportunities to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each committee/board; to improve the frequency of meetings held and the related record keeping; and to enhance the solicitation of discussion/action items from the science sectors. Further, opportunities exist to improve the formal documentation of OCS’ roles and responsibilities to ensure the content is up-to-date and complete as well as to ensure that their role is widely communicated and well understood by other sectors within the Department. There are also opportunities for OCS to increase consultation with sectors on cross-cutting issues. While the science sectors have HR planning processes in place, there is an opportunity for OCS to finalize, implement, and operationalize their Draft HR Plan to assist in achieving their HR objectives. Further, there is an opportunity to implement a periodic review requirement for the Research Scientist (RES) Handbook, tools, and governance structures to ensure continued relevancy going forward.

Internal Audit Conclusion and Opinion

In my opinion, governance, management processes, and controls to support the delivery of NRCan’s scientific activities in accordance with its core responsibilities and GoC priorities are in place; however, there are opportunities to improve the sufficiency and timeliness of some of these processes and controls to enhance the management of scientific activities.

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.

Michel Gould, MBA, CPA, CIA
Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive
July 22, 2021

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

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) is a science-based department, with approximately 48% of employees working as scientists or technicians and with more than 61% of the Department’s budget devoted to science and technology activities.^{Footnote 2} NRCan collaborates with other government departments (OGDs), Indigenous communities & organizations, academic institutions, and industry to conduct science and research to ensure the country’s abundant natural resources are developed sustainably, competitively and inclusively. The Department does this by building strategic projects to create new jobs and opportunities while protecting the environment, respecting local communities and advancing Indigenous reconciliation.

The planning and conduct of scientific programs and activities at NRCan is managed by its five science sectors: the Canadian Forest Service (CFS), Energy Technology Sector (ETS), Lands and Minerals Sector (LMS), Strategic Policy and Innovation Sector (SPI), and Strategic Petroleum Policy and Investment Office (SPPIO). Within the science sectors, the Department manages 19 laboratories/science centers across Canada where research and development (R&D) and related science activities (RSA) take place.

Scientific activities must meet the following five criteria to be considered R&D: novelty, creativity, uncertainty, being systematic, and being transferable. RSA are also systematic and closely concerned with the generation, dissemination, and application of scientific knowledge.^{Footnote 3} Examples of R&D and RSA include:

• Research into innovation in the fields of housing, building, communities, industry, and transportation, which can take advantage of the benefits of energy efficiency, such as lower energy costs, decreasing emissions, improving operational performance, and increasing asset values;
• Geoscience to provide a clearer picture of the cumulative effects of resource development on land, water, air and wildlife to inform integrated land-use planning and land management decision-making by communities;
• Contributions to the launch of the RADARSAT Constellation Mission, which provides near-real time images that can be used to determine issues such as flood extent and river ice classification during major flooding events;
• Scientific research on Canada’s forests, which can be used to inform forest management planning and policy decisions and to assist the forest industry, the public, and other scientists. Research is conducted in many forest-related areas, including climate change, pathology, entomology and forest management; and
• Research and development through CanmetMINING, to ensure a thorough understanding of rock mass behaviour as well as the anticipated response of the rock mass to mining activities, intended to optimize mine performance and safety.

The Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) also plays a role in the management of the scientific activities. Currently, the Department’s internal website, The Source, states OCS’ role as “We provide leadership in development and implementation of approaches to build capacity within the NRCan scientific community, promoting both a departmental vision for S&T and assessment of future needs.”

In addition, the Department has established several forums to discuss scientific priorities and share ideas through various governance committees, including the ADM-level Science and Technology Board (STB), and the Director General Science and Technology Committee (DGSTC). Some science sectors have also established their own networks of committees and groups to discuss scientific activities, and have specific planning and coordination mechanisms within a central branch that oversee the identification of sector priorities, in conjunction with stakeholders, and to align with departmental and government priorities. As of April 2021, new governance structures and mechanisms within the Department have been implemented. Note that the audit focused on governance structures that existed during the scope of the audit, from August 2018 to January 2021.

Through the OCS, NRCan also participates in interdepartmental committees, such as the ADM Committee on Science and Technology, the Departmental Science Advisors Network, and the Quantum Science and Technology Coordination Committee, and also supports the Deputy Minister in participating in the Deputy Ministers Science Committee, which has recently been replaced with the Deputy Ministers Community of Science and Technology. These committees are composed of executives (ADMs and DMs) from other GoC science-based departments and agencies. Through the science sectors, NRCan also participates in additional interdepartmental committees.

In 2019, the Department adopted and is currently implementing the NRCan Scientific Integrity Policy (SIP) to promote scientific integrity within the Department. The SIP sets out key principles and requirements that are to be upheld by NRCan employees.

An audit of the management of NRCan’s scientific activities was included in the 2019-2024 Integrated Audit and Evaluation Plan, approved by the Deputy Minister on May 14, 2019.

Audit Purpose and Objectives

The objective of the audit was to assess the overall effectiveness of governance, management processes, and controls supporting the delivery of NRCan’s scientific activities in accordance with its core responsibilities and GoC priorities.

Specifically, the audit assessed whether:

• Adequate governance structures have been established to define and enable the strategic direction and coordination of the Department’s scientific activities;
• Effective resource planning and allocation processes have been established to support the management of scientific activities; and
• Effective processes have been established to monitor and measure results of scientific activities, and to enable information sharing and coordination of scientific information.

Audit Considerations

A risk-based approach was used in establishing the objectives, scope, and approach for this audit engagement. A summary of the key potential risks that could impact the effective management of NRCan’s scientific activities include:

• The adequacy of governance structures in place that define and provide strategic direction for the Department’s scientific activities that enable the Department to respond to evolving scientific priorities and to coordinate effectively between OCS, science sectors, and OGDs.
• The effectiveness of financial and human resource planning and allocation processes to support the current and future needs of the Department to carry out scientific activities.
• The effectiveness of processes in place to monitor and measure the outcomes of scientific activities that provide information for decision-making.
• The effectiveness of processes for information sharing and coordination of scientific information with partners and stakeholders within and outside of the Department.

Scope

The audit focused primarily on how NRCan manages the Department’s scientific activities within science-based sectors and the Office of the Chief Scientist. This included a review of how NRCan plans, monitors, reports on, and shares its scientific activities and outputs.

The audit focused on areas of common interest and risk related to the management of scientific activities across all science sectors. It did not include a full review of all NRCan sector management activities. Further, the IM systems and IT infrastructure used for managing scientific data was not included in the scope of this audit, as there are IM and IT focused audits scheduled for upcoming fiscal years.

The audit examined the period from August 2018 to January 2021, in order to include the most recent operational activities and processes. The audit focused on how the science sectors manage their scientific activities.

Consideration was given to the results of previous advisory and audit projects on related topics to avoid duplication of efforts, including the recent Joint Audit and Evaluation of NRCan’s Departmental Governance, whose conduct phase overlapped with the audit scope period.

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 with responsibilities surrounding the management of NRCan’s scientific activities;
• Review of key documents and business processes;
• Consultation with select science-based federal departments and agencies to obtain an understanding of how they manage their scientific activities, and to identify best practices; and
• Review and testing of select Research Scientist (RES) dossiers.

The conduct phase of this audit was substantially completed in January 2021.

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 Structures, Strategic Direction, and Coordination of Scientific Activities

Summary Finding

Governance structures and mechanisms to manage the Department’s scientific activities are in place; however, they are not all working as intended to support sufficient and timely horizontal oversight of the Department’s scientific activities. The audit team found that while structures exist to facilitate collaboration between OCS, science sectors, and OGDs, there are opportunities to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each committee/ board; to improve the frequency of meetings held and the related record keeping; and to enhance the solicitation of discussion/action items from the science sectors.

In addition, there are opportunities to improve the formal documentation of OCS’ roles and responsibilities to ensure the content is up-to-date and complete, as well as to ensure that their role is well understood by other sectors within the Department. There are also opportunities for OCS to improve its level of consultation with sectors on cross-cutting issues.

NRCan’s SIP has been in place since January 1, 2019, and is currently in the implementation phase. The departmental SIP is compliant on 10 out of 13 measures set out by Canada’s Chief Science Advisor. Science sector management indicated that they were satisfied with the level of OCS’ consultation relating to the SIP.

Supporting Observations

Effective governance structures and mechanisms provide strategic direction for the management of Department’s scientific activities. The audit sought to determine whether governance structures and mechanisms related to the management of scientific activities are clearly defined, and provide oversight and strategic direction to respond to evolving scientific priorities. The audit examined whether these governance structures and mechanisms enable effective coordination between OCS and all science sectors within NRCan, and OGDs. In addition, the audit sought to determine if the Department has developed an approach for scientific integrity for its scientific activities that aligns with the government’s requirements.

Governance Structures and Mechanisms

In addition to the oversight which occurs within each sector, horizontal oversight is exercised through science committees. Appendix B sets out the committee governance structures that relate to the management of the Department’s scientific activities. The audit team notes that the ADM-level Data and Science Committee (DSC), which had a mandate to support NRCan’s overall agenda through collective leadership in advancing and shaping the development, implementation, and management of science and data, met once in February 2020 and is now defunct, so it is not included in Appendix B. Following the conduct phase of the audit, new governance structures and mechanisms within the Department were approved and implemented, effective April 2021. The revised scientific governance structure is set out in Appendix C.

Governance and Strategic Direction

NRCan has governance structures and mechanisms in place to provide adequate oversight and direction for the management of scientific activities; however, these structures and mechanisms are not all working as intended. There are governance structures at the DM, ADM, and DG levels, and these levels have the required level of authority to execute action items. These governance structures should also be able to support and enable collaboration between sectors on the management of scientific activities, given that there is representation across all science sectors. However, the frequency of committee meetings, particularly for the STB, does not occur as often as set out in their Terms of Reference and may, therefore, not provide for timely discussion and/or horizontal oversight. For example, the STB, which was to meet with internal Board members every six weeks and with the full Board quarterly, has not met since July 2019. In addition, the DSC which was intended to meet at least quarterly, only met once in FY 2019-20.

The STB’s primary objective was to oversee S&T governance and accountability by guiding the implementation of the Department’s S&T Strategy. Through the review of meeting agendas, the audit team found that OCS presented a proposed approach to developing an updated S&T Strategic plan to the DGSTC for discussion. However, this was not presented to the STB, which would have been the appropriate forum for discussion. OCS has advised the audit team that the development of a formal departmental science strategy has been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has had a significant impact on NRCan science, and OCS has instead placed priority on facilitating cross-sectoral discussion of the transformation of science in the context of an ongoing broad corporate conversation on the transformation of the workplace post-pandemic.

In addition, the audit team found that there is insufficient formal documentation of meeting results to support the discussions and decisions from governance committee meetings. For example, there were no records of discussion kept for the STB meetings that occurred between October 2018 and July 2019, for the one DSC meeting held in February 2020, or for the DGSTC meetings held between September 2018 and May 2019.

As of April 2021, new governance structures and mechanisms within the Department have been implemented. Structures and mechanisms in support of scientific activities have been streamlined in order to enable greater efficiency and effectiveness in supporting departmental activities. The intention is to have clear committee mandates and responsibilities, inter-committee linkages, and membership requirements with rules for alternates, which will be further refined as the structures are operationalized. In addition, a centralized secretariat has been established to support and monitor the performance of the new governance structure. The Corporate Governance Secretariat (CGS) acts as the main secretariat for the Senior Management Committee (SMC), and provides monitoring and horizontal oversight to both the Science Committee, and the DG Science and Technology Committee. Refer to Appendix C for an overview of the new governance structure and associated committees in support of scientific activities.

The audit consultation exercise conducted with OGDs illustrated that similar governance structures to NRCan are leveraged to support the management of scientific activities. Like NRCan, the management of scientific activities is largely decentralized in two of the three OGDs consulted. The two OGDs with a decentralized structure for the management of scientific activities have a branch that acts to coordinate their department's scientific activities with external parties and generally support scientific activities. For one of these OGDs, the coordinating branch connects external parties with experts in their research centres. Collaboration is enhanced by having staff from the coordinating branch co-located within each research centre.

A lack of regular scientific governing committee meetings, meeting documentation, and limited collaboration with science sectors to share information at committee meetings may result in an inadequate level of horizontal oversight over the Department’s scientific activities. No formal recommendation will be issued regarding this finding, given that the recent Joint Audit and Evaluation NRCan’s Departmental Governance includes a recommendation that should address these issues when implemented. The audit team expects that the secretariat of the revised governance structure will ensure that: meetings are regularly scheduled; input from all science sectors is solicited when developing forwards plans and/or agendas; and Committee documentation is stored in a central repository, and that action items are identified, tracked, and monitored through to completion.

In the area of scientific strategic direction, NRCan does not currently have a formal science and technology (S&T) strategy in place. OCS has proposed the development of this strategy; however, consultation with sectors has been limited at this point. Senior management interviewed as part of the audit indicated that they would welcome additional consultation from OCS regarding the development of the S&T strategy. The audit team also noted that two of the three OGDs consulted during the audit have an S&T strategy in place; one is a 5-year strategy, the other is reviewed after 3 years.

In addition, the audit team reviewed documentation related to the impact of COVID-19 on the management of scientific activities and noted that changes related more to logistical issues as opposed to changes in governance or strategic direction.

Collaboration, Coordination, and Information Sharing

The audit team found that lines of communication between OCS and science sectors have been established through the DGSTC and the Chief Scientist. Communication, collaboration, and coordination occurs on a variety of topics that are largely dependent on current crosscutting, horizontal priorities and/or new priorities and emerging issues.

OCS also collaborates, consults, and coordinates with science sectors on a broad range of activities through both formal and informal means, with DGSTC being the dominant forum. In addition, OCS plays a coordinating role with science sectors on crosscutting issues, such as the Digital Accelerator, and through its role chairing/co-chairing various boards and committees. However, audit interviews with management from the majority of science sectors indicated a desire for enhanced collaboration, coordination, science sector information sharing at DGSTC, as well as more efficient lines of communication with OCS to ensure that sector needs are more efficiently supported. Overall, there is an opportunity to strengthen mechanisms for collaboration, information flow, and communication through solicitation of discussion/action items from science sectors to ensure crosscutting priorities are sufficiently supported.

In addition, OCS indicated to the audit team that they work closely with the Chief Science Advisor of Canada and other interdepartmental science committees and networks to address horizontal, crosscutting federal science policy and management issues. In addition, both OCS and science sectors indicated that they engage with OGDs based on relevant activities and departmental priorities.

The roles of OCS and the Chief Scientist/Chief Science Advisor have evolved and grown in recent years. Currently, the Department’s internal website, The Source, states OCS’ role as “We provide leadership in development and implementation of approaches to build capacity within the NRCan scientific community, promoting both a departmental vision for S&T and assessment of future needs.” OCS provided the audit team with a more fulsome description of their role for the purposes of the audit:

• Provide leadership, oversight, and strategic advice on science policy, communication, capacity, and management issues;
• Develop and implement strategies and approaches to build capacity within NRCan’s scientific community to promote a departmental vision for S&T and assessment of future needs;
• Ensure the rigour and integrity of the scientific evidence provided in support of environmental reviews of the impact of major projects;
• Promote scientific integrity in the Department, and define further opportunities to integrate science and policy to inform decision-making;
• Provide leadership in supporting a diverse qualified workforce in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) related capacity for the natural resources sector, through the S&T Internships Program;
• Promote inclusive science through consideration of multiple knowledge systems and perspectives;
• Provide leadership in strategic and cross-cutting S&T issues, for example Digital Acceleration, Open Science, Open Science and Data Platform, Cumulative Effects Research to support Impact Assessment, Arctic and Northern Science, and Climate Change; and
• Ensure the effectiveness of NRCan’s decentralised science delivery structure.

At the time of the audit, this description had not been published.

During audit interviews with science sectors, members of management in the majority of science sectors expressed some lack of awareness regarding the roles and responsibilities of OCS. There is, therefore, an opportunity to formally document OCS’ roles and responsibilities, and ensure that this information is shared with and accessible to all sectors within NRCan.

Scientific Integrity Policy

NRCan’s SIP has been in effect since January 1, 2019 and is currently in the implementation phase. The audit team found that departmental processes are in place to support the implementation of the SIP. The SIP is compliant on 10 out of 13 measures set out by Canada’s Chief Science Advisor. OCS indicated that other Science Based Departments and Agencies (SBDAs) are reporting similar levels of compliance at this stage of SIP implementation and expect that NRCan will be able to report full compliance by January 2022. As of January 2021, the SIP Breach Process has been formalized and approved by the DM. Subsequently, in June 2021, the Guidelines for Scientific and Technical Publishing were approved by the DM and communicated to departmental employees. One additional set of guidelines, together with a communications strategy, are expected to be completed and rolled out by December 2021.

OCS established multi-sectoral roundtables to ensure that the SIP was developed in collaboration with the sectors. Science sector management indicated that they were satisfied with the OCS’ level of consultation regarding the SIP. OCS will also lead the development of NRCan’s internal SIP Performance Evaluation and Monitoring Plan, based on the model SIP created by the National Chief Scientist Advisor (NCSA) once it is completed.

NRCan’s SIP aligns with the NCSA’s Model SIP. OGDs consulted as part of the audit have also developed and implemented SIPs, which in all cases are based on the model policy. One OGD is currently in process of drafting supporting guidelines. NRCan’s SIP provides more examples of what would constitute a breach and has more detailed language regarding potential disciplinary measures for employees who breach the SIP than either the model policy or the SIPs of the OGDs.

Risk and Impact

A lack of clearly and formally documented roles and responsibilities of OCS and the Chief Scientist/Chief Science Advisor may result in ambiguity regarding how sectors understand the role of OCS and how they can best work with this sector to further the Department’s scientific priorities.

Recommendation

Recommendation 1: It is recommended that the Chief Scientist/Chief Science Advisor formally document and communicate widely throughout the Department a clearly defined, formalized set of roles and responsibilities for the Office of the Chief Scientist.

Management Response and Action Plan

Management agrees with Recommendation #1.

OCS will document and communicate the roles and responsibilities for the Office of the Chief Scientist on the internal facing NRCan website. This will reflect the Chief Scientist/Chief Science Advisor’s responsibility for the formal roles and responsibilities delegated by NRCan’s Deputy Minister including, but not limited to, the positions of Scientific Integrity Lead and Chief Scientific Data Officer for Open Science at NRCan.

Position responsible: Chief Scientist and Chief Science Advisor

Timing: Update internal NRCan webpage – October 2021

HR and Financial Planning Processes

Summary Finding

Overall, there are HR and financial planning processes and mechanisms in place to support and enable the management of scientific activities within OCS and science sectors. In order to enhance HR planning processes, there is an opportunity for OCS to finalize, implement, and operationalize their Draft HR Plan in order to assist in achieving their HR objectives. Further, there is an opportunity to implement a periodic review requirement for the Research Scientist (RES) Handbook, tools, and governance structures to ensure continued relevancy going forward.

Supporting Observations

Effective HR and financial processes and mechanisms should be in place to support the management of scientific activities. The audit examined whether effective HR planning processes and mechanisms exist, as well as enable, support, and sustain current and future HR needs. Additionally, the audit sought to determine whether financial planning processes and mechanisms exist, and whether they support and sustain the management of scientific activities. The audit team also reviewed documentation to understand the impact of COVID-19 on financial planning processes and mechanisms, and whether or not mechanisms were adaptable in a period of change.

HR Planning Processes

OCS and science sectors leverage various processes and mechanisms to ensure that resourcing levels are adequate to support the management of scientific activities. The audit team found that a range of mechanisms are leveraged to support the attainment of HR-related objectives, from science sector strategic level plans that outline priorities, skills, and succession planning needs, to operational plans and tools at the Branch and/or Division level. The various processes and mechanisms examined by the audit team were found to be sufficient to enable, support, and sustain current and future HR activities and needs.

OCS has developed a Draft HR Plan that covers Fiscal Years 2020-2023, and includes the identification of current and required skills, competencies, and succession planning needs. Further, the implementation of the HR plan is supported via an action plan that contains detailed steps. OCS indicated that as a result of changing priorities due to COVID-19, implementation of this Plan has been delayed. There is, therefore, an opportunity to finalize, implement, and operationalize OCS’ Draft HR Plan to achieve current and future HR objectives.

Overall, science sectors have defined strategic level HR priorities, skills, capacity requirements, and succession planning needs. The audit team examined various sector strategic plans and operational tools and mechanisms, and found that strategic level plans are sufficiently reviewed and updated; internal review occurs on an annual or bi-annual basis, and operational tools are reviewed and updated with greater frequency in order to support continued HR needs.

RES Progression Processes

The RES progression process provides a consistent, guided, and timely approach for career progression management for NRCan’s scientific researchers. NRCan is one of five Federal Science-based Departments who use the approach.

The audit team found that, at NRCan, the federal RES progression process is implemented through detailed guidance, which is defined and readily available through the RES Handbook, guidance available on Departmental intranet, The Source, and guidance contained within RES applications. The Framework provides the basis for employee dossier evaluation, and outlines clear criteria, instructions, and necessary tools to ensure evaluation uniformity across dossiers.

The audit team tested a sample of RES dossiers and found that timelines are clearly communicated, scoring of applications is consistent with applicable guidance, and that decisions and feedback are clearly communicated to RES candidates.

An annual post mortem is conducted on the RES progression cycle that seeks to obtain feedback on the process, including what went well, what did not, and where potential improvements are needed. The most recent session included representatives from OCS, HR, and the Career Progression Committee. In addition to the annual post-mortem, the audit team obtained and reviewed information on the ongoing review of NRCan’s application of the RES Framework, tools, and overall governance processes that was initiated in 2016. As part of this review, OCS indicated that they are seeking to ensure greater diversity considerations are incorporated in to the RES progression process going forward. The new changes are anticipated to be implemented for the 2021-2022 RES progression cycle.

There is opportunity to set more frequent intervals to review NRCan’s overall application of the RES Framework, related tools, and governance structures to ensure continued relevancy of the process going forward. More frequent reviews are important, as the Framework is originally dated 2006. The audit team was informed that changes have been made to the NRCan’s application of the RES Framework and processes over the years; however, there is an opportunity to ensure that advancements in scientific research fields are adequately captured within the process, and can be leveraged and cited by candidates as proof for career advancement.

The audit consultation exercise with OGDs highlighted the use of the RES progression process, and select best practices related to the overall process. Best practices observed included an annual review and update of select RES tools, and the conduct of comparative research to gain insights into best practices leveraged in other science-based Departments. Both activities have allowed OGDs to observe and monitor the functioning and relevancy of their internal processes, and revise them as necessary. As noted above, there is an opportunity for NRCan to implement its own review process for the RES progression process, to ensure tools and governance structures meet the objectives of the process.

Financial Planning Processes

OCS and NRCan’s science sectors plan and budget for expenditures based on strategic plans and priorities, research themes, programming areas, integrated business plans, management discussions and competitive proposal review processes. They each leverage A-based, B-based, C-based, and vote-net revenue (VNR) funding to support scientific activities. OCS also leverages the Departmental Reserve Fund to sustain certain activities, such as the Digital Accelerator (DA).

Overall, expenditures are reviewed and revised frequently, as evidenced by NRCan’s internal Financial Situation Reports (FSR), which are required at set periods throughout the fiscal year. In addition to the FSR process, OCS and science sectors indicated that they leverage frequent management discussions and review points to ensure that actual and planned expenditures are in line with their budgets.

COVID-19 affected OCS’ and science sectors’ ability to plan, budget, and execute operations in the same manner as previous fiscal years. Based on interviews and documentation review, the audit team observed various impacts, ranging from no immediate impacts, late finalization of budgets, budgetary adjustments commensurate with work that could and/or could not advance, to budgetary uncertainty, particularly for sectors that rely on VNR and other external funding sources. The audit team notes that while existing financial planning processes and mechanisms are adaptable, support current and planned activities, and provide adequate oversight over budgetary planning, the impacts of COVID-19 could permeate beyond Fiscal Year 2020-21.

Risk and Impact

Without an implemented HR plan, there is a risk that OCS’ attainment of current and future HR objectives will be hindered. This may limit the ability to identify and acquire the necessary skills and competencies to address current and future HR priorities and initiatives.

In the absence of an established periodic review process, there is a risk that the RES progression process, tools, and governance structures may fail to remain relevant and current, which may impact employee career development and opportunities for advancement.

Recommendations

Recommendation 2: It is recommended that the Chief Scientist/Chief Science Advisor finalize and implement their HR Plan to ensure current and future OCS operations can be adequately sustained.

Recommendation 3: It is recommended that the Chief Scientist/Chief Science Advisor, in collaboration with science sector ADMs, set a schedule for regular review of the RES progression process, tools, and governance structures to ensure that the processes remain current, relevant, and in alignment with the rapidly changing research field.

Management Response and Action Plan

Management agrees with Recommendation #2.

OCS will finalize, continue to implement and operationalize its HR Plan, taking into account new and/or changing requirements arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and future operational needs.

While some components of OCS’ 2020-2023 HR Plan have been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic context, the plan’s overall implementation is progressing in the identified priority areas related to:

• Building a professional and scientific organization to support mandate and business and operational requirements;
• Stabilizing organizational structure and resources;
• Providing and supporting employees in their continuous learning and development plans;
• Working with Classification for any required changes to reporting relationships, and planning for retention and succession;
• Ensuring hiring processes consider inclusiveness and diversity; and
• Contributing to departmental HR priorities in such areas as hiring students, official languages, and workplace well being.

Position responsible: Chief Scientist and Chief Science Advisor

Timing:

Finalize HR Plan – August 2021

Implementation of HR Plan – December 2021 and ongoing

Management agrees with Recommendation #3.

OCS will implement changes to the RES Progression process, in consultation with Corporate Management and Services Sector and the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO), which were endorsed by the ADM Science Committee in April 2021.

Under the updated RES Progression process, the Departmental Career Progression Committee will provide an annual report to the Deputy Minister, which will document and revisit the RES Progression process, tools and governance structures. This annual report will be informed by the Departmental Career Progression Committee’s annual review of the RES Progression process, which is undertaken following the conclusion of each annual evaluation cycle.

Position responsible: Chief Scientist and Chief Science Advisor

Timing:

Obtain approval of the revised RES progression process from the CHRO and Deputy Minister – September 2021

Implementation of the first full cycle of the revised RES Progression process and new Career Progression Support System – July 2022

Performance Measurement, Monitoring, and Reporting

Summary Finding

Overall, there are clearly defined processes and metrics to measure and assess the performance of the Departments’ scientific activities. There are also established processes that enable the effective monitoring and reporting on the results of scientific activities. In addition, science sectors leverage additional internal processes to integrate contextual information into reporting tools to make strategic decisions on scientific activities.

Supporting Observations

The audit sought to determine if there are clearly defined processes and metrics to measure and assess the performance of the Department’s scientific activities. In addition, the audit examined whether the Department has established effective processes for monitoring and reporting on scientific results.

OCS and the science sectors have developed and documented performance measures and indicators that are sufficiently monitored and followed-up. The tools used at the regional/ branch level vary; some use more sophisticated tools that include live dashboards that allow for monitoring in real time, while others review their indicators at scheduled intervals. OCS and science sector management advised that a sub-set of the performance measures and indicators are used for the Departmental Results Framework (DRF), and they are aligned with the departmental priorities. Examples of key performance indicators include:

• Percentage of impact assessments demonstrating use of scientific and technical advice provided by NRCan;
• Number of partnerships established each year;
• Percentage of users who indicated that they accessed the open science and data platform;
• Maintain or increase percentage of the forest industry’s contribution to Canada’s GDP; and
• Number of peer-reviewed publications.

Based on the audit team’s examination of documentation developed for monitoring and reporting on the results of scientific activities from OCS and all science sectors, management teams generate and review reports that contain progress towards planned outcomes on a regular basis. Science sector management uses these reports supplemented with additional key periodic information for timely strategic decision-making purposes.

Monitoring and reporting activities have also been established for programs under the purview of OCS and science sectors. Reporting tools used by OCS and science sectors include reporting dashboards, periodic milestone reporting, mid and year end reporting templates and annual sector reports on results and delivery. OCS and science sector management indicated that these measures are effective at achieving their intended purpose. In addition, most science sectors are using additional processes to complement these activities, to provide performance measurement results at a more granular level.

Similar departmental mechanisms to track, monitor, and report on scientific activities are used by the OGDs the audit team consulted with during the engagement. One OGD advised that they also conduct mid-term program reviews that seek to provide insight into the need to modify, maintain, and/or eliminate a program due to its overall relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness. NRCan could consider introducing such a practice if management considers that this would add value to current performance measurement, monitoring, and reporting activities.

Appendix A – Audit Criteria

The criteria were developed primarily from the key controls set out in the Treasury Board of Canada’s Audit Criteria related to the Management Accountability Framework - A Tool for Internal Auditors, the Model Policy on Scientific Integrity from the Office of Canada’s Chief Science Advisor, and relevant associated policies, procedures, and directives.

The objective of the audit was to assess the overall effectiveness of governance, management processes, and controls supporting the delivery of NRCan’s scientific activities in accordance with its core responsibilities and GoC priorities.

The following audit criteria were used to conduct the audit:

Audit Sub-Objectives	Audit Criteria
Audit Sub-Objective 1: To determine whether adequate governance structures have been established to define and enable the strategic direction and coordination of the Department’s scientific activities.	1.1 It is expected that governance structures and mechanisms for the management of scientific activities are clearly defined, and provide oversight and strategic direction to respond to evolving scientific priorities.
	1.2 It is expected that governance structures and mechanisms enable the effective coordination between OCS and all science sectors within NRCan, and Other Government Departments.
	1.3 It is expected that the Department has developed and implemented an approach for scientific integrity for its scientific activities that aligns with government requirements.
Audit Sub-Objective 2: To determine whether effective resource planning and allocation processes have been established to support the management of scientific activities.	2.1 It is expected that effective human resource planning processes and mechanisms are in place to support the management of scientific activities.
	2.2 It is expected that financial resource planning processes and mechanisms are in place to adequately support management of scientific activities.
Audit Sub-Objective 3: To determine whether effective processes have been established to monitor and measure results of scientific activities, and to enable information sharing and coordination of scientific information.	3.1 It is expected that there are clearly defined processes and metrics to measure and assess the performance of the Department’s scientific activities.
	3.2 It is expected that the Department has established effective processes for monitoring and reporting on the results of scientific activities.
	3.3 It is expected that adequate lines of communication have been established between the Department’s science sectors, and with other GOC departments that engage in scientific activities to ensure effective collaboration and information sharing.

Appendix B – NRCan’s Scientific Governance Structure (January 2021)

Source: Governance Committee Terms of Reference

Text version

This graphic describes the reporting structure of NRCan’s scientific governance bodies as at January 2021.

The Director General Science and Technology Committee (DGSTC) is chaired by the Chief Scientist/ Chief Science Advisor. The objective of the DGSTC is to support the management and the advancement of science priorities in the Department by bringing a cross-sectoral lens to science activities and initiatives. This committee reports to the Science and Technology Board.

The Science and Technology Board (STB) is chaired by Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan’s) Deputy Minister (DM). The objective of the STB is to oversee Science and Technology (S&T) Governance and Accountability by guiding the implementation of the Department’s S&T Strategy.

The Policy and Science Integrity Committee (PSIC) is chaired by the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Strategic Policy and Innovation Sector (SPI). PSIC is an executive forum that reviews policy and science proposals to ensure consistency with the Cabinet and Ministerial briefings.

Both the STB and the PSIC report to the Executive Committee.

NRCan’s Executive Committee (ExCom) is chaired by NRCan’s DM. The objective of this committee is to set the Department’s strategic directions and priorities, and it oversees coordination with portfolio agencies.

Appendix C – NRCan’s Revised Scientific Governance Structure
(April 2021)

Source: Renewing NRCan’s Corporate Governance, Presentation to SMC, March 11, 2021

Text version

This graphic describes the reporting structure of NRCan’s scientific governance bodies as at April 2021.

The Director General Science and Technology Committee is chaired by the Chief Scientist/ Chief Science Advisor. This committee is a Director General (DG)-Level advisory and decision-making body that contributes to deliberations of the Science Committee on matters of science policy, communication, priorities, and management. This committee identifies and deliberates on strategic considerations that could impact the management of science. The Director General Science and Technology Committee reports to the Science Committee.

The Science Committee has a rotational chair. In 2021, it will be chaired by the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Energy Technology Sector (ETS). This committee is an executive oversight and advisory body; the mandate is to identify and provide advice to the Senior Management Committee on trends, emerging issues in Science and Technology (S&T) and innovation, oversee the achievement of outcomes through accountability, and identify linkages to other science-based Departments and initiatives. The Science Committee reports to NRCan’s Senior Management Committee.

NRCan’s Senior Management Committee, SMC, is chaired by NRCan’s Deputy Minister (DM). The committee’s mandate is to deliberate on strategic and horizontal management issues, assess initiatives, discuss options and make recommendations for decision by the Deputy Minister. It focuses on operations, and integrated planning and priorities.

The Senior Management Committee reports to NRCan’s Deputy Minister and Associate Deputy Minister.