This Web page has been archived on the Web.

1998 December Report of the Auditor General of Canada

Main Points

22.2 In this follow-up to our 1994 audit of the federal S&T effort, we found that progress in establishing the elements required to improve its management has, overall, been slow. The government has not acted fully on some of the commitments it made in the Strategy. As a result, the management regime set up to oversee the federal S&T effort is not yet working as intended by the government - that is, ensuring that priorities are clear, that activities are co-ordinated, and that performance is reported on fully.

22.3 In the departments we examined, progress in acting on the Strategy's seven operating principles has varied considerably. However, even the less advanced departments have moved in the direction desired by the government. More remains to be done, and our follow-up identified three areas that require special attention: mission-driven, results-based research; scientific excellence; and the use of partnerships.

22.4 Some results of the Strategy are now emerging, and we believe it may be time for the government to clearly set out what remains to be done - what is next on the agenda. Along with sufficient leadership and ongoing parliamentary oversight, this would help to ensure that the current Strategy does not become, like similar efforts over the last 30 years, one more missed opportunity.

Introduction

22.6 The federal government invests significant resources in science and technology (S&T) activities. In 1997-98, departments and agencies spent an estimated $5.45 billion on S&T. The federal government also encourages research and development in the private sector through tax incentives that represent more than $1 billion annually. Those amounts do not include funding for the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which in 1997 received a federal grant of $800 million to provide new infrastructure support to university and medical research and development.

22.7 Given the importance of S&T to our country, and the substantial investment involved, the proper management of S&T activities is of paramount importance. In our view, there are two fundamental questions to ask about the government's S&T performance:

• To what extent has the government clearly established what it wants to achieve with its S&T activities?
• To what extent is it managing S&T activities in a way that maximizes value for money?

Previous audit findings

22.9 In its 1994 Budget several months before the publication of those chapters, the government had announced a fundamental review of its S&T effort aimed at giving Canadians a federal strategy with "real priorities, real direction, and a real review of results".

22.10 Our 1994 report documented the failure of previous such efforts in the last 30 years. Indeed, we said that there had been much activity but few results. In our view, some of this lack of progress could be attributed to a lack of overall government-wide leadership, direction and accountability. Accordingly, we presented lessons learned from past efforts for the government to consider in its announced review.

22.11 In brief, our observations were that the federal government needed to provide:

• clear priorities and clear direction for its S&T activities;
• clear performance expectations and action plans;
• effective co-ordination and oversight;
• leadership that transcends departmental mandates; and
• better information for Parliament and the public on S&T activities and performance.

22.13 In March 1996, the government published Science and Technology for the New Century - A Federal Strategy (the Strategy). Through the Strategy, the government set out three goals for the federal investment in S&T:

• to ensure that Canada is among the best in the world in applying and commercializing S&T for sustainable job creation and economic growth;
• to ensure that Canada applies S&T to improve the quality of life for our citizens through the creation of fulfilling jobs and through the most effective social, environmental and health care programs in the world; and
• to create in Canada world centres of excellence in scientific discovery, to build a broad base of scientific enquiry, to foster Canadian participation in all major fields of science and technology, and to ensure that new knowledge can be acquired and disseminated widely from Canadian sources and from around the world.

22.15 In a follow-up chapter published in September 1996, we welcomed the S&T Strategy, noting that it addressed certain government-wide concerns we had raised in our 1994 Report. We found that science-based departments had made plans to focus their science and technology activities and set priorities. The Strategy provided direction to departments and agencies in the form of operating principles for conducting many aspects of their science and technology activities. We observed that departments and agencies had recognized the advantages of working more closely together. Various initiatives were also under way to improve the assessment of results and impacts of federal science and technology activities, and to report on the growth of Canada's knowledge-based economy.

22.16 However, in our view the Strategy had left some "unfinished" business. For example, even though a mechanism had been established to make recommendations to Cabinet on S&T priorities, government-wide priorities had not been enunciated. We noted the critical need for the government to monitor the Strategy's implementation and to devote considerable attention to establishing results-oriented, time-phased implementation plans. This would help ensure that the direction provided to departments and agencies would become an integral part of day-to-day management in science-based organizations. We noted that accomplishing this would require leadership and perseverance at all levels of government. We also said that parliamentary oversight was key to ensuring that it happened.

Focus of the follow-up

• meeting the Strategy commitments to establish new institutions and mechanisms for management; and
• acting on the operating principles set out for departments by the government.

22.19 Details on the objectives, scope and approach of our work are included in About the Follow-up at the end of this chapter.

Observations

Important Challenges Still Lie Ahead

22.21 In the Strategy, the government recognized that to be a more effective partner in the country's innovation system, it needed to get its own house in order. It concluded that achieving greater coherence while preserving flexibility, responsiveness and ministerial accountability would require a more rigorous collective review of priorities and greater co-ordination of activities.

22.22 Accordingly, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Union (CCEU) was mandated to annually review the performance of federal S&T activities and recommend priorities to Cabinet. To facilitate its review of S&T priorities, the CCEU would receive advice from a new body, the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, which replaced the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology.

22.23 The Strategy also stated that improving top-level advisory and decision-making structures was not enough to ensure that the federal government's substantial investment in S&T would yield better results. The government recognized that to improve the management of its investment, it needed more co-ordination of S&T activities among federal agencies and collaboration on major horizontal issues - those that cut across departmental and agency boundaries. The Minister of Industry would lead the co-ordination of S&T policy and strategies across the federal government. This effort would be supported by another new body, the Council of Science and Technology Advisors.

22.24 The intended interactions among the new and renewed institutions are presented in Exhibit 22.1 .

22.25 The Strategy contained other specific commitments:

• development of new measures to increase the accountability of individual departments and agencies for the management of their S&T;
• implementation of a Framework for the Human Resources Management of the Federal S&T Community;
• creation of a new S&T information system; and
• new direction for intergovernmental co-ordination and co-operation.

Elements of the management regime are in place

22.28 The Council of Science and Technology Advisors was created in May 1998 and first met in October 1998. Its 22 members are drawn mostly from the advisory committees of science-based departments and agencies. The Council is chaired by the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development, and will report to the CCEU. Supported by an Industry Canada secretariat, the Committee will look at S&T issues internal to government that require government-wide strategic attention. The CCEU has asked the Council to begin looking at the federal government's roles in conducting S&T and at its ability to fulfil those roles; and to develop a set of guidelines on the use of scientific advice in government decision making.

Committees have not reached full potential

22.30 The Assistant Deputy Minister Committee on Science and Technology (ADM Committee) is composed of senior officials at the assistant deputy minister level from science-based departments and agencies. It provides the government with the capacity to deliver on its collective responsibility for policy co-ordination and management of federal S&T. In 1996, we asked what specific role the Committee would play in the implementation of the Strategy. In 1997, the Committee's terms of reference set out its revised mandate:

• to implement the cross-government commitments made in the Strategy;
• to develop proposals and advice to the government on key horizontal S&T policy issues; and
• to provide a forum for interdepartmental consultation on S&T policy and program directions, sharing of information, and co-ordination of efforts and initiatives across the federal S&T system.

22.31 Although it does not have a direct link to Cabinet, the ADM Committee could play an important role in the management system. Under the Strategy, however, it has no formal responsibilities for co-ordination - a crucial gap, in particular since the Council of Science and Technology Advisors was not created until May 1998.

22.32 Given its mandate, we expected that the ADM Committee would provide a forum for discussing issues of common concern as well as a vehicle for getting things done. We found that the Committee has discussed many issues and created working groups to deal with them but few initiatives of these working groups have reached the implementation stage. One notable exception was the Committee input to the publication in 1997 of the first annual report on S&T activities.

22.33 We found that some issues have been "ongoing" for a long time. For example, a framework for international S&T was to be established to meet one of the Strategy commitments: the development of explicit plans to promote international S&T collaboration for the benefit of Canadian firms. The final framework was to be completed in March 1997 but, more than a year and a half later, it is still not finalized. Revising the Intellectual Property Policy was another commitment in the Strategy. A second round of consultations is now under way but, after two years, nothing has been finalized.

22.34 In our opinion, since the ADM Committee is an essential part of an effective co-ordination system, the government needs to clarify what it expects the Committee to accomplish. Beyond this, to be effective the Committee requires strong, consistent leadership and secretariat support. Members of the ADM Committee need to consider ways to ensure that it fulfils its potential.

How committees will work together is unclear

22.36 While the Council of Science and Technology Advisors was to provide an external perspective on internal federal management of S&T, the Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACST) would be expected to provide its views on broader issues, beyond internal management - for example, science and technology and youth. However, it would be reasonable to assume that the two bodies would complement each other's work on specific issues.

22.37 Since it is important that these two bodies work well together and with the ADM Committee, we would expect to see clearly how they would interact. In our view, three ingredients are essential: a work plan for each of them, regular interaction and an ongoing exchange of information.

22.38 A work plan is essential to identify what needs to be done, when and by whom. It would also help in tracking progress on issues and in holding officials accountable for results. The ACST has identified certain issues to address. The recent creation of two expert panels on skills in knowledge-intensive industrial sectors and the commercialization of university research provides a better idea of how two of these issues will be dealt with. However, there is no further indication of how and whether the ACST intends to work on the third issue identified (the development of a publicly accepted vision for the future of S&T in Canada) or whether any other issues will be looked at while the panels produce their reports. The Council of Science and Technology Advisors will also need to set out its goals and a work plan. At the end of our review, we were informed that a work plan was being drafted.

22.39 In February 1997, the ADM Committee decided that it needed a work plan to help implement the government-wide commitments made in the S&T Strategy. The work plan was to be based on the deliverables indicated in the Strategy. The ADM Committee also believed that it needed to prioritize the deliverables and identify those it would address over the next year. However, officials have informed us that the ADM Committee never produced such a work plan.

22.40 We found some links among the three bodies. For example, the ADM Committee was informed regularly of the work done by the ACST. The terms of reference for the Council of Science and Technology Advisors state that it will work in collaboration with the ADM Committee on horizontal issues; they are also supposed to meet together at least once a year. As well, a Deputy Chair of the ACST (to be appointed) will serve as an ex-officio member of the Council of Science and Technology Advisors. However, since this Council has just been created, we cannot comment on how well integrated their respective work plans will be.

22.41 In our view, Industry Canada has a key role to play in making all of this happen. We encourage it to ensure that appropriate linkages exist among the three bodies.

Need to move beyond co-ordination to collective action

22.43 However, more co-ordination does not necessarily lead to better management of horizontal issues. In our view, effective management of any important horizontal issue needs to include an action plan that orchestrates the relevant activities of departments and other players involved to achieve agreed-upon objectives; an accountability framework that transcends departmental jurisdictions; and a joint reporting mechanism to track results in relation to objectives. While we did not examine co-ordination among departments per se, we looked at the management of climate change science to see whether there was evidence of good co-ordination and collaboration in practice.

22.44 While the MOU in S&T has been an important step in co-ordinating science efforts in climate change, it does not fulfil our expectation for joint goal setting and research planning and a common management framework. Nevertheless, there are signs that the federal government is moving beyond co-ordination to collective action, with the adoption of a new management framework. The case study contains our findings. It appears that the renewed National Biotechnology Strategy is also adopting a promising approach, although it was not part of our review. We hope that those experiences will lay a new foundation for the management of other horizontal issues.

Review of priorities is incomplete

22.46 The government has made explicit choices in directing new S&T funds to non-departmental entities like the

Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Canadian Network for the Advancement of Research, Industry and Education (CANARIE Inc.). This may reflect a more general approach by government on how it sees it can best achieve its stated objectives.

22.47 These and other spending decisions implicitly represent priorities of the government. However, in the Strategy, the government stated that it needed to conduct a more rigorous review of priorities. We would have expected that, at some point, the government would indicate the results of its rigorous review. This has not yet happened. The government needs to consider how best to communicate the results of this review of priorities to Parliament and other interested bodies.

Intergovernmental co-operation and co-ordination have not taken the promised new direction

22.49 The federal government's commitments to intergovernmental co-operation and co-ordination are clearly listed in the Strategy. Where appropriate, new institutions and instruments were to be developed to facilitate improved intergovernmental relations, whether through regional or bilateral arrangements. To help shape this process, the government was to initiate results-oriented discussions with provincial and territorial governments. Those commitments established our expectations. Given the importance it placed on enhancing co-operation and co-ordination with other levels of government, we expected that the federal government would make this a high priority on its agenda.

22.50 Since the spring of 1998, Industry Canada has been co-ordinating a network of federal-provincial officials to exchange information on science and technology. The network, led by Industry Canada, has completed an analysis of issues raised by provincial premiers and is preparing an inventory of initiatives taken on those issues. Efforts are now being made to develop an electronic channel of communication. Federal, provincial and territorial deputy ministers of industry met in September 1998 to discuss ways of improving the co-ordination of S&T activities. While we recognize that the development of new institutions and instruments takes time, to date there is little evidence of tangible results.

The government has started to report on its performance

22.52 We believe that the report constitutes a step in the right direction. However, we also found areas for significant improvement. The report needs to focus more on results. If the government wants to review its performance against the goals outlined in the Strategy, it needs to set meaningful performance expectations for each of them. Otherwise, it will be difficult to assess the extent to which the activities contribute to achieving the three goals of the Strategy. For example, the report highlights the various activities undertaken by departments that contribute to the goal "improved quality of life", but does not indicate whether they are sufficient or what remains to be done.

22.53 The report also provides little consolidated information on the performance of departments and agencies in horizontal areas. This kind of information is important to an understanding of spending priorities and as an input for discussions on accountability for priority setting. Although some progress has been made, we believe that parliamentarians do not have a firm basis for assessing whether the government's expenditures on S&T reflect Canadian needs and opportunities, and for holding the government accountable for results.

22.54 We expect that work undertaken by Statistics Canada will help to provide more information on the relationship between government involvement in science, technology and innovation and the three goals outlined in the Strategy. In 1996, Industry Canada funded the Information System for Science and Technology Project, which is led by Statistics Canada. As part of this project, work has been undertaken to provide better information on where the government spends its S&T resources and, more important, what it gets in return. However, the latter issue will require that new indicators be developed and so, building on the work done thus far, Statistics Canada has initiated a Framework for a Statistical Information System - a tool to develop performance indicators for science and technology activities. The Framework will provide information on outcomes of S&T activities. Statistics Canada officials told us they were preparing a strategic plan to implement the Framework. At the end of our review, funding for this initiative had yet to be finalized.

22.55 The annual report on S&T activities would be a good opportunity for the government to also lay out a forward-looking agenda. This could include the government's views on the work of the ACST and the Council of Science and Technology Advisors, as well as results-oriented implementation plans.

Implementation plans for the Strategy are still needed

Progress in Departments Varies

22.58 Our follow-up on progress to date in implementing the operating principles covered a sample of four departments with significant science programs: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans and Natural Resources Canada. Exhibit 22.3 provides a brief profile of the four departments and Exhibit 22.4 shows the financial resources they invest in science and technology activities.

22.59 The Strategy stated that the way departments and agencies applied its principles to their S&T activities would vary, depending on their roles and responsibilities. We took this into account in our follow-up. We also had to consider that the departments did not all start from the same point. Some had already been applying a number of the principles outlined in the Strategy when it was announced. Therefore, while we expected each department to be working to apply the operating principles, we did not expect that they would all be at the same stage of progress. However, the experience of the most advanced can help the others to catch up.

22.60 Although we found that progress in acting on the seven operating principles has varied considerably in the departments we examined, even the less advanced departments have moved in the direction desired by the government. Overall, however, much more remains to be done, especially in reporting on performance.

22.61 Our findings suggest that Natural Resources Canada is well on its way to putting the principles of the Strategy into practice. Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are following behind, having made progress in some areas but not in others. Fisheries and Oceans, with the smallest expenditure on S&T of the four departments, has made progress on several principles but has yet to make significant progress on others.

22.62 Departments need to consider the merits of assessing their own progress to date on each of the commitments, and to set out plans for fully implementing the Strategy.

22.63 As the departments continue to address the Strategy commitments, in our view there are three departmental science management issues that need special attention: mission-driven, results-based research; scientific excellence; and partnerships.

Mission-driven, results-based research

22.65 The Strategy contained several specific commitments aimed at improving information on departmental plans and performance. Each science-based department and agency was to:

• set clear S&T targets and objectives, establish performance indicators based on outputs and develop evaluation frameworks;
• prepare an S&T plan describing and integrating the approach that it would take within its business plan; and
• prepare a report on its priorities, key initiatives, spending plans, management challenges and performance measures for S&T as part of what is now the annual Report on Plans and Priorities.

22.67 We found considerable variation in the information on S&T activities presented in the four departments' Reports on Plans and Priorities. More specifically, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Fisheries and Oceans provide far less information than Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada on S&T priorities and targets, management challenges and performance measures. For example, Fisheries and Oceans provides little information on its science priorities and describes only in broad terms the kind of science it wants to undertake. In contrast, for each of its policy goals Natural Resources Canada provides information on its related science and technology activities.

22.68 Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada have also taken a step forward, through S&T management frameworks, to improve the way they review, assess and report on their S&T activities. Natural Resources Canada's efforts in this area are well under way; it started to implement its framework more than two years ago. Environment Canada recently published its own framework and is developing supporting documents. We encourage the other two departments to consider the same approach.

22.69 We found that progress in performance measurement has been slow except at Natural Resources Canada and, to a lesser extent, Environment Canada. As part of implementing their sustainable development strategies, most departments have developed a framework of performance measures. The next step, for those departments that have not yet done so, is to consider the benefits of building on this work by developing performance measures specifically for science activities.

Scientific excellence

22.71 While expert advice is sought for research planning, expert review of the science quality and impact of individual projects appears to be less common. As we did not audit the process of external review in the departments, we cannot comment on its effectiveness. However, we believe this is an important issue and will address it in our future work.

Partnerships

22.73 In our view, this process would translate into clearly stated objectives and expected results to be pursued through external arrangements. We expected that departments would be able to describe and report the flow of financial or other resources to them, and between them and the external participants in the arrangements.

22.74 We found that progress has varied. Natural Resources Canada has made the most progress in setting out a strategy for partnership arrangements. In its public documents, it states specific objectives that it wants to achieve in partnership with all its stakeholders in order to meet each of its policy goals. Some of the sectors' business plans also state in more detail what they intend to achieve with their partners.

22.75 In 1997, Natural Resources Canada published a Framework for Revenue-Generation, External Funding and Collaborative Activities. The Framework is intended to, among other things, provide a set of common principles to guide decision making and implementation of new arrangements across the Department. Although the systems for gathering the information on its different revenue-generating activities are not yet fully in place, it appears that the Department will soon be in a position to report on its performance in these areas.

22.76 We noted that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has created the Matching Investment Initiative, which has proved to be a successful way of increasing the level of its collaborative research with industry. From our review of documents and our discussions with officials of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, we found that although the Department clearly stresses the need to work with partners in pursuit of objectives, it makes few references to what needs to be done and with whom.

22.77 Partnerships are an integral aspect of Environment Canada's S&T programs. We found that it has made efforts to demonstrate how its partnerships will help it to meet its objectives. It has also identified areas where partnerships need to be built or strengthened. In neither case, however, did we find specific strategies in place. The Department informed us that management was to have discussed strategic issues related to S&T partnerships over the summer of 1998. The Department is also drafting a guideline document on S&T partnerships as part of its S&T Management Framework. In our opinion, the document needs to contain guidelines for reporting on the Department's external partnership arrangements.

22.78 Recognizing that it is not yet systematically looking for partnering opportunities, Fisheries and Oceans is developing a Partnering Strategy as part of its Science 2005 Strategic Plan. It informed us that it has also begun to quantify the different types of external arrangements it has with its stakeholders.

Conclusion

22.80 Although the government has acted on some specific commitments, the establishment of a revised management system has been slow. Much remains to be done to make it work well. Since changes take time, we were looking for signs that results were "just around the corner". We found that S&T issues are getting attention at a higher level. However, we could not conclude clearly whether all the actions taken so far were attributable to a new way of doing business based on new mechanisms or simply to the initial momentum of the Strategy.

22.81 Whatever the explanation, the message remains the same: there are still significant challenges ahead because the government has not yet acted fully on its commitments under the Strategy. Two comments are warranted. First, it may be time for the government to clearly set out what remains to be done - what is next on the agenda. This would send a strong signal that the Strategy is alive and well and has its second wind.

22.82 Second, as we stated in 1994, leadership that transcends departmental mandates is essential to meet these challenges, especially if the progress to date has been due more to the initial momentum than to enduring change. In our opinion, the leadership shown so far in co-ordinating the S&T policy will not be sufficient in the future to address the remaining challenges. In fact, leadership will be a critical factor in ensuring that the current Strategy does not become simply one more missed opportunity.

22.83 In departments we found that although their progress in acting on the Strategy's seven operating principles has varied considerably, even the less advanced have moved in the direction desired by the government. Overall, however, much more remains to be done, especially in reporting on performance.

22.84 The extent to which individual departments are improving the management of their science activities becomes less relevant, however, if they are not working together to better manage horizontal issues. Although we observed increased co-operation among departments, our case study on the horizontal issue of climate change science demonstrates that, in this particular case, departments are still carrying out science activities on the basis of their own priorities rather than common goals.

22.85 This has started to change, however. As part of the case study, we found that the proposed business plan for science activities under the Climate Change Action Fund appears to address the weaknesses we have identified in the government's current approach to S&T in general. This and other recent initiatives lead us to believe that the experience in this area could lay a new foundation for the management of other horizontal issues.

Joint response of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Industry Canada and Natural Resources Canada: A healthy federal science and technology community is essential to Canada's economic, social and environmental well-being. The Federal Science and Technology (S&T) Strategy, delivered through each department's mandate, is a blueprint for the direction and management of federal science and technology. We were pleased to note the Auditor General's recognition of the fact that the application of the Strategy's operating principles across departments varies according to their mandates. We welcome this follow-up as an indication of the priority that government places on the effectiveness of its S&T resources. While the data presented in the chapter are accurate, this response presents an opportunity to provide a context for the information as well as to highlight areas of continued progress since the audit was completed (note: this response speaks only for the five departments included in this follow-up.)

Departments have been working hard within their respective accountabilities and mandates to implement the Strategy, although the progress has been affected significantly by Program Review. In accomplishing this, and in support of the government's overall policy objectives, we welcome the support of the Minister of Industry in helping to achieve horizontal policy co-ordination on key issues. We feel it is essential to recognize that different parts of the federal S&T effort (e.g. advancing the frontiers of knowledge and mission-driven research) require different planning approaches. While the Strategy recognizes that federal S&T ministers must remain accountable for directing their departments' S&T efforts and resources toward fulfilling their mandates, we agree that some key files (e.g. climate change) do benefit from a horizontal management approach.

Our implementation of the Strategy continues and includes improving management of S&T human resources and building effective partnerships among levels of government and non-government stakeholders. Partnerships and collaborations include the interdepartmental S&T human resource initiative, the Climate Change Action Fund and the MOU on Science for Sustainable Development. The MOU itself has had a major impact in strengthening working relationships and increasing collaboration on key issues, such as climate change science, metals in the environment, nutrients and endocrine modulating substances. The success of the MOU will best be measured in the success of its individual projects, most of which are still in progress. The MOU was renewed in 1998 and was expanded to include Health Canada. The results of such co-operation and collaboration in S&T are becoming more evident as experience with these mechanisms and approaches grows. There are several other areas, such as Northern S&T and toxics substances research, where we are collectively just beginning to apply this experience. We feel that our efforts are having positive impacts and will continue to influence the co-ordination and co-operative management of federal S&T in the future.

About the Follow-up

Objective

Scope

We reviewed the commitments under the Strategy that are aimed at establishing new institutions and mechanisms for governance.

The Strategy outlines a framework of operating principles that provides direction to departments on how to manage their respective science programs. We reviewed the progress of selected departments (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans and Natural Resources Canada) in applying these principles.

We prepared a case study whose purpose was to review whether the management of climate change science activities in the four selected departments reflects the principal commitments of the Strategy.

Approach

The federal government published a report titled Minding Our Future, A Report on Federal Science and Technology - 1997 . Each department produced a summary report on its activities under the Strategy as input to Minding Our Future . We reviewed those summary reports.

We held interviews and discussions with officials involved in science and technology and reviewed relevant documentation.

Audit Team

Ian Campbell
Geneviève Hivon
Sandra Lopes
Michelle Salvail
Marilyn Taylor

For information, please contact Peter Simeoni.