Real-time Assurance for the High-Speed Rail Initiative

Report outlining the results of the Real-time Assurance for the High-Speed Rail Initiative.

On this page

Purpose

The final report of the Real-time Assurance for the High-Speed Rail (HSR) initiative presents a wrap-up of the observations provided in real-time to the HSR initiative team over the course of almost three years, as well as the corrective actions developed in response to the recommendations.

Background and context

The HSR initiative is the largest rail transportation infrastructure initiative undertaken by Canada in generations. It will enable frequent, faster and more reliable services on modern, accessible and eco-friendly trains. A thousand kilometers of dedicated and electrified railway lines will be built between Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Québec City.

This complex multi-phase initiative is being delivered through a public-private-partnership (P3) model, which includes the Government of Canada (GoC), a dedicated Crown corporation (now known as Alto) and a private sector partner. To maximize value to taxpayers Footnote 1, Transport Canada (TC) and Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) conducted an innovative procurement process to:

  • attract consortia with world-class expertise in designing, implementing and operating passenger railway services;
  • obtain innovative ideas from bidders, considering the cost-benefit trade-offs of alternatives for meeting or exceeding the project outcomes that will be leveraged during the Co-Development Phase; and
  • select a highly competent Private Developer Partner (PDP) to co-develop and ultimately deliver the initiative.

Procurement Phase

To select the PDP Footnote 2, a market engagement and a two-phase procurement process were undertaken by the GoC:

  • A Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEOI) was issued in March 2022 to inform and mobilize the industry, and to seek feedback on the planned approaches to procurement and project development.
  • A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was issued in February 2023 to prequalify up to three bidder teams to participate in the subsequent phase.
  • A Request for Proposals (RFP) was launched in October 2023 and closed, as planned, in July2024, leading to the selection of a preferred bidder for the initiative.
  • Identification of the Preferred Bidder was completed in February 2025. The preferred bidder has signed the Pre-Development Agreement, and the Initiative has entered the Co-Development Phase.

Co-Development Phase Footnote 3

The Co-Development approach will involve a collaborative model focused on exceeding project outcomes through a long-term integrated approach to operations, asset and risk management. It aims to ensure Canada will benefit from the input of the PDP earlier than what is usually done for a traditional project. The Co-Development Phase will include key activities associated with project design and development and with the impact assessment process, which could improve visibility on key metrics and outcomes through direct collaboration.

Construction Phase

Following the Co-Development Phase, construction will begin using a phased implementation strategy, meaning different segments of the network will be completed and made operational in stages. This approach allows for flexibility, enabling lessons to be learned from earlier segments to improve the implementation of subsequent ones. It also means that certain parts of the network could begin operating sooner, bringing benefits to travelers while the rest of the network is being completed.

Stakeholders

There are multiple key players in the HSR initiative. They are actively involved and hold a vested interest in the success of the initiative. These different stakeholder groups are described below.

  • TC holds the ultimate accountability for the HSR initiative as the Minister of Transport is the accountable owner. In addition, TC was the project authority during the Procurement Phase of the initiative.
  • TC has been working closely with central agencies and other federal government departments and organizations, such as PSPC; Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada; Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northen Affairs Canada; the Department of Justice; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Environment and Climate Change Canada; the Canadian Transportation Agency; the Canada Infrastructure Bank; and VIA Rail to help protect Canada’s interest in the initiative. The TC-HSR team established a multi-tier governance structure, with a Deputy Minister (DM)-level committee, an Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM)-level committee, and working groups/streams.
  • On December 15, 2022, the GoC announced the creation of VIA-HFR – VIA TGF Inc. (also referred to as Alto since 2025), a new Crown corporation that reports to Parliament. Alto is a wholly-owned subsidiary of VIA Rail but acts like a parent crown corporation in most instances. It reports to Parliament through the Minister of Transport. Alto is the current contract and project authority in the Co-Development Phase, and its mandate is to develop and implement the HSR initiative, in Ontario and Quebec through agreement(s) with the private sector, in cooperation with the Minister of Transport.
  • In February 2025, the Cadence consortium was selected through a competitive procurement process as the PDP for the Co-Development Phase. It will work with Alto to advance and optimize the design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance aspects of the initiative. The Cadence consortium Footnote 4 was one of three qualified bidding teams that the GoC invited to respond to the RFP. The two other consortia were Intercity Rail Developers and QConnexiON Rail Partners.

Objective

TC’s Departmental Audit Committee (DAC) asked Internal Audit (IA) to add the HSR initiative to their 2022-2023 Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan given its importance and complexity and the risks associated with it.

The objective of this engagement was for TC’s IA to provide independent and objective real-time assurance to the department on the HSR initiative’s governance, risk management and internal controls.

IA’s early and ongoing involvement supported opportunities for timely corrective actions and continuous improvement.

Scope

The scope of the engagement included:

  • Real-time and ongoing assessment of the eight control objectives in the HSR Risk and Control Framework of the initiative between June 2022 and February 2025.
  • Monitoring of the implementation of the Management Action Plan (MAP) developed by TC-HSR in response to IA's recommendations between December 2022 and February 2025.
  • Real-time advisory on the implementation of the specific items in the MAP, such as IA’s advice on the implementation of the HSR Integrated Risk Management Framework and, in collaboration with TC’s Evaluation team, on the development of a logic model for the HSR initiative.

The scope excluded:

  • Operating effectiveness testing for processes that had not been fully implemented at the time of the examination.
  • Processes external to TC, such as processes of the Crown corporation and other Government departments.

Methodology

IA used the following approach to provide real-time advice on the HSR initiative:

  • The preparation of a literature review on megaprojects and other frameworks to document good practices and lessons learned.
  • The development of an HSR Risk and Control Framework based on the results of the literature review, to define the engagement criteria.
  • Interviews with relevant personnel and the review of available initiative documents, many in draft form, to gain an understanding of the initiative's strategy and plans.
  • Regular touchpoint meetings with a dedicated TC-HSR audit liaison, at the working level, to help build relationships and trust early on. These meetings also provided a platform for the real-time exchange of information.
  • IA respected the HSR initiative confidentiality requirements, including signing the confidentiality agreement developed by TC-HSR.
  • Highlights of the real-time approach are available in Appendix A.

HSR risk and control framework

The eight Control objectives, as outlined in the table below, represent IA’s areas of focus for the Real-Time Assurance for the HSR initiative. To ensure relevance, detailed objective statements and lines of inquiry were developed and updated foreach control objective to align with the current phase of the initiative at the time of examination.

Eight HSR Control Objectives

1. Governance

  • Oversight structure, accountability, roles and responsibilities
  • Strategy, guidance and procedures
  • Reporting / information management
  • Decision-making behaviours
2. Risk management (including considerations for the management of safety risk)

3. Stakeholder relationship

  • Engagement
  • Communication
4. Benefits realization
5. Financial management and fraud detection
6. Competencies and capacity
7. Procurement

8. Other project management elements

  • Schedule
  • Scope
  • Change management

Outline of work performed

IA’s Real-Time Assurance work was conducted over two different periods. The first was during the Procurement Phase, spanning between June 2022 and January 2024. The second was during the transition period to the Co-Development Phase from February 2024 to February 2025.

The following sections provide a summary of the key achievements and findings. These findings are categorized into the following two groups:

  1. Areas where IA has made recommendations, and for which the Office of Primary Interest (OPI) developed a corresponding MAP:
    • Governance
    • Procurement
    • Risk management and benefits realization
  2. Areas where IA has not identified major control gaps and therefore has not made recommendations. The OPI did not need to develop a MAP:
    • Stakeholder relationship
    • Financial management and fraud detection
    • Competencies and capacity
    • Other project management elements

The achievements noted in the subsequent sections summarize the progress being made by TC-HSR and project management good practices that they have designed/implemented. Unless otherwise stated, these are not a direct result of IA's recommendations.

Findings, recommendations and MAP by criteria are available in Appendix B.

Summary of findings

Governance

The Procurement Phase

Overview

Governance controls are essential to any project, providing the structural foundation for other processes. This was particularly crucial to the set-up phase of the HSR initiative in 2022. As a first area of focus, IA assessed the design and implementation of the governance controls intended to support effective oversight and management.

Achievements

Overall, the HSR initiative established a governance and accountability structure that provided the foundation for project oversight at various levels: government, department, and project.

  • This multi-tiered structure was designed to support the department in providing oversight on project activities and to support the collaboration from key stakeholders in the HSR ecosystem. This structure has been evolving and adapting over the different phases, providing a venue to facilitate effective communication amongst stakeholders.
  • To help formally define accountability, roles and responsibilities, the TC-HSR team also collaborated with stakeholders to develop a suite of project specific accountability instruments. These include the project charter and the collaboration agreements.
Observations

One of the key early observations for the HSR initiative was that stakeholders had different understandings of accountabilities, roles and responsibilities. In addition, the project had inconsistent tracking of committee actions and unclear assignment of responsibilities. Clarifying these elements early helps to improve coordination and avoid duplication or gaps.

  • To address IA's recommendation in this area, the TC-HSR initiative team updated key committee Terms of Reference (ToR) to clarify decision-making authority and introduced committee action-trackers, which allowed it to assign responsibilities at the working level and to ensure committee concerns were addressed.

Transition to the Co-Development Phase

Overview

In 2025, the HSR initiative transitioned from the Procurement Phase to the Co-Development Phase, which represented a major shift of project authority and responsibilities between TC and Alto. To support this transition and to help ensure that the department’s oversight role continued to be effective in the new phases, the TC-HSR team has been adapting and refining its governance structure and processes. During this time, IA observed the progress being made, provided advice as needed, and presented status updates to the DAC.

Achievements

In 2022, TC-HSR was at the early stage of designing and implementing the project governance structure. Since then, the structure and processes have matured to improve the effectiveness of the collaboration. The initiative has continued to build on the progress that has been made.

  • For example, the HSR Deputy Minister Oversight Committee (DMOC), which has been in place since 2019, has overseen the Procurement Phase and will continue to exist in the Co-Development Phase.

The existing processes in the Procurement Phase are supplemented by new committees and updated accountability instruments to adapt to the requirements in the new Co-Development Phase. For example:

  • The ADM-level committee in the Procurement Phase has been redesigned to reflect TC’s evolving role in the Co-Development Phase, supported by an updated ToR.
  • Key accountability instruments such as the Collaboration Agreements and Project Charter have been updated for the Co-Development Phase.
Observations

During the transition to the Co-Development Phase, when new processes were being designed and existing ones refined, IA did not identify additional observations in this area.

Procurement

The Procurement Phase

Overview

The objective of the Procurement Phase was to select a PDP through a competitive process. The selection of the right partner was critical to the success of subsequent initiative phases. The strategic and complex nature of the HSR initiative required that tailored measures and governance processes be implemented to ensure fairness and to mitigate risks to the government.

  • In 2023, IA conducted an in-depth review of the Procurement process and controls related to fairness and transparency. In addition, IA assessed the extent to which the Procurement process embedded the expertise and rigour required to develop the risk mitigation measures needed to protect the interests of the government.
  • In June 2024, IA was asked to conduct a targeted review of the HSR Procurement Evaluation Plan in preparation for the evaluation of the proposals – a top priority at the end of the Procurement Phase. This review began in early June and spanned approximately eight weeks.
Achievements

In 2023, the HSR governance overseeing the Procurement process supported the inclusion of diverse expertise and rigour was built into the design of review and approval processes. Notably:

  • The three governance levels (Workstream, HSR Management Committee (HMC) and DMOC) operate in a consensus-based decision-making environment providing a forum for the inclusion of diverse expertise that supports informed procurement decision-making.
  • Mechanisms, such as the Consolidated Procurement Tracker (CPT), have been put in place to track documentation that supports key procurement decisions, which is a proactive step in preparing for future requests to substantiate important decisions.
  • Numerous processes and practices were put in place to facilitate a fair and transparent procurement process, leveraging PSPC's extensive departmental expertise and knowledge inP3 type procurements. Specifically:
    • Oversight processes such as the Fairness Monitor, the Relations Review Committee and the Evaluation Review Committee were created early and were active during the entire Procurement Phase.

In 2024, TC-HSR implemented and/or improved the following items to support the procurement process:

  • The multi-tiered governance structure (i.e., DMOC and HMC) remained in place to provide oversight and facilitate decision-making, with the addition of the HSR Evaluation Steering Committee supported by a working-level functional forum.
  • Processes were established to help ensure analysis supporting key decisions were documented.
  • Measures were implemented to help secure evaluator availability during the critical evaluation period, along with training and support.
Observations

Given the scale and complexity of the initiative – and the involvement of multiple decision-makers – an observation was the need to clearly define the decision-making authority for key Procurement deliverables and to reiterate roles and responsibilities to ensure a shared understanding among stakeholders.

  • TC-HSR, in collaboration with PSPC, addressed IA's recommendations by mapping key procurement documents to the required approvals, as well as updating Project Charter and ToR to clarify roles and responsibilities.

Risk management and benefits realization

The Procurement Phase

Overview

In 2023, consultation with TC-HSR and IA’s assessment of risks led to the identification of the Risk Management and Benefits Realization control objectives as priority areas. According to the project management good practices identified in the literature review, both are critical elements of effective project management.

Risk Management helps ensure that potential issues are identified and mitigated proactively, while Benefits Realization helps ensure the initiative delivers value relative to its cost, time and effort. The HSR initiative has two distinct types of risks – project-level and program-level risks. The program-level risks are the ones impacting the government objectives, whereas project-level risks are related to the execution of the initiative.

Getting the involvement of those with professional experience in performance measurement, namely the department's Evaluation team, early in the megaproject's life was important in helping ensure that the Benefits Realization process was not a missed consideration in project planning.

Achievements

In the Risk Management area, the TC-HSR team acknowledged its importance early, documenting major risks in the Project Charter and collaborating with Alto to develop a comprehensive project-level Risk Register. This supported ongoing monitoring and reporting for key initiative risks.

In the Benefits Realization area, IA leveraged performance measurement expertise from TC’s Evaluation team to facilitate workshops that brought together multiple business units within the TC-HSR organization to discuss challenges, best practices, and potential performance indicators.

  • The collaboration ultimately contributed to the development of a draft HSR initiative logic model outlining immediate, intermediate, and ultimate outcomes.
Observations

One early observation related to Risk Management was that the initiative lacked regularized risk discussions at governance committees to promote a robust risk culture. In addition, there was a lack of an integrated approach to risk management, which could result in inconsistent risk management practices amongst key players, such as TC, Alto and Cadence.

  • To address IA’s recommendations, TC-HSR regularized its risk discussions at key committees (DMOC and HMC) and amended its ToRs, which helped to enhance the risk culture. In addition, the TC-HSR team collaborated with stakeholders to develop an HSR Integrated Risk Management Framework, helping to promote consistency in risk management practices for parties in the HSR ecosystem.

In the Benefits Realization area, it became evident that defining measurable immediate, intermediate, and ultimate outcomes for the HSR initiative was significantly more complex than for short-term projects, due to multi-year/multi-phase timelines and the evolving project objectives by phase. The fact that the HSR initiative’s end results depend on the partnership of three distinct entities through many years of planning and development efforts add to the complexity. In 2023, IA noted that it was unclear how project outcomes were mapped to project specifications in formal procurement documents. This could potentially lead to inconsistencies between information communicated to the bidders and intended project outcomes.

  • To address IA's recommendations, TC-HSR:
    • Established a working group with Subject Matter Experts across the department to clarify Government expectations and requirements (including clear and measurable indicators of success), so that TC can conduct oversight and track progress towards achieving Project Outcomes throughout all stages of the initiative.
    • Refined project outcomes to clearly outline government’s expectations and requirements in key procurement documents to support the RFP. Specifically, TC-HSR worked with Alto to complete the initial Project Requirement Specifications (iPRS). The iPRS was used to help ensure that the RFP evaluation criteria enabled a fulsome assessment of how the bidders’ plan will support the achievement of the ultimate HSR project outcomes.

Transition to the Co-Development Phase

Overview

In 2024, IA continued to reinforce the importance of Risk Management and Benefits Realization with the TC-HSR team. During this time, IA observed the progress being made, provided advice as needed, and presented status updates to the DAC.

Achievements

In Risk Management, TC-HSR reported that they continue to maintain strong collaboration with Alto to ensure alignment and avoid duplication in risk management processes between the two parties. IA provided advice on the risk management process by drafting specific questions for TC-HSR to ask Alto with respect to risk management.

For Benefits Realization, with the help of TC's Evaluation, TC-HSR has developed a draft HSR logic model supported by performance indicators. At the time of reporting, TC-HSR was collaborating with Alto and other stakeholders, such as TC's Rail Safety, to finalize the logic model and indicators, and to identify reliable data sources for the collection of performance data.

Observations

During the transition to the Co-Development Phase, when new processes were being designed and existing ones refined, IA did not identify additional observations in this area.

Conclusion

The Real-Time Assurance engagement for the HSR initiative required significant involvement from IA over an almost three-year period, providing a constructive challenge function throughout project development. During this time, IA assessed initiative controls and practices and promoted sound project management principles.

A high level of collaboration was maintained between IA and TC-HSR through real-time communication protocols, enabling timely course corrections throughout the various phases of the initiative.

Observations were made and recommendations prepared for four of eight control objectives. MAPs were developed and implemented by the OPI to ensure that our recommendations were addressed and that the underlying risks were mitigated.

This engagement delivered real-time assurance and advice to TC-HSR, supporting the incorporation of effective project management controls and practices throughout project development. IA also added value by highlighting areas often overlooked during planning – particularly risk management and benefits realization – ultimately contributing to the successful achievement of project objectives.

Appendix A – Highlights of the real-time assurance approach

Real-time communication and reporting

A dedicated IA-HSR SharePoint site was established to streamline the sharing of a large volume of documents. This proved to be an effective tool for managing file exchanges.

An observation tracking sheet template was used to document preliminary observations and recommendations. Iterations of this document were shared with TC-HSR team, at the working level, to gather input and validate facts, ensuring accuracy and transparency throughout the process.

Higher-level touchpoints between the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive and the DGs/ADM of HSR occurred, as needed, particularly at key milestones (e.g., prior to DAC meetings).

Progress has been reported to almost every DAC between September 2022 and February 2025. A MAP has been presented at every DAC by the TC-HSR team, using a MAP Tracker. In addition, IA developed a progression table, a helpful tool that tracks slippage and provides clarity on progress.

Access to committees

For a period of time and on an as-needed basis, IA routinely reviewed briefing materials and records of discussion of key HSR committee meetings to gain valuable insight into key priorities and risks facing the initiative and the functioning of the committees.

Staying agile

The timing and scope of assessments were determined in consultation with clients, balancing their input on priorities and capacity with IA’s independent assessment of risk.

IA team conducted targeted analysis, as needed, to address concerns raised during DAC discussions and to leverage the knowledge and experience of DAC members.

Appendix B – Findings, Recommendations and Management Action Plan by criteria

Governance

What we expected

The HSR initiative has an effective governance framework that supports the delivery of results.

  • Elements reviewed included governance committee structure and processes; strategy and guidance documents; decision-making process and behaviour.

What we found and reported

Early in the Procurement Phase in December 2022, IA reported:

  • The clearance process, i.e., review and consultation, for committee briefing materials was not well defined and was perceived as being cumbersome by some stakeholders.
  • Decision-making authorities for key committees needed further clarification and there was no formal tracking process for action items.

As a result, the following recommendations were made:

  • Finalize updates to committee ToR to clarify decision-making authority and develop a process to track committee action items to help ensure concerns are addressed.
  • Clarify the clearance process for debriefing materials, e.g., identify the types of stakeholders that should be consulted for different types of documents and assign priority levels to these documents. Assign accountability down to the manager level when possible.

Management response and action plan

To address the recommendations made, the TC-HSR Team implemented the following MAP:

  • Key accountability instruments have been updated. The Procurement Phase Project Charter has been revised to clarify the Governance structure and roles and responsibilities between TC-HSR and Alto.
  • The ToRs of HMC and DMOC were revised and approved to clarify mandate and authorities.
  • An HMC and DMOC Action Items Tracker has been created, and all action items are identified in a meeting record of discussion. A process has been put in place to follow up on committee action items.
  • Deliverables for the initiative are identified, tracked and assigned to specific executives for accountability as part of the Integrated Schedule management process.

Procurement

What we expected

The HSR procurement strategy is designed to help ensure a fair and transparent procurement process. There are clear and commonly understood roles, accountabilities and authorities. In addition, there is a process to help ensure rigour and inclusion of diverse expertise in the development of the procurement deliverables and in the Payment Structure to protect the interests of the government.

For the HSR Procurement Evaluation Plan, developed in 2024, governance structures and processes are in place to oversee the development of the Government’s Procurement Evaluation Plan for the RFP process, with clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities. The Plan includes documented analysis, consultation, and risk mitigation measures to support transparent, fair, and well-informed decision-making that aligns with government policies and delivers the best value for Canadians.

What we found and reported

In 2023, the HSR initiative implemented and was in the process of implementing numerous processes and practices to increase the likelihood of success during the Procurement Phase. IA noted the following area requiring minor improvement.

  • There was a general understanding of the procurement decisions that need to be brought to different levels, but some confusion exists without clear guiding principles. This highlights the need to clarify the types of decisions that could be delegated to each decision-making body to create a more efficient and effective decision-making process.
  • Similarly, in 2024, TC-HSR implemented and was implementing many processes, instruments, and tools to support the HSR Procurement Evaluation Plan. IA reported no major controls gaps and two minor areas for improvement related to an inconsistent understanding of TC’s accountability in the Procurement Phase and the decision-making authority for the newly established HSR Evaluation Steering Committee which required clarification. As a result, two recommendations were made:
    • Given the Procurement Phase Project Charter was approved, TC-HSR should continue to reiterate the roles and responsibilities and accountabilities for the Procurement Phase to help ensure a common understanding across stakeholders.
    • Update the ToR for the Evaluation Steering Committee to reflect the decision-making authority.

Management response and action plan

To address IA’s recommendations, TC-HSR has implemented the following:

  • The procurement team developed an Executive Review and Approval Process to track and document major decision for key Procurement deliverables (RFP, Project Development Agreement and Project Agreement) in 2023.
  • As the Procurement Authority in 2024, PSPC acknowledged the recommendation to clarify roles and responsibilities and, where applicable, incorporated revisions into both the ToR for the Procurement Steering Committee – which PSPC chaired – and PSPC’s Evaluation Plan.

Risk management

What we expected

There are adequate risk management practices to help ensure risks are regularly updated, reported, and monitored.

What we found and reported

IA first identified, as part of its governance review in 2022, that risks were not prioritized in a manner that would allow senior management to actively monitor and manage the most important risks. This led to a recommendation for TC-HSR to improve the risk culture and incorporate risk discussions into the decision-making process.

Subsequently, IA reported the lack of a fully integrated risk management (IRM) framework at the February 2023 DAC. Following DAC’s advice, a specific recommendation was made:

  • To develop an IRM Framework. As the initiative moves through its phases, the establishment of an IRM Framework will enable all parties, including TC, to develop an optimized, risk-based approach to oversight, ensuring the level of oversight is commensurate and aligned with risk, fiduciary duties and roles of the various parties under the P3 – including the Minister as accountable owner.

IA has since provided advice to the HSR team on the design of a tool, such as an Assurance Map, to support the development of an IRM Framework, specifically to:

  • Describe the roles and responsibilities of all key players across the HSR ecosystem that have a role in risk monitoring in support of their individual objectives and related to the HSR initiative.
  • Provide a mechanism for linking risk management practices to the HSR outcomes and TC’s risk appetite, so that risks can be managed, taken and overseen in a way that aligns with all players’ expectations and duties.

Management response and action plan

To address the recommendation made, the HSR initiative team, in collaboration with Alto and other stakeholders, developed a HSR IRM framework for the Procurement Phase, supporting the alignment of risk management practices and principles across key parties.

Benefits realization

What we expected

There is an appropriate performance measurement system which includes the establishment of strategic outcomes and supporting indicators to measure progress.

What we found and reported

In the Procurement Phase, IA noted that the ultimate project outcomes to support the development of indicators had not been clearly defined as part of IA’s initial review in the Governance area in 2022. A recommendation was made to better define the ultimate outcomes and measurable indicators.

In the subsequent review of this area in 2023, IA reported that it was not sufficiently clear how project outcomes were linked to formal project Procurement documents, such as the iPRS, used in the competitive procurement process to communicate project requirements to bidders. At the time of review, the iPRS was still under development and the final version was not yet available for review.

  • Therefore, IA recommended that TC-HSR should continue to engage Alto to complete the iPRS to clearly articulate government policy priorities and how they link to ultimate project outcomes.

Management response and action plan

To address the recommendation made, the HSR initiative team:

  • Refined project outcomes to clearly outline government’s expectations and requirements in key procurement documents to support the RFP. Specifically, TC-HSR worked with Alto to complete the iPRS. The iPRS was used to help ensure that the RFP evaluation criteria enabled a fulsome assessment of how the bidders’ plan will support the achievement of the ultimate HSR project outcomes.
  • Engaged broadly within the integrated HSR initiative teams to develop measurable indicators for the project outcomes.
  • Established a working group to help ensure project outcomes are sufficiently covered in the procurement process, such as through the iPRS, RFP submission requirements, and evaluation criteria.
  • With advice from TC’s Evaluation team, developed a draft HSR logic model outlining immediate, intermediate, and ultimate outcomes.

Remaining project elements

What we expected

  • External Relationships – Indigenous Peoples, Stakeholder and Public Communication: Processes exist to facilitate effective engagement and communication with indigenous communities, stakeholders and organizations.
  • Financial Management and Fraud Detection: Processes are in place to support sound financial management practices. There are mechanisms to prevent, detect and deter fraud.
  • Human Resources Competencies and Capacity: Processes are in place to facilitate effective identification of Human Resources requirements, recruitment, classification, and staffing.
  • Other Project Management Elements (Schedule, Scope and Change Management): Schedule, scope, and change management planning and practices are effective in supporting the HSR initiative objectives.

What we found and reported

In 2023, the HSR initiative implemented and was in the process of implementing many processes in these areas. IA observed the progress being made and assessed the design of the processes based on the information available at the time. Notable progress included:

  • The collaboration between TC’s Corporate Services (Finance, Contracting) and the TC-HSR team to continuously improve financial management practices to ensure compliance with departmental financial processes.
  • The creation of a Special Purpose Allotment to monitor the budget allocated to the HSR initiative and ensure that funds remain dedicated to the HSR initiative for a specific period.
  • The addition of technical experts to engagement teams to allow early consideration of input received from Indigenous peoples and other stakeholders during the technical design process.
  • The implementation of many project management practices, such as an integrated project schedule with detailed work plans, a Project Management Office and workstreams with clearly defined roles and responsibilities.

Further, IA communicated observations and areas that required continued monitoring by the TC-HSR team as the processes matured over time, such as:

  • The importance of early engagement with TC Procurement to avoid delays in setting up advisory contracts.
  • Addressing some challenges and monitoring progress being made in staffing the TC-HSR organization in the early days.
  • No specific recommendations were made.

Management response and action plan

None required, given no specific recommendations were made.

Appendix C – Statement of Conformance

This engagement conforms with the Government of Canada’s Policy on Internal Audit and the Institute of Internal Auditors’ International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, as supported by the results of an external assessment of Internal Audit's Quality Assurance and Improvement Program.

Chantal Roy, CIA
Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive

Date modified: