Public Accounts — Issue No. 15 — Tuesday, November 20, 2007 (HTML)

2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
MINUTES AND HANSARD

Present: Rob Fleming, MLA (Chair); Joan McIntyre, MLA (Deputy Chair); Harry Bains, MLA; Iain Black, MLA; Guy Gentner, MLA; Randy Hawes, MLA; Mary Polak, MLA; Bruce Ralston, MLA; John Rustad, MLA; Ralph Sultan, MLA; Diane Thorne, MLA; John Yap, MLA

Officials Present: John Doyle, Auditor General; Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland, Comptroller General

2. The Committee adopted its Second Report for the 3rd Session of the 38th Parliament entitled: Retention and Disposal Applications by the Public Documents Committee.

3. The Committee considered the Auditor General’s Report entitled Financial Statement Audit Coverage Plan for Fiscal Years 2008/2009 through 2010/2011.

4. Resolved, that the Committee endorse the recommendations contained in the Auditor General’s Financial Statement Audit Coverage Plan for Fiscal Years 2008/2009 through 2010/2011.

5. The Committee considered the Auditor General’s Report entitled The Child and Youth Mental Health Plan - A Promising Start to Meeting an Urgent Need (Report 2, June 2007).

6. Resolved, that the Committee endorse the recommendations contained in Report 2, The Child and Youth Mental Health Plan – A Promising Start to Meeting an Urgent Need.

7. The Committee postponed its consideration of the Auditor General’s report entitled Infection Control: Essential for a Healthy British Columbia – 2006/07 (Report 11, March 2007).

8. The Committee postponed its consideration of Committee recommendations from Auditor General’s Report entitled: Audit of Treaty Negotiations in British Columbia: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of BC’s Management and Administrative Processes – 2006/07 (Report 3, November 2006).

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS



CONTENTS

		Page

Records Retention and Disposal		313

Auditor General Financial Statement Audit Coverage Plan		313
	J. Doyle
	B. Gilhooly
	R. Jones

Auditor General Report: The Child and Youth Mental Health Plan: A Promising Start to Meeting an Urgent Need		321
	J. Doyle
	M. Sydor
	M. Sieben
	S. Wiens
	W. Schmitz

Other Business		332

Chair:	* Rob Fleming (Victoria-Hillside NDP)
Deputy Chair:	* Joan McIntyre (West Vancouver–Garibaldi L)
Members:	* Iain Black (Port Moody–Westwood L) * Randy Hawes (Maple Ridge–Mission L) * Mary Polak (Langley L) * John Rustad (Prince George–Omineca L) * Ralph Sultan (West Vancouver–Capilano L) * John Yap (Richmond-Steveston L) * Harry Bains (Surrey-Newton NDP) * Guy Gentner (Delta North NDP) * Bruce Ralston (Surrey-Whalley NDP) * Diane Thorne (Coquitlam-Maillardville NDP) * denotes member present


Witnesses:	John Doyle (Auditor General) Bill Gilhooly (Office of the Auditor General) Russ Jones (Office of the Auditor General) Wayne Schmitz (Office of the Auditor General) Mark Sieben (Ministry of Children and Family Development) Morris Sydor (Office of the Auditor General) Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland (Comptroller General) Sandy Wiens (Ministry of Children and Family Development)

R. Fleming (Chair): Good morning, Members and those in attendance at the Public Accounts meeting this morning. Thank you for being here.

We have some members who are on their way to join us, but we do have a quorum, and we can begin our business this morning. I would like to because, by request of members of the Legislature, there is a service at nine this morning to pray for a number of members who are living with serious illnesses now. It's going to be led by Pastor Tim Schindel.

We're going to adjourn briefly. Staff, as well, are invited to attend a service by Pastor Tim Schindel, if they'd like. It's a very brief service. It will be at the Ned DeBeck Lounge. With the agreement of the Deputy Chair and members here, we'll take a short recess from nine to 9:15 so that members can attend that service, should they wish to.

I'm going to ask members for a motion to approve the agenda. Before I do that, though, I would like to make the suggestion that item 6, which is the outstanding business of consideration of a report on treaty negotiations from the Office of the Auditor General that the committee dealt with some months ago, be postponed until our next meeting, which is scheduled for December 3 in Vancouver.

This item is a consideration of recommendations. We simply ran out of time to complete our review of that report previously. I think what we will do, because it has been some time now, is have a brief overview again and schedule it as a proper, full agenda item, where members can have the time to ask questions and consider the recommendations carefully.

R. Fleming (Chair): Before we begin the meeting this morning, I would just like to give a special welcome to Mr. John Doyle, who is appearing before the Public Accounts Committee for the first time as our fourth Auditor General in British Columbia's history. He comes from Western Australia and has been extremely busy since he began his duties at the end of October.

John, it's a pleasure to see you before the committee this morning, and we're looking forward to working with you at this committee. I know that all members have been in contact with you, or you've been in contact with them, more specifically. We're just very, very pleased with you beginning your duties and to see you here this morning, so welcome.

R. Fleming (Chair): The first item of business is the report on the retention and disposal applications of public documents. Members have the report before them.

R. Fleming (Chair): These are recommendations that the public documents committee recommend as practices for retaining and disposing of documents. It's been approved by the committee, as you know, and this is just a report that we would like to submit to the Speaker before the end of this session.

If there are any comments, that would be appropriate now. Otherwise, a motion to adopt and send it to the Legislature through the Speaker would be in order.

I thought we would get some excited chatter this morning, on this item in particular, but once again, I'm disappointed. I would look for a motion, then.

R. Hawes: Did you want a motion, then? We could get Gary to come and give us a full presentation.

R. Fleming (Chair): I think I know what Gary would prefer, and that probably is not it.

R. Sultan: I merely wish to commend the process by which we are trying to preserve a record of what's happening for future generations. I know that fellow members regard this as a rather quaint aspect of government affairs, but as a person who spent part of my life poring through libraries, I think it's a very important part of government's work. I would move adoption of these recommendations.

R. Fleming (Chair): Perhaps, rather than having Gary back at this committee…. I know some members were interested to see the archives themselves — the warehouse and in particular the robotic arm that moves the boxes around. There's a standing invitation to anyone, I believe, from the last committee meeting.

Members have the report before them, and I would ask our Auditor General to present the coverage plan.

J. Doyle: Good morning, Chair, Deputy Chair and Members. You will be aware that this is my first meeting

with you since taking up my office, and I trust that this is the start of a long and fruitful relationship between the Public Accounts Committee and the Office of the Auditor General. I certainly look forward to working with all of you over the next period of time.

Before starting my presentation on the coverage plan, I wish to say a few words regarding my predecessors. This office, the Office of the Auditor General, has an international reputation for innovation and professionalism. I suppose I'm uniquely placed to be able to say that, because I come from a completely different country and a different continent. The culture is one of achievement and excellence. Such accolades are not achieved overnight but by sustained leadership and commitment by staff over a long period of time.

I wish, at the beginning of my term, to sincerely thank those who came before me, especially Errol Price, who acted as Auditor General until I was able to take up my appointment. His loyalty and commitment to the office stretches over 25 years, and I sincerely thank him.

In addition, the executive group — that's the assistant Auditors General, the directors and staff of the office — are special individuals that I hold in high regard. I will need to work hard to maintain their trust and loyalty during my term of office.

However, there are challenges ahead. These challenges are not unique to British Columbia. Rather, they can be found in many legislative audit offices around the world. Before I took up this appointment, I took the opportunity to visit several in Europe and a number in Australia before I actually came here and got some interesting insight in regard to their own challenges at this current time.

The challenges are complex, and the responses are not always easy to develop or to maintain. Integrity, professionalism and the quality of staff, plus the resilience and the capacity to cope with change, are central to the maintenance of an effective legislative audit function.

I intend to retain the existing mission and value statements of the office, as I consider that they accurately reflect our focus and role. The office will continue to strive to be both relevant and valued by both citizens and the Legislature.

I have accepted the general direction established by the office in preparing the coverage plan, but I will include more of my own perspective in future iterations. The work on the coverage plan for next year will commence early in this new year. I welcome the opportunity to discuss aspects with the Public Accounts Committee, either as a group or individually.

This year's coverage plan is really an extension of last year's, with some minor adjustments as required. Steady as you go, if you like. It's in line with the previously accepted approach. Thus, this year's request to the Finance and Government Services Committee will be based upon a direction that has been supported and funded in the previous year, plus some adjustments to maintain capacity.

I am confident that this year's program can be achieved but am concerned about future cycles and medium-term scenarios if our capacity to conduct our work is not maintained. The Office of the Auditor General will continue to focus on performance audits, financial statement audits, financial management and control reviews, accountability, and transparency arrangements, as it should.

However, the audit environment is changing. The accounting and auditing standards are subject to major changes that will impact significantly on the look and the feel of financial reporting — which will be a big challenge for the public sector — and the amount of work required to issue an opinion. This has already occurred in Australia and is due in Canada over the next few years.

The big challenges are going to be staffing to maintain that capacity within the office, to actually conduct this work in a timely and appropriate manner and to meet the quality requirements that will now be explicit within the new and revised standards arrangements. Also, I'd like to look at the independence of the office and to ensure and continue to protect the independence and the capacity of the office to serve the citizens of British Columbia.

The office must move with the times. There is now greater complexity of operational systems and greater requirement for auditors to remain objective and for the work to be perceived as value. It's not just that you must have it, but it's actually important that you do have it.

The future foci for the office will include — and this is not an exhaustive list, but they're my initial thoughts — work on governance to ensure that the governance arrangements throughout the public sector are suitable and appropriate.

The move to international financial reporting standards. This is a major shift in the way that accounting and financial reporting is undertaken. It brings with it a lot of extra work, time and commitment that impact not just the profession and the audit office but also staff within the various ministries and Crown agencies.

IT systems audit. There are a large number of systems currently in play within the public sector. I intend for the office to have a focus on those systems. In doing so, I will probably be increasing the number and the way that we actually operate as IS auditors.

Looking at performance reporting. Currently the arrangement where a plan is produced and a report is made later in the year is very good accountability and transparency, and I'd like to have a look at that whole area and move that forward.

Weatherproofing, or preparing the office for the future. Today's session is about one of those steps. It's about the financial statement audit coverage plan, 2008-09 to 2010-11 — three years. The plan sets out work we need to do to support the opinion on the summary financial statements. The plan is similar in concept and structure to that approved by the Public Accounts Committee last year.

Now I'll invite Bill Gilhooly, the assistant Auditor General, to provide an overview of the plan.

B. Gilhooly: Good morning, Members. I assume everybody has a copy of the plan this morning, because I'll be referring to it in my comments. I'm also going to assume you're fairly familiar with the contents, because this is a very similar plan to what we've given over the last few years. I'm basically just going to hit the high points this morning.

Section 10(6) of the Auditor General Act is what requires us to deliver this plan, and it drives the whole appointment process across the government reporting entity. It's a rolling three-year plan that's prepared on the same basis as our funding proposal in terms of three years looking out, as well as on the same time basis as government's fiscal plan.

The focus for our purposes is mostly in the 2008-2009 fiscal year, which is the next fiscal year we'll be undertaking. We tend to look out three to five years. We need to know when the auditor appointments are up so that we can see how we need to rotate our coverage within the government reporting entity. This is the fifth plan we've submitted to the Public Accounts Committee since our act was passed in 2003.

In terms of the context for the plan, as I said, this is a subset of our overall financial plan. One of our main objectives is to ensure that we have sufficient entity knowledge for our audit of the summary financial statements. We need to have appropriate depth and breadth of coverage across the government reporting entity.

Although John said this is a "steady as you go" sort of approach, there is a slight increase over the next three years that will better align with the new standards John spoke to and also with practices elsewhere.

As I've spoken to before, our legislation requires the office to move throughout the entity where we need to, and that's why there's a general limit of five years for us to be involved with each audit. It's now out of sync with the industry practice. Instead of rotating throughout entities, they rotate senior partners and have added other quality assurance processes to mitigate those types of risks. Our legislation in that respect is out of step with the times.

Today, like last year, we have four approvals that we're seeking. We're seeking this committee to approve their proposed plan, which you can find on page 13 in appendix A, and also for the Auditor General to continue as the direct auditor of 15 entities, where our term exceeds five years. Third is for the Auditor General to continue as the direct auditor for two entities outside the reporting entity. Fourth and finally is for the Auditor General to continue to administer the auditor appointment process. These recommendations you can find summarized on page 2 of the plan.

This plan is also built on a number of assumptions. As I said, we need to ensure that we have sufficient coverage to meet professional requirements. So even though we need to ensure that we have appropriate representation across the sector, we don't need to audit 100 percent of the entities directly to get the assurance that we need.

We also assume that there will be no new entities created or wound up, although this year there were two interim authorities set up. We concluded them in the out-years of the plan. We footnoted the ones that we understand may be set up next year, and we'll make a decision on those next year, once they're set up. Of course, our plan excludes the 19 ministries because we already audit those directly under our act.

In terms of our levels of involvement throughout the entity, you may recall that there are three separate levels. First is low or limited involvement, where we don't do direct fieldwork but we do a selected review of other auditors' files and receive the audited financial statements at the end of the process.

Second is an oversight or moderate relationship of involvement, where we review other auditors' audit plans and their files. We also attend the majority of audit committee meetings and work through the issues as they arise.

Third is our direct level of involvement, where we conduct the audits directly, usually with our own staff and, in limited cases, using contracted firms. For 2008-2009 there will be 22 organizations, we believe, that we will be the direct auditors of.

We found that this approach has served us well in the past to give us sufficient and appropriate coverage.

There are certain considerations we make in determining our coverage. For example, for entities that are very similar, such as health authorities, we don't need to audit 100 percent of them at once. But we do believe we need to rotate them over time, so we select a sample of them and rotate our coverage. If you've looked at reports in prior years, you'll see where that rotation is starting to happen now.

For dissimilar or unique entities, such as Crown corporations, we use a more risk-based approach, where we look at the core services that are provided, the financial impacts and magnitude of the organizations. What we see is their inherent risks and the complexity of the businesses themselves. In those cases where it makes sense, we try and rotate those ones over time, especially the smaller and medium-sized ones.

A few other considerations we have. One is to make sure we maintain a strong base of articling students. We're building up our student capacity right now. As an articling student office with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, we have to make sure that we have appropriate training for these students to become professionals and lead the office in the future. So we have to make sure that we have that base capacity intact.

Turning now to the detailed plan — you can find a reproduction of this table on page 6 — it's pretty similar to the one you saw last year and in prior years. It basically summarizes all the details that you find in appendix A. The first column shows the groupings of entity types. The second column shows the number of entities within each group, and the rest of the table shows, by fiscal year of the plan, the levels of involvement we plan to have and the number of entities in each one of those groupings.

For example, for universities you'll see there are six entities. In 2008-2009 we plan to have a low-level

involvement with three, a moderate-level involvement with two and audit one of them directly ourselves.

As you can also see, Crown corporations are a significant component of the audits we do directly, which comprise 14 entities for fiscal 2008-2009 out of the 39 on the list.

Plans, of course, do change. Each year we highlight for you the significant ones from what you saw in last year's plan.

First of all, for children and family services, Community Living British Columbia, we're going to be maintaining our direct audit coverage for an extra year or two, rather than stepping it down to a moderate or low level of assurance. And as I mentioned earlier, there are two interim aboriginal authorities that were newly formed this year that we're going to be the auditors of under our act, section 10(4). We're allowed to be the auditors at least for the first three years. We think that's an important thing to do as these are rolled out and new ones added next year.

In terms of Crowns and other agencies, we're going to be increasing our coverage for B.C. Transit to a direct level in 2009-2010. We've never been a direct auditor of this organization. It's a large organization and growing, and we believe we need to have a direct audit presence there, starting in 2009-2010.

For British Columbia Transmission Corporation and the Industry Training Authority, we're going to be maintaining our direct audit involvement there rather than stepping the involvement back. We believe we need to stay at that level of involvement for a little bit longer.

For the Public Guardian and Trustee, we're decreasing from a direct level of involvement in 2006-2007 to a more limited involvement, which was in our plan from last year. We're just really doing that one year earlier.

In terms of consultations, these are required under section 10(7) of the act, and for all the organizations that were impacted by changes in the plan, we did consult with various boards, audit committee chairs or equivalents, as well as senior management. We used a combination of meetings and telephone inquiries to do that. So all the organizations that are impacted under this proposed plan understand the proposed audit coverage.

As far as the impact on our office budget, the pluses and minuses arising out of the changes in 2008-2009 are negligible in terms of our overall budget. And as John mentioned, we will be discussing with the Finance and Government Services Committee two matters that will have budget implications. One is fee-for-service recoveries, as well as staff compensation levels.

Another issue I brought up last year was legislation issues, and this is basically just an update from last year. You may recall that there was some confusion when the Auditor General Act was passed, in that not all consequential amendments were made. So there is some confusion in some cases about who appoints the auditors in some parts of the system.

We were working with the Ministry of Environment in the case of the school system to talk about what legislative changes we thought would be needed to help them, if they were to propose that in the future, to avoid that confusion.

We were also discussing with the comptroller general's office other changes to our act that would be needed as well. For example, when I spoke earlier about the appointment process of auditors of rotation versus partners versus changing the entities, does the five-year appointment rule in our act still make sense?

That concludes my remarks this morning. I'd be happy to take questions now or wait until after the committee has had its scheduled break.

R. Fleming (Chair): Thank you very much, Bill. We will take that scheduled break now, and members will come back and ask questions at that time.

R. Fleming (Chair): When we recessed, Mr. Gilhooly had just finished his presentation. There's now an opportunity for questions, and then the recommendations of the report are found on page 2.

I will open the floor to see if members have questions about the coverage plan. The variations on the plan for this year compared to last year are in appendix B on page 21.

R. Hawes: Bill, just looking through the plan, I noticed that the B.C. Arts Council has…. At least, on here you've got a blank. Do you know the last time there was Auditor General oversight of the B.C. Arts Council?

B. Gilhooly: Thank you for the question. That entity, at the moment at least, is very small. It's not even on our radar screen for any type of oversight involvement. Basically, we would just get a copy of their financial statements and review that as part of the consolidation for the summary financial statements.

R. Hawes: When you say "very small," is there a threshold below which you don't see something on the radar screen?

B. Gilhooly: In general terms, the materiality at the summary financial statements is at the $150 million level. So we consider organizations, at least for one measure of significance, to be over that as far as either their revenues or their expenses. That one is quite small, although it could be one of the ones that we would rotate through over time and that at some point in the future we might take up, say, a moderate level of oversight on.

R. Hawes: I'm not for a second suggesting that they need an audit, but I can tell you that the Finance

Committee, as it travelled the province, heard from every corner of the province how important the B.C. Arts Council and the funding that they distribute are.

Much of the funding that goes to the arts from government funnels through them out to the arts community, and they are particularly interested in how the Arts Council operates and in ensuring that the funds are distributed equitably and fairly. Although they may not be at the $150 million threshold for materiality, they are extremely material to a large number of people in British Columbia.

B. Gilhooly: Okay, thank you. We'll certainly give that consideration in developing next year's plan and future plans.

R. Hawes: I was going to ask one more question, or maybe it's not a question. John, you and I talked about…. It's here in your plan. You mention independence, and I get that, but I was hoping you could briefly touch on your thinking there. It's something that I personally can buy into. I know it'll go to the Finance Committee, and that's where the decision ultimately will move forward. But maybe you could just touch on it for all of us.

R. Fleming (Chair): I thought we weren't going to get that question this year. I'm thinking that what you're leading to is audit fees.

R. Hawes: Well, I'll preface that by saying that as I think you know, for years I have been asking questions about fee-for-service. John has graciously come and talked to me about that.

I'm hoping you could kind of shed some light on where you think we should be going with that.

J. Doyle: Typically, legislative auditors do not charge fees for their work. That is the situation across most of Canada. It's also the situation in the U.K. and across most of Australia. The reason they don't charge fees is because they are not there to generate an income. They're there to actually be the auditor for the Legislative Assembly.

The current process we've got at the moment is something like…. Well, last year $2.4 million of the funds that we had available to us were generated by the issuance of fees to different agencies. This then puts the office in a difficult situation regarding its independence because it looks like there's a client relationship with that particular agency, whereas in reality, the client is the Legislative Assembly, not the agency.

To step aside from that and to maintain the independence of the office, I'm strongly urging that the issuance of fees is not a process that's run through the Office of the Auditor General. I'm fully accepting of the view that agencies should pay for the audit work that's conducted for them. I just don't think that the office should actually issue the fee nor receive the money in respect to that.

I come from a jurisdiction where the Office of the Auditor General is 100 percent funded by an appropriation, but fees are charged to every single agency. The office provides information regarding what those fees should be and how much the audits cost. We do 100 percent of the public sector, or we did 100 percent of the public sector. I've got to remember to speak in past tense. That money went directly to treasury in the form of income and, arguably, offset the appropriation for the office.

It's a different system here. But it seems to me an anomaly that although we're allowed to charge fees under the legislation, we should do so to top up our appropriation when I believe strongly that the appropriation should be the single source of funds.

J. Yap: I'm interested in your methodology in selecting school districts for coverage. My area, Richmond, is one that has been covered on a direct basis. When it started I gather there were some issues, some challenges, in getting that underway.

I have two questions here. Firstly, the process for selecting the school districts, and secondly, how are you managing the relationship with my school district in particular?

B. Gilhooly: Certainly. As I mentioned in my presentation, there were issues between some of the school boards and some of the organizations we were approaching to do audit involvement with, including Richmond. In the last year we finished our first full cycle of an audit relationship using a contractor in that organization. My feeling was that that process went very smoothly and that the board was actually very happy with the audit services they got.

Also, we've done extra outreach work to talk to the organizations that we're going to be involved with in the out-years of the plan — those boards — to explain to them the rationale for our plan and to give them a better understanding of who we are. In my view, in all those cases the school boards are much more accepting now of the relationship that we have in terms of our audit presence.

The second part of your question was how we go about the selection process. As you know, there are three levels of involvement. What we do is pick a representative sample, to the extent we can, for the largest ones. They happen to be located mostly in the lower mainland and the south part of the Island. We will tend to do most of our direct audit work, because of the materiality of those organizations, in those areas.

For the oversight ones we would tend to pick medium-sized or smaller ones, and that's where we're introducing the rotation process. Now that we're into the further out-years of the plan since our act was passed, you'll start to see more rotations within the school district system.

You might have also picked up from the table in the plan that in one of the out-years we're actually picking up one or two extra direct audits of school boards and a little bit more oversight. That's signalling a change. I mentioned, and John also mentioned, about the international audit standards changing where we have to have in some cases — especially for the more significant

organizations — a bit more of an audit presence there and possibly for a longer time too.

J. Yap: I'm hearing, on how you select school districts, that it's on materiality, as one measure. What about some kind of risk assessment? A school district might be very large in numbers, but there might be other factors that may come into play. Would you consider that as well?

B. Gilhooly: Thank you for the question. In cases where we know there are unique risks in those types of organizations, we would consider changing our coverage. One of the assumptions we make is that because the school districts all have exactly the same financial statements, the financial risks or the inherent risks in the organizations are generally the same. They may not be, because of other issues that may be at play in terms of funding and the day-to-day management of the organizations and the capabilities and capacity, but we look at them as essentially generic or homogenous-type entities.

J. Yap: On the more specific question regarding the relationship with Richmond, I gather that one of the concerns was cost. Was that resolved with the school district?

B. Gilhooly: Yes. We did a competitive process in that, as we do where we contract out audits. My understanding is that the board and senior management is quite happy with the audit fee in relation to the services that they got.

I wanted to ask Mr. Gilhooly about the non–government reporting entity engagements. It's a short list — just WorkSafe B.C. And you're adding the provincial employees community services fund, or you've already begun work there.

I'm just wondering where some entities that either were formerly directly publicly operated and now have legislation creating an authority and an ability to charge fees and revenues, etc., and exist…. I'm specifically thinking of the B.C. Safety Authority and maybe, to a lesser extent, the Private Career Training Institution Agency as well, which was the PPSEC at one point in time. Is there an ability for your office to include entities like that, at whatever level of audit engagement, in the future?

The Public Sector Accounting Board of the CICA. The rules they prescribe to us for determining which entities are inside the reporting entity and which ones are out are a lens we use when these entities are either created or when they're set out through changes in the legislation to be outside the entity.

We've looked at those organizations that you've mentioned and agree with government's interpretation that they should be outside of the entity. But it is something that we go back to from time to time to see if there have been changes in how the organizations are governed or other evidence of control, which is one of the criteria we use to determine whether something is in the entity.

I imagine those organizations are already subject to audit in some way — that their governing boards receive some sort of audited financial statements. There are also other sections of our act, as you're aware, that if we perceive there to be issues or problems, we could use as our mandate to look at specific issues.

R. Fleming (Chair): On the issue of trust funds, it was the opinion of a previous Auditor General that some of the regional trusts, the aboriginal trust fund and those kinds of entities should be within the government reporting entity, yet they're not. Is it the case that changing audit standards through the PSAB or CICA could force that change, could force an interpretation on government that would expand that?

B. Gilhooly: Thank you for your question. If the standards were to change in that area where there is a section regarding determining whether organizations are within the government's reporting entity, we would look at all entities across all of government, not just ones that are just on the outside according to the criteria. Those trust funds you speak of are ones that we review each year to see, again, if anything has changed that makes us want to speak to government about considering whether all their transactions and accounts should be consolidated in the government's summary financial statements.

R. Fleming (Chair): Okay. It's interesting with trust funds because you never know how much money is going to be spent in a given year and, as a sinking fund, how many years it'll actually continue. So this question might be really academic if a $50 million trust fund, for example, is completed by 2010. But I'll leave that with you.

I wanted to ask about B.C. Transit and the comment that you're increasing your office's involvement — the level of audit intensity — there based on the increased risk assessment. I wonder if you can provide any comments that might animate that a bit more. I'm wondering what B.C. Transit's heightened risks might be and whether it's a question of revenues or demand for services outstripping capacity or if it's any of those kind of issues or whether it's strictly a different type of exposure or interest from your office.

B. Gilhooly: If I may, I'd like to defer that question to Mr. Jones. That particular area is his file.

R. Jones: We have never been involved with B.C. Transit, and it's one where we perform sort of an oversight at the moderate level. We go and attend all of the audit committee meetings with KPMG, who are the

current auditors. Their appointment is up as of this year, and they've been extended for a couple of years.

In discussions with the board and with management at B.C. Transit, it appears as though over the next few years they may be receiving additional funding, and they're getting more involved, of course, in greening the province. With the new hydrogen buses and everything else that is coming into play, we sort of thought it was one of those areas that we have a good deal of interest in — the transportation sector — and thought it might be time for us to take a look at B.C. Transit.

R. Hawes: Just one other question. While it's not necessarily the direct purview of this committee, I am curious and I think it'd be good to put on the record here…. You're talking about additional funding to preserve staff levels. I'm wondering if you could give us an indication, although it is the Finance Committee that will look at it. Do you have orders of magnitude? What kind of money are you talking about?

J. Doyle: As I mentioned in my earlier comments, it's the capacity of the office to respond to the changing environment that's important. The capacity is really right down to people — the quality of the people that we have, their commitment to work, their capacity to absorb the changing standards that are going to impact on what they do and how they go about their work into the future.

There's been a relatively stable workforce within the office for many, many years. We have a number of the more mature directors who have been in the office for more than 25 years, for example. Over the next period of time, within five years, a large proportion of those mature members of staff will be seeking to retire or at least will be considering moving on to different things.

That means there is potential for a significant exodus of corporate memory. There's a potential for there to be great gaps in the current culture of the office and its commitment to excellence that is marketed internationally as being a desirable place to work.

Both of those things are high risks in my view. The reason I say that is that as we move into the adoption of the International Financial Reporting Standards and the change to the standards framework, Canada is going to experience the same thing that happened in Australia. There's going to be huge demand for talented individuals, and there are simply not going to be enough people to satisfy that demand as the workload changes.

What happened in a number of jurisdictions overseas — not just Australia but overseas in general — was that there was a very fast exodus of talented youngsters. Those are people who have got their accreditation — they're chartered accountants — and they have trained up within the office, and then they've moved on. So you ended up with a lot a very experienced people, but basically, the group that sits underneath that — the leaders of the future, if you will — were rapidly moving out and going elsewhere, either into other parts of the public service, which is fine, or out into industry or other places, which is perhaps not so good, considering the investment that public service has put into their training and development.

The impact is that it can very quickly become in an office that you lose the critical mass to actually maintain the culture, the standards and the capability of the office to deliver its work properly. We did some testing. We have found that as far as the profession is concerned, the accounting profession, we are well short of the remuneration levels you would normally see for the different grades of staff.

For example, a member of staff who has graduated as a chartered accountant, holds a degree, moves forward and has got a couple of years' experience is about 40 percent behind, working in our office, than they would be if they were working in the profession.

I know the arguments that we treat people more gently than the profession and the hours are different, but if you ask any of them, I think they might challenge that perception, because of their commitment to the way they work. So basically, we're a long way behind.

I don't propose that we should try and match the profession. It's a different environment, and we work differently. But when we are so far behind our legislative colleagues in other jurisdictions, I think, then, that we do have an issue around whether or not we're being fair to the staff that work within the province. We found when we checked with the other jurisdictions across Canada that we were 40 percent behind most of the salary remuneration processes for most of the grades.

In the past it wasn't all that hard to attract people from other provinces to come to Victoria and work. We're just not getting that anymore. We're just not finding people willing to transfer over. First of all, we offer them less money. Secondly, it's becoming more expensive in Victoria. So I need flexibility to actually change the way that the remuneration process works.

Now, I'm not talking about an across-the-board pay rise. I'm talking about how we can recruit people at the lower level and grow them and how we can retain those people who are gifted and that we need to continue our operations over the next few years. It isn't a problem today, although we do have a large number of vacancies we're trying to fill at the moment and it is causing us some difficulty.

We actually are in that awkward situation where we might have to hand back money at the end of the year because we couldn't recruit the staff we needed. You don't know how much that hurts me. Really, you don't.

It's not that I want to spend the money. It's just that I want to spend it wisely and to make sure the capacity of the office is maintained and built up. So I would be looking for the capability to actually marshal the remuneration program within the office to encourage people to join, to hold on to them and to keep them working within the office.

If I don't have that wiggle room to be able to do that, then what's going to happen is that slowly over time, as the pressures of the new standards and reporting process occur, we'll see an exodus of people moving out into the profession or elsewhere where the pressures are less sharp, if you like. We'll see a reduction or a diminution in the capacity of the office to actually deliver the existing program, never mind any other changes or shifts that may be required with a new standard framework. That's it, in a nutshell.

R. Hawes: I'm assuming, then, that when you come to the Finance Committee, you'll have a more defined request.

J. Doyle: When I go to the Finance Committee, I shall be providing ideas regarding how I actually propose to utilize those resources to retain staff — what my objectives will be. I'm looking at building the capacity, or maintaining the capacity for future cycles, so some of it will impact this current cycle we're working on, but most of the changes I would be bringing about would be affecting the next cycle and the cycle after that, which is where the risk is.

That is where people will start to retire and move on. That's where I need the people growing.

If I could just put one advertisement in, this is a fantastic time to join the Office of the Auditor General, because there are great career prospects ahead for any chartered accountant out there.

R. Fleming (Chair): Okay, thank you. The Deputy Chair and then Mr. Bains want to ask a question.

I would just remind members that to keep on schedule with the agenda, we'll want to conclude and look at the recommendations shortly.

J. McIntyre (Deputy Chair): I actually have a couple of questions. First, on page 17 of the plan, where you're sort of appropriating your resources, I was just concerned a little bit about the health authorities. I think we actually raised this last year.

Health and acute care are such a huge part of the provincial budget, especially Fraser Health Authority, which is in a very large and fast-growing area of the province. That contract, I guess, has ended or is ending. Then there are blank cells going forward for the three years and blank cells, also, for Interior and Northern. It means that three out of the five health authorities have no real oversight here — very low involvement, as you categorize it. At that, even Vancouver Coastal only has oversight.

Could you maybe explain to me the rationale underlying that? Or what is more important, from your perspective, in terms of allocating the resources?

B. Gilhooly: Thank you for your question, vice-Chair. I'll start answering, and then perhaps Mr. Jones, who does our health authority audits, can chip in if he likes.

As I mentioned in our presentation, we look to get sufficient and appropriate audit evidence for the summary financial statements for that really big number. You could argue that each one of these organizations individually is material. However, because our assumption is that health authorities have similar risks in terms of what we need to understand for the financial reporting side, we don't need to audit every single one for the purposes of the summary financial audit.

If we had the resources and we were considering it, just because of their significance, the Auditor General's office could say: "Yes, over time let's be the direct auditor for all of those." We'll have to see over the next few years, as the new international auditing standards evolve and as we interpret them, whether our coverage in the health sector will actually increase over time.

R. Jones: Just to build on that, we are auditing directly this year for the first time the Vancouver Island Health Authority, which we felt was a good one to get involved with, to start with. We do an oversight at a couple of others — at Vancouver Coastal.

KPMG is basically the auditor of record for all health authorities. We have a very good working relationship in terms of chatting with the partners that are involved in all the other health authorities on a regular basis. It's not like we're not involved. We just aren't involved at the level that we are with Vancouver Coastal and Vancouver Island.

Fraser Health. We had KPMG as our contractor up until this year. They've taken over the audit themselves this year. That's the reason we've just sort of backed off a little bit this year. We're still in contact with them on a regular basis. We're not wanting to be uninvolved with all the health authorities. It's just that we think we have enough coverage.

J. McIntyre (Deputy Chair): Just as a follow-up, did they rotate partners? Now that I know that the same firm is looking after all health authorities, are you confident that they're rotating partners and maintaining some fresh look at what's going on there?

R. Jones: Yes. On all of the health authorities they have different partners that are involved and from different offices. So in Vancouver I think Vancouver Coastal and the provincial health authority have two separate partners from the downtown KPMG office. Archie Johnston, who's from the New Westminster office, is in charge of the Fraser Health Authority.

Yeah, they have different partners. They do discuss issues. Yes, we're quite confident in what they're doing.

J. McIntyre (Deputy Chair): Which leads me, actually, to my second question. It's just the issue that you raise of when you have to come back to us each year to ask for that extension on the five-year terms. I appreciate the rationale you've included for the 15 organizations that you'd like to continue those relationships with, and I appreciate that at the end of your presentations you've identified it as a going-forward issue.

Is there something you need from this committee? How are you going to deal with it? You've identified it

J. Doyle: The five-year rule was probably a very good idea at the time, and it was in line with expectations of the profession at the time. But I would suggest that the legislative Auditor is actually quite different. I'm not sure that I'm aware of any other jurisdiction where they have those rules in quite the same way.

Usually the Auditor General is the auditor of record for everything and then elects either to bring a contractor in to conduct the work…. The contractor could either sign or not sign the opinion, depending on the way that the Auditor General wished to operate. For example, in jurisdictions in Australia all the audit work, the opinion, is signed by the Auditor General. That doesn't mean to say there's anything wrong with what's happening here. It's fine, because we're adopting enough of a presence to see what is happening.

But this five-year rule is, I think, something that was firmly rejected by the profession. It got into the legislation, and it's probably time it was, I suppose, removed. That would be my view. I'm not suggesting legislation, but I would like to suggest that it is an impediment. All it means at the moment is that we come here and ask for permission to continue to be the auditor, and I don't have a problem with that, but I would say that the actual process itself….

As I say, it was a good idea at the time, but I'm not sure that it has the same validity anymore, given the nature and the independence of the office and how it's constructed, which is actually quite different from the way that an independent auditor would usually operate.

H. Bains: You're using two different forms of auditing. One is direct; another one is using a private sector contract to do some auditing. My question would be: what are the fee implications, first of all, to those entities that are being audited? The second one would be: what are the financial implications on your office using one form or the other?

B. Gilhooly: Thank you for your question, Member. In general, for every entity that is not audited by our office, where one of our contractors is not being used, we expect that the governing board would do a competitive process to select their auditor, generally for a multi-year term, so that we ensure that there's good value for money in terms of the audit services provided.

Where we use a contract auditor, our practice in the past has been to also use a competitive process to select that firm. Then our involvement is to manage the audit. There'd be perhaps a 5-percent or 10-percent lift over and above that for our services that are to the board as well as to legislators. If issues come up in those relationships, it gives us some intelligence on the ground that we can use to find out if it's a problem also in similar organizations, if they're like-type entities. Or at the summary level we can take that back and have discussions with the comptroller general, if needed, about a looming or potential accounting issue.

R. Fleming (Chair): Okay. I don't have anyone else on the speakers list, Members, so I would ask that the recommendations on page 2, recommendations 1 through 4, be moved.

R. Fleming (Chair): We will move to the next item on the agenda. I know there will be a presentation, to begin that, on the child and youth mental health plan.

Members, I'll ask the Auditor General to introduce this section. With us we have Morris Sydor from the Office of the Auditor General and Wayne Schmitz, who is a member of the audit team. Welcome this morning. There'll be a short presentation and then, as per our usual practice, we'll have a presentation from the team here from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Then we will have questions for any of the witnesses.

Auditor General Report:
The Child and Youth Mental Health Plan:
A Promising Start to Meeting an Urgent Need

J. Doyle: Chair, Deputy Chair and Members, we will now move on to our June 2007 report on the child and youth mental health plan. Although this report was actually issued by Mr. Errol Price when he was acting Auditor General, I was in close contact with Errol prior to the report's release. With me today are Morris Sydor, the assistant Auditor General and, behind the laptop, Wayne Schmitz, the project director. As was said, Pam Carroll, who is the other member of the team, is in the gallery.

Research suggests that 15 percent of our children and youth — one in seven — have a mental disorder serious enough to cause them and their families significant distress. Such disorders can impair the development of these children and their ability to function at home, at school and in the community.

In 1999 the Ministry of Children and Family Development, supported by the Ministry of Health Services, embarked on a children's mental health planning process. The ministries found that the child and youth mental health system in British Columbia was in need of a major overhaul. This planning process resulted in the province's first child and youth mental health plan. It was published in February 2003, and it set out to improve the mental health outcomes of children and youth. The plan covered a five-year period from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2008, so it is nearing its completion.

We conducted this audit to assess the adequacy of the ministries' work to develop the plan and then to implement it. As the report title suggests, we see this as a promising start, but significant work remains to be completed, and we provide 11 recommendations in our report.

I'll now ask Morris and Wayne to go through a more detailed explanation of what we did, what we found and what we concluded.

M. Sydor: Good morning, committee members. I'll start this presentation with a few definitions. In the child and youth mental health plan, "child" refers to those under the age of 13, and "youth" refers to those under the age of 19. In our report "mental health" refers to how people think, feel and act as they face life situations. It affects how people handle stress, relate to one another and make decisions.

Why should you care about this government service in this audit? Well, as we've just indicated, research suggests that 15 percent of children and youth in British Columbia have a mental health disorder serious enough to cause them and their family significant distress. Most agree that, if left untreated, mental disorders can be very costly to families, communities and the health care system. Yet it's generally acknowledged that the system has for a long time needed improvement.

Afflicted children, youth and their families have historically experienced long waits, a poor continuum of services and a variation in service across British Columbia. In 1999 the Ministry of Children and Family Development, supported by the Ministry of Health Services, embarked on a children's mental health consultation and planning process. From that work came the province's first plan for improving the mental health outcomes of children and youth, and that plan was released publicly in February 2003. The five-year implementation period for the plan is from April 2003 to March 2008.

The purpose of our audit was to assess the adequacy of the plan and how well it is being implemented. Specifically, we sought answers to four questions. First, is this an adequate plan for improving the mental health outcomes of children and youth? Second, is the ministry choosing appropriate key initiatives to implement the plan? Third, is the ministry adequately implementing its key initiatives? Finally, is the ministry providing adequate accountability information about the plan's implementation?

We carried out the fieldwork between September and November of 2006. Our work focused on the processes used by the ministry to develop and implement the plan. We were assessing whether they were putting into place the things needed to be successful. We weren't able to look at the plan's outcomes, since the plan is not fully implemented until March 2008. As such, key parts of the plan, including critical information systems, are still being implemented.

Overall, we concluded that the ministry has developed an adequate plan, that the ministry has chosen appropriate initiatives to implement the plan and that it is adequately putting them into effect. We believe that the building blocks have been put in place to improve mental health outcomes. However, as our report title suggests, the plan is a promising start. All the system's challenges have not yet been resolved, and there is still much work to be done.

One gap we noted is the ministry's lack of adequate reporting on the plan's implementation and a satisfactory framework for evaluating the extent to which outcomes are being improved as a result of the plan's initiatives. We also think that there is a need to address issues related to the ministry organizational changes that were underway when we released the report.

Just some background information. The main parts of the child and youth mental health system include the ministry's community-based offices, which are located throughout the province. These are regionalized services, and they include both direct treatments as well as targeted community services. Targeted community services support other service providers, such as school counsellors and family physicians, who may be working directly with individuals not registered in the ministry's mental health system. Examples of targeted service include health consultation, community service coordination, education and health promotion.

Other parts of the ministry involved in the child and youth mental health system include Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre, youth forensic psychiatric services, child protection, early childhood development and special needs. The balance of the system includes a variety of community partners such as adult mental health, addiction services, schools, hospitals, general practitioners, psychiatrists and the numerous community agencies involved in this service. This is a very complex system with numerous parts. On page 14 we've provided a graphic that shows the complexity of these relationships.

To improve the system, the plan identifies the following goals: more timely and effective treatments and support services; programs to reduce the risk of developing mental health disorders and to mitigate their effects; new efforts to improve the capacities of families and communities to prevent or overcome the harmful impact of mental disorders; and better systems to coordinate services, monitor outcomes and ensure public accountability for policies and programs.

When the ministry began phase 2 of the child and youth mental health plan in fiscal 2005-06, the base budget was $37 million. The government has added $48 million to the program since phase 2 began, bringing total funding to $85.4 million for fiscal 2007-2008. This is a significant increase. It adds up to 130 percent for this program since the beginning of phase 2. Also significant is that this increase took place when other programs were not receiving increases. Still, in terms of the ministry's overall budget, this program is fairly small.

Turning to audit question 1, we concluded that the ministry has developed an adequate plan for improving mental health outcomes. The plan was created through

an extensive stakeholder consultation process. Over 700 questionnaires were completed. In addition, focus groups and interviews were used to identify ways to improve the service.

A knowledgable external advisory group was established by government to oversee the plan's development. Resource requirements were adequately considered and to date have been fully met by government. The plan is consistent with the strategic direction of both the government and the ministry, and it continues to have the support of key stakeholders.

While the plan adequately describes the mental health disorders treated under the program, clinician understanding of the ministry's policy on treating patients with both a mental disorder and a developmental or learning disorder varies. The risk to children in these circumstances is that they might not receive the services they need consistently across the province. Our audit recommends that the ministry ensure that ministry clinical staff clearly understand the ministry's policy to ensure a consistent approach.

Audit question 2 looked at the initiatives chosen by the ministry to improve the system. Major initiatives to improve treatment and support included adding about 300 new clinicians and making evidence-based treatment practices the standard for its services.

Major initiatives to reduce the risk of developing a mental disorder include delivering the Friends early intervention program to all children in grades 4 and 5 throughout British Columbia; developing a series of four mental health documentaries to be periodically broadcast by the Knowledge Network; developing an interactive self-help tool available on its website to assist individuals who think they may be experiencing a mental disorder; and providing resource lists of recommended books and websites on mood, anxiety and behaviour to physicians and clinicians for distribution to service consumers.

Examples of initiatives to build community capacity include creating new aboriginal mental health positions, establishing a 1-800 line for affected individuals and their families, and translating educational services into a variety of languages. Finally, initiatives to improve information include a new intake screening system and a new case management system.

We concluded that the ministry has ensured that the initiatives it has chosen are consistent with the goals and objectives articulated in the plan and are appropriately supported by cost-benefit considerations, research and key stakeholder views.

One area needing improvement is intersectoral collaboration. The ministry has initiated a child and youth mental health network with representatives from the health authorities, school districts, ministry regions and advocacy groups, bringing the players together at the same table to facilitate inter-sector coordination and problem-solving. We found that the meetings had become focused on information-sharing, though, rather than problem-solving.

We also identified the need for more collaboration to be done with physicians. Most children with a problem see their family physician first, so the doctor plays a key role in the services they are referred to. In our report we recommend that the ministry develop a clear strategy to bring about meaningful intersectoral collaboration, particularly with physicians.

As for our third audit question, we concluded that the ministry is adequately implementing its key initiatives, although there are some areas for improvement. We found that approved provincial and regional plans are in effect to guide implementation of key initiatives. Also, the regional planning guides and the provincial office review and approval of regional plans are tools used to help ensure a consistent approach across the province.

In addition, the addition of regional transition managers in each region, monthly status reports and a hands-on approach by those coordinating the plan's implementation helped monitor the progress being made to implement the initiatives. Still, some improvements can be made to improve the implementation of initiatives.

Again, in our report we recommend that the ministry ensure that all clinicians receive core, evidence-based practices training; that clinical supervisors consistently review staff application of the concepts; that evidence-based practice parameters be integrated into services; and that the ministry develop school-based Friends champions in underrepresented regions, develop strategies to mitigate key risks, establish mechanisms to monitor penetration of the program throughout the province and take steps to increase staff acceptance of the brief child and family phone interview, a clinical screening intake tool.

For our final question we concluded that the ministry has not been providing adequate accountability about the plan's implementation. The audit found that a September 2006 Treasury Board report provided a good overview of the activities, but this was not made public. Now, the ministry does anticipate having an accountability framework, which will include targets and measures focused on outcomes.

We recommend that the ministry develop an accountability framework to ultimately report on the outcomes achieved and provide regular information to the Legislative Assembly and the public on its progress in implementing the plan.

Partway through our audit we noted that the ministry was discussing organizational changes, and this seriously concerned many stakeholders. They worried about the effect that restructuring could have on the final year of the plan's five-year implementation.

We recommended that the ministry ensure that adequate accountability measures continue to exist between the regional operations and the provincial office so that plan objectives remain in focus, that there continues to be strong ministry leadership for child and youth mental health services, that stakeholder concerns about the changes are addressed, and that work begins to formulate new strategies to build on the accomplishments achieved under the first child and youth mental health plan.

Good morning, Mark. With you today is Sandy Wiens, who's the director of child and youth mental health policy, I believe. Welcome, Sandy, as well.

M. Sieben: Thank you to the committee for your time. Our appreciation to the Auditor General for the report and presentation today, which was a fairly complete summary of progress to date under MCFD's five-year child and youth mental health plan.

I wanted to make a point of noting somebody who isn't here today — Jayne Barker, who has been the longtime executive director for child and youth mental health in our ministry. As the Auditor General has noted, while our plan was formulated, monitored and implemented as a series of robust consultations with external experts, advocacy groups and stakeholders, Jayne as a public servant was the backbone for the plan. She's currently on educational leave, completing her PhD, but I wanted to make a point of noting and appreciating her strong role in this.

MCFD is very much pleased with the progress to date on our five-year plan. As was noted in the Auditor General's report, it was informed by broad-based consultation with external experts, community agencies and relevant ministries. Things have moved from consultation to planning, to policy, to implementation and, finally, to service delivery. That is somewhat of a rarity sometimes, so we wanted to make a point of noting that things are better now than they were before.

Service enhancements have been made in all regions by developing a basic level and range of core services in every region, including clinical consultation, mental health consultation, community-based assessments, counselling and therapy services, home-based and outreach services, family development services, day treatment, crisis intervention and stabilization.

Services are available through MCFD offices themselves, through community partners and, as was noted by the assistant Auditor General, through the school-based Friends program, which is a well-received cutting-edge program targeted at lessening the anxieties amongst young people. However, as appropriately noted in the title of the Auditor General's report, this is a promising start. This isn't the conclusion of work, and there is much good work to be done yet.

Consistent with the recommendations in the Auditor General report, MCFD is now reflecting back on its progress to date — what helped shape our plan, the component parts that have developed as a result of the consultation and our experience to date in looking for issues, either from an implementation point of view or the remaining needs for services. A review of the plan is in progress or is about to be started now, and we hope it will be complete by early springtime.

Through that, we'll be informing our next-steps in terms of continuing to improve the child and youth mental health service network that is based in MCFD but that also relies on strong cooperation and collaboration amongst our ministry partners and service agencies.

Likely featuring prominently in these next-steps is continued attention to needs for enhanced child and youth mental health services in first nations and aboriginal communities. While the initial five-year plan specifically targeted roughly 13 percent to 15 percent of the overall funding to the aboriginal need in these communities, it continues to be an area that we'll hear more about and will need to address.

We'll also be looking at enhancing suicide prevention. Further work on dual diagnosis is noted in the Auditor General's recommendations and also continuing our work on developing a more cogent set of measurable outcomes to assist us, as well as those that we work with, relating to how best to measure our effectiveness and our success in providing services to a very vulnerable target group.

With those opening remarks made, I'll turn things over to Sandy Wiens, our director for child and youth mental health policy, to lead us through a short slide stack relating to the MCFD's response to date to the Auditor General's recommendations.

S. Wiens: I'm just going to move through these fairly quickly, in the interests of time.

The first recommendation was in relation to improving our capacity to provide services to children and youth who have dual-diagnosis difficulties. One of the steps we have taken is to develop some curriculum for child and youth mental health staff, which was based on recommendations from our expert table. The curriculum is nearing completion, and the training will be delivered in the spring of 2008.

The next recommendation related to organizational changes and questions about accountability mechanisms. Currently the ministry is developing a new quality assurance framework that will specifically include outcomes related to children and youth who are receiving mental health services.

In terms of leadership for child and youth mental health within the ministry, this continues to be identified as a priority. At a regional or community level we have hired additional child and youth mental health team leaders, and there continues to be strong leadership at an executive level, both regionally and provincially.

Other issues related to the MCFD reorganization. We will be continuing to hold meetings with the child and youth mental health network and the External Advisory Committee for Child and Youth Mental Health. The network particularly provides an important forum for intersectoral collaboration.

As Mark mentioned, we'll also be embarking on a review of the current child and youth mental health services and looking at what we've accomplished to date, what the remaining gaps in service are and the next-steps. That will include a community consultation process.

We will also be developing additional strategies through the transformation within the ministry itself and integration across program areas.

One of the areas we need to do some additional work on is in relation to collaboration with physicians. To date we have done some specific things, such as dissemination of self-help resources through the College of Family Physicians. We have included physicians as experts on our expert advisory tables. Their input has been invaluable.

We have also included physicians in some of our training initiatives. They're involved in training. For example, they will be involved in the dual-diagnosis training, and they have been involved in the training around early psychosis.

We'll also be and are in conversations with the Ministry of Health about ways that we can collaborate more effectively in relation to physician practice and primary health care opportunities.

Recommendation 4 relates to approaches to improve the implementation of the plan. Evidence-based training and practice was mentioned. We have identified core evidence-based trainings for all child and youth mental health clinicians. To date all clinicians have received at least one evidence-based training, and over two-thirds have received two or more evidence-based trainings.

All of our clinical supervisors have participated in clinical supervision training, which is an important initiative to support their ability to oversee the application of the evidence-based training by the clinicians throughout the province. We have developed a training plan for this year, and we're in the process of formalizing a training plan for the next fiscal year.

I think I've covered this in terms of the training, but we are also, as was mentioned, implementing new electronic information systems. In the next fiscal year we'll be in a position to have a better sense of the actual application of those evidence-based interventions in terms of the impact and the frequency of the application.

Friends has been a very successful program, but we're continuing to build on that success. We're working to increase collaboration between child and youth mental health, community centres and schools. We're also expanding the use of the Friends program. It's being used in clinical settings as well as in the schools. It's being delivered in group formats as well as individual formats.

Some of the things that we're doing to mitigate some of the risks in relation to the successful implementation of the Friends program are covering the cost of the program materials, delivering some follow-up booster sessions in addition to the initial training and trying to work with the school districts to see what strategies have been successful in various school districts and sharing those across the province.

We've been working on establishing some formal mechanisms to monitor the actual success of the Friends program. Phase 1 of this has involved mapping out the levels of training and reviewing teacher training satisfaction, which was very positive.

The second phase that's underway includes holding focus groups and interviewing key stakeholders to look at how we can improve the work that's being done from their perspective and, obviously, to collect some additional data.

Recommendation 5 relates to improving accountability for the child and youth mental health plan. We are just completing reports for the public at present, and that will be released, I would expect, within the next several weeks. There's no plan at the current time to report to the Legislative Assembly.

One of the recommendations was to develop an accountability framework to evaluate outcomes, and we did provide a logic model at the time that the Auditor General reviewed the implementation of the child and youth mental health plan. We are working with Simon Fraser University currently on a monitoring project that will help us to look at some of the population-based information that relates to the health of children and youth in British Columbia.

Some of the areas of additional progress that I think Mark already mentioned are focusing on building community partnerships at the community level. We have developed new positions, such as shared positions between schools and child and youth mental health centres.

Some of those are focused on particular areas of clinical need, such as dual diagnosis or concurrent disorders and the development of aboriginal child and youth mental health plans in each of the regions. Three of the regions have implemented those plans, and two of the regions are in the final stages of development.

Suicide prevention is obviously an area of significant concern, particularly for aboriginal youth. We're working with our partners in MCFD and with other ministries and federal partners, as well, to improve strategies in that area.

J. Yap: Thank you for the presentations. I think whoever thought of the title for this report was spot-on.

My question is with regard to how the plan, the program, here in British Columbia compares to other jurisdictions in Canada. I couldn't find any direct comparison. I'm wondering if ministry or Office of Auditor General staff could comment on how we here in British Columbia compare to the rest of Canada.

M. Sieben: MCFD's child and youth mental health plan — given that it has been a five-year plan and that it was informed by a broad-based community consultation involving external experts and those that provide service and, to some extent, those that receive service — is the first of its kind in Canada. We're certainly proud of that.

Since the formation of the plan, we have consulted with many of our colleagues in other ministries. It's somewhat of a model about how best to formulate an area that requires focus and requires service. As I noted, moving from consultation to planning to policy to implementation and finally to service delivery — and, at a most meaningful level, getting services to

Other jurisdictions have developed child and youth mental health plans in the meantime, but they haven't been as long in terms of scope as well as years in planning and implementation.

R. Fleming (Chair): Any comments from the Auditor General? I know there were some findings…. There were some provincial comparisons in your report about per-capita spending, and B.C. has only begun to start to catch up to Alberta, Ontario and other jurisdictions.

W. Schmitz: I'll just add to Mark's comments. Just as Mark has commented, that was our understanding as we were doing the work. We did hear frequently as we carried out our interviews that the fact that the plan existed in B.C. was an attraction point for hiring new staff. They were quite excited that a jurisdiction had a plan like this. I'll just offer that as additional comment.

D. Thorne: I just wanted to make a comment and ask about recommendation 2, part C, about the MCFD reorganizational piece. I guess everybody in the room is aware that reorganization of this ministry has been going on for, well, more than several years and is definitely of huge concern to community agencies and the communities in all the different sections of MCFD. I worked for several of those agencies before I came to Victoria, so I know that the concerns have not diminished and that this is, from a community point of view, a big piece of this study and the recommendations.

I see that plans are to examine accomplishments, gaps in service, next-steps at the end of 2008. I'm assuming that is because of the time frame of the study — is it? Or is there some reason we're not starting to do this review until the end of 2008? That means we're looking out possibly three years before we have those kinds of recommendations. It seems like an awfully long time for a system that is in a bit of chaos because of reorganization. So just a comment.

M. Sieben: We appreciate the Auditor General's attention to the matter and the advice. It's a point noted by our collective leadership team — the ADMs and the regional executive directors who sit at our executive table at MCFD.

With that noted, there is clarity amongst our group relating to who is responsible for what, particularly in terms of service delivery in the regions and discussion and decision-making at our broader leadership table.

In response specifically to the question about the timing of the review, during the course of the implementation over the last few years, we have remained in contact with the external groups and MCFD staff and community agencies that have been part of our ongoing implementation. It's just that, as was noted by the Auditor General, the plan started in 2003, and it ends in March of 2008. So we can't really formally begin to review it until it's close to completion, which is now.

However, as Sandy noted and myself in the introduction, we've already identified areas where we believe there is more work to be done. We expect that we'll be able to articulate a more complete briefing of what that work looks like and how best to approach it once we can finally lay to rest the current plan.

D. Thorne: So you would anticipate that some of these new strategies and extra meetings that you refer to in your slide presentation would start occurring even before the end of 2008?

M. Sieben: We've recently agreed on a structure and co-leads for the review — one of whom is Sandy; another is Barry Fulton, one of our senior, regionally based child and youth mental health managers — who will facilitate the review of the plan's implementation, the progress to date and where we might go next.

D. Thorne: Okay. Well, I look forward to seeing how that goes next year. Thanks.

H. Bains: I'm actually at the appendices here — appendix D. This report was put together in June 2007. I'm looking, under the Fraser region, at regional risk reduction activities. One of the comments here is that the hiring of aboriginal outreach workers has begun. We're talking about June 2007. When I look at all the other regions — Vancouver Island or other areas — it seems to me there are well-established offices to deal with that particular community. Why is it you felt this region was left behind up until now and felt that there was no need for such activity to take place in this region compared to other regions?

I have a second question. Since there are different challenges in different communities — and that's why there is a different office established for the aboriginal community — don't you feel there is a need for other immigrant communities that also probably feel different challenges to deal with the risk reduction in that particular area?

S. Wiens: In answer to your first question, the planning and consultation processes in relation to the development of aboriginal child and youth mental health services actually started with all of the regions at the same time. Some of the regions were able to move forward more quickly. Really, we tried to be respectful of the wishes of the aboriginal communities, so for some regions that process took longer than others. There hasn't always been agreement between the different groupings of aboriginal people in any given region, and sometimes that has impacted the process.

We had formed a provincial planning table that involved aboriginal representatives and general child and youth mental health managers from each region. That table sort of led the process of planning in the early stages, so all of the regions were involved in that process.

H. Bains: But something just comes out of that. You said you needed cooperation from the aboriginal community. Obviously, that need is there, no matter which region we're talking about. For some of them we're already talking about strengthening that program. Others we're talking about…. They're already in a program to deal with certain numbers of children and youth in that region. I still don't get the satisfaction of saying that somehow this region didn't get on with the program as did all the others.

M. Sieben: We'd be happy to inquire further, specifically with the region, as to what exactly its experience has been. My experience is that initiating and implementing any agenda on the first nations aboriginal side means, to a certain extent, that you necessarily need to park your project management framework over to the curb and listen to the community and basically go as fast as they do. You make offers and investments in capacity, and you move as the community is able to move.

I'd frame our response generally in terms of that's likely to have some bearing. But we can inquire specifically with the region and find out what the time frame and the barriers and the implementation strategy have been in this case.

H. Bains: Okay. From my understanding, when did all of the other regions, including Fraser region, start to put together? When was that actually started?

H. Bains: Okay. In two years we still aren't there yet in the Fraser region?

S. Wiens: In the Fraser? The Fraser region is actually quite well along in their process.

H. Bains: No staff; you just started to hire. Hiring had just begun in June of 2007.

M. Sieben: That's fairly significant, then. It's consistent with our rollout of the child and youth mental health plan. As Sandy notes, in fact, where we do have some increasing work to do is in a couple of other regions where we haven't seen that success to date, where we haven't been able to formulate and implement an aboriginal child and youth mental health approach as strongly as we would like.

While we take the committee member's point that between 2005 and 2007 is a good deal of time, we're pleased to see those hirings occurring there now. We're building on that in order to increase our capacity in other regions.

S. Wiens: Throughout the process of planning, even in the regions that haven't formally implemented their full plan, there have been some outreach positions developed and training offered to aboriginal service providers and those sorts of things. We're trying to do what we can, even in those regions that aren't quite ready to fully implement their formal plan.

H. Bains: My second question is about immigrant communities and any particular programs for them.

S. Wiens: Some of the regions have developed some targeted services and particular positions to address some of the needs of other cultural groups. We have translated some of the material to support people whose first language is not English.

We are beginning to work in that area, but there's a great deal of additional work that needs to be done. I expect that that's one of the things that will be evident in our next consultation about the plan.

B. Ralston: The instance of youth mental disorder that I encounter in my constituency office — and I know there's some public debate around this in other regions — is the effect of early childhood sexual abuse and the requirement for counselling and therapy resulting from that.

I've been told that there are lengthy waiting lists for that kind of assistance, particularly for youth. I'm wondering where that sits in this plan. What are the steps that you can point to in this plan that will deal with that?

S. Wiens: In the consultation process that was conducted in the development of this plan, issues specific to the needs of children and youth who've experienced sexual abuse were not raised. It wasn't identified as a priority at that time.

We did do a review of the sexual abuse intervention program in 2006, and we're currently acting on the recommendations of that review. Many of the community mental health offices provide services to children and youth who've experienced sexual abuse. It's not limited to those specialized services. We are currently actively working on improving services in that area.

R. Hawes: Just to go back for a second to the question Harry Bains asked, particularly with the Fraser region…. I'm fairly familiar with some of the struggles, I guess, that the Stó:lô within the Fraser Valley have had. I'm assuming what you're saying is that a part of the problem that you've had getting the Fraser going as quickly as some areas could be related to some of the leadership issues.

The first nations within the Stó:lô and the Fraser Valley are having their own struggles. I'm assuming that that's part of what has slowed this down. I understand that's now slowly being resolved within the aboriginal communities. Is that now allowing you to move ahead much more quickly in the Fraser Valley?

M. Sieben: The circumstances specifically with Stó:lô and Xyolhemeylh are based around the Child, Family and Community Service Act, child welfare.

Child and youth mental health necessarily has relevance and linkages there. However, it isn't squarely in the grips of the debate between the different sides — who, thankfully, look like they are slowly coming together in order to put clarity into how child welfare services can continue to be delivered at a high level to Stó:lô families.

With that said, I'd be speculating to a certain degree about exactly what the implications are. Les Boon, who is the regional executive director in the north, was to have joined us today in order to speak to the implementation issues. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to make it. With that said, we'd be happy to inquire with him, Mr. Hawes, and get back to you specifically about status in the Fraser.

R. Hawes: The only comment I'd make to that is that I've known Les Boon for quite a number of years, and I have absolute confidence in his ability to bring together the plan in the Fraser. I think it's in the right hands.

J. McIntyre (Deputy Chair): I guess my question is to the auditors involved, because it's been a year since the audit finished. It looks like the fall of '06. Not to put you too much on the spot here, I'm interested in response from the ministry in terms of the progress they've made in addressing some of your recommendations. It seems that they're near to completion on the plan.

Obviously, it is a very promising start, and as has been said today, it is a leader in Canada. I guess I'm interested in your response, in a way, to what you've heard today and the progress that's been made since the audit.

M. Sydor: Well, certainly the ministry has indicated that they have acted on the recommendations, and we're pleased to see that. We haven't been in to see the extent to which acting on our recommendations has helped move the program along. But based on what I've heard this morning, I'm pleased to see that there is going to be a review carried out and that in fact we're going to try to understand better what the outcomes have been.

I think there's a sense, from the response, that the ministry is taking the recommendations to heart and trying to see how we can move forward in a stronger and broader way. I mean, there are a number of areas that we've identified where improvements should be considered. It seems like the ministry is considering those.

As you know, our history is that we tend to address these audits sometime in the future by way of a follow-up. At some point in the future we'll probably be seeking a more current update from the ministry to see how much further along they've moved with implementing the recommendations.

J. McIntyre (Deputy Chair): Maybe just as a follow-up to that, I noticed one of the things you mentioned was that there wasn't a plan for the report to the Legislative Assembly. I was sort of curious about that, because first of all, the ministry reports through their service plan and annual report and, of course, through the estimates process directly, when questions are asked of the ministry. Then, lastly, in a way they report through Public Accounts to the Legislative Assembly.

I see that there's a report being planned for the public and for stakeholders. I wasn't sure why you identified that.

M. Sydor: I think we identified that because, as was indicated, this is a fairly innovative plan. There was a lot of participation involved by a number of stakeholders and ministry representatives. There was a major initiative of government to launch this, and it has been funded fully. So there was an expectation on our part that there would be progress identified along the way, to the Legislative Assembly, as to what is actually being implemented and the degree to which the expected achievements are being obtained — you know, to the degree that the information systems can provide that.

You're right that there are a number of avenues of accountability, but it's a fairly major ministry. I think that in terms of annual reporting and such, a program such as this probably doesn't get the sort of attention that it would in this particular circumstance. I think that's one of the areas that we were looking at.

If you look at the ministry's annual plan, you probably won't see that there's enough information in there to tell you about how well this program is running, what it's achieving and what its future looks like. That's the sort of thing that we thought legislators should be getting on this particular program.

There's always a balance, obviously. When you put in the results at the ministry level, we do indicate that it shouldn't be a fairly detailed report, but we thought that this particular initiative was fairly significant and that legislators would want to get some assessment as to how well it's performing.

J. McIntyre (Deputy Chair): Could it be remedied, though, maybe by expanding in the annual report or something like that?

M. Sydor: It could be that, or it could be…. As we'd indicated, there was a report prepared for Treasury Board, so there are a number of reporting venues, I guess, that the ministry could consider separate from the annual report. It could be broadened in the annual report. Whether the ministry wants to go in that direction is up to the minister.

As well, it could issue a separate report just on this program. The five-year term is coming up. That would be a good opportunity to say: "Here's where we wanted to go, and here's where we've gotten to. Here's where we're going to go over the next five years." I think there is an opportunity coming up to provide good information to legislators. The timing is just about right.

M. Sieben: I would note that MCFD has taken as the point the need to ensure that there is appropriate clarity on what has been done over the course of the planning and implementation of the five-year mental

Since the audit was done, since the review was done, of course the Representative for Children and Youth and the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth have been established. We would note from personal experience that the representative is very much interested in services to children and families through the CYMH program area.

We anticipate that that is likely to be a topic that is on the radar of the select standing committee as well.

J. McIntyre (Deputy Chair): That seems very positive — an all-round positive development. Thank you.

R. Fleming (Chair): Just on the Deputy Chair's point, I wonder if the assistant Auditor General could suggest what might be different in a follow-up audit on this topic. The caveat at the beginning of this report was that it's five months from its completion. So it's looking at the assumptions and how the report has been drafted and whether it said the right things in terms of its alignment with all the different regions. In terms of looking at outcomes, is that something that would feature in a follow-up report?

M. Sydor: Our follow-ups are based on the recommendations that we make in the report. Obviously, where we do indicate that the ministry needs to evaluate what outcomes have been achieved and identify improvements to the program, we would expect the ministry to identify the degree to which it has acted on those particular recommendations.

I think, moving forward, we would expect to see some sort of information addressing the degree to which it has been able to identify the outcomes and what those actually are.

M. Sydor: I think the issue of follow-ups is actually on the next agenda for the Public Accounts Committee. As you recall, we were in the process of making some adjustments to the follow-up process, and we wanted to discuss those with the committee. At this stage, I think we're kind of in a middle ground between what we used to do and where we want to move to.

We do have it in our workplan that there will be a follow-up. The question is what nature it takes. I think at the next meeting there will be an opportunity to look at that and provide us with some guidance. We're going to provide you with our suggestions, and we would like to hear your responses.

I. Black: I had a question. I want to pick up on one of Mr. Sydor's remarks. You talked about this being a fully funded program. Indeed, by my math, the budget this year is up about $17 million over last year to the tune of about $85 million, which is more than twice what it was three years ago.

In that environment you have gone out and hired 300 new mental health positions, including 50 from our aboriginal community. I want to ask you: in the context of a very supply-restrained hiring environment, where are you at on that? Could you give us a little more commentary? Do you have more people to hire? How are you finding the recruitment of these people? Are you getting the necessary professionals that we need to get the job done?

S. Wiens: We have found, as we've progressed through the recruitment process, that it has become more difficult over time.

S. Wiens: We've been recruiting internationally for some of the staff that we have recently hired.

Most of the positions, however, have been filled. The positions that are not currently filled are in some of the rural areas that have historically been difficult to recruit to. So I think we've actually done quite well considering the climate at the moment in the workforce.

G. Gentner: I just have two questions. One is to the ministry, and I have another separate question to the Auditor General.

One of the recommendations from the Auditor General was to improve reporting to the Legislative Assembly, yet we're seeing a summary report for external stakeholders — the public — that won't be released until November 30. That's the day after this session is completed.

Why is there such a time line here? Why could it not have been provided to the Legislature while we're sitting and/or also be provided here at Public Accounts, where we don't really have an opportunity that often to talk to the ministry?

M. Sieben: If anything, the November 30 date…. I almost cringed when I saw it there. It's likely a touch ambitious. Where I live and for this type of product a legislative sitting isn't a factor as to when a report is completed or released. There's always a legislative sitting. If it isn't this one, then it's the next one.

The bigger focus in this is where we are at and what we might say as far as moving forward and completing the goals of the plan. As we get closer to March 2008, we're closer to the completion of the plan and what we might be able to say.

G. Gentner: So time frame completions are not really derived by the need of the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, I'd ask the question: when are we expected to see this report, if it's not ready by November 30?

S. Wiens: Our goal was to actually have it ready for this committee, but due to workload issues, that wasn't possible. We are going to do our best to complete the report, which includes input from all of the regions, within the next few weeks.

M. Sieben: See, I haven't seen a draft of the report yet myself. Given that's the case — and I expect that I'd be asked to sign off on it — I'd see the November 30 date as ambitious.

G. Gentner: I guess I'll let that one lie where it may. Probably, we'll see it a week before Christmas.

To the Auditor General, very briefly. I'm concerned. The general approach here…. I have to refer more or less to my experiences with this subject in my constituency. I was hopeful that we would see…. I don't see it as a mandate, per se, so it may be getting to generalities.

It's the holistic approach we have here. We have this magic age, 13 to 19, and then poof, everything seems to evaporate. What happens? We're here to measure improving child and youth mental health outcomes. Well, the outcome is when you go to the next stage. How do we define whether or not we have been successful?

We seem to compartmentalize everything we do in our lives. What is the magic number? How do you define childhood? Is it a certain age? It's more or less someone who is still dependent. Someone who is a youth is someone still managing the concept of independence. Then the magic age comes, 19, and people are out in the street, not knowing what they're going to do.

How you measure success really is how you prepare people for the next stage. I'm wondering, on that coordinated approach, if the Auditor General can explain to us if there is an ability to put that in future reports.

M. Sydor: I'm struggling with the concern that you have. Those ages are the ones set within the ministry in terms of defining the program structures — what services will be provided to what particular groups.

I mean, it's both of those groups that the ministry serves, so from a holistic approach, the ministry's responsibility is to serve children and youth up to that particular age. Those are the services that are designed, and that's the group that the mental health plan that was developed covers.

G. Gentner: Okay, then. Let me do a quick supplemental. What type of transitioning does this ministry do to prepare people to go into the next stage?

M. Sydor: I think that's probably a question that the ministry can address better than us.

S. Wiens: This is an area of concern that's been identified by us and by the Ministry of Health. Through the child and youth mental health network committee we have developed some protocols to support improved transition for youth from child and youth mental health services to adult services. There is still a great deal of effort that's required to successfully implement those changes, but it is a priority area for us that is under discussion currently.

J. Doyle: If I understand your question correctly, it's about what the continuity of care that we have for our youth as they progress into adulthood is. This particular report was focused on one part of that continuity and on another part. It would be my intention over time to look at a broad array of different reviews and investigations and audits that we can conduct. Over time I'll be able to give you the answer to your question.

When I first read this report, that was in fact one of the first questions I asked. What happens to youth after they get to a certain age? It's a bit like the story of children in hospital and what happens when they get above 19. Do they go back to the same hospital which they know, or do they go to an adult hospital where it's quite different?

It's important for society to make sure there are no gaps, but this office at this stage has not conducted any work to see where the gaps exist. However, by implication of having conducted this work, we would expect professionals in the field to be looking at this area and to be able to provide us with assurances when we do go and look at that particular area of how society looks after its own.

R. Sultan: I think the reports we've received this morning are both very encouraging but also very dismaying. They're very encouraging because I think that, by any standard, the response of the government to this situation has been aggressive, ambitious and even bold. It is a strategy described as being a leader in Canada.

In the five years of the strategy's existence, resources have doubled. They are up 20 percent in dollar terms in the last year alone. The number of children and youth being dealt with in terms of mental health problems has gone up by a factor of two in the last couple of years. I don't think anybody could argue that this is not an ambitious response to a problem.

What is dismaying about it is the scale of the problem. I find it astonishing. I have to really do some thinking about my own benchmarks when it is stated baldly that 15 percent of our children and youth have mental health problems. The litany of problems are, I guess, unquestionably difficult symptoms — anxiety disorder, bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, Tourette, attention deficit, hyperactivity, conduct disorder, depression, pervasive development disorder, schizophrenia, eating disorders.

Bruce talks about childhood sexual abuse, and I guess we could throw fetal alcohol syndrome into the mix somewhere, and that's only the beginning of the list. I mean, this is a dismaying list of things that can go wrong in the development of our children and youth. It leads me to ask: is this a change from the past, or has this always been the situation? Is it growing? There's a list in your report of various environmental factors, both social and toxic, that might be contributing to the problem. I guess we're to some degree in the dark on many of these questions.

But the overall situation is, to me, deeply disturbing in terms of the future of what this society is going to look like.

I guess my question is whether there is some point at which government programs themselves, as important and necessary and strategic as they are, cannot really be looked to as solving the problem. These are broader societal issues.

I don't think the Auditor General, with an accounting background, is necessarily the source of wisdom on this subject. But somebody — maybe it's up to the political leadership; maybe it's up to us — has to reflect on what's happening to our society to cause this to happen. Maybe the answers might be found in church on Sunday morning. I'm not sure, but there's some stuff going on here that all the best programs in the world, I predict, can't totally resolve.

At a practice level in the district offices — regardless of whether it's child welfare, child and youth mental health or children and youth with special needs — it is a challenging environment. I note the point the member makes regarding whether or not we're seeing an increase in mental health concerns or seeing an increase in people reporting or accessing services. Is it more of an awareness issue, or are we seeing a recurring phenomenon issue? That might be associated with a number of areas.

Our goal — my goal as ADM on the ministry's behalf — is to ensure that we have as much information as possible to reflect the vulnerabilities in our communities and to bring that information forward. I'd suggest, as the member does, that the rightful place to decide where that balance of providing services should be is in the Legislative Assembly and by government.

Our goal is to make sure that we are able to increase access to those that have need. We have some role — based on what we're seeing, the external advice we get from experts in the field and research that is done — to communicate that to government so that you might make decisions about how best to provide services to children and families.

Two strategies in the plan that maybe speak to your point are that they are taking a risk reduction approach, and the Friends program that's being delivered to grades 4 and 5 hopefully has a long-term impact to help those children avoid developing mental disorders. That's one approach.

The other part of the four pillars of the plan is capacity-building — trying to develop websites and information so that it's not all falling directly on government but it's out in the community so that the community itself can help.

R. Hawes: I just wanted to make a brief comment. I was a little bit troubled by the tenor of Mr. Gentner's questions regarding the timing of the public report. It was almost inferential that there might have been some political overtone to the date. I'm very satisfied with the answer that you've set an ambitious date and you're going to come forward as soon as possible.

What I did want to clarify, because Mr. Gentner did wonder why you weren't going to be presenting a report here…. The fact is that you don't report here except through the Auditor. You don't answer to this committee except through the Auditor.

If Mr. Gentner's question was, "When is the Auditor going to produce a further report?" that would have been a fair question. But I don't think it was a fair thing to ask you when you're going to report back to us, because it's pretty clear to me that you're not going to report back to us except through the Auditor.

R. Fleming (Chair): Your report will be to the public and all legislators at the same time. Is that correct?

M. Sieben: With that stated, through whatever process that is appropriate, if there is interest through the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth or otherwise for us to speak to issues for that particular report or others, then we'll be there.

J. Rustad: If it would be appropriate at this time, I'd move a motion to receive the Auditor General's report, recommendations and the response from the ministry.

R. Fleming (Chair): Receive and endorse the recommendations of the report and the response from the government. Is that your motion?

J. Rustad: I said to receive the Auditor General's report, recommendations and also the ministry's response.

R. Fleming (Chair): As long as the direction is clear that the committee is receiving the report and is providing an opinion on the recommendations so that the Auditor General and the ministry in future can ensure that those recommendations are being worked on, as they have assured us in the response, then I think what we've done this morning will have value. If it's vague, I don't think it will.

I want to make sure that there is an endorsement of the recommendations, because I didn't see any disagreement

with them from the ministry. If committee members have additional recommendations from their reading of the report, that's in order as a separate motion.

But I just want to be clear on what you're suggesting so I have it right. You want to receive the report, endorse the recommendations and the ministry's response to the recommendations.

J. Rustad: Well, that wasn't the motion that I moved, but I suppose if you're moving an amendment….

R. Fleming (Chair): I will. Or I will ask you if that would be friendly, because we don't want to get into a practice at this committee where we have zero opinion on the matters that are brought to our attention. We're an oversight committee.

J. Rustad: Chair, if I may, I think accepting the recommendations is appropriate. Receive the report, accept the recommendations and the response from the ministry.

R. Fleming (Chair): Thank you very much to our witnesses this morning for being here and presenting and answering questions from members. We look forward to the follow-up on this report, as well, in the near future.

R. Fleming (Chair): Members, looking at the time allocated on the agenda this morning, I would suggest that what we can do on the next item, number 5, report on infection control, is hear the presentations from the Auditor General and from the ministry. That's probably all the time we will have.

Members can hold their questions or even submit them in writing, and we can put this on the agenda for December 3. We've already had an agenda item from December 3 fall by the wayside because it's a follow-up report that is now dated, and there is a subsequent report that we'll deal with in more detail. So there is space on the agenda. If that's agreeable to members, we can use the remaining time we have allocated to at least begin on this item.

J. Rustad: I'm conscious of the time, and I understand that we want to be able to use our time effectively, but I also understand that to do the presentation and response to the ministry and then split out Q and A for two weeks later is a bit challenging, to say the least.

J. Rustad: I would rather, if we're going to do it, go through the whole process because questions and things may come up. If we don't have time, then if there were some other issue we could address in the agenda or just adjourn, that would be more appropriate, in my opinion.

R. Fleming (Chair): There are two options here, Members. One is to hear from the witnesses who have been waiting to present this morning and maybe begin some questions or adjourn the meeting and move the entire item to the next agenda.

J. McIntyre (Deputy Chair): Chair, if we interrupted, then it means, really, that all the witnesses have to travel to the next meeting anyway. So maybe it does make sense to postpone the whole thing, to be honest.

J. McIntyre (Deputy Chair): They have to travel anyway. Have we moved that item? So really, I don't think the agenda for December 3 would be overly full now, if we moved the whole thing. We could accommodate it in the hours we've set aside for December 3 — ten to two.

R. Fleming (Chair): I'm just seeking direction here, Members. Does the Deputy Chair's recommendation…?

R. Fleming (Chair): Maybe I'll just see a show of hands to see if that's….

I. Black: Another suggestion for the consideration of the committee. We've had these reports and whatnot. My suggestion is that if we can confine the PowerPoint slide decks to ten minutes each, that leaves us 20 minutes for questions.

R. Fleming (Chair): Well, that is about the average of each presentation, or at least that's what we instructed it to be.

I. Black: I was the first guy to say let's leave it to the next meeting. I'm quite happy doing that.

J. McIntyre (Deputy Chair): We've spent — actually, will someone tell us? — well over an hour, I'm sure, on The Child and Youth Mental Health Plan. This is a large report. But anyway, I don't know what others feel. I think if it's going to get split, it's not reasonable.

R. Fleming (Chair): Okay. I'll just test the room so that we can make a decision on our time here and not use any more of it for this. Those in favour of postponing the item to the December 3 agenda — and this will come with extreme apologies, if it should pass, to our witnesses who have been here patiently this morning…. Just a show of hands on that suggestion from the Deputy Chair.

J. Rustad: I just wanted to make a comment. I think something like this, if there is objection to doing that and if we want to try to rush through this report and not do it the service that it…. I mean, that's something we can do. We've got another 40 minutes if you want to rush through the report. We could do that, but otherwise….

R. Fleming (Chair): I think it's safe to say that the witnesses would be involved in both meetings, because this is a six-volume report and people will have questions about….

J. Rustad: Sorry, Chair. You misunderstood my comment. I think if we can get the whole thing done today, then we should try to do the whole thing today. If we feel that it would be too rushed, then I don't see the value in carrying it over to two because of the disconnect that can happen and the fact that the witnesses would have to travel to both meetings anyway.

If people want to try to get the whole thing done today, let's try to do the whole thing today. If not, let's put it off to the third. That's just my opinion.

R. Fleming (Chair): It's up to the committee to decide. I'm just seeking direction. The direction is to have this item at the December 3 hearing.

There are only really two ways to go here. I'll ask for all those in favour of that….

R. Fleming (Chair): Before we adjourn, unless there is any other business, I just wanted to thank…. Is Errol Price here?

R. Fleming (Chair): I just wanted to thank Errol Price for serving as the acting Auditor General for the province from June to the end of October. Errol did an incredible job for the people of B.C. and for us as our committee and was organizing conferences and other things as well during all that time, as well as issuing the Public Accounts for the province in July. It was a significant challenge that he stepped into, and he performed very well.

We're very thankful for that, Errol, and it's really a tribute to you and the 25 years of leadership that you've shown in the office that you rose to the occasion over the last several months in that position. Thanks very much, on behalf of all of us from the Public Accounts Committee.

I really appreciate it, Mr. Price. We've had a bumpy few years, and I think it was very professional of you to step in as you did and do a great job of, I guess in a sense, holding the fort. Thank you for that.

I actually didn't get an opportunity to also welcome the new Auditor General. You made those welcoming remarks at the beginning. I just wanted to add my voice to that as well.

I wanted to add, on behalf of our committee, a welcome to you. We look forward to an interesting few years as we move through public accounts. We look forward to your influence and the experience you bring from other jurisdictions to help us always improve.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

	Witnesses:
	Office of the Auditor General:
	• Morris Sydor, Assistant Auditor General, Performance Audit Portfolio
	• Wayne Schmitz, Director, Performance Audit Portfolio Ministry of Children and Family Development:
	• Mark Sieben, ADM Integrated Policy & Legislation Team
	• Sandy Wiens, Director Child and Youth Mental Health Policy

	Witnesses:
	Office of the Auditor General
	• Bill Gilhooly, Assistant Auditor General, Financial Audit
	• Russ Jones, Assistant Auditor General, Financial Audit

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS