The committee met at 8:04 a.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

M. Bernier (Chair): Good morning, everybody. Welcome, Monday, April 26. We are here with the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We’re really glad to have our Auditor General, Michael Pickup, and his team with us again today, as we’re going to be considering the performance audit coverage plan for ’21-22 and ’22-23.

Without further ado, because I don’t need to give much of a preamble to that, I will turn things straight over to Michael and his team for introductions and to present the report.

Thanks for being here again, Michael.

Office of the Auditor General

PERFORMANCE AUDIT COVERAGE PLAN

M. Pickup: Thank you so much.

[8:05 a.m.]

Before we get going, I want to acknowledge that I’m in Victoria on the traditional territory of the Songhees, Esquimalt and Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people. As a member of a Miawpukek First Nations Mi’kmaq band, it’s important that I keep that in mind as I consume the air, the land, the water and the resources around me. I try to respect and remember that each day as I walk forward.

Having said that, I am pleased to have with me today many folks who you’re getting used to and some who may be newer for you. Russ Jones, Deputy Auditor General, whom you all know, have known or are getting to know well by now. Malcolm Gaston, the assistant Auditor General responsible for all of the performance audits.

Laura Pierce, who is the director on the performance audit portfolio and really took a lead role in the performance audit coverage planning. When I arrived late last summer, into early fall, this was well underway. I got to know Laura and respect the great work she did on this — on bringing this together and leading this. It’s important that she’s here today to take all your difficult questions and to enjoy the celebration of the hard work that she has done in developing this plan.

Laura Hatt, who is one of the two executive directors in place leading the performance audit portfolio, reporting to Malcolm Gaston. And René Pelletier, who is the other half of the current team of executive directors — of the Laura and René show, if you will — in leading this performance audit portfolio. So that is who we have with us today.

I’m going to quickly turn it over to the team for a brief presentation. Just a couple of opening reminder comments. Happy to be here to talk about the audits that we have on the performance audit coverage plan. It’s a shorter plan than typically had been done in the past. We’ve reduced the number of years, recognizing that this was really done at a point in time, with the heavy lifting last summer into the fall — partially some pandemic things in there. But certainly some rethinking and some replanning will be done, as we move forward, to look at potential pandemic-related work. Some of it is already there.

I’m happy to really take some serious questions about why something might be on there and, likewise, why something may not be on there. If there’s something you want us to think about, as we move forward, we can use this as an opportunity for that as well.

Unlike the financial statement audit coverage plan, which legislation requires that the Public Accounts Committee approve, the performance audit coverage plan doesn’t have to be approved, of course, by the Public Accounts Committee. But we’re really happy that you’ve taken us up on the opportunity to discuss the plan, be­cause this really is that opportunity.

As we move forward…. If, at some point, you’re wondering, “Why did they do that audit? Why did they do that?” this is a chance for us to answer those questions for you, recognizing that some of these audits that we will reporting have been in the planning for a while. Audits take a certain amount of time. They can predate current events like the pandemic. But it’s a great opportunity to engage with the people we work for, to have some discussion around this.

Likewise, we have been doing things like meeting with caucus offices to engage in discussion, not necessarily so much on the plan that’s already in place but, going forward, what we may look at — potential areas to look at, things for us to consider. We are all ears for that. Next year’s plan will also be the first one that will consider any input we get from our external thought leaders, that external group of distinguished people from across the province. They will have a chance to input on next year’s plan as well — as well as any other outreach we do with interested parties or stakeholder groups, depending on the term you want to put around those groups.

That was a bit of a long intro, but I thought it was a cou­ple of points worth saying before I turn it over to the team to do some brief walk through of the actual performance audit coverage plan.

[8:10 a.m.]

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks, Michael. I know you will turn it over to your team here in a second. I also wanted to acknowledge…. I believe we have Carl Fischer, our comptroller general, with us today as well.

With that, maybe we’ll turn it over to your team, then, to run through the report, Michael.

L. Pierce: Okay, I’ll take that as my cue.

I’ll echo Michael’s sentiments. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to present this plan to you. It is the result of a significant undertaking within our office and, specifically, within our performance audit portfolio.

My audio, apparently, is coming in choppy. Is that for everyone?

M. Bernier (Chair): Yeah. I believe that that’s for everybody. We can hear you and understand you, but it is just a little fuzzy.

L. Pierce: Oh no. Okay, I will continue. If it gets much worse, I think I’ll pass it off to one of my colleagues. Just IM if it does get much worse and you’re unable to hear me.

I’m going to keep my presentation quite brief and just provide you with a bit of an overview, some background on the plan, how it’s developed and then cover some of the key points that are within it.

This, as you know, is the performance audit coverage plan. Distinct from financial audits, performance audits look at value for money. They seek to determine whether our government programs, services and resources are be­ing managed with due regard for economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

For many years, this plan was an internal document that we used to prioritize our work and schedule our staff, but we began sharing it publicly in 2015 as a means to be more transparent around the work we were planning to do and why. We’ve also found it to be an effective tool in terms of influencing change before we arrive at a program or a ministry. We just found that oftentimes areas would start focusing on program improvements before we began our work, which was great.

As Michael indicated, the plan we’re discussing today outlines the performance audits that we intend to start over the next two years, which is a shift from previous plans, where we covered three years’ worth of work. Obviously, the pandemic played a significant part in that decision, but we were also finding, historically, that we would show up, often, in audits that were towards the tail end of that three-year plan, and the environment had shifted so much that an audit was no longer relevant or timely and we had to adapt our plans. So we decided this year to shift the coverage from three to two years.

Our plan today contains 37 audits, 17 of which are in progress right now and 20 that we plan to start over the next two years. You can find the list of current audits on page 10 and the future audits on page 12. You’ll see that these audits span all sectors of government, and that’s intentional. Our objective when developing this plan is always to identify audit topics that cover a range of issues across the many sectors of government, while also considering our capacity. We aim to focus on areas of risk and significance that will be of interest to both the public and the Legislative Assembly.

To that end, you’ll see that several of our audits touch on key issues facing our province and those who live here. Over the next two years, we’ll be examining several programs for marginalized populations, such as substance use services, mental health and corrections and legal aid, as well as programs for Indigenous Peoples, including post-secondary Indigenous education, Indigenous representation in the K-to-12 teaching workforce, and Indigenous health. We’ll also look for opportunities to explore diver­sity and inclusion through our work.

Another key issue facing our province and reflected in our work is COVID-19. I have already talked about the impact that the pandemic had on the duration of our plan, but you’ll see COVID-19 reflected in several of the topics on our list as well. We have one ongoing right now looking at the procurement of hotels and safe spaces. But then in our future workplan, we also have a topic on funding administered through the economic recovery program, as well as the coordinated response to vulnerable populations living in encampments.

This is just a start. We do expect that this list will grow over the spring and the summer, too, when we go to more formally update the plan. The exact timing of each audit on our plan does vary. Some are very close to being reported, like the avalanche safety program audit, which is actually coming out tomorrow. Then there are others that are just getting underway, like the effectiveness of northern bus services.

[8:15 a.m.]

This year we did try to provide more certainty around reporting timelines by outlining the 13 audits that we ex­pect to publish this fiscal year, which, again, you can find on pages 10 and 11. We’ve also identified four audits that we expect to publish the following fiscal year, a number that will obviously grow as we start more audits. Nailing down these reporting dates was made possible with some key changes that we’ve made to our audit process, which include undertaking more tightly scoped pieces of work and delivering shorter, more focused reports as well.

We’ve also made some changes to how we communicate with our stakeholders. We’ve enhanced our social media, and we’ve also started including new one- to two-page at-a-glance report summaries and informative audit videos. We actually issue two audit videos: one when we’ve confirmed the scope of [audio interrupted] planning and the second on the day that we publish the report.

That’s really it. Before I turn it over for questions, I do want to emphasize that like any plan, this is all subject to change. The audits that we’ve identified do reflect our understanding at a point in time, but the environment we operate in is dynamic and constantly changing [audio interrupted]. But either way, we will keep you informed of these changes throughout the year via regular updates on our performance audit work.

That wraps up my summary of the plan. I’ll now turn it back to Michael for any closing comments.

M. Pickup: Thank you, Laura and everybody in the meeting and on the call, for having patience for the technical issue. It stayed a little choppy for me the whole time too.

It got worse, Laura, at the end, just so you know when you chat with the IT folks. The last couple of sentences, at my end, were very difficult to hear. But thank you for that.

A couple of quick comments that I would add. Maybe it was near the end. Just a reminder. As Laura indicated, yes, we are doing the announcement videos now.

When an audit switches to what I would say is a very safe go status, that means it is actually going to happen. When something goes on a plan, it’s still fairly early in the process. Something could change. We could get into more in-depth planning and find out that a government program is undergoing significant change or, in the case of substance use, for example, that the people who we would be meeting with during audits and working with are dealing with something like a pandemic, for example.

When you find these things out, it can change what was initially on the plan. We consider that announcement video point…. When that goes out, we are pretty comfortable and safe that the audit is still moving forward.

I know we have had some discussion with some of the caucus offices, where MLAs wanted us to directly email them the announcement video and the audit video so that they made sure that it showed up for them. I’m happy to do that, as well, for anybody who wasn’t part of one of those meetings and didn’t indicate it there — that we give that offer to everybody.

Maybe I’ll ask Elaine to follow up and find out if people actually want those. That’s the three-minute announcement to say: “We’re auditing this. This is the reason why it is a go-ahead.” I just wanted to mention that, because that was near the end, when Laura was breaking up there a little bit more.

The other thing I would add is…. This is not, in any way, of course, to limit questions. I’m happy to take questions as to why things are there. The other thing I was going to remind people, as you can anticipate and respect, is that when an audit is well underway, we don’t give updates on how audits are going. We never talk about what we’re finding in an audit or how things are going.

The only thing we would do would be to get back to you folks if we were going to postpone an audit. That was why we did that March report this year, where we said: “Here are ten audits that have been impacted.” But we don’t give status updates as we go, to say: “Oh, we’re finding wonderful things here” or “We’re finding some really bad things here.” That just wouldn’t respect the audit process, in fairness to those we audit and the work that we do.

[8:20 a.m.]

I know, at times, that can be frustrating for folks. These are often important issues, and people want to know how they’re going. I respect where people are coming from on that. Likewise, with the media or the public as well, if they want an update partway through an audit, we just can’t do that and have to ask them to wait.

I think that probably took 15 or 20 minutes for our intro. Unless Laura or Malcolm or Russ or René wants to add anything, maybe we’ll pause there, Chair, and turn it to you folks for questions or comments. I’m not seeing anybody on our team putting up their hands to want to say anything.

M. Bernier (Chair): Okay, appreciate that.

Thank you, Laura. We did hear enough, right to the end, to get the gist of everything. So don’t worry about that. Have fun with IT later on today.

I’ll turn it over to Andrew first, who has a question.

A. Mercier: Just a question for Mr. Pickup. On page 7 of the report, you talk about engaging with external tho­ught leaders in terms of understanding key issues to select audits. I just thought that thought leaders was a kind of nebulous term. I’m wondering if you could unpack a bit what you mean by thought leaders, who you are engaging with and what that process of engagement of the subject matter and the goal is.

M. Pickup: Sure, I would be happy to. That question came up at the government Finance Committee too. It was in their report, indicating what we were going to do there. But really happy to talk about the external thought leaders.

This is what some organizations, including other legislative audit offices, may call a panel of senior advisers, for example. I prefer external thought leaders, because not really looking for advice so much as thoughts on issues.

This group won’t be making decisions. They will be giving us thoughts on issues that we’re looking for thoughts on. They’re external to the organization [audio interrupted] panel, in other words. These are five or six folks that are very distinguished people within the province, who represent varied backgrounds and bring different lived experiences.

They represent, for example, people in the Indigenous community, people in the Black and people of colour communities. They represent people from outside of Victoria, so we get thoughts from across the province as well. They may be people who are involved with social organizations and really see the impact of government programs and services on people across the province as well. They represent varied age groups from probably their 20s to their 80s, so a really diverse group of people even from an age perspective as well.

What we'll do with these folks is meet with them periodically. They’re not employees. They’re not on the payroll or anything like that. We will meet with them periodically to get their input on issues.

For example, we'll be looking at updating our audit plan related to potential pandemic-related audits. We would look to this group to say: “What are your thoughts? What views or perspectives do you have on things we may want to consider, related to potential pandemic audits?”

Maybe they would have thoughts on pandemic preparedness and response. Perhaps they would have thoughts on vaccine rollout, for example. Perhaps they would have thoughts on anything related to the pandemic. I’m just using the pandemic as one example. Likewise, it could be in the delivery of education across the province or the delivery of health care.

We will identify when we want their input and on what issue, and it will be a chance to bring these folks together and simply to get their thoughts. They won’t be making de­cisions. We won’t be getting back to them on what we do. We won’t be looking to reach consensus with this group. If there are five of them and we get ten different perspectives because they’re “on the one hand, on the other hand” for the five, that’s wonderful as well.

[8:25 a.m.]

Not uncommon for the bigger legislative audit offices like the OAG Canada, for example, to have things like this in place — OAG Ontario. Not completely out of the norm. Just probably a little bit different focus from our perspective on the type of people that we want there from across the province. They’re not going to be accountants and audits. All of us are accountants or auditors in the office, so we have those perspectives.

I know that was a long answer, but you can tell how im­portant this is to me by the length of the answer. Does that answer your question?

A. Mercier: Yeah. Just a quick clarification question, then. These thought leaders are really a set panel of people that you’re referring to throughout. You’re not going out, say, for every audit and finding a different group of people to seek advice or thoughts from. It’s a set group.

M. Pickup: Good question. We put a lot of work into finding a set group. These will be four or five people that will sign up for a couple of years. We’ll see how it goes.

I mean, I’m not stubborn, in the sense that if we need to adjust and it’s not working well, then we’ll evaluate and say: “What could make this work better?” or “Is this something we want to continue?” We’re going to pilot it for 18 months or two years, yes, with the same group of people in place for that period of time.

I’m anticipating that depending on the issue we go to this group with, people will have probably more thoughts on some issues than they’re going to have on others by having this group in place. But no, it won’t be the issue of the day and then going to find a new group every time.

I can also tell you that administratively, even the work that goes into finding and putting in place five people that you’re going to have in place for a couple of years is a fair bit. I certainly wouldn’t want to try that on a particular issue.

Now, having said that, if we’re into an audit that is particularly unique, we always evaluate whether we need a subject-matter expert on that audit. But that is a different issue — if we were on to something that needed an engineer, for example, or we needed a scientist in a certain area. We always evaluate whether we need a subject-matter expert on an audit or whether we can handle it internally.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): I have a question on some of the audits removed — in particular, the independent power projects contract management.

I suspect that the reason why this was removed is there are not as many new contracts. Is there any thought of auditing, or would there be value in auditing, existing contracts? Is the government getting value for the contracts that we have? Things like that. I just wanted to hear your thoughts.

M. Pickup: Maybe I’ll turn to Laura and Malcom, if they want to give a little background on there and any thoughts we may want to think about in terms of as we head into summer and we update our knowledge in this area as well.

Malcolm or Laura? I’m fine with either.

M. Gaston: I’ll pick that one up. Yes, as our coverage plan says, we’re always balancing what’s happening in each part of provincial government, as to where we should be focusing our resources. We always keep areas under re­view, so if there are changes that mean we should be bringing this back on to a coverage plan, then that’s something that we would always be monitoring.

There’s really not much more I can add to what we have on page 14 for that one just now. Certainly, if there’s any information that we receive that would cause us to change our prioritization of this work and bring it back into our coverage plan, then we’re always interested in any information that’s relevant to particular areas and updating our understanding of what’s happening in each area.

M. Pickup: Thank you, Malcolm.

Either Laura, or both, want to add anything?

L. Pierce: No, I have nothing to add beyond what Mich­ael and Malcolm have already indicated.

[8:30 a.m.]

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Just to reiterate my question: is there value in, when a government takes on contracts on something, reviewing the value of those contracts? For example, if the government has a contract with an independent power producer. There’s an overabundance, for example, of electricity. Some of the producers are maybe being paid, even though they’re not getting any electricity from the producer. Things like that.

I’m just curious whether there’s any consideration for looking at the value of these contracts.

M. Pickup: I wonder, team, if…. Certainly, the people who work with me know me well enough now to adjust and correct. Don’t let me commit to anything you don’t want me to commit to.

I wonder, Rick, if that’s something we should relook at. My knowledge in this area is a little bit new, but I wonder, as we come into spring and summer, if we want to update our knowledge on this and give it some more thought and see if there’s anything there to make it worthwhile. That way, we can always report back to you at a future discussion to say: “Okay. Why didn’t that come back on, or what did we find out about that?”

I’m not trying to get rid of your question, Rick. I’m just trying to be honest and say I don’t have the background, but the commitment would be to find out a little bit more as we do planning. But easy for me to say.

Laura and Laura, is that a fair comment?

L. Pierce: That is fair. I mean, we often do contract aud­its. So it’s not out of the realm of possibility to go in and look at a particular area like this. It’s just something that….

We have to balance this particular piece with other priorities. That said, if this is an area where there are particular concerns that we may have overlooked, it’s something that we can absolutely revisit as we go to update the plan in the summer.

M. Pickup: Thank you.

Laura Hatt, are you good?

L. Hatt: Yeah. I would just say, absolutely, we do have…. The other thing that we do consider is not only our own internal capacity but what other work we have going on.

You’ll see, from the plan, that we still have the Site C audit, on the coverage plan, to think through. We’re also the financial statement auditor at B.C. Hydro. So we just want to make sure that we’re ensuring that we’ve got appropriate coverage across the sector as well. That’s something that we would consider.

In saying all of that, absolutely, I would just echo what Laura said. We often look at contracts and whether they’re achieving the value for money. That would be something we can consider as we go and look at that sector over the summer.

M. Pickup: Chair, if it’s fair for me to do this….

I wonder if there’s anything we’re missing here, Rick — whether Carl has anything to add in terms of anything an internal audit may be doing or processes from a control perspective or anything that is happening in government that that might be addressing that we’re missing.

Sorry, Carl, if that’s fair for me to do that.

M. Bernier (Chair): Well, it’s not me putting Carl on the spot this time, Michael. So that’s okay.

C. Fischer: No. Our perspective is that we fully support the Auditor’s focus on a more targeted audit program with shorter timelines to delivery. We think that’s the best way that we can harvest improvements.

Part of that, of course, is ongoing meetings between the performance audit group as well as the financial audit group and our internal audit functions to share plans and results and to make sure that we are being as effective as possible with our limited resources and not duplicating work.

I’ve had a lot of opportunities to engage with both Mich­ael and Russ over the past few months. I think we are very much on the same page when it comes to identifying where our risks and where the opportunities to add value from the audit processes are. So I fully support the plan.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks, Carl.

Rick, was there anything else, then, on this?

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): No. I appreciate your feedback on that. It is an area of interest for me. So I look forward to hearing more about that when you’ve had a chance to look at it.

M. Bernier (Chair): I’ll turn it over to MLA Sharma.

N. Sharma: I have a couple of questions. Actually, one is pretty broad. I was wondering, just by asking, if it lends itself to something we can dig deeper into in another me­eting. I saw, on the plan, that diverse inclusion is a lens that you’re adding to all of your work.

My question was: what does diverse inclusion mean to you? Is there a definition? How does it show up in how you are auditing, who’s auditing, who’s doing the audits and what you’re asking for in terms of the audits you’re conducting? That was my first question.

[8:35 a.m.]

The second one was about the rural Internet connectivity that’s on the plan. I was curious, when I saw that, what your thoughts are in this phase of how you’re planning to scope it, given the federal announcement for investments and, in our budget, the changes that might be happening on that space. So if it’s backwards-looking, what time period are you thinking of scoping that audit for so we can get the most information from it, given the upcoming investments?

Those are my two questions.

M. Pickup: Okay. Maybe I will start from the diversity and inclusion perspective, and then the team can add to it. Then the team can address the rural Internet connectivity.

That may be one where we’re updating you as to where we can right now, publicly, recognizing it is this something, probably, that continues to change, and one that is really…. The go status will be when the announcement vi­deo gets produced and we’re comfortable as to what we’re doing. But I’ll leave that one to the team.

On the diversity and inclusion perspective, you asked me what the thoughts are on diversity and inclusion. I think part of this is that we are auditing government. We are auditing government policies and the administration of those policies. We are auditing government performance, if you will. We’re not here to create policy or to set policy.

Having said that, if there are things related to diversity and inclusion that are programs, that are strategies, that are approaches, that are a part of how government does something, it is no different than auditing a strategy on mental health or on forestry or on anything else. It is something the auditors, from a performance audit perspective, can always do.

In Nova Scotia, for example, when I was Auditor General there, the government had a fairly well-laid-out strategy. When I say “well laid out,” I mean something very auditable. It was a strategy — a plan, goals, objectives and ap­proach — just like they had for forestry, just like they had for mental health. So we were able to do, in that case, a unique audit, a particular audit on, specifically, the rollout of diversity and inclusion and whether the government had achieved what it intended to achieve.

I think we want to be aware, as we move forward: where is the government in terms of what they are trying to do in diversity and inclusion, and is that an audit topic for us — uniquely to diversity and inclusion from a performance audit perspective? So there is that program space in terms of a potential audit there. But within programs, as well, we will be looking, from a diversity and inclusion perspective, including how we select audits, for example, that may impact some groups with different lived experiences more so than others.

It is a tremendous joy, yet a large responsibility, when you think that we can do ten or 12 or however many audits we can do a year, and the fact that we have the independence to select the topics is wonderful. But with that, I think, comes a great responsibility. It comes with a responsibility to make sure that we are considering all angles, whether those are financial angles, whether those are from a diversity and inclusion perspective, in terms of impacting some groups more than others, and that we have all of the information that we need to consider which performance audits we actually do.

That will include from a diversity and inclusion lens, and it’s part of the reason — one of the reasons — why I’m happy to get out and be talking to people like the head of the teachers union, for example, or other groups, or bringing in the external thought leaders who will bring very different lived experiences to us and who can inform us. They won’t make decisions, but they can inform us to make sure we are considering, from a diversity and inclusion perspective, all potential areas of audits.

If we’re looking at the pandemic response, for example, are we getting the thoughts and perspectives across varied groups, not just from people, obviously, within government — not just from people who are running the programs, not just from people who we may think of, or our thoughts — but going to other groups as well? That will be important.

[8:40 a.m.]

I think, as we move along through these performance audits and we start to roll out, these are the types of questions, when we do audits, that we can be asking the organizations that we audit. We can ask them: “Where does this factor into your program? Is this part of your program?”

For example, if a program had a significant aspect to it that related to considering something from a diversity and inclusion perspective, it would be very easy to add that on, from an audit perspective, to cover that topic as well. If that was in education, for example, it could be something we do. Health care could be something we do. So diversity and inclusion are very important.

You asked about what my understanding is of diversity and inclusion, I think. My understanding of diversity and inclusion really comes from 30-plus years in the public service and really understanding the importance of this. But also, I think, through more formal training, having recently obtained the certificate in diversity and inclusion from Cornell University. After finishing four courses, it really enlightened my understanding.

In simple terms, I would say diversity, from a how-we-run-the-office perspective, is about having the people in here who are diverse and who represent various groups. It’s getting those diverse thoughts from people. And then inclusion is making sure everybody in the organization feels engaged in how we treat those people.

If you were to come into my collaboration space, for example, formerly called an office, where I work, the first thing you would see on the wall is “What is inclusivity at work?” with 20 principles there outlining what it means to be inclusive and what it means to work together in an inclusive way.

Inclusivity to me is really about engagement. It’s about how people get engaged. Diversity is bringing people in, and then engagement is about making sure everybody in an organization, no matter who they are, is fully included — i.e., engaged.

That’s some of how we deal with it within the office. But I think we’ve got to have that audit lens on things so that we can answer the question. When we come back here next year, we can answer the question, to you: what did we think of, and what do our audits look like from a diversity and inclusion perspective?

I know it’s a long answer to your question. But it is, as you can tell, very important to me, both to how I run the office and how I work for the people in the Legislature, that we are covering this issue. It’s not because it’s trendy in 2021; it’s because it’s been important to me for the last 31 years.

Those are my thoughts on diversity and inclusion, but perhaps I will turn it over to the team to talk about rural Internet. They can share with you where you are with that, but also, they can adjust, correct and supplement anything I said on diversity and inclusion.

I don’t know who wants to take the rural Internet.

R. Pelletier: Good morning, Ms. Sharma. It’s René Pelletier here.

On the rural Internet connectivity, that’s a project we’re actively working on right now. With the changes in timelines on when they’re going to be moving to, I think, pha­ses 3 and 4 of the program, we’re readjusting the approach that we’re going to take to this project. It’s very difficult to do an audit of something that’s in progress. You try to give recommendations, and management says: “Well, we’re working on it. We’ll get there.”

We’re trying to think through what the best way is to add value to what’s happening right now. We haven’t finalized exactly what our plan is going to be, so I don’t want to say too much in case it shifts a bit more. But what we’re looking at doing is something more in line of a progress update on where they are in going through the program and perhaps highlighting a few risks associated with what’s happening. Like I said, we’re still in progress, so it’s a bit of a working piece right now to decide exactly what it’s going to look like, but it is top of mind for us.

To circle back on the comments on diversity and inclusion, one of the things I think we definitely need to do is to think through the impacts: if we have findings from an audit, what is the impact on BIPOC communities, LGBTQ communities, other communities that we wouldn’t typically think of as part of an audit when we’re just looking at what the impact is?

[8:45 a.m.]

With rural Internet connectivity, Indigenous women are particularly affected, from a safety perspective — having access to communication and Internet in areas where they wouldn’t normally have that type of communications. That’s a practical example of how we want to bring tho­ughts around diversity and inclusion to our other work.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thank you for that.

Okay. I’ll turn it over to MLA Tegart, then.

J. Tegart: Just further to the comments about the re­moval of the rural dividend program and then the comment that it will be included in the new topic on rural In­ternet connectivity, the rural dividend program was extremely important to small communities throughout British Columbia. It was often the kick-start money that they needed to get a project going in their community, and the loss of that program stopped a lot of economic development in small communities.

When we’re talking about connectivity in rural B.C. — and the indication is that this will be included in that — it’s got to be much broader than just whether we’re connected. I think that COVID-19 has shown all of us the weaknesses in our connectivity throughout British Columbia. Whether you live in urban or rural, many of us have found that what we thought was adequate is not adequate.

When you add in the economic development aspect of it, I will be most interested to see the parameters of that audit that adds in the rural dividend program and its stated outcomes in that audit, because it is much more than broadband connectivity. It was a really important economic development program for rural B.C. I would hope that it’s more than a statement here in the report — that it’s actually reflected in the new audit that is being considered.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thank you.

Any comments on that, Michael?

M. Pickup: Maybe, Chair, I can look to our team here to see if anybody wants to comment on that.

I think what I’m hearing is that we want to think about that through spring and summer as we update the new plan and have a really good answer when we come back, the next time we have these discussions around audits — if it’s being addressed through the rural Internet or not, really, and why, and how that fits into where we ended up.

I don’t know if Laura and Laura or René want to add anything on that?

R. Pelletier: I’m taking note of it, and I’ll sit down with the engagement leader and the team to talk about how we are actually incorporating that into the rural Internet connectivity project and make sure we can add the most value.

L. Hatt: I would also comment, too, that although, in the plan, we sort of connect the two, the other piece of work that we’re really looking at quite intently is the economic recovery fund.

Of course, some of those funds do…. They’re going all over the province. So we’ll definitely be looking at, potentially, a rural lens for that as well. Your comments are very helpful for us in terms of narrowing our focus on some of those COVID-related grant funding programs that we might want to look at as well.

B. Banman: As the audit is going through the rural In­ternet connection, here’s what I’m hearing. I would love for the audit to be able to answer this question.

[8:50 a.m.]

In part, what’s driving or pushing this is making sure that First Nations have connection to broadband Internet, which I think is fantastic. However, what I’m also hearing is that sometimes what happens is that the size of the optic cable is not big enough to handle any of the other people that are rural and that are on the way to said First Nation. It seems to me to be an absolute waste of taxpayers’ dollars to have to turn around and then lay more fibre again to be able to connect everyone else.

What I’m wondering is, if that is the driver — here’s a win-win for the entire region: is that, in fact, true? Are we not putting in enough sufficient cable to be able to hook up anyone else that wants to be connected with that, down the road? I don’t know whether it’s accurate or not. I see my colleague nodding her head, so I have a hunch that I’m probably on to something. It just seems like a waste of taxpayers’ dollars to service everyone….

M. Pickup: René, any thoughts on that? Do you want to take note of that, going forward?

R. Pelletier: Yeah, I’m just taking note of that. I think it’s something we’ll have to look into and see if that’s part of the scope of this project. Maybe there’s a different project.

Right now the project we’re looking at is more around: what is the progress of implementing rural Internet connectivity? If we want to do a more technical deep dive into the technology — does it have sufficient bandwidth and capacity and stuff like that? — I think that might be a separate project. We’ll definitely think through that and see if we want to take that on as a different piece of work.

M. Bernier (Chair): Okay, thanks.

Did you still have a question, Brittny? No? Okay.

One of the things I’m going to ask, Michael, though…. You’ve answered it, and Laura answered it, I believe, but I want to just mention it anyway. It kind of even goes along with what Bruce said, and others.

During the time when — I’m sure I will get the terminology wrong for what you use internally — you’re putting together a specific performance plan or an audit, I guess you’ll put together some form of terms of reference on the scope of what that audit will entail and, I assume, reach out to the stakeholders and see if they understand what you’ll be looking at. It sounds like, from what I’m hearing — and even, maybe, to Bruce’s question — as you’re going through that audit, you might not have thought, I assume, of every little thing that might be added to the terms of reference.

If something jumps out glaringly during the course of that audit, it sounds like you’re flexible on changing the scope of the audit as you’re going along. Am I understanding that correctly? I guess the bookends of what you’re looking at are movable, depending on what you find during the course of that audit. Did I understand that correctly?

M. Pickup: Yeah, a couple of points on that.

We do an audit plan that identifies — you have got the lingo right — the audit scope of the audit — i.e., what we’re looking at. For that audit plan that we have, we discuss the criteria, if you will, which is essentially just the bar by which we’re going to judge the organizations we’re auditing with. We discuss that with the organizations we audit. All of that is internal to the people we’re auditing, right? The audit plan, with all the detail, wouldn’t get put out publicly.

What would get put out publicly are our new announcement videos that we’re doing. Once we get to that point where we have an audit plan with the organization we’re auditing, we have started the practice now of releasing this video to say: “Hey, this is what we’re going to be looking at in this audit.” Substance use is a good example. That will be, then, more clear to people what we’re not looking at: “Here’s what we’re looking at; here’s what we’re not looking at.”

Absolutely to your point — and this is not a setup, folks — these are some of the issues we have in why audits may get delayed, get postponed or, in some cases, get cancelled. If there is a significant change to a program — for example, we get in there, and it wasn’t anticipated — to continue to do the audit without some revision wouldn’t make sense. In some rare cases, putting a pause on it to a future date or cancelling it makes the most sense. That is what we do. As you folks know, very often in government, there are changes to programs and to how things work, so we always have to reflect that.

[8:55 a.m.]

Likewise, when we get far along in an audit, near the end, we have to look at what we call — a fancy audit term — subsequent events. We have to look at what has happened near the end. Is there anything that we need to disclose that wasn’t part of the audit, for example?

This is one of the things, I find, whether it was in Nova Scotia or here in B.C., that people, elected folks, are really interested in. I think we’re doing a better job of disclosing it to people — the audit period. This is really just that time frame of which we’re auditing — what year or two, for example, we are looking at, what period we are not looking at — so that people can understand that. Those are really, really good questions for us on important issues.

Did I miss anything in your question?

M. Bernier (Chair): No, that kind of covers it. I think the main point, from what I heard — to state the obvious, I guess — is the flexibility within the scope as you’re looking at an audit.

I know you are very succinct. I heard from Carl earlier that that’s important, to have some tight, succinct audits done. That’s preferable. I was just making sure there was some flexibility built in.

M. Starchuk: Good morning, Michael. I have just one quick question with regard to future audits. Page 12, item 12, temporary foreign workers. Does that include temporary foreign farmworkers?

M. Pickup: I’m going to turn to my friends here to see what level of detail we have identified so far on that. Anybody know?

L. Pierce: This is a piece that’s still very much in the preliminary stages. At this point, we haven’t really scoped out exactly what it is we’re going to look at. I don’t really have much detail beyond what’s in the plan. If that’s a particular area of concern or interest, it’s certainly something that we can dive into when we do start actually planning that particular piece.

M. Starchuk: I’ve spoken about it for a number of years because I know housing for temporary foreign workers is a big thing, with the conditions they’re working in. Sometimes they’re in very rural areas where there are no jurisdictional abilities to actually provide inspection to ensure that they’re in safe housing.

If it’s in Metro Vancouver, there are certain agencies that can open the door, stick their heads inside of there and make sure everything’s okay. But for some areas in the province of B.C. that are very rural, sometimes things just get forgotten.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thank you for that. I don’t see any other questions going up right now.

Michael, one last thing. One thing about going towards the end: so many questions have got answered along the way, which is great. What’s your thought process, though? You’re looking at this coverage plan for two years around the performance plan. Are you looking at, post-COVID, maybe going back to a three or trying to stay with a two-year rotation on your planning?

M. Pickup: My preference would be to stay shorter term, to stay on the two years. Particularly as we shorten these audits up and get them done in shorter periods of time, it should enable us, then, to plan more quickly, to react to what’s happening and to pick relevant issues more quickly as well.

I’m more of a fan of the two-year plan rather than the three-year plan. Sometimes the danger of putting something on a three-year plan is that things in year 3 then become irrelevant. Then you spend a lot of time explaining why you’re not doing things in year 3. Or you spend time planning for things in year 3, and invest time and money in year-3 things, which get overtaken by things that are more important. And if you hadn’t started the year-3 things to start with….

You don’t want to be starting things two or three years out. I think I have a fairly strong preference, certainly, to not go beyond two years. We had a discussion about going down to one year, to be honest, but we thought: “We’re moving from three years. We probably want to keep to two years, rather than just go to one.”

[9:00 a.m.]

If I could make one other quick comment, I really ap­preciate the comments with a sort of rural perspective as well, because that’s very important to me. It was very important when I was Auditor General in Nova Scotia as well, as MLAs would remind me politely that I was the Auditor General of Nova Scotia, not of Halifax. It was a big province. While half of the population lived in Halifax, the other half were spread out throughout the province.

It’s also a lens that I think we’ll bring to things. I think the external thought leaders would help, as well. But it’s something that…. I want to make sure we are picking audits that also consider things that are important across the entire province. I think this plan is a good indication that we’re working towards that. But certainly, we will find concrete, specific ways to make sure we are aware of issues that extend beyond the bigger cities, that get out into rural areas as well.

I did want to mention that. Even as the Auditor General, once the pandemic is over and things become safer, I certainly plan on getting out and seeing things across the province — and not spending all my time, obviously, in Victoria or in Vancouver — and actually seeing and listening to people and meeting with people across the entire province so that we are aware of the issues. I did just want to mention that as well.

M. Bernier (Chair): Actually, I really appreciate you flagging that. It goes along with some of the questions to­day that we heard from Jackie and Niki and a few others.

Geographically, we’re a little big bigger than Nova Scotia, but the same kind of…. The population is spread out. That’s one of things I think all of us here…. There are some unique differences and challenges around the province, and you can’t always just go from a Victoria lens on every issue. I’m really happy that you also mentioned that, Michael.

Seeing no further questions, I might put you on the spot again, Carl. It’s always good to have our comptroller general here, if there’s anything that you wanted to add before we move on.

C. Fischer: No, I have nothing further to add other than that I fully agree with the direction that the Office of the Auditor General is taking. I look forward to working in conjunction with them to deal with the risks that we’ve identified and to find opportunities for improvement. I think it’ll be a very positive period going forward.

M. Bernier (Chair): Good. Thank you for that.

Thank you, Michael and team, and Carl. Really appreciate all that information. It gives us a good understanding of where your group is going in the Auditor General’s office. Thank you for that.

I also really appreciate the openness, just the frank conversations we are able to have, on behalf of not only the committee but anybody listening as well, going forward, that understands the scope and the thought process going into the performance audits that are done.

Action Plan Extension

MINISTRY OF HEALTH

M. Bernier (Chair): We have only one more thing that we’re going to cover off on the agenda today, which of course was brought to us from…. I believe it went to the Auditor General’s office. I know that Russ talked about it earlier. But we have a request. If the AG’s office wants to stay on for that, it’s your choice.

A request from the Ministry of Health came forward for an extension for one of their audits that was being looked at. They’ve asked for an extension, from February 24 to September 1. I know this was circulated to the rest of the committee. I’m just looking to see if there are any concerns, I guess, from anybody on the committee with that extension that the Ministry of Health has asked for.

I don’t see any, so I assume…. Obviously, the extension for the Ministry of Health is mostly asked for because of COVID. I think there’s a lot of understanding right now around the flexibility, especially within that ministry and a few others, that’s required right now as we try to move through the, hopefully, final stages of the pandemic.

With that, are there any other questions?

Jennifer, did I cover everything off that needed to be covered off today?

J. Arril (Clerk of Committees): Yes, thank you, Chair. Noting that members seem to be in agreement, I’ll advise the deputy minister that the committee has agreed to the extension request.

M. Bernier (Chair): Perfect. Thank you very much, everyone, again.

With that, all I would need is a motion to adjourn, then. I see one from MLA Coulter.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 9:04 a.m.