The committee met at 8:03 a.m.

[M. Bernier in the chair.]

M. Bernier (Chair): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to early Monday, June 7. It’s great to have everybody with us virtually here as we call the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts to order.

Today is going to be a little bit different. We don’t have a great report, technically, to go over — one single report from the Auditor General — but we do have a consideration of the action plan progress assessments, which we’re going to turn things over to in a second. I just wanted to thank, Michael and Carl, you and your team again, everyone involved.

I’m going through all of the progress assessments, and I can see how much work is done, even by the ministry staff, everyone behind the scenes. Obviously, this is an important step. It’s not going to be all resolved, I think, in today’s meeting, because there’s a lot to go through. But really appreciate….

Maybe I’ll turn things over to you, Michael. It’s great to get your first take on all of this that’s in front of us. Any words of wisdom or even advice from you for our committee would be welcomed.

Good morning. Glad to have you on.

[8:05 a.m.]

Action Plan Progress Assessments
on Auditor General Reports

M. Pickup: Good morning. Thank you. With me today are Russ Jones, Deputy Auditor General; Malcolm Gaston, assistant Auditor General; Laura Hatt, executive director; Laura Pierce, director; and then Julianne King, audit analyst as well.

Before turning it over to them, I would like to acknowledge, of course, with respect, that I’m coming to you from Victoria today and conducting my work on Coast Salish territories, home of the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋ­in̓əŋ, Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. I am grateful for being a visitor on this land and strive to maintain the connection it holds to Indigenous Peoples.

I want to acknowledge, to the team, appreciation for putting this in place. It’s a different approach, and they were adaptable and agile in getting this together. I really respect the work that they did and the knowledge that they have, as you will see today as we take your questions and comments as well. So hats off to Malcom Gaston, assistant Auditor General; Laura Hatt, the executive director of performance audit; Laura Pierce, director of performance audit and Julianne King — who really did do all of this work to get this together.

I also want to say thank you to the Clerk of Committees and the office of the comptroller general. This process has been a collaborative process, and we’re all trying to work together on this. I think it’s another sign of the great co­operation we have in trying to work to provide you information to help you do your job as well.

Before turning it over to the team to walk you through our brief document, I also want to acknowledge, of course, that this is our first appearance before the committee in June, and that June is National Indigenous Month. It’s an especially difficult time, as you know, for a lot of Indigen­ous People, given the tragic situation that continues to unfold. As an Indigenous person and a member of the Miawpukek First Nation, of course, I encourage all of us to enhance our understanding of Indigenous People, including the successes and ongoing trauma and challenges that we face.

I will now turn it over to the team to walk you through the document that you received.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks for that intro, Michael.

L. Pierce: Good morning, Chair, Vice-Chair and committee members. I’ll be providing a bit of a brief overview this morning on the follow-up process.

Before we dive in to the action plan progress assessments, or APPAs, that came through this year, we thought we’d spend a few minutes covering off a few details on the process itself, just recognizing that there are several new faces at the table today.

It is a process that involves many players. There is the committee, the Clerk of Committees, the office of the comptroller general and our office as well. It’s a process that has evolved over time. But our ultimate goal thro­ughout each iteration has always been to support the committee to carry out its role in terms of providing accountability and ensuring that our recommendations are implemented.

The current approach that we used today was establi­shed in 2015. At that time, it brought about the introduction of action plans and the action plan progress assessment templates that we use today. As you know, each audited organization is now asked to produce an action plan, when their reports are first discussed with the committee, that outlines the actions that they intend to take to address our recommendations and a timeline for doing so.

The comptroller general then requests an update to that plan through the action plan progress assessment annually thereafter. That process continues, generally, until the committee is satisfied with the organization’s progress.

In 2019, the committee did make some slight modifications to just address the large volume of APPAs that it had on file, which is similar in number to the amount that you have today. At that time, they identified audits where they felt that additional follow-up was needed.

Internally, we use the APPAs to track organizations’ progress for our key performance indictor reporting purposes. We also use it to inform decisions around progress audits. As well, we provide support to the committee by highlighting key information for consideration.

If we turn our attention to this year’s APPAs, the OCG requested 38 and received 35. Two received extensions through the committee, and one was referred to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee.

[8:10 a.m.]

Of the 229 recommendations that are found among those 35 APPAs, organizations reported implementing 65 percent. We’ve pulled together a table that you should have in front of you that highlights the status of recommendations by audit and year. You can see that for each audit, we’ve identified the percentage of recommendations that organizations have reported implementing, which we categorize as those that are fully, substantially implemented or have taken alternative action. The table also outlines those recommendations that are outstanding, which we define as those that are partially implemented or have seen no action taken.

We also added in a new column this year to the table that just shows organizations’ progress from last year. You can see that there are six organizations of the 29 that submitted an APPA last year that have made progress in terms of fully, substantially implementing some of their recommendations.

Another observation worth highlighting is that 14 of the 35 APPAs now show that all recommendations are fully, substantially implemented. There are another three that are close, with over 80 percent of recommendations fully, substantially implemented.

There are some audits that are moving slower. For ex­ample, there is the audit of mid-sized capital procurement in post-secondary institutions that is now five years old and showing that only 43 percent of the seven recommendations have been implemented. And there’s the audit of grizzly bear management that is now almost four years old, that is showing that only 10 percent of the ten recommendations are fully, substantially implemented.

As auditors, we start to wonder why. I’m sure that you have very similar questions as well. Are the recommendations no longer valid? Has there been a shift in policy direction? Is it a resourcing constraint? You can’t really tell from the APPAs. They provide a glimpse into the work that’s ongoing in these organizations, but they’re not audited and they don’t tell the full story.

Further understanding could come in the way of the committee calling witnesses back to discuss, sending a re­quest for a response, or, in our case, undertaking a progress audit. Speaking of which, we are happy to report that we now have two progress audits underway. There is the one on compliance and enforcement in the mining sector, which is a follow-up to our 2016 audit, and there’s another one on the JUSTIN system, which was reported in 2013.

Before wrapping up, I thought it would be helpful to just cover off some factors that the committee may wish to consider moving forward. As I mentioned at the start, this is a process that’s evolved over time, and our role has evolved over time as well. In past years, we did provide recommendations to the committee on audits to consider removing from future requests, as well as those to consider calling witnesses on. We really do feel that this would benefit from further discussion, just to confirm that this is something the committee would like us to continue doing, and if it is, that we have a consistent approach for doing so.

For example, when we’re looking at audits that should come off the list, should it be automatic when they have reported that all the recommendations are now fully, substantially implemented, or would the committee like us to do some further testing to verify that that’s the case?

Then when we look at calling or suggesting audits where the committee may wish to call witnesses on, should we be focusing on those where progress is waning? Should we have standardized criteria for making those recommendations, such as audits where recommendations remain outstanding after three, four, five years? It would just really help to have an agreed-upon benchmark, if this is something that the committee would like us to continue to do.

That wraps up our summary of the follow-up process. I hope that you found this helpful. We just look forward to continuing to work with the committee, the Clerk and the comptroller general to best support this process moving forward.

I will turn it back to Michael now for some closing comments.

M. Pickup: Thank you, Laura.

I think we’re trying to keep our summaries to the point and relevant. I hope you find getting this down to a couple of pages, rather than 30 or 40, helpful for you. But I think, Chair, I would cut off there, to allow more time for when we get into discussions and questions.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thank you, Michael.

Thank you, Laura, for that summary on everything.

[8:15 a.m.]

Maybe, before we turn it over to the committee, we’ll go to Carl, to our comptroller general, first, for his comments on how he sees this unfolding as well.

Good morning, Carl.

C. Fischer: Good morning, Chair. Thank you very much.

As Laura mentioned, the current process has been in place for four years. In that time, OAG has taken the lead in helping the committee implement the progress assessment process. In the past year, it has fallen to OCG to become more involved in engaging with the ministries to manage those follow-ups. Engaging with the ministries has provided us the opportunity to receive observations and feedback and to follow up with discussion between the government’s deputy minister’s audit committee and the Auditor General and Deputy Auditor General earlier in the year.

The objective was to evaluate how best to maximize val­ue from the external audit process and the important part progress assessment plays in that pursuit. I was asked to provide observations to the committee for your consideration, with the hope that it may be helpful to you in conducting your work in this area.

Since the adoption of progress assessments as the committee’s monitoring process, the main focus has always been on collecting update information from the auditees and the timing of update requests. Where there hasn’t been much discussion has been on when the progress assessment is complete or when progress updates are no longer the most effective approach to follow up.

I note that this year, during the COVID pandemic, we have a lot of other challenges to address during the follow-up process. But my overall observation is that with 35 reports to follow up on, it would be challenging to see how the committee would build that amount of time into the annual schedule. There might be some opportunities to look at efficiencies.

As Laura mentioned for this year, 38 audit reports were on the list. Ultimately, there were two extensions. One was redirected. That leaves the committee with 35 audit reports to receive progress assessments on and to determine how best to follow up. That’s an increase from last year and an increase from the year before. If no further direction or efficiency is determined, chances are that list will keep growing year after year after year. That’s what we’re seeing.

Reports are requested regardless of the stated completion ratio. Fifteen of those audit reports are listed as rec­ommendations fully complete, self-assessed by the auditee. Eleven of those reports have been assessed as fully complete in prior years but remain on the list.

A large proportion of the work that you are tackling…. As far as the auditees are concerned, they have completed their work in the area, and they’re waiting for some kind of conclusion or follow-up. Three of those have remained on the list due to OAG requests for further information. That’s good. Two of those requests have remained on the list because of the prior committee’s request for further discussion in the area.

It’s the committee’s discretion to request updates or to call witnesses for discussion on a matter. The committee may find efficiency in establishing guidelines or criteria for when progress assessments are no longer required or for when a more detailed follow-up is desired. Establishing criteria shouldn’t be seen as constraining the committee’s ability to follow up on things, but it might help your supporting agencies, like the Clerk’s office and OAG, to help steer or guide the process on a day-to-day basis.

As Laura mentioned, eight of the audit reports are greater than three years old. For me, my question is: are audit recommendations all the same, and do they remain current for years and years and years? Or is there some reasonable time period where you need to reassess and determine whether those recommendations are stale or not?

[8:20 a.m.]

Some of the considerations that we have discussed in­ternally or have been observed by auditees include whether recommendations are addressed through achievable administrative changes — changing a document, changing a system, changing a process — or through longer-term evolution of policy direction or legislative shifts. I think the grizzly bear audit is a good example, where it’s not sim­ply a matter of changing some filing process. It is a long, multi-year evolution of a policy environment that they are pursuing.

Another item is whether changes in the government structure of operations have impacted the currency of the original recommendation. Government is not static. It changes constantly. Ministries shift and are reorganized. Governments come and go, and policy directions change. We have to look at the changing environments to see if there are any impacts on previous audit recommendations to really make an assessment of their currency.

We also heard questions about whether development in the auditees’ response actions has identified that recommendations have become impractical, unachievable or have limited benefit. I can certainly see that while a recommendation may sound really good in year 1, by year 5, some additional work or change in the legislative framework may impact whether or not that recommendation would be accepted or fulfilled by the ministry currently — so once again recognizing that our environment shifts.

Whether changing policy direction has impacted the auditee’s capacity or acceptance of the recommendation, including whether funding is available to support the priority of the recommendation…. In government, there is an endless list of objectives to pursue but limited resources to pursue them. It is the government’s responsibility to establish the priority or ration the resources, be they financial or human resources, that ministries use to pursue those goals or areas. We all know that those priorities can shift as our environment shifts. I think last year’s pandemic is a really good example of needing to shift priorities to the backburner to be able to deal with an all-encompassing public objective.

Finally, my big item was: what do we do if the auditee appears to have simply stalled or their efforts are lost? They have lost direction on pursuing their audit objectives. Now, that’s an important consideration as well. So far, we have left it to the auditee to discuss with the auditor. But potentially, there is a more efficient way for looking at what the driver is for the hold-up or stall and how we get beyond that to improve processes or validation.

The committee may be able to achieve efficiency in res­ponding differently to these situations by changing up the follow-up frequency, providing written questions back to the auditee, interviewing witnesses, requesting re-audit or reconsideration through some appropriate audit process from OAG. That’s up to the committee to determine. Talking about now, establishing a plan or a hierarchy might allow your supporting agencies to coordinate and manage this large volume of reports with greater efficiency.

I hope that these observations will be useful to the committee. As you conduct your work in this area, I look forward to continued work with the Auditor General providing whatever support we can on behalf of government.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks so much, Carl.

I’m going to turn it over…. We have a few questions maybe to get things started here. I will go to the Deputy Chair, MLA Glumac, first.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): A couple questions. Are there any outstanding audits prior to 2013, or were they all completed 100 percent?

M. Bernier (Chair): I’m wondering if Michael has an answer for that.

[8:25 a.m.]

M. Pickup: I’m looking to the team. Do we know? So for 2014 and older, does that capture…? The last one on there is February ’13. Was there nothing before that that was still carried? Does anybody know?

L. Pierce: There was nothing. There were no APPAs that were requested after February 2013.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): No APPAs that were requested? The question was: were all of the recommendations implemented for every audit prior to 2013 — like, fully implemented?

M. Pickup: Do we know the answer to that question, anybody?

L. Hatt: Yeah, I believe that because the process started in 2015, we wouldn’t have had APPAs on them prior to that. We used the data that we had in 2015 for those prior two years because we had kept a two-year cycle. But be­cause we only had implemented this follow-up process in 2015, we wouldn’t have had the same information that we do now.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Okay, that answers my question. Thank you.

Another question. When a government agency says that they’ve reached completion of addressing the recommendations, if the Auditor General’s office were to then spend a bit of time to validate whether that’s true, would that idea be an extraordinarily burdensome thing? Would it manageable to do something like that for the Auditor General’s office?

M. Pickup: I’ll give you some perspectives on that, and then I would invite my colleagues who’ve been here, obviously, in the B.C. OAG a lot longer than me.

My perspectives come in many ways from my time as Auditor General in Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia, what we did was give what is, in fancy audit terms, called review level of assurance. It’s less than a full audit, but there is some comfort there that if somebody says something is complete, we’ve looked at what is reasonably behind what’s covering that complete level status.

All things are possible. If we were to go to full audits on the status, of course that would be much more work. Now, keep in mind that the first time you do this, it’s more work than you do in subsequent years.

For example, I remember my first year in Nova Scotia, we had 282 recommendations that we were following up over a two-year period. That sounds like a lot of recommendations to follow up. But it was just the incremental, year over year. Once you start doing this…. The year before, probably…. If 180 of those were marked as complete and those had already been reviewed cumulatively, it was the new ones that got added on that year. So it wasn’t like redoing the whole thing.

What we did there is we just reviewed those ones where the government said they were complete. If they said “not complete,” we accepted that. We said: “What is the risk? Somebody is going to say ‘not complete’ when they’re complete? Not likely.” So very low risk.

It was focused. It probably took us in the neighbourhood of 2,000 hours a year — so pretty much an FTE or an FTE and a quarter — to do this. But we did it in response.

That’s just one way of doing it, right, but I’m answering your question. We did it in response, really, because that’s what the Public Accounts Committee wanted. What we used to do was wait two years after the audit, come follow up and then follow up for two consecutive years after that initial two years. Essentially, we were tracking the organizations for a four-year period, giving them the first two years as a break because they said they need the two years to do something. Then we would follow up for two more years.

In my last year as AG there, the Public Accounts Committee said: “Well, actually, we don’t want you dropping them after the two years of follow-up. Please keep with them. We want to know. We don’t want somebody getting dropped off.” But there, and I think to the comptroller general’s point, as part of that process every year, we had a good discussion around relevancy. So if the people we audited felt recommendations were no longer relevant or they weren’t going to do them, they made the case to us, and then we came to an agreement whether we agreed or not.

[8:30 a.m.]

If I think back at my time in the six years in Nova Scotia, I think there might have only been two recommendations where we disagreed on whether they were no longer relevant. It’s a little bit academic in a sense. Generally, it was a fairly reasonable approach. If something was no longer relevant, then we did drop it.

Also, what made things there…. We would set an 80 percent target. We thought that within two years of an audit, 80 percent of the recommendations should be complete. Now, where we got that 80 percent was because the government had its own policy that 80 percent of recommendations should be complete within two years. We didn’t make up the 80 percent. We said: “That seems reasonable, except in some circumstances where something might take longer.”

I’m always nervous to suggest that just because something is old, it get dropped as irrelevant. It could still be relevant.

That’s a long answer. I’ve probably jammed the answer to five questions into one. Sorry about that, if I put too much in that answer.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Actually, I really appreciate that response.

My own personal opinion…. I really like the idea of putting a process in place like this, where there is an expectation that things will be followed up on over a period of time. When they reach completion, that will be reviewed and confirmed. If there is any reason to question anything, then the committee could call them in and talk to them about that. I really like that idea.

Those are my thoughts on that. I can add a bit more later, but I’ll turn it over to other people for now.

M. Pickup: Chair, can I make one more response to that?

M. Bernier (Chair): Of course, Michael.

M. Pickup: The other response I would make there on that is…. If you were asking me for suggestions, one of the suggestions I would make is…. When you look on that summary of action plan assessment, it’s probably time for a good cleanup of these things that extend back to ’19, ’18, ’17, ’16, ’15.

When I say a good cleanup, I mean perhaps these organizations coming forward with a one-pager to say: “We are still going to do these recommendations, and we’re going to have them done by X date.” Or: “We’re no longer going to do them. We don’t think they’re relevant.” Have a discussion with the OAG, whether we agree, and then the OAG could tell the committee….

If you look at some of these, like 2015, An Audit of the Education of Aboriginal Students in the B.C. Public School System…. So 73 percent of the recommendations are as­sessed as outstanding. I think something like that really begs the question: “Are you still going to do those? Are they still relevant? If they are, why aren’t they moving along?”

I think if we were going to move to something like that…. I would throw out there that a good cleanup of everything that is on here is probably worthwhile before jumping in too far down that road.

I think back. We have had a number of Public Accounts Committee meetings this year. One of the overall impressions or views that I have from having attended all of these meetings is that when organizations come in and have discussions with you, all of them clearly indicate the value of the recommendations, the importance of the recommendations and that they’re going to do them, that they’re important to do. A number of them have timelines around them.

When I see this summary, I say: “Okay. Why are there 19 organizations that have 20 percent or more recommen­dations that are outstanding after all of this time?” It really does beg some questions as to the why.

If I think back to last week, when we had the meeting on Avalanche, page 14 of that report really sticks out in my mind. The organization had put on one page the timelines of when they’re going to have all of those recommendations implemented.

I know that a structured cleanup approach like that, on a one-pager…. This could seem overwhelming, just looking at the number of reports and the number of recommendations. A streamlined cleanup process is not that difficult to do, I don’t think.

Thanks, Chair, for that.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Sorry. Could I just follow up on that really quickly?

M. Bernier (Chair): Yeah.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): When you say a cleanup process, I’m just curious to understand what you’re thinking along that.

[8:35 a.m.]

I understand, maybe, going back to the ministry. They can create a one-pager of where they are at. Then what would happen with that? Would this…? If the committee wanted to implement a more structured follow-up process, would that be the beginning of a follow-up process where the Auditor General would go and do that kind of high-level assessment on things and come back to the committee? Or would it be cleanup, as in: “Here’s where we’re at, and then we would decide whether to keep it or not”? Just curious.

M. Pickup: Yeah, when I think of cleanup, I think it’s first figuring out, for all of these audits with the recommendations that are assessed as not complete, whether the organizations believe they’re still relevant or not. If they’re not relevant, let’s come to an agreement that they’re not relevant, and let’s get them off of this list. When I say clean­up, I mean it’s figuring that out.

We know for sure that these are recommendations that organizations still plan on doing. Then, to build that into a report, we could do a report to you to say: “Okay. Here’s X number of years worth of recommendations.” For the ones that are assessed as complete, we can provide some comfort that if government has said they’re complete, they are indeed complete. Then: “Here are the ones that are still relevant but are not complete.” That will help you circle in to say: “Okay, if you had 2017 grizzly bear management and 90 percent of the recommendations are outstanding, government still believes they’re relevant.” That would help you focus in, I think, on who you want to potentially call in.

I think it’s shortening this list, cleaning up anything so that we get rid of any thoughts that some of this is no lon­ger relevant, and we figure all of that out. I would suggest, then, we would work with…. You know, pick a number of years that we want to go back to — perhaps it’s 2015 — and start the process from there to say: “Okay, if government is saying these are complete, we’re giving you comfort they are complete. By the way, here are the ones that are assessed as not complete.”

Then it’s very easy to focus in on the ones with higher percentages that are not complete. Like if I look at the 2015 one, for example, it would be very easy to focus in on the two with 73 percent and 100 percent not complete.

Am I confusing things?

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): I guess I’m asking: if a one-pager came back and said, “Oh, it’s not relevant” or “We’re done with all the recommendations,” would that still come back to the committee and a committee could still maybe decide that they want ask some questions to the ministry about it or whatever?

You said back to 2015, but I have some questions around the biodiversity report in 2013 still. It seems like there was a shift. There were changes. It’s a bit confusing, and I’m not entirely sure whether the recommendations were fully implemented, even though they’re saying they were. I’d welcome the opportunity to hear from the Auditor General whether they think it’s complete and also, perhaps, invite the ministry in to talk about that.

M. Bernier (Chair): I think that sets the stage, too, for some of the discussion and work that we’re going to have to do as a committee as we go through this.

I really appreciate, Michael, those different pieces of ad­vice. I had similar questions to Rick on how we can kind of clean this up at the end of the day to make it more efficient but also to ensure that the work actually has been done and that the committee can move forward to other pieces.

Maybe we’ll go to MLA Sharma next, please.

N. Sharma: A lot of my questions were answered through that exchange.

I guess I’ll just start by saying that it sounds like we’re being asked to do some kind of detailed policy development right now about exactly how we’re dealing with the APPAs. My question was: are we able to get exact questions that need to be answered and do it in a more thoughtful, maybe, way? I have a lot of questions about: was there anything written down before about how we deal with these APPAs?

It sounds like there are a lot of embedded questions. We talked about how long people do reports that are 100 percent self-assessed — stay on that sheet that’s one question. What do you do if there’s non-compliance? It sounds like there are a lot of layers of questions that we’re contemplating right now.

I guess my request would be: can we do it in a way that helps us see what the questions that we’re meant to be asking today are — maybe in another meeting — in a fulsome way? Just some thoughts on that.

[8:40 a.m.]

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks, Niki. I think once we get through some of these direct questions to the Auditor General and the comptroller general, too….

This is where I said at the onset, I believe, for the committee, that we’re going to have a deep discussion on process before we actually dive into a lot of the actual reports. We have to be comfortable, as a committee, on the way we want to see this roll out and on the best use of everyone’s time as well. It’s definitely not a one-meeting resolve on this one, for sure.

You, Niki, really highlighted the fact, I think, that we have to look at process more than anything, to make sure we’re comfortable moving forward. If we can, maybe we’ll take that as a committee kind of discussion after we finish this, if that’s okay.

N. Sharma: I guess, just to know, is any policy written down to date? Or is it just a process that may not be written down at this point, about how to deal with this?

M. Bernier (Chair): Actually, at that point, can I turn it over to Jennifer?

Maybe if you have some input there, Jennifer. You’ve got the experience that we don’t, for past practice. We don’t want to reinvent the wheel either, if there is a process already in place that we can evaluate first.

J. Arril (Clerk of Committees): Thanks for that. I actually might turn it over to the Auditor General and the comptroller general. I think their offices have really been working closely together on this process for quite some time, and I think they might be in a better position to answer that, Mike.

M. Bernier (Chair): Okay. Michael, do you have something you’re able to help us with there?

M. Pickup: Sure, sure. It sounds like we’re passing this along, but we’re not, really. I will ask Laura Pierce to walk through that processing on the beginning.

To MLA Sharma’s point, I think it’s true. We can come up with suggestions, proposals, as the Deputy Chair sort of got me going down that road.

As the Chair has indicated, it’s figuring out what role does the committee want to have in here. If I were going to give some advice, the advice would be: what do you want from the government? What do you want from the Auditor General, in terms of assurance? What comfort do you want from the Auditor General on any of this stuff? What is important to you to get from the Auditor General, and then how do you want it? What kind of structure do you want it in?

I think all of that, really, is to feed into the objective: what role do you want to have in looking at these, particularly the recommendations that are assessed as less complete? What role do you want to have in talking to the org­anizations about why their rates are what they are?

Laura, do you want to walk through — perhaps it’s on the front of the follow-up process — as to where we are now?

L. Pierce: Yes. I would say that there is a fairly defined process in place for requesting the action plan progress assessments, but the process or the work that takes place afterwards, of providing the committee with recommendations, is more fluid. There’s no defined process or instructions in place for that. That’s certainly something that we can work together on, but nothing is in place right now.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Laura.

M. Bernier (Chair): Yeah, thank you.

Jennifer, did you want to add something there?

J. Arril (Clerk of Committees): Yeah, I can, Mike.

When the APPAs come to the committee, in the past the committee has referred them to the subcommittee to take a look at and provide some recommendations back to the main committee — perhaps on areas that they see could be a benefit to have, to ask for some more information in writing, to ask the committee to ask the audited organization to come back and appear before the committee and respond, or for any other actions that the committee might want to take.

There haven’t been clear parameters, Niki, on exactly what determines what course of action the committee cho­oses to take. It has been very much at the discretion of the committee as to how they wanted to proceed with the next steps on the APPAs.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thank you.

Obviously, Niki, by that discussion, as you can see, that’s something we definitely have to come back to and make some decisions on.

[8:45 a.m.]

MLA Banman.

For some reason, MLA Banman’s microphone is not working.

MLA Starchuk, while we wait for Bruce.

M. Starchuk: Michael, I was looking at some of the older ones, similar to MLA Glumac, going back to the Ev­ergreen Line and some of the target dates that are coming back.

One of them, specifically, was spring 2021. I was wondering if there is any sense of urgency at certain times. We know that there are very large projects in Metro Vancouver, with the Broadway line and the Surrey-Langley line that’s coming. Will these recommendations that are not complete have any influence on the construction of those lines?

M. Pickup: My response to that…. Again, I’m not ig­noring your question; I wouldn’t have the details on that. I would say that I believe that’s why we do this work. That’s why we bring you this information. If I look at that summary that the team has put together, 19 of these audits, if we go back to 2014, show more than 20 percent of the recommendations still being assessed as outstanding. That seems like a lot to me, for 19 of them.

I think if you’re asking me my advice, it would be that, at a minimum, you’d write to these organizations and you’d ask them the question that you just asked, to say: “Are you still doing these recommendations? What are the risks that you’re carrying with this number of recommendations still outstanding? When are you going to have these done?”

During my time in Nova Scotia as AG, the committee would use this to say: “Okay. Government has set its own target of 80 percent within two years.” They would have a summary that showed the number who didn’t reach that. Then they would pick the ones that they wanted to write to, and then start calling in some of the other ones. It varies across the country. I’m not saying that’s the best process, but that is a process. I think, to your question, that’s why we are bringing this forward.

M. Starchuk: Mr. Chair, if I might add one more.

The format that we see says “status and recommendations.” You see recommendation 1. You see recommendation 6. They are partially implemented. Am I to assume that 2, 3, 4 and 5 are done, and there was nothing after 6? There wasn’t a 7 or 8 or 9 or a 27? That’s what’s kind of missing in my read of what’s there. I’m just not sure if I can see it. We can see what’s outstanding, but we can’t see what has been completed.

M. Pickup: Laura, do you want to comment on that?

L. Pierce: Yeah. I can answer that one.

Yes, you are correct. There were seven recommendations total in the Evergreen Line audit. The other five have been reported by the auditee as fully, substantially implemented. We did do a progress audit on the Evergreen Line rapid transit project in 2017. I believe at that time we concluded, too, that those five recommendations were fully, substantially implemented as well. It was just those two that remained outstanding at that point and that remain outstanding now.

M. Bernier (Chair): Is that good, then, Mike?

M. Starchuk: Sure. We can see in that one summary document that there were seven and that there are two outstanding, but in the meat and potatoes of that very de­tailed document, it doesn’t appear in there. That’s all. But I can get it.

M. Bernier (Chair): Rick, did you have another question?

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): I did, yeah. Just getting back to MLA Sharma’s suggestion for process, I agree.

[8:50 a.m.]

Maybe one idea would be that the Clerk’s office could come back with sort of a list of decision points or questions around process from this discussion. For example, after how many years would the Auditor General reapproach a ministry to get an update or to re-engage? What would happen when 100 percent of the recommendations are complete? Or we could take that away to a subcommittee and come up with a set of questions or proposals to bring back to the broader committee.

I do agree that we should tackle this in decision points. Do we want to do this? How do we want to do it? What’s the time frame of these various points where we interact with the ministry? Things like that. I very much would like to hear from others on how we would handle that — whether we would take it away to a subcommittee and come back with some ideas or whether the Clerk could structure that and we could do that as a full committee.

M. Bernier (Chair): Yeah, actually, I have been making notes, too, as we’ve been going through. There have been some great questions. A lot of it revolves around process to move things forward.

I am going to say that I know most government agencies would prefer and love to see their action items removed from this list, but that falls back on them and also some work of this committee as well.

I had made a note, Rick, and maybe this is the time I will make the comment, definitely around the process and work to do, that the committee probably allow and refer back to the subcommittee to come back with some recommendations to work with the Clerk more offline. We can try to get that process underway, to make sure it’s the best use of everyone’s time. We also want to make sure we give good direction to staff, as well, on what the objectives are that we’re looking for as a committee, once we decide.

I do really appreciate, so far, that everybody is, I think, on the same wavelength that we need to not only clean this up but find a succinct process in order to do that.

Any other questions or comments right now?

Maybe I’ll read this out for Bruce. Bruce’s question was in regards to COVID. An interruption, I believe, is what he means. “According to the Minister of Citizens’ Services, most of those who went home had government devices and were able to continue working. That being the case, is there any reason that the recommendations and work could not be done in that ministry?”

Michael, do you understand that question?

M. Pickup: I do understand that question, and again I think it demonstrates the importance of discussion with these organizations or interaction with these organizations so that you can judge, as committee members, as MLAs, whether you think that is reasonable or not, right? We’re providing this information to you so that then you can judge and hold government accountable as to what you think is reasonable or not reasonable.

I couldn’t give a blanket answer other than to say I think it’s important to engage with these organizations, to say: “Are you still going to do these things? Are they still relevant? If so, what’s your timeline for getting these things done, and what is your expectation for getting things done?”

Still, I go back to sort of…. We’ve had ten or 11 meetings this year and a number of witnesses come in. Nobody ever seems to say it’s going to take five, six, seven, eight years to do a recommendation. The overwhelming responses tend to be that we’re going to get this done in — if I recall, just as a generalization — a two- to three-year period. So I’m a little bit surprised, to be honest, coming in new as Auditor General here, that there are this many audits with recommendations that are outstanding for this period of time. It does cause me to pause.

M. Bernier (Chair): I think there are probably a lot of heads shaking, agreeing with you. So we have a little bit of work to do.

[8:55 a.m.]

Any other questions for the comptroller general or Auditor General before we can maybe have just a quick discussion on next steps with the committee?

J. Tegart: I think it’s really important that as a committee we put together a process that shows that there will be follow-up from the committee level that shows we’re committed to that, and that these things do not drop off year to year. That they are important recommendations, and it’s important work.

I share the concern that many have expressed in regards to where we’re at with some that have not completed and what our role as a committee is in encouraging that.

I also agree with MLA Sharma. I am a policy person, and I think it’s important for everyone within government to know that we are developing a policy that will support that follow-up of the AG’s office and this committee on the important work that’s been done.

I’m looking forward to discussing that policy based on the discussion today. I think it sends out a strong message that we want to be efficient. We want people to really pay attention to the recommendations and to know that this committee will be following up.

I’ve enjoyed the conversation today. I think it’s important work.

M. Pickup: Chair, can I comment on that, even though it wasn’t a question to me?

M. Bernier (Chair): Sure, Michael.

M. Pickup: Thank you for those comments, Jackie. I was just going to say…. Week to week, month to month, if there are two questions over the last seven years I get asked most as Auditor General, they’re (1) how do you pick the audits you do, and (2) what happens after, whoever follows up when you make these recommendations, and do things just sit there?

Though you’re hitting the nail on the head, I think that is probably the number two question that I get asked: what happens after?

The other comment I was going to make goes back to something that I said before. When you talk about policy and stuff and processes of the Public Accounts Committee, it may also be worthwhile to think about how that builds in to questions to witnesses when we do an audit, to say: “What is a government’s expectation?” Does government have a policy to say: “Generally, X percent of recommendations should be completed within this period of time”? Because as it gets easier for you to do your job, and for us to take a role…. If government thinks they should get 80 percent done within two years or 90 percent within three years, that makes it easier for everybody to figure out.

I’m a big process and policy person as well, and I would offer that there is that other element there as to what government is trying to achieve with implementation.

M. Bernier (Chair): Any other questions?

B. Anderson: Good morning, everyone. I was just curious if there’s ever a recommendation given and the answer is: “No, we’re not going to do it.”

M. Pickup: I’ll let the team comment specifically on the B.C. experience. But over my time in Nova Scotia, there were probably, with ten or 12 audits per year, 99.9 percent of the recommendations agreed to.

If anything, I would work hard to try to say to organizations we were auditing: “If you don’t agree with the recommendation, don’t say you agree. Indicate why you don’t agree. Let’s talk about whether the recommendation makes sense. Let’s talk about whether there should be a different recommendation.” If we fundamentally still get to the recommendation we think makes sense — there is a disagreement on whether they’re going to do the recommendation — then let’s go before Public Accounts Committee, if they so choose, and let the Public Accounts Committee understand.

During my time in Nova Scotia, there was probably only, really, one recommendation where…. We said: “Don’t build a school.” It didn’t make sense. Then the government said: “We’re building the school.” We continued to say, “Don’t build the school,” when the school was half-built. That’s how strongly we felt about it. But that was one recommendation over my six years.

[9:00 a.m.]

Generally, we work hard to give recommendations that make sense. That does beg the question, then. If the recommendations are so valuable, if they’re relevant, if they’re risk-related and if organizations, as you see when they come before the committee, indicate that they are going to do these things and that it is important and helpful, then it does beg that question: “Then what? What is your timeline? When can we expect you to have this done so that we can hold you accountable?”

My answers are always long. Sorry.

M. Bernier (Chair): Brittny, are you good?

B. Anderson: I really appreciate it. Thank you.

M. Bernier (Chair): Yeah. Actually, I had a similar question. I’m glad that you brought that up.

I would far rather…. As you said, Michael, we should be having that discussion of whether we agree or disagree and move it forward in that respect, rather than it being pushed further and further onto the far corner of a desk and not being dealt with in a timely manner.

I think that brings us back to maybe trying to look at cleaning some of this up. If things are irrelevant, then let’s get that discussion started and move them off the list, if that’s the direction we’re going to go, rather than people just — I don’t want to use the word, necessarily — slow-walking but maybe not putting the relevance to it anymore because policy direction has maybe changed.

My apologies. Laura Hatt had her hand up.

Do you still have a point, Laura?

L. Hatt: I was going to say, as well, that what we provide in the APPAs is that alternative action. Sometimes at the end of the audit, we are all in agreement — we do work really hard to get that agreement — in terms of what the recommendations are before we publish the report. But a year later, when they’re thinking through their APPAs, things have shifted.

We try not to be very prescriptive. We identify what the problem is and then provide them with the opportunity to get ways to fix it.

To Carl’s point, our job isn’t necessarily to tell government to direct more resources to one thing or another. Our job is to identify the problem or the risk that needs ad­dressing. It’s up to government or management to really identify how they’re going to do that.

We do provide that flexibility within the current process. If, at the time of the end of the report, we’re all in agreement but it comes to budget time or they’re thinking through other areas where they need to move resources or they have a different way of approaching it, there is alw­ays that opportunity for them to record that within their APPA. That’s what that alternative action tag, or whatever you want to call it, is there for. So that’s also part of the process.

M. Bernier (Chair): Excellent. Thank you, Laura, for adding that.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): As a closing thought, I just want to say how excited I am by this discussion. I think this is some very important work that this committee can undertake this time around to put some structure and process into place. I think benefiting from the wisdom of the Auditor General and his previous work and working together to come up with that process is going to be very important work for future committees to put in place. I’m very excited about that.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks, Rick.

Any further comments before…?

M. Pickup: I have one. If I could make one more, Chair.

On that, Rick, if I think back over the six years that I spent as AG in Nova Scotia, credit to the public service and those running government, credit to the Public Accounts Committee down there. I said this publicly on leaving.

With the focus of the Public Accounts Committee there on the recommendations, the focus within government on the goal of having the recommendations completed in government and, then, our streamlined approach…. What we saw over those six years I was there is the percentage of recommendations completed within two years of audit went from 56 percent to 75 percent, which is a pretty significant increase over that six-year period. Like I said, credit to the government, credit to the Public Accounts Committee. It all worked really well.

I think process and structure and direction and focus can result in things getting completed. Ultimately, we all want to see these things implemented.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thank you, Michael.

[9:05 a.m.]

I think we have some discussion and work to do, even as a committee. We have the short-term work, as Jennifer has highlighted for me, of trying to figure out where we want to go right now with the existing process on trying to remove, or at least have the discussion as a committee on, some of the APPAs.

Then it’s also the discussion of: going forward into next year and the year after, is there a better, more streamlined way of doing this? That’s a discussion the committee can also have for next year, as we roll out.

I think everyone would appreciate…. At least, I know myself and what I’ve heard from a lot of the committee members who are process-oriented…. In my life in the private sector, I always worked on Gantt charts. Everything was on charts. For me, if we lay the timelines and we also lay the expectations so people know what is expected, the streamlined aspect will probably be a lot better, I think. A better result for everybody and a better use of everyone’s time to make sure recommendations are being followed through.

Then, of course, the committee is doing their due diligence on the assurance of that, with the work with your office, Michael. So thank you.

Just wanted to see if there were any more comments be­fore we maybe look at next steps. No? I don’t see any more.

Michael and your team and Carl, thank you so much. It’s your prerogative to stay on if you wish. We’re probably just going to have a couple of discussions on next steps with the committee. Again, thank you.

I know we are going to be talking to you really soon, especially as we try to sort through not only the 300 or 400 pages of all the APPAs but also the process. As always, appreciate your advice and your recommendations and the work you’ve brought to this committee. Thank you.

M. Pickup: Thank you, everybody. Have a good day, a good week.

M. Bernier (Chair): Thanks, Michael.

For the rest of the committee, just a couple of things, then. I know everybody is busy. Looking for some direction from the committee. First of all, next Monday we had pencilled in another Public Accounts meeting. There was no official agenda, but the thought was…. We pencilled that in, in everyone’s calendar in case we wanted to do a follow-up from this meeting and further discussion as a whole committee.

The other thought is that if the committee wanted, they could refer this back to the subcommittee to have a discussion and bring back recommendations to the committee. I leave that open in your hands for ideas and advice.

N. Sharma: Thanks for that, Chair.

My thoughts are…. I wonder if a subcommittee could take this on. It sounds like, from my listening to the ans­wers, there’s a lot of detailed questions to be answered. It probably would take maybe a subcommittee really diving into it to figure out exactly what a recommendation might be. I think it might be a little bit unruly for us to do it as a whole committee, personally. We can give feedback, maybe at another meeting. It would be great to see something written down.

M. Bernier (Chair): I see a lot of heads nodding. I think I can work with the subcommittee, if that’s the direction, then, of the rest of the committee members. We can, working with staff, try to come up with a good process to really figure out how we want to jump into this and utilize everybody’s time — I think, Niki — appropriately.

Rick, did you have any comments on that? I know you mentioned it a little bit earlier today. If that’s still where your head is.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Yeah, absolutely. I think that would be a good way to go. Would the idea be that the next meeting, which is pencilled in, would instead be the subcommittee meeting? Then I have a follow-up question.

M. Bernier (Chair): I guess that would be up to the committee, for the best use of time.

Jennifer, I think that’s something that could be done, right? We could just, instead of being a full committee me­eting, use that time that’s already pencilled in for the subcommittee to move forward with that time.

J. Arril (Clerk of Committees): Yes, that’s correct, Mike.

When we made the workplan for the three months out, we did it as a whole, like Mike said, for further APPA consideration — whether the committee chose to do that in the full committee setting or to delegate it to the subcommittee.

Absolutely. If the decision is taken to delegate it to the subcommittee, the next meeting on Monday, June 14 co­uld instead be a subcommittee meeting.

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Then, just quickly, if it would be possible to break out those decision points for that meeting. That would be helpful to, I think, structure that discussion. Is that possible?

[9:10 a.m.]

M. Bernier (Chair): My thought was…. Maybe we have an offline discussion, the Deputy Chair and myself with Jennifer in the office, on putting a good agenda, I guess, forward for next Monday, with some action items, so we make good use of our time too. What do we want to ac­complish in our first meeting as a subcommittee, on what steps? We can check those boxes and make sure that we’re happy with the process as well, and then we know what to bring back to the full committee.

Is that what you were thinking, Rick?

R. Glumac (Deputy Chair): Sure. Yeah. That sounds great.

M. Bernier (Chair): Maybe I’ll look to the committee. Is there anybody who does not want it to go to the subcommittee, would rather it be in the full committee setting for the first steps? Any further discussion on that?

Okay. Jennifer, then, for my recollection on this…. Sor­ry. Do we have to have a motion to refer to the subcommittee, or can that just be an action item from the committee?

J. Arril (Clerk of Committees): Yeah. That’s fine. No motion required.

M. Bernier (Chair): Okay. That’s what I thought.

Any further discussion on that point, then, for today? I don’t see any.

Canadian Council of Public Accounts
Committees Conference

M. Bernier (Chair): One other thing I had on other business was just a re­minder for everyone around the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees. The AGM, again, is coming up on September 8 and 9. Alberta is the host. We are the vice-chairs of that committee.

Remember, this is virtual. We had another call, and we have got another call scheduled this week with the full federal committee on some of the next steps that we’re doing. I’ll report out on that to everyone later. But just a reminder. I believe we sent the link out last week, so you can make sure it’s pencilled in and look at registering as well.

Any other comments today or other business from anyone? I don’t see any.

I think the direction from today…. That was a really good discussion. I appreciate everyone’s questions and the input. We’ll refer, as we said, next Monday’s meeting to the subcommittee. We’ll have some discussion around there based on today’s direction and thoughts from everybody on the committee.

Jennifer, is there anything that I’ve…?

Jennifer is shaking her head, so I’ve covered off my stuff.

Seeing no other questions, then, I wish everyone a good Monday.

A motion to adjourn. From MLA Sharma.

The committee adjourned at 9:12 a.m.