MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Tuesday, December 5, 2000 9:00 a.m. Douglas Fir Committee Room Parliament Buildings, Victoria

Present: R. Thorpe, MLA (Chair); D. Miller, MLA (Deputy Chair); P. Calendino, MLA; S. Orcherton, MLA; A. Petter, MLA; G. Farrell-Collins, MLA; M. Coell, MLA; V. Roddick, MLA; R. Kasper, MLA; J. Weisgerber, MLA

Unavoidably Absent: D. Streifel, MLA; E. Walsh, MLA
 

1. The Committee was called to order at 9:10 a.m.

2. The Committee reviewed the status of Committee business and the draft Committee reports currently in progress.

3. The Committee reviewed the status of written Follow-Up reports received from the Office of the Auditor General. The Committee heard from the following witnesses:

Office of the Comptroller General:
    Arn van Iersel, Comptroller General

Office of the Auditor General:
    Morris Sydor, Principal
    Wayne Strelioff, Auditor General

4. The Committee considered its revised draft report on the “Governance and Risk Management of the Fast Ferry Project”.

5. Resolved, that the Committee accept and adopt the revised draft report as presented. (Mr. D. Miller, MLA)

6. Resolved, that the Chair present the Committee report to the Legislative Assembly at the next earliest opportunity. (Mr. P. Calendino, MLA)

7. The Committee discussed the mandate of the Auditor General. The Committee heard from the following witnesses:

Office of the Auditor General:
    Wayne Strelioff, Auditor General
    Peter Gregory, Assistant Auditor General

8. The Committee considered the year-end and supplier payment process. The Committee heard from the following witnesses:

Office of the Comptroller General:
    Arn van Iersel, Comptroller General

Office of the Auditor General:
    Wayne Strelioff, Auditor General

9. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 11:30 a.m.
 
 
 

Rick Thorpe, MLA Chair

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Committee Clerk

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

 

Chair:	* Rick Thorpe (Okanagan-Penticton L)
Deputy Chair:	* Dan Miller (North Coast NDP)
Members:	* Pietro Calendino (Burnaby North NDP) * Steve Orcherton (Victoria-Hillside NDP) * Andrew Petter (Saanich South NDP)    Dennis Streifel (Mission-Kent NDP)    Erda Walsh (Kootenay NDP) * Murray Coell (Saanich North and the Islands L) * Gary Farrell-Collins (Vancouver-Little Mountain L) * Val Roddick (Delta South L) * Rick Kasper (Malahat-Juan de Fuca Ind) * Jack Weisgerber (Peace River South Ind)

                                                  * Denotes member present
 
 

Clerk:

Kate Ryan-Lloyd

Committee Staff:

Kelly Dunsdon (Committee Researcher)

The committee met at 9:10 a.m.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We'll call the committee to order. Just to give everyone fair notice, some of the work we expected to do today and tomorrow. . . . Because of witnesses not feeling that they had all of the material necessary to make the most comprehensive reports to us, that's been struck, and we'll probably reschedule that some time in January.

Also, I think it's fair to say that the Clerk's office has been extremely busy with a number of other committees and with the finance and budget committee travelling around the province. There's a very, very good chance -- and we'll see how it goes today -- that we will not be meeting tomorrow. But the one thing I would like to do, between myself and the Deputy Chair -- and we've talked briefly -- is try to establish as soon as possible our meeting dates in January so that everybody can get those in their planners.

I guess we'll start with Kelly Dunsdon. Kelly, if you could give us an overview of the status of committee business with respect to a number of reports and follow-ups, please.

K. Dunsdon: First of all, I'd just like to say that the earthquake preparedness insurance issues follow-up that was expected to happen today has been postponed. The Insurance Bureau of Canada is preparing a study on the exposure of greater Vancouver to fire following an earthquake. They've contracted a consultant to do that study. They had expected it to be done mid-November. Now they're expecting it to be done mid-December, so they'd be happy to come and talk about that study after their report is released.

What I want to do now is just very briefly go through the status of the committee's draft reports. First of all is "Earthquake Preparedness," obviously -- the committee's report on that topic. The follow-up will be postponed until we hear further from the Insurance Bureau and the Ministry of Finance. The second draft report that's in the works is the Y2K final report, which is expected to be completed in mid-January of next year. The B.C. Ferry Corporation follow-up of "Fleet and Terminal Maintenance Management and Operational Safety" is also expected to be completed in mid-January of next year. "Standards of Conduct in the Education and Health Sectors" is also expected to be completed around the middle of January. "Government Financial Accountability for 1998-99" is 50 percent completed at this time, so I would expect that it would be done probably late January. The "Protecting Drinking Water Sources" follow-up. You'll remember that some witnesses came back on November 7 to talk about the drinking water action plan -- members of the director's committee. A report on that follow-up is just in progress now, and I would expect that it would be done in early February. The last draft report that's in progress at the moment is "Fostering a Safe Learning Environment." It's expected to be completed in mid-February as well.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Any questions of Kelly with respect to any of these reports that she's made comments on?

Well, I guess, Kelly, you will be putting the afterburners on to ensure that as many things can be completed for the committee in January as is physically possible.

K. Dunsdon: Yes.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Of course, if we have drafts ready to go, which the committee members have to review. . . . If we could get those out before whatever we decide is going to be our January meeting, that would be most helpful. Thank you.

No. 2 on the agenda is the status of written follow-up reports received from the auditor general.

First of all, I will go through all of the reports that we have received to date and that are in your binder this morning.

Just a bit of background for the new members: in the spring of this year the committee worked with the offices of the auditor general and comptroller general to develop a new, streamlined procedure to follow up on the status of recommendations made by the auditor general resulting from performance and compliance audits, as well as the status of the committee's recommendations made in its reports. According to the new follow-up procedure, after an audited organization has appeared before the committee, the auditor general's office will contact that organization to request a written progress update on the status of recommendations. Usually, that's required within a period of about five months.

Progress updates are expected to address the status of each recommendation made by the auditor general and the status of any recommendations made by the committee. The committee can also decide to call witnesses to receive follow-up information in person, which has happened on a few occasions to date.

Once the auditor general's office has received a written progress update, the information in it is reviewed to generally confirm that it is fairly stated. The progress update, along with the auditor general's review of it, is then forwarded to the office of the Clerk of Committees, the office of the comptroller general and distributed by our office to all committee members. That's the material that you have in the binder in front of you today. It's also been previously circulated, but just for your convenience, we've put it all together in one package.

It's expected that written progress updates and the auditor general's review of them will be tabled periodically in the House, generally on a semi-annual basis.

According to the follow-up procedure, upon reviewing follow-up material received, the committee may decide it wishes someone to reappear before the committee to provide further information or to provide that information in writing.

The purpose of my presentation today is to go over what the committee has received to date, so that the committee can decide if it wishes to pursue any further information about the recommendations.

First of all, there are three areas where follow-up has been done outside the written follow-up procedure, in accordance
 

with the wishes of the Chair and the previous Deputy Chair. The first of those was "B.C. Ferry Corp. Fleet and Terminal Maintenance Management and Operational Safety." This is an auditor general's report that was originally issued in 1996, and a follow-up report was done in mid-1998. The committee reported on their consideration of it in mid-1999. You'll find this information, I believe, at tab 1 of your binder. Oh, sorry -- it's not in the binder, because it was done in person. But I understand that the auditor general's office is planning to send a follow-up package on this topic to the committee shortly.

The second item that was considered by the committee is "Earthquake Preparedness." This was a report issued by the auditor general in November of 1997, which contained 60 recommendations. The committee's own report was tabled in June 1999 and contained 24 recommendations additional to those made by the auditor general. The auditor general provided a follow-up package to the committee on the status of its nine strategic recommendations in May 1999, and then on May 16 of this year the committee heard from witnesses on this topic, particularly representatives of the provincial emergency program, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health. At that time the auditor general supplied the committee with a follow-up package indicating that none of the recommendations made by the committee had been fully implemented. More follow-up is expected to occur in January, when representatives of the Insurance Bureau and the Ministry of Finance appear before the committee.

G. Farrell-Collins: May I just ask a question, Kelly? I'm sorry.

K. Dunsdon: Sure.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to be sure. . . . You explained that the reason for the delay in that presentation was the Insurance Bureau. Is that the only reason? Was the Ministry of Finance. . . ? Did they have any reason to delay it at all either, or was it just the Insurance Bureau?

K. Dunsdon: No, the Insurance Bureau contacted me originally, wanting to delay it. I did ask the Ministry of Finance to provide a comment as to whether they'd feel comfortable appearing and speaking about the insurance issue, and they said they felt the meeting would be more productive if they could see the draft Insurance Bureau report first.

G. Farrell-Collins: Okay. I was just curious, because we had a presentation, a follow-up from them at one point, and it didn't seem that much had been done. I just wanted to make sure that it was where the problem was, that's all. That's why I asked.

K. Dunsdon: Okay. The third follow-up that the committee has pursued by calling witnesses is the protecting drinking water sources issue. The auditor general's report on this topic was issued in 1999, and it contained 26 recommendations. The committee's report was tabled earlier this year and contained two recommendations additional to those made by the auditor general. One of those was asking for a six-month follow-up, which has occurred already, in November. And one was relating to MTBE testing.

The auditor general's follow-up package, containing a written progress report from the directors' committee on drinking water, was received by the committee in November of this year. The directors' committee considered three of the auditor general's recommendations to be fully implemented. The remainder of them were considered partially implemented or addressed by alternative actions. In particular, one that was considered to be addressed by alternative actions was the recommendation relating to the designation of a lead agency for drinking water in trusts. The directors' committee considered the committee recommendation relating to MTBE testing to be partially implemented. You'll see the information about that in your binder.

In terms of the written follow-ups that have been received in our office, we've received the following. First of all, "Crown Corporations Governance Study" -- this was a report done originally by the auditor general in 1996, which contained one broad recommendation: that the government review the current system of Crown corporation governance and develop a legislated model to cover the roles and responsibilities of all Crown corporations. A follow-up report was done by the auditor general in mid-1998. And the committee reported on the issue in mid-1999 and made five recommendations in addition to the auditor general's recommendation.

In June of this year the committee received a package from the auditor general, containing a written progress report from the deputy minister to the Premier and the auditor general's review of that information; you'll see that in the binder as well. You'll see that of the four recommendations made by the committee, two are underway, one is ongoing, and the other one has been addressed in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. The written progress update indicates that the auditor general's recommendation has been addressed in the act as well.

Secondly, the Vancouver Island Highway project follow-up has been received. The auditor general had made four recommendations regarding assessment of design, design management, planning standards and the opportunity for innovation within standards. The committee made two recommendations that were additional to those. In June of this year the committee received a package containing the written progress report from the ministry and the auditor general's review of that. You'll see that the ministry considers the committee's recommendation to be implemented, two of the auditor general's recommendations to have been implemented and the remaining two auditor general's recommendations to be in progress or of a continuing nature.

The third follow-up item is "Executive Severance Practices." This was a report issued originally by the auditor general in 1996. A follow-up was done in 1999, and the committee reported on it in mid-1999. The auditor general had made seven recommendations in his original report relating to severance guidelines, compliance with those guidelines and the reporting of information to the Legislative Assembly. The auditor general's 1999 follow-up report and the committee's consideration of it indicated that two of the recommendations remained outstanding. The committee's report tabled earlier this year recommended that those two recommendations be
 

addressed and also made an additional recommendation relating to collection and analysis of severance information and exempt employment contracts.

The fourth follow-up item that we've received is pertaining to loss reporting in government. The original report on this issue was released in 1998 and contained seven recommendations to address what the auditor general viewed as incomplete reporting of losses in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997.

Recommendations related to timeliness and completeness of reporting and reporting to appropriate authorities. The committee's report on this issue was tabled in 1998. In June of this year the committee received a package from the auditor general containing a written progress report from the Ministry of Finance and the auditor general's review of that report. So you'll see in the written progress update that you have in your binder that the ministry considers six of the seven auditor general recommendations to be fully implemented and one relating to the publishing of annual summarized statistics of reported government asset losses to be partially implemented.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Excuse me. Arn, can you give us details on the one that's partially implemented?

A. van Iersel: In the binder that you have, it does include the ministry's response. Loss reporting is under the risk management branch of my ministry. They have now begun annual reporting of losses, but they expect to expand this to include the Internet, as it says here. So it's not complete; there will be more loss reporting through risk management in the future.

R. Thorpe (Chair): What's the target date for having that completed?

A. van Iersel: I don't know myself. I'd have to check with them. I'll do that.

R. Thorpe (Chair): If you could, thank you.

Sorry, Kelly, carry on.

K. Dunsdon: The fifth follow-up item I have here on my list that is also in your binder is the Motor Dealer Act. There was a report issued on this topic in early 1998. That contained 18 recommendations relating to registration of dealers under the act, operation of the motor dealer customer compensation fund and monitoring compliance with the act.

The committee's report in mid-1998 did not make any recommendations additional to those made by the auditor general. The auditor general issued a follow-up report on the status of recommendations in November 1999.

In June of this year the committee received a package from the auditor general containing follow-up information. You'll see from the report in your binder that the ministry now considers all of the recommendations made in 1998 to have been implemented.

The sixth follow-up report that we've received is relating to revenue verification for the social service tax. This was a report originally issued in June 1996, containing seven recommendations pertaining to identification of unpaid taxes, prosecution for non-compliance, management information systems and analysis of the gap between tax collected and tax due. A follow-up review was done by the auditor general in 1998. The committee tabled its report on this topic in 1999 and made an additional recommendation regarding efforts to consider social service tax revenue issues in the context of the underground economy.

In June of this year the committee received a follow-up package. You'll see from the written progress report that the ministry considers four of the seven recommendations made by the auditor general to be fully implemented and considers the others and the committee's recommendation to be in progress or ongoing.

R. Thorpe (Chair): With respect to that, out of the recommendations that are partially implemented, are there any that anybody could comment on, which they would deem to be significant? It has been some time now. What is taking so long to implement those? Does anyone know?

M. Sydor: I don't have that specific information with me, Mr. Chair. We didn't bring the specific reports with us, so I'm not able to address that point.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Morris, could you undertake to get that information for us?

M. Sydor: Yes.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you.

Good point, Gary.

K. Dunsdon: Okay. The second-last follow-up report that we've received is regarding trucking safety. This was a report originally issued in December of 1996 containing 23 recommendations about measuring and evaluating program results, establishing trucking safety standards, removing unsafe trucks and drivers from the road and looking for better ways to achieve trucking safety. The committee also tabled a report on this topic in 1997. A follow-up report was done by the auditor general in 1998. The committee did its own follow-up report in mid-1999 and made four recommendations additional to those made by the auditor general. Those related to establishing a partners-in-compliance program similar to ones in other jurisdictions, expanding operating hours for portable weigh scales and use of national safety code information.

A progress report was received in April of this year and reported in another committee report that was tabled in the
 

spring of this year. Then in June the committee received a follow-up package from the auditor general indicating that the corporation considers ten of the auditor general's recommendations to be fully implemented, nine to be partially implemented and three as being addressed by alternative action. One has resulted in no action, and that relates to a recommendation to look at shifting the focus of enforcement to moving violations, in particular by examining a U.S. model where this function lies with law enforcement and police agencies. I understand that ICBC disagreed with this recommendation. The corporation considers the committee's recommendation relating to National Safety Code information to be fully implemented, while the recommendations relating to implementation of a partners-in-compliance program and expanding hours for portable weigh scales are partially implemented.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Just one second. I know this is a subject that has been near and dear to Mr. Kasper. Rick, did you have any comments on this particular. . . ?

R. Kasper: No. It's all good stuff.

K. Dunsdon: The last follow-up package we've received is pertaining to social housing. The original report by the auditor general was issued in November of '99, containing 15 recommendations relating to roles and responsibilities in governance of the B.C. Housing Management Commission and the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation and the role of the B.C. Housing board. The report also contained 12 recommendations relating to the management of social housing subsidies.

In November of this year, when the committee was actually considering its own draft report on this topic, we received a package containing follow-up information. You'll see that in your binder. It indicates that B.C. Housing considers ten of the 15 recommendations made by the auditor general to have been fully implemented, four to be partially implemented and one to be addressed by alternative action. That's with respect to the governance part of the audit. With respect to the subsidies part of the audit, one of the 12 recommendations had been fully implemented, and the others are still in progress.

I forgot to mention one of the other follow-up packages we've received; that's the last one in your binder there. It has to do with FRBC planning and accountability and the silviculture programs. There are 19 recommendations about planning and accountability, 21 regarding the silviculture programs.

The committee received a follow-up package in October of this year, before its own report was approved, indicating that nine recommendations required further follow-up because they were either partially implemented or of an ongoing nature. That's with respect to the planning and accountability part of the audit. Of the 21 recommendations relating to silviculture programs, eight were found to require further follow-up for the same reasons. You'll see that at the last tab of the binder that you have today.

M. Sydor: I think that one in particular reflects, I guess, some of what we found as we had gone through the new process for doing these follow-ups. There are a number of reports that we haven't been able to meet the six-month window in, and there are a number of reasons for that. There are basically three factors that come into play. One is the ability of our office to have resources available at a particular time. The second factor is the particular state that an audit organization may be at with regard to implementing recommendations. As Kelly just indicated, there are a couple that we are deferring because the timing just wasn't right, even though the time had arrived. If we waited a few months, we would get better information and the committee can have a more complete discussion of where that particular audit organization is at.

The third one is the state of the Public Accounts Committee's reports. As Kelly indicated right at the beginning, there are a number of reports that she is going to be completing over the next couple of months. Some of those reports may have recommendations in them that we would include in our normal follow-up, and right now we are in fact following up a number of those. My sense is that we need to look at the process and maybe make some adjustments to it.

Speaking specifically to the human capital one, that one -- in terms of why we don't have a report at this stage -- gets back to one of the points I was addressing, and it's our capacity to have the resources available to do a follow-up at a particular time. The staff members who were involved in that particular audit are involved in new projects, and with the changes underway in our office, there were additional assignments involved as well. So we just haven't been able to devote somebody to carry out the particular review for that particular audit.

That one, in and of itself, tends to be a lengthier review than some of the others because we're talking about four ministries and PSERC. So there are five entities that are involved and that would require about a month and a half of somebody's time to go out and gather the information. We just weren't able to allocate somebody's time to get that complete. So the state we are at with that particular one is that we have a response in hand, but we just haven't been able to do the review work necessary to see whether the response is reliable and is information that the committee can rely on.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a question. I've thought of this for some time since serving on this committee. My impression as an individual member of the committee is that over time, I think government has become better at responding to the recommendations that are made by the auditor general -- although there are some noticeable lapses -- and that this committee has taken it upon itself, in an attempt to ensure that those recommendations are in fact acted upon and the auditor general reports don't just end up on the shelf somewhere, to call for updates and progress reports on a fairly regular basis.
 

I think the effect of that has been that the work of this committee has sort of snowballed, layer upon layer. There are times when we perhaps need to be a little more disciplined ourselves in saying: "Okay, that report has been around enough. It has been for the most part implemented, and we don't need another update." That's just my personal impression from watching the workload of this committee. I think the workload of this committee has also been affected by the number of reports the auditor general has been required to do because of the way public funds have been managed.

I'm just wondering, Wayne or Morris, if you have had any thoughts on that. I don't know if that's what you were commenting upon when you said that we needed to look at the structure of what we were doing.

I think the guide is very good in terms of outlining the process on one level. What the guide doesn't do is get into the sort of judgmental decisions that you're referring to. At what point do we have enough information that we can say, "Well, we don't need to follow up this particular recommendation anymore" -- or, on a broader scale, this particular audit report?

I think that's one of the things that over the next few months we should have a look at. I know that in past reports, when we were reporting annually, we had a system within our office where we would look at the recommendations. Even if they weren't fully implemented, if we could make a judgment that they were far enough along that we were comfortable that the ministry was moving in the right direction and that doing another follow-up wouldn't provide any more substantive information to the committee, we would cut it off at that point.

I don't think it's clear in the current guidelines that we still have that capacity. But certainly at some point, the information that you're getting is of diminishing value. There's just so much more improvement they can make.

Some recommendations, as well, we've noted, tend to be fairly complex and take a few years to implement. And all you're getting is information saying: "We're working on it; we're working on it." So at some point, I agree, we need a system where we can both agree -- committee members and our office -- that we've gone as far as we should in this particular case, using our resources efficiently, because it is a big burden on the ministries as well.

Part of the delay in some cases has been that even though we sent a request out at a particular time, the people just weren't able to deal with it right away. So they put it aside for a month or a month and a half, and then they got back to it. So we've gotten all the responses we've asked for, but the timing hasn't been as we initially anticipated, because there are a lot of complexities involved on everybody's side.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know that I personally, right now, take a lot of time. I personally find that there are reports and updates where really nine-tenths or seven-eighths of the recommendations have been implemented, and we get a follow-up and another follow-up. Quite frankly, I would rather spend our time and have your office spend your time on those reports that seem to be dragging, like the earthquake preparedness one.

The interaction between the Ministry of Finance and the Insurance Bureau is one that seems to be taking a long time to move along. I'm not sure if that's because it's just complicated or if that's because there isn't a real will to move on it. I would rather see your office and our committee perhaps put more pressure where pressure's required, rather than have our time used going through the third iteration of an update. But I don't know what the Chair thinks about that.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yeah, I have thoughts about that, but I'll listen to other people. Wayne?

W. Strelioff: Members, thanks. I also have been watching the follow-up process as an interested observer, in terms of it being new to me as well. I think the follow-up in general has put rigour to making sure that change does happen in government. So that part is very good, because quite often reports just sit on people's desks without the follow-up. Having people come in and explain publicly what's going on is a very good step.

Internally, we've been discussing possible changes to the follow-ups. One could be that the follow-up doesn't happen until the committee's report actually is finalized. Sometimes we do follow-ups while the committee still hasn't finished its report, and then we have a follow-up a week or a month after the committee's report has been locked in. That tends to get confusing and also tends to mean that you're addressing the same issue over and over again. So we should talk about that to see if there's a better way of handling it.

The other is the complexity. When you ask for a follow-up, the standard is six months. Well, on some recommendations that involve multiple agencies or multiple ministries, it may be that it should be longer. Right at the point of a decision to make the six-month follow-up, maybe the committee should discuss whether a longer follow-up should be considered, and maybe our office could provide a recommendation at that moment. So the standard could be six months, but there might be some issues that are more complex that would just require a longer time. And then, as you mentioned, when is enough enough?

G. Farrell-Collins: I served briefly on this committee shortly after the '91 election for about a year. When I came back to this committee about a year and a half or a year ago, I was pleased to see that the follow-up process was actually working. I think that initially a lot of these recommendations just went off into the ether; nobody paid any attention to them.
 

I expect that having the committee follow up has increased the seriousness with which ministries take the recommendations that come from your office. But I do think that there needs to be some incentive there. For those departments that act quickly, we'll get out of their face, and they can get back to work. For those that don't, we're going to be all over them, and your office will be all over them. I'm just wondering if there's maybe a more efficient allocation of resources.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I'd just like to say a few words. First of all, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca and myself who got quite concerned, at one Public Accounts meeting, that we'd been talking about the same things for a number of years and there didn't seem to be a whole bunch of action. I think that's probably where the spawning of the idea of follow-up came from.

It would be my view that once again it tends to be the Canadian way to get hung up on process. Perhaps we might want to focus some of our efforts on action and results. I would expect, from a personal perspective, that with the professional staff in the auditor general's office and the comptroller general's office. . . . When this thought was developed, I don't think anyone thought that this was the perfect solution to the situation. I think these things have to evolve.

So I would more than welcome whatever the next steps are to make it more efficient, to make it results-oriented, to make it action-oriented, not to get bogged down. I fully support "enough is enough." But things like, for instance, the protection of drinking water. . . . I don't think, as a committee, that we can keep our focus on that subject hard enough, and I think the public of British Columbia expects us to do that. So I would look forward, as I'm sure other committee members would, to the 2001 rendition of how the follow-up process is going to work, how it's going to be more efficient and improved. Improvement is a continuous process. I would look forward to the inputs from the professionals in the auditor general's office.

I am very concerned, though -- very concerned. And I would like some kind of an answer to this question. The first reason that came out of Morris's. . .was a lack of resources. I would like some explanation of what that meant with respect to not being able to keep on top of the follow-up -- the lack of resources. I don't know whether you want to answer that, Morris, or whether the auditor general would like to answer that.

M. Sydor: Let me answer first. I was talking about a specific project. I think that in the main, we've been able to accommodate all the follow-ups that we've sent out. The difficulty with that particular one, as I indicated. . . . The human capital one covered a specialized area. It covered off four government entities. It was a governmentwide audit. The staff members who were carrying that out are moving on to a new governmentwide project, looking at a very similar issue -- work environment issues.

I guess we made the decision that that was more important in terms of keeping up with that, trying to get that off the ground and dealing with the follow-up information at that particular time. And the nature of the audits are such that we can't pass it off to somebody else who may be available to carry out some work. You know, it's very specialized. You have to have knowledge of what went on beforehand, why you came to particular conclusions.

R. Thorpe (Chair): So your comment was a one-off rather than a generalized statement.

M. Sydor: It dealt with that particular staff member and her specialization, her skills and her need to be on that. She wasn't able to do that. Again, our judgment was that we have to continue with the road that we're going on. We thought we'd be able to get her onto that at some later date, but it just hasn't happened.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yes, Wayne. Did you want to say something?

W. Strelioff: That's correct. I've loaded up that person with a number of different responsibilities, and she's bogging down a bit.

R. Thorpe (Chair): So it's your fault.

W. Strelioff: It's my fault.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thanks for that clarification, Morris and Wayne.

With respect to the. . . . And thanks, Kelly, because this is a very comprehensive document. In the nature of this committee, because we haven't gone through all the details of this, it would be my suggestion to the committee that we make this available through the Clerk's office to anyone from the public that would want to be kept up to date, instead of loading all of this onto the Internet. So if. . . . Yes, Morris?

M. Sydor: In that regard, I would just like to add -- I forgot to mention -- that we are in the process of developing our own semi-annual package; that will be out probably within the next week to two weeks. And we are going to be putting that on our Internet site. So we're basically going to be developing a similar package that we're going to have tabled, and that will be available to the public through our web site and to other Members of the Legislative Assembly.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Good. So if no one has any problems, I would ask Kate of the Clerk's office to make sure that this is available to those in the public that are interested in it, because we are Public Accounts.