1999 Annual Report,
Provincial Auditor
Government Advertising
Year 2000 / Information Technology Preparedness
Ms Michele Noble, deputy
minister, Management Board of Cabinet
Ms Suzanna Birchwood, director, communications services
branch,
Management Board of Cabinet
Mr Paul Scott, assistant deputy minister, year 2000 initiative,
Management Board of Cabinet,
Ms Gail Peach, assistant deputy minister and CEO, health sector
year 2000 project
Ministry of Health
Mr Scott Campbell, chief information officer, Management Board of
Cabinet
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Chair /
Président
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les
Iles L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh L)
Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh L)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les
Iles L)
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North / -Nord PC)
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr Erik Peters, Provincial Auditor
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Mr Ray McLellan, research officer, Legislative Research
Service
The committee met at 1033 in committee room 1,
following a closed session.
1999 ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Consideration of chapter 2,
guidelines recommended for government advertising.
The Chair (Mr John
Gerretsen): I'd like to call the committee to order. The
first issue deals with government advertising.
I wonder if you could all
identify yourselves for the Hansard record.
Ms Michele
Noble: I'm Michele Noble, Deputy Minister of Management
Board Secretariat. With me is Suzanna Birchwood, the director of
communications with the ministry, the area to which the staff
that constitutes the Advertising Review Board reports. I also
have with me Scott Campbell, the corporate chief information
officer for the OPS, and Paul Scott, the ADM responsible for the
Y2K initiative and in charge of the corporate project management
office.
The Chair:
We have split the two issues into separate sections. We will deal
with the government advertising issue first, for about 40
minutes. If you have an opening statement or a response to the
auditor's report, perhaps you could indicate that to us now, and
then we'll have questions from the members of the committee.
Ms Noble: I
understand the committee would like to speak first to the
advertising and then to the other item.
The Chair:
We will deal with the other item about 40 or 45 minutes from
now.
Ms Noble:
That's fine.
In a couple of very brief
opening remarks, I would like to thank the members of the
committee for the opportunity of being here this morning to
discuss this issue in terms of bringing members of the committee
up to date with respect to the advertising directive and to
comment and try and put this in the context of some work we're
doing on the corporate directive in general.
Management Board Secretariat
has recognized the importance of good management practices and
accountability. To that end, the secretariat has, over the last
couple of years, been engaged in a project whereby we are looking
at the question of directives in general and trying to bring them
up to date with current good public administrative practice.
To that end, we've been
looking at areas such as the business planning process and also
at corporate audit. We've also been looking at new financial
human resource information systems as a way of improving our
capacity to work within these directives, and then, as I
mentioned, the directive initiatives themselves.
The directives are an
essential part of the government's accountability cycle. What
we're doing in looking at them is to try to make sure we have
outlined purpose, application, scope, principles, mandatory
requirements and responsibilities as a general framework that we
wish to bring all the directives into compliance with.
In terms of looking at the
directives, we are working with a set of values-supporting
them-dealing with quality public service, fairness,
effectiveness, integrity, openness and dealing with the questions
of accountability, setting a fundamental foundation within the
directives.
To help us manage the review
project, there is a forum of responsible officials across the
public service who have been involved with us in trying to update
these directives and bring these into compliance with public
administrative practices at this time.
There are currently 132
directives. They are available. This is down from 160 two years
ago. Many of them have been revised, and some that were no longer
relevant have been removed. We are basically trying to ensure
that the government's commitment to spend wisely and be
accountable is being met.
The other element with
respect to the directives is that we go through a process of
consultation. We are also working with a process of
plain-language writing. We work with legal services, look at the
question of human resource impact, and look at the issues of
making sure appropriate communications are in place, that the
procedure is well understood and that the approvals take
place.
Within this general context,
we are currently looking at the advertising and creative
communication services directive, and it's being updated to
reflect changes in the advertising world. As well, the concerns
of the Provincial Auditor around certain advertising and
communications campaigns are being addressed as part of the
comprehensive look at the advertising directive. So we are taking
into account the observations of the auditor as part of this
process.
By way of background, the
directive that is currently in place, which is under review, was
created in 1985 to provide
principles and requirements for buying advertising and creative
services. So the focus of that directive is on procurement. Since
that time, changes have been made related to procurement
practices. In 1994 they were changed to reflect arrangements with
Ontario in terms of trade agreements, and in 1998 there were
amendments in terms of the Canadian content clause.
It is important to note that
the nature and scope of advertising has changed significantly
over the 15 years since the directive was created. A significant
review of the directive was called for, and today we are looking
at new and different ways of sharing information with the public
on the government programs and services. To that effect, recently
there was an article in the Globe and Mail about the Internet as
a vehicle of communication. That is the kind of thing we have to
take into account to ensure that the directive in this area is
appropriate. So that reflects where we are today.
On the review, we worked over
the summer, looking at other jurisdictions and what they have
done. In the fall, we have been talking to other ministries and
looking at their particular needs, issues that have arisen in
terms of the use of the current directive. We'll be pulling this
together to have a revised directive as quickly as possible,
taking into consideration the various inputs we've had and, as I
said, certainly the auditor's comments are among the issues we're
taking into account.
The Chair:
We'll start with about five minutes for each caucus, and then
we'll use up the remaining time. We'll start with the Liberals,
and then NDP and the government caucus.
Mr James J. Bradley
(St Catharines): Management Board of Cabinet and the
Management Board Secretariat are supposed to be a totally
non-partisan part of the public service. Some of you have been
here for several governments, so you can comment on it in a
generic sense. How much of the advertising policy is actually out
of your hands and influenced significantly by political
appointees of any government that happens to be in power, instead
of simply in your hands?
Ms Noble: In
terms of the responsibilities we have, we provide the staff work
in preparing the advice to Management Board of Cabinet, which
obviously is made up of the members of any given government of
the day. So we provide that work, and it is the responsibility of
Management Board to then approve the directive, in terms of
setting the framework.
With respect to day-to-day
operations, the staff perform the function of being responsible
for the process of procurement in compliance with the directive.
We have a role that we play at Management Board, but individual
ministries also have their own responsibilities under the
directive.
So from the point of view of
the operation, of ensuring that the process is undertaken, the
staff officers are responsible for that. Obviously the program
directions of the government of the day and those kinds of
elements would become the content elements in terms of
communication, and clearly the individual ministries are
responsible for looking at their needs in terms of advertising
support. The question of dollars has to be dealt with as other
budgets are dealt with in terms of making dollars available.
Mr Bradley:
Each political party has a person we could all think of, as
elected members, who probably has too much power in each of our
parties when we've been in government, who directs the general
communications program of the government from a political point
of view. How much power do you have to resist the directives of
political people in the Peterson, Rae or Harris governments, the
political person who is out there trying to make the government
look good in a political sense? How much power do you have to
resist that from any government?
Ms Noble:
The traditional relationship between the public service and the
government is that the government and the ministers are
responsible for the operations of their departments and the
decisions they make, and we are responsible for providing advice
to them. I think we carry out those responsibilities. Again, I
point to the question of determining what is needed in terms of
moving forward on the government program. The minister of any
individual department would be responsible for making those
decisions.
Mr Bradley:
This may be a more difficult question, but would you find it
helpful to have some independent body review government
advertising from the point of view of determining whether it's
partisan or not? Again, regardless of what government happens to
be in power, would you find it to be helpful for Management Board
to have an outside agency of some kind, just from the view of
whether it is partisan or not, review it? Would that be helpful
or not helpful?
Ms Noble:
Obviously, within the context of whatever directive is there and
approved, then the appropriate mechanisms would have to be in
place to ensure that that is taking place. The issues in terms of
the use of the advertising have traditionally been much more on
the procurement side. The question at the moment which has
surfaced in terms of the definition of "appropriate advertising"
is obviously something that is being considered in the context of
the current directive. I think the question then will be in terms
of setting the accountability for whatever is ultimately decided
should be the principles and guidelines.
Ms Shelley Martel
(Nickel Belt): Thank you for coming today. Clearly, the
auditor's concern had to do with the difference between
government advertising and blatant political, partisan
advertising. That's the issue before us today. I heard you say in
your remarks that the directive is being amended to take the
auditor's concerns into account, but I'd listened carefully and
it wasn't clear to me how that concern, which I think is what
we're discussing today, is being addressed. I heard you talk
about all the other directives you're amending, etc, but with
respect to what's the difference between partisan advertising and
government advertising, how are you changing the directive to
reflect his concerns?
Ms Noble: The auditor's report I
think was signalling a concern that has been brought to his
attention and he was offering as models other jurisdictions in
which there had been variations on approaches in terms of how the
principles and values of this question should be dealt with. When
I commented that we're taking it into account, we are in fact
including among the areas of the other jurisdictions we're
looking at the models that those jurisdictions have used. We've
also been looking at what other jurisdictions in Canada are
using. In terms of taking into account, my understanding of what
the auditor was implying is that the current directive does not
provide sufficient guidance in this area. Consequently, we are
looking at the other models that he directed us to as well as to
other jurisdictions to find how others have handled the issue of
providing greater guidance.
Ms Martel:
Your directive would then be seen by the government members on
Management Board and either confirmed by them or rejected by
them.
Ms Noble:
That's correct. The directives will have to go to the board for
approval.
Ms Martel:
When do you anticipate being able to bring something forward to
the board?
Ms Noble: As
soon as possible. It'll probably be within the next few
months.
Ms Martel:
Can you give the committee a sense as to what other
jurisdictions-there didn't seem to be very many that you could
pattern yourself after-you are looking at in that context in more
specific terms?
Ms Noble: We
have, as I said, followed up and have actually been looking at
the areas that the auditor raised in terms of New Zealand. We've
also been looking at the UK. We also are aware of some work in
Australia that I believe has been patterned on the New Zealand
experience. We've been looking at the federal government and
we've also been looking at other provinces. In terms of the other
provinces, what I can indicate to the committee is that they have
not tackled this issue. In fact, I would say the Ontario
directive, in the way in which it deals with procurement, is a
much better directive on that front than perhaps some of the
other provinces have.
Ms Martel:
Just to follow up from where Mr Bradley was, this has to do with
independence. At least in the UK and New Zealand we are told that
the auditor can audit against guidelines that the assembly has
established. Would it be your view and what you submit to
Management Board that you would be looking at our auditor to
audit specific criteria or guidelines that have been attached to
it, or would you be looking at an independent agency to do
that?
Ms Noble: At
the present time the auditor is positioned to audit against all
of the Management Board directives. At a minimum, this directive
would fall into that category so it would be within the auditor's
purview to audit against that.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): My understanding is that the advertising
directive was created in 1985. I presume that this directive was
used when the Liberal government spent, from 1985 to 1990, some
$277 million on advertising, as adjusted for inflation, and
presumably the same directive that the NDP used when they spent
some $200 million on advertising. Could you tell me what you see
as the fundamental purpose of the directive that all three
parties have been operating under for the last 14 years?
1050
Ms Noble:
Actually, we've got copies of the current directive which we
could distribute to the members of the committee. If you've got
them, in the preamble the purpose and application of the
directive is set out in the front part of that. I think the focus
of the current directive, as I said, is on the procurement side.
It was very much concerned at that point in time with issues of
procurement and fairness, and transparency in the procurement
process.
It also sets out the rules
and responsibilities of the various parties, ministries, deputy
ministers etc and puts those in place so that everyone has a
clear understanding of the responsibilities they have. Also
included would be the responsibilities of the Management Board
Secretariat with respect to it. It's to establish the principles
that are under use. The focus, as I said, was very much in terms
of some of the procurement elements but it also does set out the
roles and responsibilities.
The Chair:
Just to make sure about the directive, you're talking about the
directive that was handed out in April 1998?
Ms Noble:
Yes. The reason for that particular date is that that reflects
the last time it was amended, so we reissued them with the
amendments. The 1998 date reflects the change in there, the
change with respect to Canadian content, and that was what caused
the reissuance. With the exception of that and the reference to
trade agreements, the directive is essentially unchanged since
1985.
Mr Wood: The
question of past auditors' reports was discussed earlier this
morning. In 1988, the auditor found with the Peterson government
that, "Excessive costs were incurred and taxpayers often did not
get proper value for money." He found that $30 million worth of
taxpayers' money had been wasted. I guess the Liberals had a few
problems with their own directive and that may explain why they
haven't talked a lot until recently about the effectiveness of
the directive.
Did I correctly understand
you to say a couple of minutes ago that there have been only
minor changes to the directive since 1988? Is that what I heard
you say a couple of minutes ago?
Ms Noble:
That's my understanding.
Mr Wood: So
the substance of the directive has been the same between 1988 and
now?
Ms Noble:
With the exceptions that I did note in terms of reflecting the
trade agreements and the change to Canadian content.
Mr Wood: In
taking a look at the auditor's report, he said: "The Canadian
federal government and the other nine provinces do not have
guidelines in place to distinguish between political and
non-political advertising." He goes on to say, "The United Kingdom and New
Zealand have adopted conventions acknowledging that it's quite
legitimate for governments to use advertising to communicate with
their publics."
We've heard discussion this
morning about guidelines in other jurisdictions. British
Columbia, for example, has these guidelines. They help ministries
develop and maintain their communications plan and ensure that
advertising, publishing and promotional resources are used
efficiently and effectively.
Madam Deputy, as you pursue
the review of this directive, what effect is the auditor's report
going to have on your review?
Ms Noble: As
I was commenting slightly earlier, the auditor has clearly
expressed the opinion that there is insufficient clarity in the
directive as it currently stands. As I said, we have been looking
at the New Zealand jurisdiction. We are also looking at the UK,
and we have some recent Australian experience. But we have also
been looking at other jurisdictions, so we are going to be
looking at this question and dealing with the question of
clarity.
The Chair:
One more minute.
Mrs Julia Munro (York
North): I want to come back to that issue you've
referred to with regard to the question of looking at other
jurisdictions. It seems to me from the information that has been
provided to us that those other jurisdictions have set up what
could be described as fairly broad principles. In looking at what
appeared to me to be very broad principles, I wonder if you would
care to comment on what you see as a possibility in terms of a
direction that you'd want to recommend in the way of a
directive.
Ms Noble: In
terms of looking at those principles, given the auditor's comment
that he felt that they provided greater guidance, we obviously
have to pay particular attention. I think the comment that they
are very much at the level of principle is an accurate one, so
we're looking at the language there and looking at it from the
point of view of its appropriateness within the Ontario context.
But at the moment, given that we are not yet at the stage where
we've totally completed our consultation, we've not yet moved to
the point of formulating recommended language.
The Chair:
The time is up now. We'll have another go around. Mr Cleary.
Mr John C. Cleary
(Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): Just to carry on from
the previous conversation, how long will it be before you think
there will be some changes, or could be some changes?
Ms Noble: As
I said, I think as quickly as possible, sometime in the next few
months.
Mr Cleary:
So that'll be in the year 2000.
Ms Noble: I
think certainly at some point they would be there for application
during the year 2000-01.
Mr Cleary:
OK. At the present time, the director for advertising, I
understand, comes from Management Board.
Ms Noble:
The directive is approved by Management Board of Cabinet,
yes.
Mr Cleary:
Right. So all ministries have an input into that advertising.
Ms Noble:
Into the creation of the directive?
Mr Cleary:
Right.
Ms Noble: We
are involving a discussion with other ministries as part of the
process we're working through at the moment to formulate
recommendations in terms of changes to the current directive. I
can't speak to the process that took place when the directive
that is currently in place was developed. I wasn't there at the
time.
Mr Cleary:
Jim, do you have something?
Mr Bradley:
Yes. I saw a central control and also you said that ministries
had some degree of independence to conduct their advertising as
they saw fit. I'm trying to determine just how much control you
have over those ministries, whether it's just a general directive
or whether you can pronounce on the advertising campaigns that
would take place within specific ministries.
Ms Noble:
The way in which the directive works at the moment, and you can
see from the language, is that individual ministries and
individual deputies have accountability under the directive for
carrying it out.
What we have as a
responsibility centrally relates to the operation of the
Advertising Review Board. Ministries are expected to be in
compliance with expectations such as, they have to work with the
Advertising Review Board for the selection of creative resources.
The Advertising Review Board has a role to play specifically
where the campaign is expected to be in excess of $500,000. So
that all comes through the board and is handled that way.
The staff are responsible for
the supports to the procurement process of resources. For
instance, where there's a vendor-of-record approach for a roster
of creative resources, we provide support to the Advertising
Review Board for that procurement process.
In terms of the particulars
of the creative content of an advertising campaign, we look at it
from a very basic point of view, from a technical point of view,
in terms of: Does it look as if it's going to meet the needs of
the campaign that the ministry has determined is the campaign
they need? For instance, one of the policies which we operate
under is to ensure that, depending on the particular campaign,
there's a representative reflection of Ontarians, should that be
appropriate to the particular campaign.
We check it for those kinds
of things, but the actual decision that we need a creative
campaign would be made by independent ministries. They would be
responsible for having the authorized budget etc for undertaking
a campaign and they would be responsible for working within the
context of the directive in terms of that campaign being created
and carried out.
Mr Bradley:
Do you think it would be advantageous for the Management Board
Secretariat, being as it is totally non-partisan and independent,
to have more specific control over individual campaigns by
ministries? I know you set
the guidelines; I know there's kind of an overseeing. Do you
think that more power should be concentrated in the hands of the
Management Board Secretariat to ensure that the advertising by
individual ministries is in fact appropriate?
1100
Ms Noble:
That's the kind of question we deal with on many fronts, as to
whether or not you need centralized control. I think the
principles that are at play in the operations of the public
administration currently are that there is very much
accountability that rests with individual departments and, as I
said earlier, individual ministers are responsible for their
departments. I think the question of whether or not there should
be a centralized control signoff and approval would have to be
looked at in the context of whether people felt that that
particular accountability was not functioning appropriately.
Mr Bradley:
This may be an impossible question to answer, so I'll frame it
that way. Would Management Board Secretariat feel slighted by the
Legislature or the government deciding that it was going to have
an independent review board which would deal strictly with
whether advertising is of a partisan nature or it is not? I can
think of advertising by every government I've sat in the
Legislature with that may be defined as not exactly non-partisan
when I think of different ads all through the years. Would noses
be out of joint at the Management Board Secretariat if such an
agency were established?
Ms Noble: I
think I can safely say, from the point of view of the public
administration, it's obviously up to the Legislature, if it
wishes, to make that decision, or if the government wishes to
have an independent body. Would we be slighted if we had an
independent body making decisions? That would be someone else's
decision and we would be working within that framework.
Ms Martel: I
noticed that there were Management Board exemptions to the
directive, specifically on page 4 with respect to Canadian
content, and then on page 5 with respect to the controls on
advertising campaign themes being reviewed by the Advertising
Review Board. Can you explain to me under what circumstances
Management Board would be permitting exemptions? Can you give us
some concrete examples?
Ms Noble:
Perhaps in terms of dealing with the trade agreements. The trade
agreements call for all advertising over certain levels to be
posted. This is really a procurement of services question. I
think there would be very rare exceptions, and exemptions are by
no means a matter of routine. However, the public posting under
the trade agreement requires a minimum number of days of posting.
There may be an issue of urgency and it would be on that basis
that the board might approve an exemption. So the case would have
to be made that it was absolutely urgent that something be done
and you didn't have time to go to a public RFP process for X
number of days on the MERX.
In those circumstances, that
wouldn't necessarily mean that people didn't check and have more
than one bid, but they simply would not be posting it publicly on
the MERX system, which is what we use as a means of complying
with the trade agreement.
Ms Martel:
I'm unclear as to the role of the Advertising Review Board. This
is a branch of Management Board?
Ms Noble:
No, the Advertising Review Board is actually an agency, and the
members are appointed by the government.
Ms Martel:
By OIC. Are they full-time or part-time?
Ms Noble:
They're part-time.
Ms Martel:
How many board members?
Ms Suzanna
Birchwood: There are currently six board members.
Ms Martel:
What are their terms? Are they three-year?
Ms
Birchwood: They're appointed to three-year terms.
The Chair:
Could you just identify yourself for Hansard.
Ms
Birchwood: I'm Suzanna Birchwood, from Management Board,
communications.
There are six board
members, and they work on three-year terms.
Ms Martel:
They would be reviewing every item with respect to communications
or advertising that is over $500,000?
Ms Noble:
They are responsible for obtaining the services for those which
are over $500,000.
Ms Martel:
So they just do the tenders, then. Are they responsible for
ensuring that the directive is also enforced?
Ms Noble:
The directive as it applies to the procurement process. Those are
one and the same thing.
Ms Martel:
Would there be a difference between procurement, where I would
think in terms of supplies on the trade side, versus hiring
expertise for ads, like television ads, leaflets, that kind of
thing?
Ms Noble:
They're responsible for obtaining the creative service. They're
not responsible for the content of the campaign. The Advertising
Review Board was a response to ensuring that there was some
impartiality and to ensure transparency in the way in which this
type of service was obtained by government.
Mrs Munro:
I want to come back to the question I began on the previous round
with regard to the general principles. In the work you're doing
right now, are there any jurisdictions which have adopted these
principles that you're looking at that have any kind of role for
a third party?
Ms Noble:
A third party being an independent third party?
Mrs Munro:
Yes. There has been much discussion about the notion of the need
for a third-party process. I believe we're looking at principles
that come from the UK and New Zealand, and I just wondered if, in
establishing those principles, they had also established any kind
of third-party process.
Ms Noble: Not to our knowledge. In
terms of the materials we have, they don't speak to a third party
being there.
Mrs Munro:
So these in effect are simply guidelines that would cover the
kind of work that is being done now?
Ms Noble:
The information we have obtained would be the equivalent of our
directive. It sets out the expectations and process, and there is
no third party mentioned in the materials we have.
Mr Bart Maves
(Niagara Falls): Just two things. The first is that at
the start I asked for a copy of the 1988 auditor's report, where
we looked at government advertising and communications
expenditures. Back in 1988, they reported-I'll just read from
it:
"Advertising goods and
services were acquired with insufficient regard for economy. Many
of the expenditures we reviewed did not result from the
ministries or the secretariats receiving value for money. For
example, competitive selection procedures were not followed for
subcontracted goods and services. Estimates invoices were not
supported with adequate detail. Excessive costs were incurred.
Questionable expenditures were made."
That was done under a 1985
directive. If that could happen under a directive that is
virtually unchanged, I have to ask you, in a nutshell, how would
you say we've tightened procurement policy so this type of thing
doesn't happen again? How would you say we're managing the system
better so this type of thing doesn't happen? The Liberals didn't
change it after the report came out, the NDP didn't change it and
apparently we didn't really change it except for the Canadian
content. So I'm just curious; how would you say we've tightened
up so this type of thing doesn't happen again?
Ms Noble:
There are two elements. One is the content of the directive
itself. I think the directive that is in place is fairly clear,
and I am not aware that there are particular concerns, given that
the issues raised were procurement, that it is the directive that
is judged not sufficient. What the audit report of 1988 spoke to
was issues of compliance with the directive and that really comes
down to the understanding of people about what is expected of
them.
What can be said is that as
part of the work that is being done in terms of the restructuring
and reform within the public service at the moment, there is a
great deal of emphasis being placed on the issue of
accountability. This is being reinforced with respect to a
directive on accountability. It has been made much clearer within
the public service in terms of individual managers and staff
responsibilities for working within the framework that is set for
them.
In terms of what we have
done, I think it really has to do with creating and changing
culture and reinforcing within the culture the expectations of
people that they will operate in compliance with the
directive.
As I said, I'm not aware of
concerns about the deficiency on the procurement side, although
obviously there may be questions that we need to make sure we've
looked at before we finalize new language. I think it has much
more to do with the culture within the organization, and there
has been a considerable amount of effort made to reinforce with
management the expectations that these are very serious and that
there are clear expectations that they shall be complied
with.
1110
Mr Maves:
With that in mind, politically I was smiling to myself, but as a
taxpayer I was very frustrated when, last year or a year and a
half ago, I came home and my wife had a fridge magnet on our
fridge of Tommy the Tooth or Marty Molar or somebody with a
toothbrush in his hand. It was a red and white fridge magnet, a
little thing, and at the bottom all it said was, "Elinor Caplan,
Minister of Health." As a taxpayer, I was frustrated. As a
politician, I was delighted because at the time Mr Bradley was
after our government about what he thought were our partisan
ads.
Going by what the auditor
talks about, the New Zealand audit office-he uses some of the
principles they have in place-this fridge magnet, to me, didn't
explain a policy of the government in any way, which is something
that New Zealand says it should do. Secondly, it didn't inform
the public of government services available to them at the time,
unless the tooth was going to come and brush people's teeth for
them, I'm not sure, and it didn't inform the public of their
rights and liabilities under the law. These are just some of the
things that the New Zealand audit office has in place as
principles about material.
Given your first answer
about a change in culture, do you think the Ministry of Health
would be able to produce thousands of fridge magnets like that
again, or do you think there's a possibility that could happen
again, or with a change in culture and all this, is there
anything that would stop us from being able to produce thousands
of fridge magnets like that again? I know it's an odd
question.
Ms Noble:
I'm not sure if it's designed for a straightforward answer. But I
think certainly within the context of expectations, we need to
deal with the purposes, and I think to the degree that there is
clarity brought in terms of the guidelines, and to the degree
that whatever those guidelines are, there is work that is outside
those guidelines, my view would be that the expectation would be
that people would be complying with the guidelines.
I think what I hear being
said is in terms of New Zealand, would that comply? The answer
probably would be no.
The Vice-Chair (Mr
John C. Cleary): Thank you very much. I think the time
is up now.
MANAGEMENT BOARD SECRETARIAT
Consideration of section
3.12, Year 2000/information technology preparedness.
The
Vice-Chair: OK. Could we move on the next section. I
would ask you to introduce your new people as they're coming up
to the table.
Ms Noble: Just to go over it
again, to my immediate left is Scott Campbell, who is the
corporate chief information officer for the OPS. To his left we
have Gail Peach, who is with the Ministry of Health office
responsible with respect to the outreach on Y2K. I also have, to
my right, Paul Scott who is the ADM responsible for the Y2K
project for the government of Ontario.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Do you have some
opening remarks?
Ms Noble:
I do, with the committee's indulgence. I guess the first thing to
say is that, all along as we've been working with the Provincial
Auditor's office, not just on this most recent report but on the
previous one, I think we at the secretariat have been very much
concerned that we need to ensure that the public service and the
government operations in Ontario are prepared for the year 2000.
I'm pleased to advise you that much progress has been made since
the auditor's review for the period ending March 31, 1999.
I'd like to, first, provide
you with an overview of the program and then to bring you up to
date with the status of Y2K or year 2000 readiness of the
province and the measures that have been taken to address the
issues raised by the auditor.
As I said at the outset, we
have found and have taken the challenge of the year 2000
extremely seriously. As the auditor reported, the cost of year
2000 compliance for Ontario government ministries is estimated at
between $350 million and $400 million.
In addition, at the time of
his review, $324 million had been allocated to hospitals, $32
million to other health sector organizations and $89 million to
other key parts of the broader public sector to assist them in
their preparations for system remedy and equipment replacement.
This has been through ministries such as health, community and
social services, and education and training.
The government's year 2000
program began in 1996 when the information and the information
technology directions committee established the year 2000
coordination council. As the program began to expand, Management
Board Secretariat established the year 2000 corporate project
management office-that was in 1997-to coordinate ministry
efforts, monitor progress, manage resource issues and report on
progress to Management Board of Cabinet. Each ministry is
responsible for ensuring its own year 2000 readiness.
The year 2000 project is
the largest information technology project the government has
undertaken. Our major challenge was to identify, fix, test and
reimplement any date-sensitive technology. To achieve this within
the time available, we focused resources based on criticality and
risk. We also established target dates for completion of
significant project activities.
As the project proceeded,
we closely monitored and applied confidence ratings for each
project. Where acceleration was needed, we required the ministry
to develop specific detailed action plans in order to accelerate
the project. Throughout the process, we have applied quality
assurance measures and due diligence principles to gain comfort
that we had done not only the right things, but we had done them
in an appropriate fashion.
The auditor acknowledged
that we had implemented a number of sound practices in both his
1998 and 1999 reports.
The government's priority
was to focus in on the mission-critical projects first. There
were 63 projects identified within the Ontario public service
where computer systems are essential to a ministry's operations
or its ability to provide services to Ontario, where public
health and safety may be impacted, or where critical payments or
collection of revenue maybe prevented were the systems to
fail.
1120
Following his 1999 review,
the auditor recommended that the government should further
accelerate the conversion of mission-critical projects. I am
happy to be able to report to you that all 63 mission-critical
projects are now complete and considered Y2K ready.
The government's next level
of priorities was to focus on business-critical projects.
Business-critical projects include systems or technology
components that support mission-critical projects, core
businesses or internal administration processes. Two hundred and
forty-three such projects were identified as important in
supporting the effective and efficient management of government
programs and services and are broken down into three levels. Of
the 243, 53 were deemed to be business-critical tier 1; 127 were
considered business-critical tier 2 projects; and 63 were
business-critical tier 3 projects.
To illustrate, an example
of a business-critical tier 1 project would be the laboratory
equipment project at the Ministry of the Environment. This
project has been undertaken to remediate specialized
environmental testing equipment at the ministry's laboratories.
The Ontario Science Centre exhibits and support systems is an
example of a business-critical tier two project. They are with
the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. This project
involves the remediation of attraction exhibits and support
systems including computerized exhibits, OMNIMAX theatre systems,
security systems and telephone systems at the centre.
The remediation of a
correspondence tracking system which tracks the receipt and
disposition of correspondence received by the deputy's office and
other offices at the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial
Relations is an example of a business-critical tier 3 project.
Through those examples, I hope the committee can see the way we
weighted and set priorities at the three levels.
During the 1999 review, the
auditor recommended that the government further accelerate the
conversion of business-critical projects. As of November 16, 91%
of all business-critical projects were complete. The corporate
project management office has reviewed and confirmed ministry
plans for completing all required business-critical systems by
the end of 1999. Contingency plans are in place for any projects that are currently
incomplete and which support necessary service.
The auditor has also
recommended that the government should further accelerate the
development of contingency plans. Each ministry is responsible
for developing and testing a comprehensive business continuity
plan for its key businesses, focussing on maintaining critical
business operations should problems occur. I am pleased to report
that all ministries have plans in place that will be activated in
the event of a disruption.
To meet the year 2000
challenge, the government has also identified priority sectors,
which include the broader public health sector, public safety and
emergency preparedness, water and sewage, and power. The broader
public sector organizations and other service providers are
responsible for their own year 2000 readiness. However, the
government is liaising with these organizations and service
providers and collecting information from them about their own
states of year 2000 readiness. Depending on their relationship,
ministries have provided some financial support and assistance to
the BPS organizations and other service providers from time to
time.
The auditor expressed his
particular concern with regard to the broader public health
sector and recommended that the government should intensify
monitoring the readiness of hospitals. On the basis of data
provided by the hospital sector, 89% of hospitals will have
completed their remediation by the end of November and 100% by
December 31, 1999. More than 92% of all hospitals have reported
completion of their contingency plans, and all will be done by
the end of December.
At the end of his summary
report, the auditor referenced other detailed review
observations. Included in them, the auditor recommended that the
Ontario Realty Corp should devote additional resources to its
remediation efforts, closely monitor progress and develop
contingency plans. Additional resources have been assigned to
complete outstanding work including the development of
contingency plans. In addition, the corporate project management
office continues to closely monitor ORC's progress.
The auditor also
recommended that MBS should develop and distribute system
certification criteria as soon as possible and set target dates
for systems to be certified. I am pleased to report that
ministries confirmed their state of readiness as at September 30,
1999, using a self-assessment or certification program which
incorporated information from independent third-party
reviews.
Finally, the auditor
recommended that ministries should ensure that their
business-critical project plans include detailed steps for each
phase. Ministries have submitted detailed action plans to the
corporate project management office.
As we approach January 1,
2000, I believe we have taken prudent measures to manage the risk
associated with the year 2000. We have implemented plans to
restrict activity at key times and control the systems production
environment to promote a smooth transition through the critical
event period. In addition, a corporate response centre and
ministry response centres will be established to address
potential disruptions and issues that may arise during the
transition period. Vacation and overtime policies are in place to
ensure that key staff will be available during the transition
period, which has been defined as December 27 through January 10.
Protocols are being developed to effectively manage
communications as well.
During the transition
period the corporate response centre will have a representative
in the Emergency Measures Ontario provincial operation centre to
act as a liaison and keep the corporate response centre apprised
of emergency situations in the unlikely event that any should
occur.
The government has taken
the challenge of year 2000 extremely seriously, and we will
continue to manage the risks related to the year 2000 in order to
minimize service disruption for Ontario citizens and to protect
their safety and well-being.
This concludes my remarks
to the committee.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. It is my understanding
that we'll go in five-minute rotations starting with the official
opposition.
Mr
Bradley: Like Mr Maves, I am amazed that nobody figured
this was going to be a problem until the late 1990s, and now it's
all we hear. We're probably sick of hearing Y2K, but nobody
anywhere seemed to talk about Y2K problems until nearly the very
end.
I guess the overall
question I have, in the absolutely worst-case scenario we hear
from those who have written those books and promote them on
various radio and television programs, what contingency plans are
there, if you are able to reveal them, in terms of public order
if all hell breaks loose on January 1, 2000? That's the most
extreme scenario, but you keep hearing people saying this could
happen and we'll have the army in the streets and maybe no police
are going to be able to be off at that time.
What contingency plans are
there in terms of public security?
Ms Noble:
Perhaps I could answer generally and then invite colleagues to
add anything if they wish.
In general, the approach to
this at all levels has been one of very strong co-operation and
coordination. Consequently we hear that the province has been
working very closely with the federal government initiatives on
their very strong ties between Emergency Measures here in Ontario
and the people in Ottawa, and so they are coordinating plans
within their own operations. Emergency Measures here in Ontario
is working with individual municipal jurisdictions within the
context of how they work together around Emergency Measures
plans.
At the individual municipal
level, clearly they would be making plans with respect to public
security within their own areas, and so I don't have details of
which incident would promote what reaction. But I think I can
tell the committee that the manner in which this has been
done has been based on
very strong cooperation between various levels of government and
in terms of jurisdictions across the country. As well, I'm aware
that the federal government is also working in cooperation on a
North American grid. So we have a series of groups working
cooperatively, one with the other, in terms of insuring that
plans are in place.
I don't know whether Paul
wants to add anything to that.
Mr Paul
Scott: Only to say that the provincial operations
centre, which is the instrument of Emergency Measures Ontario
operation, will be in operation beginning December 30, as if
there were an emergency, and totally prepared to respond to any
kind of emergency that arises and, as the deputy said, is in
touch with the national contingency planning group in Ottawa. So
every step has been taken, and they've all been tested. There was
a two-day test of our emergency measures operations in September
to ensure we'd be ready.
Mr
Bradley: Again, it's difficult for government to control
everything. We talked about hospitals a little while ago in the
committee. Without going into detail since we were in camera, I
guess, we talked about what happens with hospitals and so on. But
what about something even broader than that, over which you would
have a bit of leverage only because you pay the bills?
Let's focus on medical
things, for instance. Whatever is going to happen with doctors'
offices and other medical clinics that aren't hospitals, which
you can fairly directly control. Whatever is going to happen in
those situations? How are we controlling them, and how are we
assisting them with their computer systems. As we know, virtually
everything is on computer, and I guess there are two things to
look at: You could make a mistake money-wise but, more
importantly, a mistake on medication or on a diagnosis or
something of that nature. How much control do we have there and
how much directive have we given there?
1130
Ms Gail
Peach: We have been surveying on a quarterly basis all
of the broader health care sector, all of the institutional
components. We also did a survey of the medical profession,
laboratories and pharmacies across this province through a
telephone survey that was randomly sampled. We did a very
extensive survey at the beginning specifically with physicians to
identify very clearly what type of equipment they had in their
offices, and we found out that there was actually very little
equipment in their offices that would be implicated because of
computer chips and digitalization.
We also then funded all of
the health care associations, such as the Ontario Hospital
Association, the Ontario Medical Association and the pharmacists'
association, to develop educational materials and toolkits that
were distributed to their members so that they would be able to
know what the issue was and how to proceed in an organized way to
address the problem. We believe and certainly the reports that we
get back from the associations are that there has been very
extensive education and support provided to all components of the
broader health care sector.
Ms Martel:
I ask for the indulgence of the deputy. I do want to ask
questions on this, but there was one question that I forgot on
the advertising, so I just want to go back to it.
The directive on page 5 is
very clear. I'll just quote it for Hansard: "The names of
ministers and/or deputy ministers are not to appear on any
government advertisement, pamphlet, brochure, sign or any other
media." With respect to the blue highway signs that say, "Your
tax dollars at work," have Mike Harris's name on them. They say,
"Premier Harris." I'm wondering how that is allowed to happen
even now under this directive.
Ms Marilyn
Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): It's the same directive
you were under.
Ms Martel:
I just wanted to raise the point that it's happening now under
the Conservatives, and I'd like to know why this is happening and
who authorized it.
Ms Noble:
The decision about the highway signs was not something that was
dealt with through Management Board, if you're asking that
question, whether it would be part of a decision that would have
been made on program content. I think the question of that
language in the directive and its use is something that obviously
is under review. It's also a particular element that's addressed
I believe in the United Kingdom guidelines, where they actually
do allow that there could be names, but under certain
circumstances.
Ms Martel:
Without changing the directive, because you've told us that the
current directive is in place and you're looking at revisions,
right now under the directive, as I read page 5, a minister's
name, and that would include the Premier because he is a
minister, should not be on a sign. It is explicitly forbidden
under this guideline, and I would like to know how it happens
that right now on highway signs in the province, Premier Harris's
name appears. Who authorized that?
Ms Noble:
As I said, I don't have the answer to that question in the sense
that the decision about content is made by the individual
ministries. The question of those signs would not have come
through the Advertising Review Board or any central process in
that sense, so I can't give you the answer to the question.
Ms Martel:
But it would have come to Management Board, would it not?
Ms Noble:
No. The design of those signs-in fact, I don't even believe that
the money for the signs would have come through. They would have
been part of the program project in terms of highway signage.
Ms Martel:
What signs are we referring to, then, in the directive if they're
not highway signs? What kind of signs are we talking about?
Ms Noble:
I wasn't arguing about the definition of a sign. You were
questioning who authorized, and I was indicating I didn't have
the answer.
Mrs Munro:
On a point of order, Mr Chair: I just wanted to raise the issue
that we had already agreed on the times for the discussions on
this issue. I think that we have heard an answer from the deputy on the
issue, and I would just ask that we go back to our original
agreement on the times for discussion of items.
The
Vice-Chair: OK. We'll let the deputy finish the answer
and then we'll move on.
Ms Martel:
She said she doesn't know, so I would ask the deputy to return to
this committee-you can send it by mail to our research officer
when you find out the details of how that was authorized, because
my read of it would be clearly that it should not be authorized
and those signs should be taken down. I would like to know how
this managed to get past a directive which very clearly talks
about signs.
The
Vice-Chair: I think we'll have to move on with another
question, because we agreed on the 40 minutes for each issue.
Ms Martel:
With respect to hospitals, the ones that did not comply even
after the auditor had made a recommendation and expressed very
serious concerns about Y2K and hospitals not being in compliance,
can you give us some indication of what the problem was with
those 20 or 30 or so hospitals that even after they were clearly
asked by the Ministry of Health to let the ministry know the
level of compliance still managed to delay and stall?
Ms Peach:
The auditor's report was as a result of a survey that was taken
in January. At that time there were 20 hospitals that indicated
through their self-assessment that they were not sure they would
be able to be compliant and be ready for year 2000 by
December.
We have continued to survey
on a quarterly basis until September of this year and then we
moved into monthly surveys. Since the summer survey, all
hospitals have clearly indicated from their self-assessments that
they will be compliant for the year 2000. There is no hospital
outstanding. In fact, with the directive that went out in October
by the deputy minister requesting that signed statements be
received by our office that all contingency plans be in place, we
have now a 96% response rate that indicates that all hospitals do
have their contingency plans in place. The four outstanding
hospitals we have been in touch with on a weekly basis, and they
have indicated that they will have those signed statements to our
office by the end of November.
Ms
Mushinski: I'd like to pursue what's been identified by
the auditor in terms of the accountability framework and the
relationship of the Ministry of Health to the transfer partners
or to the broader public sector.
It seems to me that the
hospitals, as I recall, were asked to identify what the funding
requirements would be in order to upgrade their computers to
become Y2K compliant. The money was flowed, my understanding is,
much earlier this year, probably January or February, in order to
do that. Yet there were still I think 40 or 41 hospitals that did
not become compliant by the time the auditor had completed his
audit and there was some significant resistance from those
hospitals to obey the ministry's directive, if that's
correct.
Could you tell me what you
have done to make sure that compliance is ready by the year 2000
and, given that certain critical components have been identified,
what we're putting in place to make sure that our transfer
partners do indeed comply with ministry directives in the
future?
Ms Noble:
Perhaps I could just make a general statement and then turn it
over to Gail.
One of the things in terms
of dealing with the broader public sector on this issue, from the
government's perspective, the various agencies that the
government has dealings with, whether they be hospitals or
children's aid societies or some other institution, from the
perspective of responsibilities, these are independent
organizations and they have an independent responsibility for the
operations of their corporations, and I use that term in its very
general sense.
Consequently, the role the
government has been playing has been one very much ensuring that
the sectors we deal with are fully aware of the issues. They are
aware of their obligations in terms of readiness and to provide
support as we can, in terms of making sure that they are ready.
That's the framework within which we've been operating. I will
turn it over to Gail Peach to respond in terms of the specifics
of your question.
1140
Ms Peach:
Certainly with the results that were reported by the auditor,
those were January survey results of a self-assessment. In order
to remediate the equipment that exists within hospitals, that
takes a certain amount of time, so there was never any
expectation that the remediation would be completed by January
1999. The expectation was that remediation and contingency
planning would be completed by December 31, 1999, so that the
health care system would be ready as we passed through the
millennium.
The results are indicating
very clearly now that the hospitals are ready and that they have,
as of November 15, notified their stakeholders, their
communities, as to their state of readiness.
In terms of the
accountability and the money that was flowed, in September we did
survey the field to gain an estimate as to the costs that were
anticipated to do the remediation and preparation for year 2000.
Since that point in time, $387 million has flowed to the broader
health care sector to assist them with their remediation and
contingency implementation plans.
Mr Erik
Peters: I just want to make a small clarification. We
never asked whether hospitals were ready in January 1999, that
they were complying. You had asked in January 1999, "Will you be
ready by December 1999, with the readiness?" I just wanted to
clarify that point.
Ms
Mushinski: I understood that.
Mr Peters:
OK, good.
The
Vice-Chair: The official opposition.
Mr
Bradley: When you transfer money to various agencies for
the purposes of dealing with Y2K problems, how do you police the
fact that the money that is allocated to them is actually spent
on Y2K problems and not squirreled away in some other account for other
purposes?
Ms Noble:
Each ministry's practice varies slightly, but in general we're
asking that there be a submission and reconciliation of accounts
so that we will have a chance. It won't be for some time, because
we're waiting for the material to come in the post-January 1
period. But the processes do include reconciliation.
I don't know if you want
more details. We can get some more details from the health sector
specifically. Money has been given. If it's found, again
specifically in health, it doesn't meet the requirements, then
there is an ability to work within the existing financing
framework to ensure they only got what they needed for Y2K
purposes as part of this initiative.
Mr
Bradley: When you were seized of this problem, let's put
it that way, for the first time-you may have brought consultants
in; more likely you have your own expertise within the ministry
of course-did you sit down to try to anticipate how crooks might
take advantage of the Y2K problem to disrupt government?
I guess if we were in
revolutionary mode where we didn't have a democracy, we might
worry that people were going to use it to overthrow the
government or something. In this case, I'm thinking of people who
could be crooked and try to take advantage of the Y2K problem.
Did you have people who anticipated that and you dealt with the
problem?
Ms Noble:
I think as we approach the date all the parties involved in this
process have anticipated that there may be those who wish to
cause disruptions and take advantage of the expectation or the
possibility of disruption, and steps have been taken. I would
leave to Scott Campbell the comments specifically in terms of our
own network and computer operations.
Mr Scott
Campbell: In terms of the issues around security, we
have the normal procedures around security in terms of virus
scanning, firewalls, proxy servers, things like that. But in
terms of what we are actually doing over the transition period,
as we call it, from December 31 to January 1, we have a
heightened level of security preparedness. It's fair to say there
have been a number of things in the media about this. We are
ensuring that all our virus scanning software, for example, is up
to date. We are ensuring that all ministries have their virus
scanning software up to date. The same thing is true for
firewalls and so on.
The other point I would
make is that over this transition period, basically this 24- to
48-hour period, we are only running that which is absolutely
essential. We're not running all our systems, thereby reducing
our exposure to what's absolutely critical to run over that
period. As we go through that period and see that things are
stable or they need some adjustment, we'll start ramping back up
and reinitiating the systems. As you know, December 31 falls on a
Friday, and we have a Saturday, Sunday and of course a holiday
Monday, so in effect we have three days in which we can
reinitiate the various systems and so on.
Ms Martel:
Of the $350 million to $400 million that it has cost to comply,
how much of that would have been directed to hospitals? Do you
have a breakdown ministry by ministry or sector by sector?
Ms Noble:
There are actually two amounts. The $350 million to $400 million
that I was referring to specifically is a range on the
government, in terms of remediation of its own operations. There
is a separate amount that has been set, and I believe currently
the number is $355 million, for the health sector.
Ms Martel:
Those would have been the two significant expenditures, internal
government ministries and then specifically hospitals.
Ms Noble:
Yes.
Ms Martel:
What about labs?
Ms Peach:
According to the eligibility criteria determined by Management
Board, labs were not eligible for financial assistance from the
province of Ontario.
Mr Maves:
First of all I want to congratulate you, because the auditor, in
general terms, for the most part is pleased by the performance
that the government has had on Y2K readiness. We shouldn't lose
sight of that. You deserve some congratulations.
My last question is going
to be, where are you all going to be on New Year's eve, so I feel
safe?
You said government-wide
you spent $400 million; on the health sector, $355 million. Do
you have a number that we spent on the whole BPS?
Mr
Campbell: In terms of the Ontario public service
itself-that's the Ontario government directly-to date we've spent
$316 million. In terms of the broader public sector partners and
agents, we've spent $163 million. In addition, for medical
equipment there's another $300 million. So the total is $780
million.
Ms Noble:
Just to clarify, that's actual expenditures to date. We are
anticipating that there are still some bills that we have not yet
received. In other words, expenditures have been made but the
monies have not yet been recovered. So the numbers, when we
finally finish with this, will be higher than the ones we've just
given you.
1150
Mr Maves:
My question is actually to Mr Campbell, because I think he is an
IT specialist. Mr Bradley, when he started off, alluded to it,
and that is when people first really tweaked to the whole Y2K
problem. I think the earliest we heard of anyone really starting
to do something about it was the Bank of Montreal in 1994.
I don't know how long
you've been in the government of Ontario, but I just wonder, when
did people within the government start to say, "We've got to do
something about this"? In general, why do you think it took until
the latter half of the 1990s to really get moving on it?
Mr
Campbell: You've asked three questions. The answer to
your first question is that I've been with the Ontario public
service in excess of 27 years.
Secondly, we started to
deal with the Y2K issue in November 1996.
Thirdly, in terms of the latter part of your
question, I think there is always a tendency to say, "Maybe this
will be solved in other ways," and so on.
I think what happened in
the early to mid-1990s is that there were many people who felt
that many of the systems that were around at the time were
actually going to be replaced, that: "Oh, we'll never keep this
system up. We're obviously going to replace it with X or Y." As
the middle of the 1990s came upon us, people said, "Oh no, I
guess we're not. We're going to keep this system, so therefore we
have to repair the system as opposed to replacing it." We
couldn't replace it, either because we didn't have the time or,
alternatively, we wouldn't have had the money. It's a very
significant exercise from a financial point of view to replace
some of these systems.
And to answer your
question, Mr Maves, I will be in the corporate response centre on
December 31.
Mr Maves:
None of you will be flying?
Ms Noble:
No, we'll be here.
Mr
Bradley: Not as exciting as my New Year's Eve.
The Chair:
You'll be here; we all know that.
Mrs Munro:
I just wanted to echo Mr Maves's comments with regard to the work
that has been done, obviously in a relatively short period of
time. The issue that I think you identified was the issue of the
broader public sector and the ways by which that had to be
addressed. I think on a long-term basis all of us recognize that
that continues to be an issue in providing direction, so I simply
want to add a note of congratulations on getting it all together.
I'm glad to know that's where you'll be New Year's Eve.
Mr
Bradley: I can't possibly think of many more questions
to ask about computers, since my laptop consists of a sheaf of
lists and my knowledge of computers has been described by some as
medieval.
I'm intrigued by the fact
that simply changing a date into a new century can somehow throw
all these computer systems into disarray. I just find that
flabbergasting, if that's a proper use of that word. So unless Mr
Gerretsen has some further insights into these computer problems,
I certainly will terminate my comments now.
The Chair:
My knowledge is just one year ahead of your knowledge. That's
about all.
Thank you very much, all of
you, for your attendance here this morning and for the answers to
the questions that you gave.
1998 ANNUAL REPORT
The Chair:
There is one other matter that I wanted to very quickly deal with
with the committee before 12 o'clock.
You may recall the 1998
annual report. The issue was raised that there were some
time-specific issues in that report and in order to give that
report any meaning at all, some of those times had to be
changed.
Ms
Mushinski: Extended.
The Chair:
Yes, they had to be extended, in some cases by six months. Where,
let's say, it had been a year but that year has already passed, I
think the suggestion has been made that it be six months. Would
you like to address that, Ray?
Mr Ray
McLellan: Elaine Campbell prepared this report last
year. Elaine is in my office. I sat down and talked to her, and
she said that in some instances we'll just have to make
adjustments. It's more of a technical nature and certainly
doesn't change the content of the report.
As you can see on page 3,
paragraph 3, January of this year to January 1998, it's minor
things, and in some cases it was a tense they have changed, but
certainly not the substance of the report. I have Elaine's
assurance on that.
I did speak with the
auditor briefly after the last meeting on this issue, and also I
spoke with the Chair about it. If the committee is in agreement,
it seems to me that it's a fairly straightforward thing.
Hopefully that's the case.
Mrs Munro:
The only comment I would just wish to make is that in accepting
these changes, it's on the understanding-during our previous
meeting I believe we had agreed that there would be no changes. I
recognize the advice that's being provided to us here today, but
just for the record to understand that despite the commitment
that we had made previously to accepting it without change, we
are now accepting it without change except for these
suggestions.
The Chair:
I believe it was discussed at the tail end of the last meeting; I
could be in error on that. But in effect some of these are merely
grammatical changes.
Mrs Munro:
I understand that. I'm not objecting to that. I'm just saying
that it was my understanding that, when we left the last meeting,
the direction was that this would be accepted without change. All
I want is to make it clear that, while accepting that in
principle, we are then prepared to pass it now with these
changes. Is that fair to everyone?
The Chair:
That's my understanding.
Mr Maves:
Just a question. Is this common practice, that this committee has
to approve retroactive changes to a report? Is that why this
comes here?
Mr Peters:
I just wanted to help out. If you'll recall, at the last meeting
the report was distributed to everybody just at the very tail
end. What happened is, actually, as you walked out the door you
flipped it open and it said all of a sudden that this committee
should have had the report by April 1, 1999, on this issue and by
the others. Then we had a little bit of a huddle as to how we
best deal with it, and the idea was that the researcher would go
through and see where we might have been in default; in other
words, by tabling the report, by saying we expected reports to
happen or things to happen that just didn't happen and the
committee didn't know if they had happened or whatever. So what
we're doing now-the approach was taken that the researcher would
go through the report and see, where there are factual
corrections of this nature to be made, that they would be brought
forward to this committee. That's where we stand right now and
that's why you have it in front of you.
Mr Maves: Do we need to look at
the implications of these?
Mr Peters:
The only implication is that somewhere you might want a briefing
as to whether some of the reports that were promised or that were
to be looked at-whether you wanted to have that brought forward
or deal with those reports that were in stage. That's really the
only other implication.
Mr Maves:
Is there any reason why we couldn't just approve this at our next
meeting?
The Chair:
Maybe that's the best way to deal with it in all fairness,
because it was Ms Martel that insisted there be no changes made.
Then later on there was discussion to the effect that if there
were just some of these grammatical and time changes, she had no
problem. Since she isn't here, I quite frankly would prefer to
hear her comments as well before we deal with this. Perhaps we
could just table this until our next meeting.
