Special Report,
Provincial Auditor: chapter 4(3.10), science and
information resources division
Ministry of Natural
Resources
Mr John Burke, deputy minister
Mr Geoff Munro, director, applied research and development
branch
Mr Des McKee, acting assistant deputy minister,
science and information resources division
Subcommittee
report
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Chair /
Président
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les
îles 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
îles 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)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane L)
Mr Erik Peters, Provincial Auditor
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum
Staff / Personnel
Mr Ray McLellan, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at
1032 in room 151.
SPECIAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR MINISTRY OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Consideration of chapter
4(3.10), science and information resources division.
The Chair (Mr John
Gerretsen): Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call the
committee to order. This is the continuation of the standing
committee on public accounts. We are dealing with chapter 4(3.10)
of the 2000 special report, Provincial Auditor, dealing with the
science and information resources division.
Good morning to all of you.
We look forward to your presentation of about 15 to 20 minutes.
Afterwards, there will be questions from members of the various
caucuses. If you'd like to introduce yourself, Deputy, and the
members of your delegation, you can proceed.
Mr John
Burke: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Good morning.
My name is John Burke. I am the deputy minister of the Ministry
of Natural Resources. Here with me this morning are three
colleagues. To my immediate left is Des McKee, the acting
assistant deputy minister of the science and information
resources branch. Next to him is Geoff Munro, who is director of
the applied research and development branch. Frank Kennedy, who
is to my right, is the acting director of the science and
information branch.
I'm here today to discuss
some of the Provincial Auditor's recommendations and comment and
talk about what we're doing to address them. Let me begin by
saying that we welcome the comments from the Provincial Auditor.
In some cases it provided us with very useful direction on how to
improve our processes and products and meet our mandate of
resource sustainability. In other cases it simply confirmed and
gave us direction that was already being undertaken within the
ministry itself.
I'd like to begin by giving
you an overview of what we've achieved, and then I'll address the
specific recommendations and highlights that we have done in
these particular areas.
One of the four common
business practices that MNR has put in place to support our
vision of sustainable development and our mission of ecological
sustainability is that of science. We consider it part and parcel
of doing business within MNR. We're taking a strategic approach
to the science business area and have developed a full life cycle
project performance management system. The system is the
centrepiece of an integrated science strategy that both meets the
intent of the auditor's recommendations and provides the
high-quality science and information we need to make sound
natural science management decisions. The strategy has been
tested and is now being implemented for the largest science
portfolio within MNR, which is forest science. I brought copies
of A Forest Science Strategy for an Adaptive Organization, which
we will leave for committee members. This is a business-oriented
strategy that focuses on improving the alignment of science
activity with the needs of MNR's forest management program.
I'd like to highlight two of
the actions identified in this strategy document as they relate
specifically to some of the recommendations in the auditor's
report. The first is around priority setting, and the second is
around program and project management itself.
The performance management
system I mentioned earlier is supported by a software tool called
ProGrid. In the scientific community it's perhaps the most widely
used software tool. This software is used by many organizations
in Canada. We have adapted it to suit natural resources science
and to fit our specific performance management needs. The system
will support decisions around project selection, annual project
review, and project evaluation after it's been completed. The
decision support system is helping us to make consistent and
transparent science-based decisions.
The second action item I'd
like to highlight today is that we've divided our forest science
into five theme areas that allow us to include a more balanced
representation of clients and science providers in the review and
priority-setting process. Managers from the forests division,
field services division and science and information division
provide co-leadership under each of these theme areas.
Specifically, these areas are forest management practices; forest
resource and land use planning analysis; policy standards and
guidelines; inventory monitoring, assessment and resource
allocation; and resource management issues.
The co-leaders are developing
a strategic plan that identifies priorities for research and
technology transfer problems and questions. They will review
priorities and problems, pre-screen project proposals,
participate in an annual review of projects, and help select
projects for the coming
year. This will ensure that client needs are understood and
addressed, and it keeps the whole science agenda working closely
with the business areas. We've just begun to expand this
management approach to other science activities at MNR and expect
to have a fully functional performance management system for all
of our major science activities in the near future. We are
currently working to apply this in the fish and wildlife area,
and you will see over the next 12 months us moving in a very
similar fashion.
I'd now like to talk about
what steps MNR has taken to address the Provincial Auditor's
specific recommendations.
Around the area of setting
directions and science priorities, the performance management
system I mentioned earlier will ensure the development and annual
review of science priorities measured against an established set
of criteria. This work is done with active participation from the
business area that requires the science products and services for
their programs and has policy development responsibilities. So
all of our key areas are being brought together for the purpose
of setting directions and priorities.
Under project selection,
research monitoring and reporting, our performance management
system includes a full project life cycle approach. This means
that project selection, annual evaluation and final review are
all done in response to established criteria. The measurement
criteria are also developed in ongoing collaboration, again, with
the business area, that section of the ministry dealing with
it.
In terms of research funding,
while funding is still available only on an annual basis through
the regular budgetary process, our performance management system
will accommodate multi-year science projects in the
priority-setting and project-tracking functions. We can review
the status of the multi-year projects annually, as well as their
fluctuating budgetary requirements, alongside any new project
proposal we may consider from time to time. In addition, the
ministry has entered into a number of science-based partnership
arrangements that also have multi-year considerations. These
arrangements are also reviewed each year as part of the
performance management system.
1040
In terms of project
monitoring for information and information technology projects,
the ministry has also improved its efforts through regular
reporting processes, quarterly financial reporting, a project
status review of all approved projects in October of each year,
and regular project-specific status reviews with all of our
program areas. The ministry has evaluated its needs for project
management software and in fact has issued an RFP for that
particular kind of software to meet our needs. We will be making
a decision within the next few weeks. Staff will be training on
the software and the project management guidelines as projects
are initiated in the new fiscal year.
I'd like to conclude my
remarks today by assuring you that MNR's science capability
remains vital to making sound resource management decisions and
in meeting our objective of sustainable development. We've
instituted project management processes that will ensure
accountability, relevance and value for money for our science and
information investments. We will continue to sustain a provincial
scientific capacity and capability to address the specific issues
we face in delivering our resource management and protection
mandate.
On that note, I'd like to
thank you for the opportunity for those few words and turn it
back to you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair:
We'll start our round of questioning now with the official
opposition. We'll have 20-minute rounds.
Mr David Ramsay
(Timiskaming-Cochrane): Thank you, Deputy, for your
update on this. I know previously we referred to the 1996
Strategic Plan for Science and Technology. My understanding from
the auditor today is that that basically is looked upon by the
ministry as an historic document, and you've moved on now to the
new forest science strategy.
I was just wondering how the
new program is different from the old. Are there aspects of it
that you've had to drop, and why have you had to do that? I'd
just be interested to know what the difference is and why you
felt-maybe because it's four years old-you had to change it. How
did that evolve and what was the process?
Mr Burke: On
some of these questions that relate to history or science in
particular, I would like to be able to refer this question to
some of my colleagues who are sitting here.
The Chair:
Sure. If you'd like to identify yourself, please.
Mr Geoff
Munro: Good morning. My name is Geoff Munro. I'm the
director of the applied research and development branch.
The report you speak to, Mr
Ramsay, was the basis upon which the new system was built. It
provided guidance and direction. There's nothing we've
specifically dropped, but what it did not do was provide us a set
of concrete measures against which we could take an annual
process and develop it into something that made it transparent to
both the business areas and anyone else who wants to observe
what's going on in terms of those decisions being made.
So in answer to your
question, nothing was dropped. The intent of that report has been
fulfilled. Some terminology has changed as we've developed the
new system. For instance, there's a reference in the old one to
"science team." "Science team," we found, was too general in its
scope, and you heard the deputy speak to a number of specific
theme areas. We have taken the science team and effectively
broken it into theme areas so we could drive down to the specific
needs of that thematic area in terms of its science requirements.
So that kind of shift has taken place, where we've driven it into
a more structured process with specific detail at a lower
level than that earlier
document provides. But the intent of that document has been
maintained and in fact was used as the basis for the development
of the document that the deputy spoke to.
Mr Ramsay:
I'd also be wondering if the change was maybe implemented, and
I'm just asking this-if you have the resources to carry out this
work, and did you have to change the strategy to accommodate the
restructuring of the ministry because of the manpower cuts over
the last few years? Has that impacted on this area and the
strategy change between the two documents?
Mr Munro: As
I said, the strategy hasn't changed specifically. The intent of
that earlier strategy has been maintained.
In terms of the resources,
the question around resources was always one of how much is
enough, and what we've done is we have entered into some
significant partnerships. The deputy, again, made reference to
that. I guess the answer is yes, we're fulfilling the obligations
as they are established by the strategies.
Mr Ramsay: I
noted that, and I thought that was interesting. Going into
partnerships seems to be a trend today. With whom would some of
these partnerships be and how do these partnerships work?
Mr Munro: As
you may be familiar with, the Ontario Forest Accord, as part of
Ontario's Living Legacy, calls specifically for science
partnerships. It was one of the areas that partners to the
ministry at the level of the accord wanted to become involved in.
We have a range of them. In the forest example we have in front
of you today, they include a number of the members of the forest
industry and a number of the academic institutions that are
involved in the research side of forest science.
We have partnerships with the
Canadian Forest Service, who also have that as part of their
mandate. We even have a number of what I guess you'd class as
ENGOs, environmental non-governmental organizations, that have
chosen to work with us to try and enhance this overall mandate of
improving our knowledge around forest science.
Mr Ramsay:
Without getting into any specific details on any particular one,
what is the extent of the partnership? Do I take it these are
financial arrangements and collaborative studies? If you could
give me maybe a couple of examples of what our share, as MNR, in
a certain partnership project is and how it might work.
Mr Munro: As
you can imagine, each institution has its own structure of what
it can and cannot do in terms of its own mandate. What we look
for are the areas of common interest, the areas where the
mandates overlap and where there is interest in
collaboration.
For those of you who have had
the opportunity to go to Sault Ste Marie, you may know that the
Ontario Forest Research Institute is right across the parking lot
from the Great Lakes Forestry Centre, which is the Canadian
Forest Service Ontario-based regional laboratory. So we have
areas where we will only put the infrastructure for our project
on the ground once, work out the plot network, for example,
rather than have them to do it on one piece of ground and us on
another. Therefore, we both reduce our costs.
The scientific interest may
be slightly different, mandates being collaborative but different
on occasion, but we will go to the same site and have the
scientists or technicians doing the measurements do them once and
provide the information back to both the Ontario lab and the
federal lab. They can do their work and we can do ours. When
results can be compared and it's appropriate to do so from a
scientific regime, then we do. So there is that kind of
collaborative arrangement. It's two budgets, federal and
provincial, operating in collaboration, both spending less than
they otherwise would be required to do. Effectively, that's the
model.
Where we partner with
industry, it's often a case where they too will put people and
resources on the ground to implement something that needs to be
implemented in response to a scientific structure that we will
set using our research scientists to do that. So it's
collaborative in that way.
Mr Ramsay:
I'm fine for now. We could rotate. I'll reserve the time if you
want.
The Chair:
If you want to do it that way, that's fine, if you want to have
shorter rotations. Ms Martel.
Ms Shelley Martel
(Nickel Belt): Let me start from there. Can you give us
specific examples of projects that you're working on? I'd be
interested, if you want to give me one with the feds and one with
industry and then tell me what the monetary value is in terms of
MNR's contribution and then industry's or the federal
government's contribution. I'm hearing what you're saying, but
can you give the committee some concrete examples of what that
means?
Mr Munro:
OK. Let me pick on one that involves all of the above. We have a
project in place called the forest research partnership. It's a
collaborative arrangement between Tembec, a forest company in the
northeast part of this province, the Canadian Forest Service, the
Canadian Ecology Centre, which operates out of one of the
provincial parks near Mattawa, and ourselves. It is focused on
intensive forest management. It focuses on what tools and
techniques we need to develop so that we can implement intensive
forest management in this province in a sustainable fashion,
working within the existing legislative and policy guidelines for
forestry. All four partners are bringing something to the table.
In all cases, it's either cash or in-kind equivalent, the three
big partners being the industry, the Canadian Forest Service and
ourselves. The Canadian Ecology Centre doesn't have the resources
to be an equal player, so what they supply is the infrastructure
of their facility and their technology transfer capability.
Amounts: I'm loath to give
you specifics because I don't have them in front of me to give
you exact figures. I can certainly make that specific report and
the outline of the budget associated with it available to
you.
1050
Ms Martel:
That was going to be my next question. Could you give us the
breakdown between what would be the ministry's investment in a partnership
arrangement, either with industry or the federal government or
the ENGOs, and then what the ministry's contribution would be
solely as a ministry to those research projects? I'd be
interested in what portion now is cost-shared, I guess is the
best way to use it, with another partner and what continues to be
the ministry's sole obligation in terms of projects, either on
fish and wildlife or on the forestry side.
Mr Munro:
I'll have to bring that back for you.
Ms Martel:
OK. I'd like to ask you some questions about budgets. That's
where I'd like to start. Can you tell the committee what the
budget is, first, for the division for this year?
Mr Des
McKee: My name is Des McKee; I'm the acting ADM of the
science and information resources division. The problem we have
with coming up with that fixed number is that there is base
funding in the division. There's also money transferred as part
of core business funding into some of the projects as well. I
don't have the actual numbers in front of me, but I think it's in
the order of about $50 million to $60 million.
Ms Martel:
Can I back up? Maybe this will help. The auditor identified, in
his 1998 report, that the division had about $63.5 million in
expenditures and 500 staff. In the same fiscal year, $27 million
was spent on 350 science projects, both fish and wildlife and
forest management. I would be interested in receiving from the
ministry corresponding numbers for three fiscal years-what those
numbers were both for the division for 1998-99, 1999-2000, and
then this year, 2000-01. I would like to know what the staffing
levels are for those three fiscal years, and finally, what the
expenditure was on the science projects. Like I said, in 1997-98
the value the auditor identified was $27 million for 350
projects. I would like the corresponding amounts, both monetary
value and the number of projects, for those three fiscal
years.
Mr McKee: We
can get that information for you.
Ms Martel:
The reason I'd be interested is, you clearly understand, and so
do I, the importance of the science projects to determine how
your fish and wildlife and forest management programs are going
to operate, and how we're going to ensure that resources are
sustainable in the long term. The auditor, when he did his audit,
identified a significant cut to the division's budget in the
three years prior to his audit. I think that has probably had
some significant impact on your ability to do these projects,
because I'm not sure you have the money or the staff. I'd like to
know what, if any, change has occurred in those numbers since the
auditor did his 1998 report, because it wasn't identified in his
2000 report.
Could we have those this
afternoon? Is that a possibility?
Mr Burke: We
will try our best.
Ms Martel:
My next question, then, is-and there may be no relationship at
all, but this is what I want to clarify-how is the Fish and
Wildlife Advisory Board and the money that it has from fees and
licences, royalties, etc related, if at all, to your division? I
specifically mean related in terms of, do you vet the projects
that they would propose and is their budget considered to be part
of your budget? So for example, in 1997-98-I think they were
probably just getting started, so maybe that's not a good year,
but is any of the $27 million that was 1997-98 actually money
from fish and wildlife? Maybe there's no relationship at all, but
I'd like that clarified.
Mr Munro:
The response to your question is that the numbers we give you
this afternoon or tomorrow or as quickly as we can get them for
you can include the amount of the $27-million equivalent that
comes from the SPA, the special purpose account that you're
referring to. But the allocation of projects is done through the
scientific rigour that I described. Although the actual system
hasn't been applied to fish and wildlife yet, as you heard the
deputy say, that same sort of approach is still used in terms of
assessing the scientific need for study. So the Fish and Wildlife
Advisory Board does not sit in judgment over what project will or
won't go ahead, although there is an allocation coming out of the
special purpose account that makes up part of the science
portfolio in support of the fish and wildlife activity.
Ms Martel:
Sorry, let me back up. Let me deal with the special purpose
account first. It was established in 1996 or 1997?
Mr Munro:
You're close.
Ms Martel: I
don't know the numbers, but let's say they had $20 million in
1996-97. Are you saying to me, then, that the $20 million they
had would have been part of the $27 million overall that was
spent by the division on projects that year?
Mr Munro: On
science projects; the answer is yes.
Ms Martel:
So is it fair to say that the total amount of money that is in
the special purpose account appears against the ministry line
item for budget for science and research projects? Or is the
money they have the only money you have?
Mr Munro:
Oh, no. No, no, no. That's why I say when I give you the numbers
this afternoon or tomorrow I can identify the portion. Science is
funded through both the forest program and the fish and wildlife
program, and a subset of the fish and wildlife program includes
money from the special purpose account.
Ms Martel:
Both branches, OK. It would be helpful to me if you could do that
breakdown as well, and could you give me the numbers over the
three fiscal years that I've identified and their projects, the
number of projects that they did over the three years? Is that a
fair request? I'm assuming that there are certain projects that
are tagged as theirs, or do you-
Mr Munro:
No.
Ms Martel:
OK.
Mr Munro:
No. I was going to say, the last part of your question may be
difficult, because what happens is there is an allocation from
the fish and wildlife program area to science and it is looked at
in terms of the fish and wildlife needs, in terms of their
program needs, and then is
funded through either the base budget or the SPA. I can give you
the math quite easily and I can do that for each of the fiscal
years you've asked for. What I can't do as easily is ferret out
the specifics of a given piece of science work that was funded
that way.
Ms Martel:
Don't do that, then. If you can do the first.
Mr Munro: We
can give you the math you are requesting, yes.
Ms Martel:
Just so I'm clear: you've got your advisory committee. It's a
multi-stakeholder group. I'm not clear about the process that
develops for them to make decisions about projects. Are they
assigned projects to consider from the branch or do they generate
their own that are then checked by the science branch?
Mr Munro:
They function in an advisory role. So the staff of the branch,
working in collaboration with the people in our division-you
recognize the branch is in a natural resource management
division-
Ms Martel:
When you say "branch" are you meaning fish and wildlife or forest
management?
Mr Munro:
Sorry, fish and wildlife branch. I should have been clear. The
fish and wildlife branch is in a different division, as is the
forest group. The science is functionally a service in support of
their policy and program agenda, so we work with them in terms of
their policy and program agenda and the science needs to it. They
then discuss with the advisory board their full program-not just
the science piece; the science piece is included of course-that
they're planning to spend their allocations on. The science is
part of the overall program.
1100
Ms Martel:
They would have expenditures and priorities that are outside of
the division and specific to the fish and wildlife branch, and
you wouldn't deal with all of those priorities.
Mr Munro:
Absolutely, and the field.
Ms Martel:
Let me ask you about what you're describing as the forest science
strategy. If I heard your answer to Mr Ramsay correctly, it is
that there really isn't a difference; the 1996 strategy provided
guidance but, for lack of a better term, the on-the-ground
details of how it really operates are now available in this
strategy. Am I correct?
Mr Munro:
That's correct.
Ms Martel:
How does that relate to what you want to do with respect to fish
and wildlife? Is this document and this strategy generic enough
that you would just apply it then to the fish and wildlife branch
and their priorities? Because I got the impression that this was
primarily focused on priorities coming out of the forest
industry, which wouldn't deal with your priorities, concerns or
responsibilities with respect to fish and wildlife.
Mr Munro:
The process would be the same and was designed generically to
answer the questions of how priorities are set, of how and when
you review projects, how you measure if they are meeting the
milestones that were projected in the project design in the first
place. Did they accomplish the intended purpose of the project
etc? So the process will be the same.
Where it will change, or may
change, is in the criteria used to measure projects. A number of
the criteria in the forest strategy document you have before you
are quite generic and there's a term in there called the language
ladder, which is the measuring device associated with each of the
criteria. Most of those will fit, but as we did with the forest
program, we will work with the business area to make sure that
those criteria do align correctly with the business area, in this
case fish and wildlife, policy program needs. Some adjustment may
be required at that level so that we measure the fish and
wildlife projects appropriate to their needs.
Ms Martel:
Is the document for fish and wildlife, that strategy, developed
yet?
Mr Munro:
No, and I'm not sure we will develop a full-blown one, because so
much of this, for all it was done for the forest system, is the
strategic nature of a science strategy and can be directly
applied. What we'll do is adapt the pieces that are necessary, as
I've described, and document them, so there'll be, more likely,
an ancillary document to this one rather than a full-blown
additional strategy, because that would be repetitious.
Ms Martel:
Tell me, you implemented this strategy and its protocol model for
decisions on projects for the fiscal year 2000-01?
Mr Munro: It
was tested in that year, both beta-tested, where we just took a
small number of projects, and then operationally tested. The
strategy was actually implemented after budgetary decisions had
been made for the current fiscal year we're in, so it was back
casting because the timing of budgetary processes and the
development of the strategy were not in sync. So what we've done
is we've measured the success of that and used it to drive the
process we're in the middle of at this very time for next fiscal
year.
Ms Martel:
So you anticipate it'll be fully in place, you'll be making all
of your decisions and evaluations by 2001-02?
Mr Munro:
That's correct.
Ms Martel:
For the fish and wildlife portion now, are you going to be
testing it this fiscal year?
Mr Munro:
That's correct.
Ms Martel:
With full implementation in 2002-03.
Mr Munro:
Correct.
Ms Martel:
Given that timeline, let me ask you this question, because the
auditor when he reviewed this and made the comments that he
did-in terms of the ministry's reply, the ministry's reply was
that they had been well aware of these concerns and in fact were
in the process of implementing changes already, in response to
the auditor's recommendations. That was in April 1998. Those were
the ministry's responses. It will be 2002-03 before the fish and
wildlife portion of this finally gets implemented in the way that
I think the auditor wanted it to be identified.
What has taken so long for
these processes to be put in place? I'm also bearing in mind that
you've told this committee that there isn't a significant change
from the year 1996 strategic plan to this document. But we've
gone from identification of a problem by the auditor in 1998,
where the ministry said you were already implementing changes, to
a position where you won't have full implementation for at least
another two full fiscal years.
Mr Munro:
The simple answer is that the changes we were making in 1998 and
1999 were-how would I describe it?-item-specific. We were looking
at the recommendations and saying, "Do we have a way of measuring
a project in mid-year?" and we were starting to develop a
response to that. It was in-let me get my years
straight-1999-2000, prior to that. Going into 1999-2000, we
recognized we needed a full-blown strategy. We could no longer go
at these item by item. What we were doing was correcting things
as we went, and we realized we were in effect tweaking all
aspects of the science program. So we took a half-step back, took
all those changes, integrated them during the 1999-2000 fiscal
year and developed this full-blown strategy.
The performance management
system we're talking about is one of 13 items you will see in the
strategy itself. This is a full-blown science strategy for MNR.
This goes well beyond the intent of the 1996 strategic direction.
It satisfies those-as I said earlier, we used it as a base
document and accepted its directions, but put a system in place
rather than just say, as I did in my example, "We don't have
anything to test a project at its mid-course, and we need one,"
and we went about fixing that. "We need a better way of linking
with the business areas," so we went about fixing that. Those
were one-time fixes we were doing, and we thought they were
appropriate until we started to realize the scope of the changes
being undertaken. We started to worry that we might fix A, which
would hurt us in B. So we stood back and looked at a full-blown
strategy for science in MNR, using forestry as the test case
because of its being the largest portfolio. That has resulted in
the document before you.
Ms Martel:
You're confident, as you deal with the specifics on fish and
wildlife and the needs from that program branch, that you're not
going to run into similar problems?
Mr Munro:
The answer is yes, I'm confident. The reason I'm confident is
that we have taken this using forestry as a test case. It is not
unique to forestry. As I said earlier, it is a science-based
program that depends on the classical science checks of peer
review and national and international collegial exchange with
people who are involved in the area of expertise-all the things
we have been doing in MNR for years-but does it in a structured
way. So those generic pieces are quite applicable to fish and
wildlife, and they can be applicable to science in any other
area. As a matter of fact, this system has now been recognized
worldwide. We were invited to IUFRO, the International Union of
Forest Research Organizations, to talk about what we've done with
this. So it is a generic science strategy, and I am confident it
will work for fish and wildlife and others, recognizing, as I
said earlier, that there may be a need to speak to specific
criteria adjustments to recognize the needs of that program
area.
Ms Martel:
Are you confident as well that you have the staff, the human
resources in place to fully implement this strategy? Part of the
problem the auditor identified with the 1996 strategy was that it
was a great document but never implemented. We haven't seen full
implementation of this yet. You've got a test. Through that
testing, did you identify that you need more human resources to
be sure it can be fully implemented?
Mr Munro:
We're not fully there yet. Their capacity issue does come out,
because you measure the amount of scientific capability you've
got to deliver on the project needs. Recognizing that the list
will always be longer than any size of organization can fulfill,
we've entered into the partnership arrangement to help satisfy
that, knowing full well we needed to do that. That's not unique
to forests either; we're doing that across all our science
disciplines.
Ms Martel:
Just so I'm clear, though, it's safe to say-and I don't want to
take you out of context-that at this point you can't be clear you
would have, internally at MNR, in any event, the staffing to
fully implement the strategy. You would have to rely on
partnerships.
Mr Munro:
The strategy itself is a process to establish the science that
needs to be done. Yes, we can implement the strategy; I have full
confidence. As a matter of fact, the way the strategy is
designed, using Web-based technology, reduces the workload on
individuals to chase money through NSERC or other granting
agencies and whatnot to partner with MNR money, because it
creates a structure within which the priorities of MNR for its
science are clear. It's process-based, using Web-based technology
etc. So I'm never worried about the strategy itself.
Ms Martel:
It's the projects themselves.
Mr Munro:
And, as I said, a list of science needs is always going to be far
greater than any ministry's capability to deliver. We will always
maintain the capability to deliver the core needs of our business
areas, and we believe we'll be able to do that.
1110
Ms Martel:
What portion of the projects would be-maybe this is too hard to
sort out, but if you've got a test in place, what portion of the
projects right now would have been just for this fiscal year
versus multi-year, where you would have to be allocating
additional staff resources now to complete those projects? Can
you make that judgment?
Mr Munro:
It's hard to judge specifically. I'm loath to give you a number.
It's fair to say that most science projects are longer than a
single year.
Ms Martel:
And it would be the same with staffing as in monetary value. For
example, I take it you would have a small number of projects that
could be completed in a single fiscal year; many other projects
you're going to be tracking require a multi-year commitment as
well.
Mr Munro:
They do, and that's part of why we have in the system an annual
review to make sure-
Ms Martel: You have the money.
Mr Munro:
Not just to have money, but that the annual investment is still
pertinent. If things have changed, if new knowledge becomes
available and we no longer need to pursue that because one of our
colleagues has answered the question, we're not going to continue
to spend money on the project just because we started it. So we
will review the portfolio of projects annually to ensure we're
making the best strategic investment we can.
Ms Martel:
At what point would you be able, through this process, to assess
your human needs? Is the model complex enough that those types of
things can be identified for you?
Mr Munro:
Yes.
Ms Martel:
For example, as you move to the full scale this year, because
you're in that budgetary process right now, if you start to look
at those projects and the human resources attached, that would
probably change some of the decisions you'll be making, just
based on whether you have the fiscal resources to get it off the
ground and the human resources to make it happen.
Mr Munro:
That's right. I classify this, and continue to classify it, as a
decision support system. It doesn't make decisions for us; it
supports the decision-making that's necessary. In that context,
we will always have a portfolio of projects that is greater than
the base budget of MNR or any other ministry, because there are
always going to be additional questions for which we want to
eventually get answers, hence the reason we entered the
partnership arena.
Ms Martel:
Would you be making revisions to the portfolio now, based on what
you know about resources, both financial and human?
Mr Munro:
We have to bring the two together, and that will happen in the
month of March, prior to entering the next fiscal year: the needs
from the program areas and the resources available to do it, both
internal and external in our partnership arrangements, to see
what kind of portfolio of projects we can undertake
collectively.
Mrs Julia Munro
(York North): I have a couple of questions that are
really very general in nature, but I thought I'd take this
opportunity to ask. One of the things I wonder whether you could
clarify for me is the difference between MNR's responsibilities,
particularly in the fish side of fish and wildlife, and the
jurisdiction the federal government has in Fisheries and Oceans.
Can you explain in layman's terms your responsibility as opposed
to theirs?
Mr Munro:
I should say at the outset that the actual responsibility within
MNR for the establishment of fish and wildlife
responsibilities-fisheries was your question-is not within the
purview of this division. It belongs to the natural resources
management division, and they carry responsibility for the
legislation and the regulations. However, working as closely with
it as we do, I think I can give you a reasonable layman's answer.
In that context, I'd be happy to respond.
The simple split is that
the main coast issues of this country, the Great Lakes and the
major arteries generally tend to fall to the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. When we get into the inland lakes and the
watersheds feeding the Great Lakes, we have a role to play. As a
result, we end up having a role to play on the Great Lakes as
well. That's where the two come together. But it is federal
legislation that can be violated in shoreline construction and
that kind of thing where fisheries habitat is damaged, and so we
have a relationship with the federal government in terms of their
taking action when it is identified by one of our plans that
damage to fisheries habitat would ensue. There is a collaborative
working relationship at all times, but the lines kind of split
the way I've described. But inland lakes are ours.
Mrs Munro:
OK, thank you. As a member representing an inland lake shoreline,
I'm conscious of the fact there often seems to be some confusion
over this, which is why I thought I'd take the opportunity to
ask.
The other question I have
is again sort of generic. When you were talking about the work
that has been done with this forest science strategy, you made
reference to the fact that the projects, as I understand, have to
conform to or be in collaboration with the business side of
forestry. As you go forward looking at the projects that would be
deemed appropriate for the fish and wildlife side, is there a
difference in strategy between what you would see as appropriate
activities at the science level in fish and wildlife as opposed
to forestry? I don't know if I've made that very clear.
Mr Munro:
Let me give you an example; this may be a better way of answering
the question. One of the criteria we have is how the given
project will meet the legislative or policy needs, the strategic
objectives of the ministry's program. When you take that as the
criterion, if you go into the forest world, you're going to talk
about a sustainable wood supply, wildlife habitat, all the things
we need to get as a product of managing the forest. If you take
the same criteria and go over to the fish and wildlife side,
you're going to talk about sustainable fish populations, fish
availability for angling and commercial fisheries, not disturbing
fisheries habitat etc. So the criterion "Does it meet the
strategic objectives of the program?" is easily translatable from
one to the other. But how you would measure it specifically in
working with the business area would obviously differ based on
the different science that's necessary to support that
program.
Mrs Munro:
I think that really demonstrates the point you were making
earlier about the fact that this work that has been done then has
the ability to be a working document as you move into the second
phase.
The Chair:
Mr Maves.
Mr Bart Maves
(Niagara Falls): First of all, congratulations on acting
upon so many of the auditor's recommendations and bringing in
some new systems respecting the comments made by the auditor.
Quite often we have ministries come in and say, "We really
appreciate the auditor's work and agree with his
recommendations," and
then fail to follow up on those recommendations. So my
congratulations to you for that.
Previously, it seems a lot
of our processes have been a little more ad hoc, and through the
minister's report now you've got more concrete measures for your
programs; for instance, how and when to measure and exactly how
you do those measurements. I understand you're implementing that
in the forest sector and, through your comments with Ms Martel,
in fish and wildlife. Would you say those more concrete measures
and that more defined checklist came directly as a result of the
provincial government's report?
Mr Munro:
Yes, and our own recognition of the need for it. As the deputy
was indicating, some of the thinking around getting a better
working relationship between those who provide the science
support to a program and those who are driving the policy and
program in response to other needs was recognized as something
that had to be brought closer together, and this strategy helps
do that as well. So in large part it's driven by the auditor's
recommendations, yes, but it's supported by where the ministry
recognized it needed to go.
1120
Mr Maves:
I'm not clear: did the auditor recommend that that same type of
system be implemented for fish and wildlife or just forestry, but
you've seen the merits of it and decided to adopt it for fish and
wildlife?
Mr Munro:
My interpretation of the auditor's remarks was that they were to
the science portfolio itself. So if the ministry found itself in
a situation where it needed to go into a brand new area of
science at some point in the future, the expectation would be
that a similar system with the same rigour would be applied.
That's certainly our intent.
Mr Maves:
You talked about the science strategy calling for the use of
partnerships, and the members have all talked a little about the
use of partnerships. How long, actually, has the ministry been
entering these types of partnerships? It's not just a new thing.
Is it something that's been going on?
Mr Munro:
You're correct; it's not new. We've been entering partnerships
all along. What we've done, though, is stepped up the attention
we pay and the management rigour that's applied. By that I mean
we aren't encouraging an individual scientist to walk across the
parking lot, as in the description I made of the two labs side by
side in Sault Ste Marie, but rather we have the two management
committees looking consciously for areas of common priority,
looking to apply in a collaborative fashion the resources we each
bring to the science agenda. That has happened in the past, but
in a more ad hoc fashion, where it was in the interest of a given
director of science or director of a given portfolio of the
science to do that. What we've done is brought the two
organizations together in a more formal fashion. We even have in
place a committee structure where we annually pull together all
the priorities we have and look for areas of commonality and then
structure the partnerships accordingly. We've done the same with
the major forest industry players and other interested
groups.
Mr Maves:
You mentioned the union of forest research organizations-
Mr Munro:
It's called IUFRO, the International Union of Forest Research
Organizations.
Mr Maves:
-which brings to mind a question: how does the system we're now
operating-you said you got praise for it at that group-compare
with other jurisdictions, for instance, other provinces?
Mr Munro:
You heard the deputy speak of a piece of software called ProGrid.
ProGrid is used as a tool by a number of organizations, not just
in forest science but in science. While it started in North
America, it's rapidly becoming worldwide. There is what is called
a ProGrid users' group. That's where they get together once a
year and say, "What have you learned? How did it work for you?"
and that kind of discussion. We have been invited to that users'
group last year and for the year coming and, simply put, we've
been given strong accolades from our colleagues who are also
using it, because we've taken it one step beyond. We've added the
front end I was speaking of earlier, about the theme groups, the
tight link to the business area, and making sure that relevancy
column of criteria is well and truly established.
Most others have used it
for a granting structure, so they already have set the purposes
for which the grant has been established when the grant is
established. As an example, NSERC, the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of the federal government, has its
money allocated by functioning groups of priorities. So all they
did was take ProGrid as the tool to crank through the priorities.
What we've done is put that front end on it, where annually you
review the priorities and adjust, recognizing that in a dynamic
organization like a provincial government, where you're working
on the ground, you have changing priorities all the time. Things
will become more important; things will be solved and therefore
be less important from a science perspective because they're
already being implemented. So with that dynamic change on the
front end, and integrating that with the priority-setting
process, we were given accolades by that group.
Mr Maves:
Was ProGrid developed by our ministry? Who actually developed
ProGrid?
Mr Munro:
They like to call themselves the science mafia of Canada. It's
actually a small group of people who-the principle came out of
the aerospace industry in Canada, the group that developed the
Canadarm. They now have set up a consulting company-because they
wrote this software. It was written primarily for the allocation
of money in a granting style, as I described, and then they work
with us to mature it for these other uses. We've been emulated
already; Forest Renewal BC, British Columbia, has taken the
system we've developed and, with permission from Ontario, has
applied it with very little adjustment.
Mr Maves:
One last general question, and it's a very subjective one. How
would you gauge the relationship right now between your ministry and some of the
forest companies, for example, in Ontario with regard to science
and their understanding for the needs of science?
Mr Munro:
We have put in place what we call the managers' forum. It's just
the people who are responsible in the forest companies for their
interest in the question, "How do we mature the way we manage the
forest on behalf of the ministry under our licence?" They are
woodlands managers or vice-presidents of woodlands, that kind of
level in the organization. We get together about two or three
times a year. It's a very collegial relationship. They come to
the table with cash. They recognize they don't have the science
expertise themselves. They're interested in entering into
partnerships with us using this system because they understand
that the priorities get ferreted out. We do the same thing as I
described with the Canadian Forest Service with them-"What are
your priorities? How do they overlap with what the ministry's
mandate is?"-find the areas of common interest and work
together.
The Chair:
Anyone else on the government side? No? Mr Ramsay.
Mr Ramsay:
I'd like to address my questions to Mr Munro. I'm glad I took
that break. It gave my colleague Richard Patten and me a little
chance to go through the forest strategy paper that you handed
us. I'm a little shocked by it because it seems to run a little
contrary to some of the answers that you were giving me. I was
asking you specifically, would the lack of resources or the cuts
in personnel have anything to do with the change from the 1996
direction to now, and you seemed to imply that, no, the
priorities had changed. Yet when I look at this, and just for the
little time that Richard and I have been able to look at it, it
seems like a cry for help from the ministry. All over the place
there are admissions that there are insufficient resources, both
monetary and personnel, to do the job that the scientists in your
ministry believe is needed.
On page 17, "Human
Resources: MNR's S&T personnel resources are deficient in
several areas. Presently there is insufficient critical mass in
key research areas. For example, there is a need to provide
strong social and economic research in support of sustainability
goals. There is also a shortage of technical and administrative
S&T support staff. Downsizing and reorganization directives
over the past decade have eroded MNR's corporate science capacity
and have discouraged the recruitment of new, younger expertise.
Coupled with fiscal restraint realities, S&T staff have been
unable to expand their network and interactions with colleagues
in other provinces and internationally. In total, these
conditions have created a suboptimal working environment where
resources and opportunities are low and attitudes edge on
apathetic."
I must congratulate you for
the frankness of some of these statements. I look at page 35,
which I guess gets pretty serious about the legal needs of
science because of your legislative mandate, and it basically
spells those out.
1130
On the next page, 36,
"Status of EA Science T&Cs"-terms and conditions-"A
considerable reduction in program funding and staffing for the
science T&Cs has occurred over the past four years in
accordance with the government's objectives for deficit reduction
and reduced spending. Consequently, the resources originally
planned for each of the programs has not been maintained.
Nevertheless, MNR is obliged to meet EA act requirements and
deliver science programs that, at a minimum, satisfy the wording
in each science T&C."
The ministry says that you
feel you've got enough here to do the very minimum, but it says,
"With the growing trend towards litigation, MNR's programs may be
legally challenged. Questions on how well MNR's science programs
comply with the timber class EA approval may be ultimately
decided in a court of law."
That seems pretty
serious.
Mr Munro:
Can I speak to those observations? They're in here because facts
are facts. The truth of the response I gave was, though, that
this strategy was designed to overcome that scenario. As it says,
in terms of the EA, we believe we'll be meeting the requirements,
and we'll be testing that through the review of the timber class
EA. We believe we'll be there. But this strategy was specifically
designed to ferret out the specific priorities that must be met
and make sure that we do have the resources allocated to
them.
I don't mean to imply for a
minute that the size of the science program today is the same as
it was in 1998. It's not. The figures that I will provide to you,
Ms Martel, will show that. But the strategy has overcome that
scenario and has been specifically designed so that we
concentrate our efforts, both the ones from the internal
resources and the ones through our partnerships, so that we do
meet legal and required priorities of, in this case, the forest
program.
If I led you to believe
that we were operating on a premise that everything was rosy and
we had the same resources we had before, then I misled you, and
that was not my intent. But that is the basis upon which the
strategy has been built so we can meet our obligations.
Mr Ramsay:
Continuing along this line, from page 38, section 5.2.2, "Changes
in Science Funding," it says, "The reduction in science funding
initiated in 1996 represents the largest contextual driver for
this strategy now and for the foreseeable future." So yes, that
confirms what you're saying.
On page 39, section
5.2.3:
"Capacity: Overall budget
reductions have eroded MNR's capacity to deal with many critical
uncertainties about sustainable forest management. The actual
capacity reduction can be estimated on the basis of differential
funding since 1996 but this would not provide a complete
picture." It talks about some overall science funding of the
government and synergies between other ministries, etc.
It goes on in the next
paragraph: "There has been a severe reduction in overall capacity
to conduct science and
transfer activities...." I take it that's the implementation of
the science in the field. Is that what a transfer activity
is?
Mr Munro:
Yes, taking the new knowledge as it has been created and applying
it in the field.
Mr Ramsay:
"This reduction has affected research activities but it has been
equally devastating to transfer activities. Staff normally
devoted to transfer both formally through conducting courses,
workshops, etc have been confined to assisting with the MNR
priorities such as Lands for Life and judicial review.
Consequently, the capacity for day-to-day transfer activities,
particularly with the forest industry, is much reduced."
What are the consequences
of that?
Mr Munro:
If left alone, we would be in non-compliance and we would not
provide our business areas with the information and knowledge
they need to do their job. Again, this is the platform upon which
this strategy was built and part of the reason why we went to a
full-blown science strategy, to figure out how we could get where
we needed to get. This is a leading-edge piece of work, as
recognized in the scientific community. I have every confidence
we will overcome those dramatic statements in our delivery. The
proof of the pudding will be in the delivery, absolutely, and
will be measured in a quasi-legal environment with the timber EA
review on that particular piece of work, as you know. I have
every confidence we will have risen to the occasion. The strategy
is specifically designed to overcome those dramatic changes that
are described.
Mr Ramsay:
But you do state in here that there is the possibility that
whether you're in compliance or not may be decided in a court of
law. The authors of this report are not as confident that you may
meet those legal obligations.
Mr Munro:
Recognizing that this was written as the platform upon which we
needed to write a strategy to get there, not as the result of the
development of the strategy.
Mr Ramsay:
So there are obviously the legal obligations under the
legislation that you act under, and that's one thing. It goes on
at page 41, and it's something that I'm familiar with, coming
from an agricultural background. You use OMAFRA as the example,
that we're not investing in the science to get the optimum, if
you will, efficiencies and productivity from our forest
industry.
OMAFRA has always had the
sense that the more they invest in R&D, the more productive
our farmers would be in this province, and the research that
OMAFRA has funded, some internally, some through the University
of Guelph, has proven that. In pork research and other areas we
seem to be the leaders and this is what makes our farmers in
Ontario so productive and very competitive and used as an
example.
Obviously the mindset isn't
there with the Ontario government that we've got to do the same
with our forest industry and that the government needs to be a
leader. I'm sort of paraphrasing what's being said here. The last
sentence there in that paragraph is, "Only a significant
investment in knowledge will realize these expectations,"
referring to enhancing productivity. That's going to be very
important, especially with the pressures from various groups
about the way we use our forests. So our science is going to
become more and more important to do a better job, to satisfy all
the demands out there about how we use our forests.
Mr Munro:
One significant difference between OMAFRA and MNR is MNR has
stewardship responsibility for crown land; OMAFRA is functioning
on private land, functioning in terms of providing their science
to a private landowner who is in a production environment. If our
science was to support only the forest industry and to only do
the one thing-increase productivity on the ground-I think the
parallels would be more easily implemented.
The truth of the matter is
we have to balance that increased productivity with the other
values that the public of Ontario wants from their forests and
that in a true, sustainable environment are legitimate parts of
the forested ecosystem that we need to ensure are maintained,
everything from protected areas to habitat to aesthetic areas in
the province.
I think our forest science
does require a significant investment if it were going to go to
that OMAFRA equivalent. Article 5 of the Ontario Forest Accord is
where we've turned to get that investment and it is through the
partnership arrangements I've been speaking about part of this
morning. We do have significant resources being partnered with us
to meet these objectives, with the forest industry putting some
significant dollars on the table, and some of our other
partners.
I guess I would respond by
suggesting that the agenda is a little different and that we do
have to do more than just the increased productivity, but
increased productivity is one of our directions and we are
working on that in collaboration with our partners, again using
this strategy as the tool to ferret out the priority areas of
investment.
Mr Ramsay:
That's exactly the point. Section 5.2.5 talks about science as an
investment. That seems to be the cultural difference between
what's happening now, because of your funding pressures and, I
take it, from what you and your branch would like to see. It
says, "A prevailing notion throughout the strategy analysis was
one in which S&T is seen as a cost to and not an investment
in the management of natural resources." I guess that's the
difference. "This view undoubtedly influences the ongoing
decisions to reduce S&T budgets. Ironically, this perspective
is not however shared by broader government science and
technology funding initiatives, nor is it the same in other
jurisdictions." Then you give Alberta as an example, which "has
decided to increase their investment in forest-related S&T in
order to increase forest sector outputs for a broad range of
economic and ecological products."
1140
Obviously you're in a tough
position here. On the one hand the scientists in your branch want
to see more investment in this and give some valid reasons. I
understand your job; you
work for the government and you have to defend the policy. But
I'd just say to you that you've got an advocate here. We need to
be pushing for more of this and I'll be doing my part in doing
that. I think we need to have more money dedicated to this, not
only for our legal responsibilities but for increased output and
productivity for a greatly diminishing resource. So we have to do
better with less.
If anybody wants to have a
finishing comment, that's fine, or I'll leave it there.
The Chair:
Any questions?
Mr John C. Cleary
(Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): Yes. I was looking
through your document and I was just wondering, MNR used to
operate around the pits and quarries act, and then that was
handed out to private enterprise. What role does MNR play in that
now?
Mr Munro:
There is nothing in the science piece. The pits and quarries is
more of an allocation, I believe. That's not an area within my
purview.
Mr Burke:
I don't believe there was anything raised in the auditor's
material with respect to that, but I can certainly get back to
you to more specifically answer the question that you've
raised.
I know we work with
industry with respect to pits and quarries. I'm not aware that
we've transferred anything to them in particular. We still work
with them, we still do the allocations, and so on.
Mr Cleary:
This is an issue in rural Ontario, in my part of Ontario.
Sometimes we have a difficult time getting answers, so I thought
I would just throw it out there at this time.
The other thing I was
wondering about, and I suppose it's not in here, is the beaver
control. Are there any partnerships that you're putting together
on beaver control? I know it used to be an MNR problem. It's a
big issue in the agricultural community. I was just wondering if
there are any partnerships or anything there.
Right now it's in the hands
of the municipalities, which I think is unfair, because if you
look back, for as many years as I can remember, the beavers were
brought in there by MNR and now they've left us with all of the
problem.
Mr Burke:
Again, I don't have any material nor do I recall anything with
respect to a problem with that, but I can certainly check and get
back to you.
Mr Cleary:
I can sure give you some problems if you want them directed to
you.
The Chair:
Anything else, Mr Cleary?
Mr Cleary:
Sure. The other thing, under fish and wildlife-and I don't know
whether it's federal or provincial-where you have licensed people
who net fish in eastern Ontario and they are allowed to net in
spawning times; namely perch, Lake St Francis. That's a big
issue. I've had the fish and game clubs after me continuously
about that. A federal or provincial problem?
Mr Burke:
If it's an inland lake, it would be ours.
Mr Cleary:
I think it's yours, then. I just had to get that on the record
because I've had the fish and game clubs after me for years about
these licensed people who fish, especially in spawning time.
The Chair:
Ms Martel?
Ms Martel:
I asked you earlier on for some statistics and I'm going to
expand my list for you. I asked specifically for fiscal years
beginning 1998-99. I wonder if you can provide us with the same
details-manpower, budget and projects and the value of the
projects-but for fiscal year 1995-96 and fiscal 1996-97. The
auditor has already provided us with 1997-98; it's the one we do
have already. If you could give me the two front-end fiscal years
and similar information, that would be helpful.
Can I ask about the
staffing complement in the division itself? The auditor said
about 500 people in 1997-98, and you'll update those statistics
for us. Is the general complement, then, scientists? Do you have
a number of categories of scientists? Are there technical people
who are not scientists, and an administrative staff? Can you give
me a profile of the staffing complement in the division?
Mr McKee:
The division is the science and information resources division.
One of the branches is the science branch. Another branch is
under Frank Kennedy's leadership, which is science and
information, and that's focusing more on knowledge management and
the integration of those components. There is an information
management branch which is focusing around the core information
management things-architecture, planning, standards etc-and there
is a small IT organization to look after the infrastructure.
Ms Martel:
I think you've mentioned four branches within the division
itself.
Mr McKee:
Yes.
Ms Martel:
Which branch has the biggest complement? Would it be the science
development and transfer branch?
Mr McKee:
Yes.
Mr Munro:
The science development and transfer branch itself, though, has
matured into the two new branches of applied research and
development and science and information, which is why Mr Kennedy
and I are both here.
Ms Martel:
What I'd be interested in is the complement of scientists-or I
don't know if they're scientists and technicians; I'm not sure
which term you use to define them-the individuals MNR has who are
actually doing the project work, research etc. I'd be interested
in those numbers. I'm not sure: were you going to respond, Mr
Munro, or do you want me to keep going?
Mr Munro:
I was going to identify them for you. We have research
scientists, we have technicians and we have what we call field
specialists. They are made up of people who are biologists and
foresters, predominantly, who function in that role that you
describe. So that's the sort of response you'll be getting.
Ms Martel:
Can you give those numbers to me as well over the period that I
asked? Is that a possibility or is it too difficult to break that
down?
Mr Munro: The question you ask may
drag the time out a little bit by which we're able to get you the
answer, but we will get you the answer.
Ms Martel:
I don't know if we'll be back here this afternoon, but if you can
get the other portions to me and then that comes later, that
would be fine.
In terms of the strategy
itself, because I haven't had a chance to look at the document,
how do you guarantee that the user's views are implemented in
setting the priorities and then guarantee that they're involved
in the post-evaluation to determine the success of the project or
how valuable or useful it was?
Mr Munro:
What we've done is have the forest division senior staff, the
field services division and the science and information resources
division work together to co-lead each of the theme groups.
If we talk about a specific
one, we'll have questions being raised by the forest division
staff, who are the policy and program staff. They know what's
required at the provincial level in terms of where the forest
program is going. We also have people coming out of the
individual districts who are implementing it on the ground, who
are working day by day with the forest companies. They too have
issues or concerns there at the table. Then you have the science
staff at the table who say, "We already know the answers to these
three questions," because of the scientific knowledge they hold.
"The next question is the fourth one." So the three perspectives
work together to develop the strategic approach around each theme
area. That way they stay tightly linked to the business area's
needs at both the policy program development level and the field
implementation level.
Ms Martel:
I think I understand that. Maybe I should have been more specific
and asked about users as stakeholders-the forest industry, Tembec
representatives: Did this project make any sense or not, given
the project you've already described, on the side of fish and
wildlife, OFAH etc?
Are those coming through
the district level, then?
Mr Munro:
They are, unless we're entering into a structured partnership
with them. Then they may help us co-write the proposal.
Ms Martel:
So they'll do it directly.
Mr Munro:
It will depend on whether it's just general input on, "What are
the priorities around this area?" or whether it's trying to
drive, in a partnership environment, to a specific objective.
Both are possible in the way we've got it structured.
Ms Martel:
In terms of the pilot that you ran, those user groups were part
of that pilot as well in terms of their views being canvassed
after the end of last fiscal year?
1150
Mr Munro:
We very actively worked on the partnership that I described with
Tembec and the Canadian Forest Service, and had them right in on
the discussion of the projects and the results.
Ms Martel:
But you would have done a number of other projects. How many
projects did you actually test, then, through the fiscal
year?
Mr Munro:
What we called the beta test was only nine projects, I think. The
operational trial was 37, or something like that. So it was a
full portfolio of project activity.
Ms Martel:
If you looked at the 37, would you see that affected users had
their views canvassed at the end of that for evaluation, or is
the problem that some of these will be multi-year, so there isn't
any point right now in talking to them?
Mr Munro:
Yes. We're not closed off yet. Most of those projects are still
part of the ongoing evaluation for the upcoming budget year,
because they are multi-year projects.
Ms Martel:
I haven't had a chance to look at the document, and I appreciated
the comments that Mr Ramsay put on the table in terms of human
resources, because clearly I think where he was heading in his
first round of questions was to determine if the reason the 1996
strategic plan had to be changed was because there wasn't the
staff to implement it. I think that's probably the thought that
some of us had on this side of the room.
There's no doubt that you
have now developed a strategy that you feel confident will
deliver on your obligations and your responsibilities. I come at
it from a different way. My question to you is, when you cut your
science budget-and we know there have been cuts; you've
identified that, and we're going to see how large those were-and
when you cut your scientific projects, at what point do you then
put the sustainability of our fish and wildlife and forestry
resources at risk, and have we hit that point? It's one thing for
the ministry to develop a strategy to try to live within the
constraints you have, and I think that's what you've tried to do,
but there's a whole other matter of whether now living within
those constraints really means we have hit the point where we are
putting those resources at risk. Can you comment on where you
think we are now with respect to those really important
items?
Mr Munro:
Boy, that's a $64-million question, isn't it?
The sustainability of
resources in Ontario, sticking with the example of forest
resources because of the area and the document we're discussing,
is characterized by a very structured requirement in our forest
management planning process. If you take a look at the forest
management planning manual, you'll find that there are 14
indicators of sustainability that each and every forest
management plan author must satisfy. Then and only then will the
ministry sign off on that plan, making the operational
implementation of that plan a legal situation.
Have we eroded that? No, I
don't believe we have. Are there more criteria out there as we
learn more and more about forests? Yes. At some point in the
future, the 14 indicators may mature into something else. As we
gain more knowledge about the forest and about how the forest
ecosystem behaves in response to both natural and man-caused disturbance, we will
continue to refine our measures of sustainability. It's in the
adaptive nature of learning more about the forest and then
implementing that that science comes to the fore. As we
understand it today, as we have it in documentation today, we are
implementing a sustainable forest management program, yes.
Ms Martel:
But at one level the government has been incapable of even
meeting the terms and conditions. I set aside 77, which deals
with aboriginal people's concerns. If I look at your obligation
to table annually reports with respect to forest sustainability,
I would bet that you don't have 1999-2000 tabled, and I'd be
surprised if you had 1998-99 tabled. I think the last set of
documents that we looked at, albeit it was probably four or five
months ago, was a report from 1996-97. The ministry has an
obligation now to provide information with respect to the state
of the forest, annual reports, and you have not been able to meet
those. Maybe, Deputy, you can tell us when the last set was
tabled, because they were not current.
Mr Burke:
Well, you're correct: we certainly were behind the time of
appropriate tabling some time ago. It was pointed out to us both
by the auditor as well as the Environmental Commissioner.
I can tell you today that
we have tabled 1997-98-it is now formally tabled-and 1998-99 has
been signed off. It is going through the regular committee
process and we expect to see it tabled, if everything goes
according to Hoyle, within the next week to 10 days. Of course,
1999-2000 will be produced probably before the end of this year.
What we chose to undertake or what we've indicated we would do is
table them no later than 18 months after the completion of that
fiscal year period. Of course, that won't be until some time
later. I think October of this year would be 18 months after the
1999-2000.
Ms Martel:
Can you tell us why there's been such a delay? This has been an
ongoing problem from the time the T&Cs were actually
developed and accepted. There was never a report that was tabled
on time and we still, as you said, are experiencing a significant
delay. These are really important indicators about the state of
our forests, and because they then become public documents, that
makes them even more important so that people who have a concern,
whether it be in the forest industry or the environmental
community, have some baseline to work with. I think it's
significant that the ministry has not been able to get even that
out the door in terms of telling people very publicly what the
situation is.
Mr Burke:
I think one of the reasons behind them being delayed is waiting
basically for reporting material. We expected material and
information from the forest industry, from companies. As you
know, MNR is very decentralized and has many district offices.
Much of that material and information had to be compiled, so
through that. It was also somewhat of a new process for us, and I
think we had a hard time getting ourselves straightened out as to
how we would collect the material, the extent of the material
that was needed in order to fulfill the requirements under the
tabling documents, and so on.
I can tell you today, I
think we've got it right. I don't think we got off to a great
start, and I do admit that, but I think we do have it right today
and I expect to see regular on-time reporting from this point
on.
The Chair:
It's 12 o'clock. Any further questions from the government
members?
Ms Marilyn
Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): No, Chair.
The Chair:
There will not be a need, then, for us to return at 1:30 this
afternoon. We look forward to your meeting with us tomorrow on
the forest management issue, although to some extent that has
been dealt with today as well, but we'll get into that further
tomorrow.
Mr Richard Patten
(Ottawa Centre): Mr Chair, I'd just like to know: this
James Baker, that's not the evangelist Jim Bakker, is it?
Interjections.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for attending here today, then, and we'll see
you tomorrow.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair:
As agreed to earlier, we'll now deal with the subcommittee report
on committee business. Would somebody who is on the subcommittee
read it into the record, please?
Mr Patten:
The motion is, I move that the Provincial Auditor be-
The Chair:
No, the subcommittee report itself.
Mr Patten:
Your subcommittee on committee business met on Wednesday,
February 28, 2001, and recommends the following:
(1) That the motion of Mr
Sergio be dealt with, with certain amendments, by the committee
today, February 28, 2001, directly following the morning
session.
(2) That the Chair meet
with Mr Burgess and report back to the committee at a later
date.
(3) That the Agricorp
report will be dealt with on the afternoon of Monday, March 5,
2001, if time permits.
The Chair:
Is there any discussion on the report to the committee? If not,
I'm going to call for a vote on that.
All those in favour of the
committee report? Opposed? Carried.
Items 2 and 3 speak for
themselves. If we could return then to item 1, which is the
actual motion. Ms McLeod.
Mrs Lyn McLeod
(Thunder Bay-Atikokan: I appreciate receiving notice
that the motion would be dealt with today. I'll just take a very
brief moment-because the people around the table have changed
from the time this motion was originally tabled-to give a very
brief history.
I had originally presented
the motion when we were dealing with health issues at the public
accounts committee and I was sitting as a member of the
committee. In fairness to the committee, the motion came without
notice and caught people by surprise, so it was not supported
that day. Subsequent to the meeting, the Premier was asked
whether or not he was supportive of the notion of a
value-for-money audit, and he certainly indicated that he would welcome a
value-for-money audit, including in relationship to the issue of
Cancer Care Ontario's establishment of the private clinic for
radiation therapy.
1200
Mr Sergio did present the
motion again to committee. It was indicated by the committee vote
at that time that it would be deferred for further consideration.
I hope that the committee would consider it favourably. I do
believe it's one of the ways in which we can really examine
whether there is a cost benefit to having established this new
radiation therapy clinic in a private centre rather than having
Cancer Care Ontario run the clinic itself. That is the sole
purpose of the motion and something which the auditor has assured
me is well within his purview.
I believe the auditor may
have suggested that the motion include a recommendation that the
auditor report back to the public accounts committee within a
period of time. So if one of my colleagues would consider a
friendly amendment to the motion, I think that would be very
appropriate.
The Chair:
Just for the record, although I think it's already on the record,
the motion as presented reads as follows:
"I move that the Provincial
Auditor be asked to investigate the value-for-money aspects of
the decision by Cancer Care Ontario to provide after-hours
radiation therapy through a private clinic rather than
in-house."
That's the motion as it
stands. I understand there may be some amendments to that. Mrs
Munro, are you prepared to deal with the amendment that you
indicated you might move earlier?
Mrs Munro:
Yes. I have a couple of concerns, including those that were
raised by the auditor in our previous conversation in the
subcommittee, and I certainly want to address a couple of the
concerns that he has suggested to us.
I'd like to begin our
conversation on this with the wording as it stands with respect
to "the decision" in the second line. I'm just wondering whether
we might consider instead "the policy," because it's really not
the decision that I think is the issue here; it's the question of
the policy. I'm wondering if the auditor might also comment on
that in that it seems to me consistent with the kind of work that
is normally done by the auditor, that he is commenting on policy
as opposed to what's implied here in "decision."
The Chair:
Basically, your amendment would be to strike out the word
"decision" and insert the word "policy." Mr Peters, do you have
any comments on that?
Mr Erik
Peters: I just want to be abundantly clear: I cannot
comment on government policy overall, because I don't want to
second-guess the government. But if the view is that this is just
the administrative policy of Cancer Care Ontario to privatize,
I'm OK. I just want to make that distinction. If we are dealing
with administrative policy, I can deal with it. If it is
government small-p or big-p policy, I have a problem. If the idea
is that I can branch further out into any initiatives by the
government on privatization, like privatization as a policy,
that's not within my purview. My purview is the
administration.
As it is, I can live with
the word "policy" here because I would interpret it, and I want
you to understand that I have to interpret it, as an
administrative policy decision of Cancer Care Ontario.
The Chair:
Any comments? Mr Maves, is it on this issue?
Mr Maves:
No.
Mrs
McLeod: I have a question: in changing the word from
"decision" to "policy," it would not restrict you in any way from
accessing the business details that you would need to know to do
a value-for-money audit of that policy decision?
Mr Peters:
I think the combination of the two words would be clearer to me:
"...aspects of the policy decision by Cancer Care Ontario to
provide..."
The Chair:
I see what you're saying. Do you have any problems with that, Ms
Munro? In other words, to insert the word "policy," the use of
both words there?
Mrs Munro:
I think that's possible.
Ms
Mushinski: Just one question of the auditor. Mr Peters,
the motion, as it stands, would imply to me that you're going to
be asked to do an audit of something that is happening now. This
is the potential for Cancer Care Ontario to provide after-hours
radiation publicly. If Cancer Care Ontario has not been doing
that, how are you going to do a value-for-money audit?
Mr Peters:
First, I think you're quite right in pointing out that the word
"investigate" may have to be replaced with the word "audit." But
there are two things. It is an audit of the decision. In other
words, what we would audit at this point is, what is the business
plan? What was the business decision that drove this, how was it
planned to be? I probably won't be able to report back to you how
it actually worked out at a later stage. That will be at a later
time, because we'd need to have the performance of how they did
it.
Ms
Mushinski: OK. That's fair enough. So you'll be looking
at this in exactly the same way that a new government initiative
may-
Mr Peters:
That's right. As to how, for example, MTO outsourced highway
maintenance; that sort of thing.
Ms
Mushinski: Right, exactly.
Mrs Munro:
I'm not sure I'm in order, but I was going to ask, would that
explanation be better served by a different wording in terms of
what we're asking you to do?
The Chair:
He's already suggested that the word "investigate" be changed to
the word "audit."
Mrs Munro:
Yes, but I'm looking back at the "policy" or "decision" thing. In
the comment you made a moment ago-and I'd like you to repeat it
for me if you can-on the issue of examining the business plan, is
that what you suggested in response to Ms Mushinski's question,
would you do this in the same way that you would do any other? My
question is, first of all, if you could repeat exactly what you said, but
secondly, whether that should not only change the word
"investigate" to "audit," but also this "decision" or "policy"
issue that we're struggling with as well.
Mr Peters:
We're fine because that is covered by the word "aspect." If we
talk about the value-for-money aspects of the policy decision,
that would very neatly put me into the administrative box, if you
will, on the policy decision. It is a new policy decision. I
think that would be worked in.
What I'm pointing out to
you is that the main focus of my audit would be on the business
plan or the business case for the decision, as opposed to being
on execution or whether privatization is a good thing or not.
Mrs Munro:
I guess my question came from the fact that that's what I was
looking at when I was looking at substituting "decision" and
"policy." So I just wondered whether it would be clearer if we
referred to the business plan for this decision, as opposed to
leaving it. You've suggested that "aspect" is good enough.
Mr Peters:
That would be fair enough, or another way-we're doing words here.
But for the moment if we take a look and say, "the
value-for-money aspects of the policy decision," or take that out
altogether: "the value-for-money aspects of Cancer Care Ontario
providing after-hours radiation therapy through a private sector
clinic." Whether it's a policy decision or whatever, it would
leave that off but it allows me to examine the value-for-money
aspects of providing the service through a private clinic.
1210
The Chair:
What we would be left with then-and somebody else will have to
move it-is that it would state something to the effect, "That the
Provincial Auditor be asked to audit the value-for-money aspect
of Cancer Care Ontario providing after-hours radiation therapy
through a private clinic rather than in-house." That's what it
would read.
Mr Maves, are you standing
down your request to speak?
Mr Maves:
No, my request was to speak to the motion. Right now, we're
working on the amendment to the motion.
The Chair:
That's right.
Mr Maves:
Is my request to speak to the motion-
The Chair:
It's still on the list. Absolutely.
Mr Maves:
Thank you.
The Chair:
There are two other aspects contained in the motion: who it is to
report back to and by what time? The suggested wording is this:
"That the Provincial Auditor be asked to audit and report to the
public accounts committee within X number of months the
value-for-money aspect of Cancer Care Ontario providing
after-hours radiation therapy through a private clinic rather
than in-house."
Mr Ramsay:
Just put "as soon as possible."
The Chair:
As soon as possible.
Mr Maves, would you like to
move an amended version of the motion?
Mr Maves:
I won't move it. I'll just put it out there for the committee's
and the auditor's consideration.
The Chair:
OK.
Mr Maves:
I move that the Provincial Auditor be asked to conduct a
value-for-money audit on the policy decision by Cancer Care
Ontario to provide after-hours radiation therapy through a
private clinic rather than in-house.
The Chair:
And that he report to the public-
Mr Maves:
It leads to further debate when you add that, because "as soon as
possible" leads to the questions I raised last week, and that I
raise again today, about the auditor and what projects he will
defer in order to do this audit, and if he doesn't defer ongoing
projects to do this audit, what kind of costs is he looking at to
undertake this audit, in addition to his budgeted audits at this
point in time, and in lieu of all the audits you have ongoing,
when would you be able to undertake this audit if you didn't
defer any of those?
Mr Peters:
In terms of fully costing it, we would have to do a bit of a plan
and analysis of what is involved to find out what the cost of the
audit would be. In terms of staff availability, at this moment I
would probably be looking at commencing this audit somewhere in
the middle of June, because we are fully booked with the public
accounts audit starting, the various agencies all having March 31
year-ends coming at us, while at the same time we're winding down
the value-for-money audits that go into my 2001 report.
The Chair:
When would you have it completed, then? If you start in June,
when would it normally be completed?
Mr Peters:
Including the planning phases, I would say we would be able to
report to the committee in probably a September-October time
frame.
The Chair:
OK, so when the House resumes in the fall.
Mr Maves:
Would you have to drop an audit you're planning on doing in order
to accommodate this, or would you just add the increased cost if
you've got it in your budget? Do you have to come back to the
assembly to get a bigger budget in order to do this? I want to
know how that's all going to work itself out.
Mr Peters:
I can't answer that question for one very straightforward
technical reason; that is, the Board of Internal Economy has
asked me to present my budget for the year 2001-02 as of March
this year. So it depends very much on how they react to my budget
request for next year. That's in their hands. I can tell you,
from the comments I left with you about the Audit Act and the
funding level of my office, that regardless of how we slice it, I
would have to go for more funding and more resources for my
office. It depends very much on how amenable the Board of
Internal Economy is to that request whether I can accommodate it
within what money they give me or whether I have to go for
additional money.
As I pointed out to you, at
six cents per $1,000 I'm by far the leanest. Right now my budget
is running at about $8
million. If I were funded on the same basis as the nearest
office, which is the federal government, my budget would be $18
million, to give you an idea as to what we're talking about.
The Chair:
You're very effective, Mr Peters. So it's basically how much the
Board of Internal Economy allocates toward his total budget. Only
then will he be able to say whether there's enough money to do
this specific aspect of it.
Mrs Munro:
I want to ask a question in terms of precedents, previous
requests of this nature: how have they worked out for you in
terms of timing and funding?
Mr Peters:
Up to this point I have not gone forward with a request for
additional money. The first one will be this year, and that will
be in relation to the special assignment regarding the Bruce
deal, because that will require expertise to assess that I don't
have in-house. This is the first time. Fortunately, or
unfortunately, all my staff is on unlimited hours, so previously
we accommodated through additional overtime and working longer
hours, doing it that way.
Mrs Munro:
If I understand you correctly, when previous committees have made
motions of a similar nature, you have been able to accommodate
those requests.
Mr Peters:
Yes, with one proviso: these requests are all made under section
17 of the Audit Act. Section 17 allows me to deal with these
requests if they do not interfere with my other duties;
therefore, I have accommodated them. I have done what you
suggested, Mr Maves: I have not dropped audits to conduct them,
but I have taken latitude in terms of when I completed the work
in order to put it into the process.
The Chair:
Can we leave it this way, then: if this motion passes, depending
upon what happens at the Board of Internal Economy, you'll have
to come back to us and tell us you either can or cannot do it,
depending on the resources you get from the board.
Mr Peters:
OK.
The Chair:
Is that reasonable?
Mr Maves:
Chair, do you have to put that in the motion? I guess you don't
because-
The Chair:
If he hasn't got any resources to do it, once he gets his budget
from the Board of Internal Economy, he will come back here and
say, "I can't do it without more resources."
Mr Maves:
Or similarly report back on what he has to drop if he's going to
do it.
The Chair:
Exactly.
Mr Peters:
There is a technical way of dealing with it-maybe you can put it
in-and that is that the motion be amended to say, "I move that
the Provincial Auditor, under section 17 of the Audit Act, be
asked to...." This is the section of the act that specifies I can
do work on a motion of this committee but also have the latitude
of dealing with the resource issue if it conflicts with my other
duties.
Mr Maves:
Can we read back that final wording of the motion? I'll go along
with that.
The Chair:
OK.
Mr Maves:
Would it then read: "That the Provincial Auditor, under section
17 of the Audit Act, be asked to conduct a value-for-money audit
of the policy decision by Cancer Care Ontario to provide
after-hours radiation therapy through a private clinic rather
than in-house."
The Chair:
"... and report to the public accounts committee as soon as
possible."
Ms
Mushinski: You didn't mind "policy decision"?
The Chair:
I'm leaving that out completely.
Mr Peters:
I'm easy with just saying, "the value-for-money aspects of Cancer
Care Ontario providing after-hours radiation therapy through a
private clinic rather than in-house."
Mrs Munro:
My original comment was that when we looked at whether it should
be "policy" or "decision," "policy decision" kind of gave us the
framework we wanted.
Mr Peters:
Ms Munro, I'm not unhappy with that. It's not a do-or-die thing
that I want to see eliminated. If you would like it in, I have
the latitude to do what the committee is asking me to do.
The Chair:
Could I read the proposed motion again, which somebody else will
have to move, "That the Provincial Auditor, under section 17 of
the Audit Act, be asked to conduct a value-for-money audit of the
policy decision by Cancer Care Ontario to provide after-hours
radiation therapy through a private clinic rather than in-house
and report back to the public accounts committee as soon as
possible."
Would somebody like to move
that?
Mr Maves:
I move that.
The Chair:
Mr Maves moves it, and Mr Patten seconds it. That's an amendment
to the original motion.
The Chair:
It's unanimous. A recorded unanimous vote; that must be a first
in a while.
Thank you very much.
There's one other issue,
and that was the letter that was requested, a copy of which will
go to the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Does
anybody have a problem with the letter?
Ms
Mushinski: Chair, I don't have a problem with the
letter, but some serious reservations were raised by Mr Peters
with respect to the increase from $280 million originally to $400
million. I wasn't sure if, in your comments yesterday, Mr Peters,
you had actually expressed some desire to incorporate a request
for information from the ministry with respect to that aspect, or
an explanation.
Mr Peters:
I had asked for an explanation, but the wording was rather vague,
in a sense. There was not a specific question raised by the
members. I wasn't sure at this point whether my raising that additional
question-the question I have, and I put it on the record, is that
at the time, the documents we examined said the ministry had gone
forward to the Management Board of Cabinet with a request for
$275 million.
Ms
Mushinski: That's correct.
Mr Peters:
That was in 1991. When we did the audit, that was still the
information we had, and that was the factual confirmation we
received from the ministry. What I find very astounding is that
all of a sudden in February 2001 we find out they have dug up
other records that they already knew at the time it would cost
$400 million or more. This is of major concern. Rather than raise
it through you as a question, I should tell you that I have to
start taking a very serious look at the quality of information
ministries bring forward to Management Board of Cabinet for
decision-making purposes. That is really what the ministry did to
this committee in open hearing; it put into question whether they
actually went forward to Management Board of Cabinet with all the
information they had on the business case they were putting
forward.
Ms
Mushinski: OK. That doesn't actually need to be-you're
saying, though, that you don't want to incorporate that into your
letter.
Mr Peters:
No, I don't think the letter will help the committee very much at
this point.
Ms
Mushinski: OK.
The Chair:
By putting that in the letter. Hopefully this letter will
help.
Mr Peters:
This letter will help with the decision that they actually denied
outright information to the committee.
The Chair:
OK. Next?
Mr Maves:
I would prefer that the other aspect be included in the letter. I
want to find out if they had other information in 1991, as they
say, that said it would cost more than $275 million, and didn't
bring that forward to Management Board.
The Chair:
You want to put that in the letter?
Mr Maves:
I think so.
The Chair:
All right. It will be put in the letter.
Any further comments? No?
OK. We stand adjourned till tomorrow at 10 o'clock in committee
room 1.
