HANSARD

NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

COMMITTEE

ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Wednesday, September 9, 2020

Legislative Chamber

May 2020 Report of the Auditor General –

Follow-up of 2015, 2016 and 2017 Performance Audit Recommendations

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

Public Accounts Committee

Keith Bain (Chair)

Suzanne Lohnes-Croft (Vice-Chair)

Ben Jessome

Hon. Margaret Miller

Brendan Maguire

Rafah DiCostanzo

Tim Halman

Lisa Roberts

Susan Leblanc

[Lisa Roberts was replaced by Claudia Chender.]

In Attendance:

Kim Langille

Legislative Committee Clerk

Gordon Hebb

Chief Legislative Counsel

WITNESSES

Office of the Auditor General

Terry Spicer,

Acting Auditor General

Andrew Atherton,

Assistant Auditor General

Adam Harding,

Senior Audit Principal

HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2020

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

9:00 A.M.

CHAIR

Keith Bain

VICE-CHAIR

Suzanne Lohnes-Croft

            THE CHAIR: Order please. We’ll call the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to order. I want to say welcome back to everyone. It has been six months since we’ve been together as a committee. Today it finally happened.

            Just a few reminders before we begin. Place your phones on silent or vibrate. We’ll ask the committee members to start introducing themselves with Ms. Chender.

            [The committee members introduced themselves.]

            THE CHAIR: Just a few guidelines that we have to follow with the COVID-19 around. Please keep your mask on during the meeting unless you are speaking. You’ll notice I won’t have mine on most of the time in order to help the back-and-forths. Bottled water is available to everyone.

In an effort to limit movement within the Chamber, we ask you to remain in your seat as much as possible. In order to accommodate this, we’ll take a short break around the one-hour mark in the meeting. I’ll ask for agreement to extend the length of the meeting by an additional 15 minutes if that’s okay. It provides all committee members the opportunity to ask their questions. Are we agreed? Okay, thank you.

            Lastly, when leaving the Chamber, please use the side exits and re-enter the Chamber via the main doors. I think that’s pretty much it.

            On today’s agenda, we have officials from the Office of the Auditor General with us to discuss the May 2020 Report of the Auditor General: Follow-up of 2015, 2016, and 2017. I’m going to ask the witnesses to introduce themselves, please.

            [The witnesses introduced themselves.]

            THE CHAIR: We’ll ask the witnesses to make their opening remarks. Mr. Spicer.

            TERRY SPICER: Good morning to the committee members. With me today is Mr. Andrew Atherton. He’s the Assistant Auditor General who leads our performance audit practice. Mr. Adam Harding is the Senior Principal on our performance audit team and the project lead for the follow-up report we will be discussing today.

            Before I provide some brief comments and the highlights of our report, I would like to take the time to acknowledge the hard work and professionalism of our team at the office. Throughout the last several months, notwithstanding the complications of working remotely, we have been able to continue to be productive and effective.

            As an example, we’ve issued three performance audit reports and completed several financial statement audits, including the Public Accounts of Nova Scotia. It is also important to recognize and thank the many civil servants who worked with us during these difficult times to enable us to continue working to fulfill the mission and mandate of the office.

            In May of 2020, we tabled our follow-up report in which we assess the implementation status of performance audit recommendations from calendar years 2015, 2016, and 2017. It is important to note that our conclusions in the report are based on a point in time: October 18, 2019. In other words, that was the status of the recommendations at that day.

            Due to COVID-19-related implications and complications, our original release date was pushed back to the middle of May. Where it is now September 2020, a fair bit of time has passed. Unfortunately, we’re not able to provide comments on implementation activity during that time nor the impact that COVID-19 may have had on the implementation plans to address those recommendations. For questions related to those issues, the responsible entities will need to respond to those questions.

            This year, we made some enhancements to our report based on the feedback from the Public Accounts Committee. First, we have extended our follow-up on recommendations from 2015 for one additional year. Also, you will notice that Appendix IV includes management-prepared summaries of what actions organizations have taken or plan to take to address all not complete recommendations from 2015, 2016, and 2017.

            Finally, Appendix V provides a similar summary for actions taken or planned for our 2018 recommendations, which should help to give an early indication of the implementation status of those recommendations. It’s important to note that beyond a very high-level reasonability assessment, we do not provide any level of assurance on management’s comments.

            Turning to our key findings in the report, government completed 93 per cent of the 69 recommendations we made in 2015 with only five recommendations yet to be completed. For recommendations made in 2016, 70 per cent of the 43 recommendations have been implemented. There are five audits with lower overall completion rates related to homes for special care, species at risk, licensed child care, school capital planning and critical infrastructure resiliency. These audits have a big impact on the overall completion rate for 2016. For recommendations made in 2017, 81 per cent of the 47 recommendations were completed, which is a very good start.

            Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of our report highlight the recommendations, which are not yet complete, including the risks which remain by not completing the recommendations.

            I would like to thank the committee for the continued interest in our work and hope the increased information included in this report will assist you in fulfilling your role as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Now we would be happy to answer any questions about the report that you may have.

            THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Spicer. We’ll open the floor for the first round of questioning. There will be 20 minutes for each caucus. Probably after the 20-minute round, that might be the ideal opportunity for us to take our 15-minute break. With that, Mr. Halman.

            TIM HALMAN: It’s very nice to be back in the Public Accounts Committee. Welcome, Mr. Spicer, Mr. Atherton, and Mr. Harding. Thank you to the staff at the Auditor General’s Office for their ongoing oversight, their ongoing work to hold government accountable, to point out areas in which public policy and expenditures need to improve.

            The May 2020 report is a very comprehensive follow-up. The OAG has described the follow-up for 2016 as disappointing with one-third of the recommendations not complete. Could you outline for Nova Scotians what risks remain, specifically as it pertains to the report about 2016?

            TERRY SPICER: I’ll pass that to Mr. Harding.

            ADAM HARDING: As you can appreciate, we have a lot of information here today to be prepared for Public Accounts Committee. In terms of the recommendations from 2016 and the risks that remain, we highlight a lot of those risks throughout the report. You’ll find that in Chapter 3. There are several chapters that have lower overall completion rates - homes for special care, species at risk, licensed child care, school capital planning and critical infrastructure resiliency.

            Throughout the report, we highlight some of the specific risks that remain because these recommendations are not yet complete. For example, if we take species at risk - on Page 22 of our report, we highlight that there are four recommendations which remain not complete from this 2016 audit. Some of those particular recommendations include that the department hasn’t established recovery teams and developed and reviewed recovery management plans for species at risk, as required by the Endangered Species Act. The department hasn’t reviewed all species listed in the endangered species regulations to amend or develop appropriate practices as guided by recovery teams to protect their habitat.

The department hasn’t yet completed the recommendation to create a comprehensive monitoring program for all species at risk and ensure that monitoring activities are clearly communicated and completed. The department has not yet completed the recommendation to establish detailed action plans with measurable outcomes to implement its biodiversity strategy. Part of that plan should specify what needs to be done, when, and the expected results.

            All of the recommendations from this particular chapter really create a risk that by not completing them, endangered species are not being properly monitored or properly conserved. This is a particular chapter that we would encourage the department to continue its work towards completing these recommendations.

            In Appendix IV of our report, we provide more information of the summaries that management has prepared in terms of these recommendations and the actions that they’re taking. I won’t read what’s in Appendix IV to you for these recommendations but they highlight some of the actions that the department has indicated, including how they’re working on establishing recovery teams, how they’re working on refreshing management plans and special management practices.

            That information should help the committee in terms of holding government accountable around the actions the department has indicated. Further to that, the department has also indicated, where applicable, some timelines of the work that they’re doing, or they plan to do. This may also further assist this committee.

            TIM HALMAN: When you do the follow-up - in this particular case specifically with the 2016 follow-up - do departments indicate to you how they will complete the outstanding promises? Do they provide an outline of a process which they will follow to complete those outstanding commitments?

            TERRY SPICER: Again this year, we’ve requested that management provide us with some comments on how they intend to complete the outstanding recommendations. We don’t audit those particular summaries. They’re provided for information purposes only. They’re in the report and they’re there for the committee to look at. Again, this would be a great opportunity when the committee brings the departments in to explore those comments and the details around those further with them.

            TIM HALMAN: I’d like to turn our attention to 2017 of the follow-up - specifically mental health. Obviously with everything that has transpired in the last few months, I know we would all agree that access to our mental health services - enhancing our mental health services - is critical in the COVID-19 era.

            When I read the follow-up report, my concern is that government is not adequately prepared to fill the gaps in the mental health system. The audit certainly highlights this, especially with respect to wait times. Let me ask you this: Overall, does the Office of the Auditor General feel that the government is prepared to fill the gaps in the mental health system?

            TERRY SPICER: That’s a very difficult question to answer because it’s extremely broad. I think we can only speak to the recommendations that are there in the audit that we did. Of course, any time that recommendations are not completed, gaps and risks exist and continue to exist. To the extent that those recommendations are not complete then yes, I would say there are gaps and risks that still need to be addressed. That’s the breadth of what we’re able to speak to there.

            TIM HALMAN: In the course of your follow-up, what did you discover about service delivery plans? First of all, what are service delivery plans? What did the office discover in terms of the implementation of these plans?

            TERRY SPICER: I’ll pass that to Adam.

            THE CHAIR: Mr. Harding.

            ADAM HARDING: In general, a service delivery plan would really just outline the services that you have and how you’re planning on delivering them. It’s really what it sounds like.

            We were recommending that the Nova Scotia Health Authority ensure the funding to programs and services is allocated based on their service delivery plans and that should include accountability requirements for performance of the funded programs and services.

            When we originally did this audit in 2017, what we highlighted in our report was that there were concerns that funding was generally based on the prior year’s budget, and necessary adjustments were made if required. Really, this wasn’t an effective approach to budgeting. Really effective service delivery plans would ensure that funding is clearly linked to the programs and services that management is accountable for and for the performance of those particular programs - all of this creating a risk that funding to programs and services may not be based on those plans.

[9:15 a.m.]

            In Appendix IV on Page 59 of the report, the Health Authority provides their summary of some of the actions that they indicate that they’ve taken, including engaging in a process for setting the program directions for the next five years. That, as the final step of that process, will include KPI - key performance indicators - for accountability and performance tracking. At the time they provided the summary, they indicated that they expect to complete their work around this particular recommendation in Spring 2020.

            TIM HALMAN: For Nova Scotians, can you clarify who determines the standard wait times? Is it the Department of Health and Wellness or is it the Nova Scotia Health Authority?

            ADAM HARDING: I’m going strictly off memory from that audit. I believe that the actual standards are nationally developed. It would be either a national standard through CIHI - that’s the Canadian Institute for Health Information - but there would be standards that would be published on the department’s website that would indicate both the source of the wait time standard and the department’s progress against those standards.

            TIM HALMAN: Am I correct to say that, in the course of your audit and subsequent follow-up, it wasn’t clear as to the scope of who is responsible to ensure those standards? Is it the Department of Health and Wellness or is it the Nova Scotia Health Authority?

            ADAM HARDING: In terms of the original audit, I can’t recall the specific details around the wait times as to what we had identified in terms of concerns around them. That being said, it’s the responsibility of the Health Authority to collect the wait time data. They would then take that information and report it to the Department of Health and Wellness, which is responsible for posting that information on the departmental website and making it available to all Nova Scotians.

            TIM HALMAN: Historically in Nova Scotia, the wait time standards were set to be reasonably close to the actual wait time in the system, thereby making it easier for the system to meet them. The question is: Have wait time standards been developed by the Department of Health and Wellness or NSHA since the report of last October notes they haven’t been? Could you provide some clarity on that?

            TERRY SPICER: Just to remind the committee of the process that we do, all of the recommendations that management says are complete, we will go out and validate those to ensure they’re complete. If management says the recommendation is not complete, then we essentially use that as a management statement, and we don’t go out and validate that. If it wasn’t complete as of October 2019, then we would have not done any additional work to determine what activity had been done to that to bring us up to today.

            That would be a great question for the Department of Health and Wellness when you bring them in to talk about the results of these audits and recommendations. We don’t know what has been done since October 2019.

            TIM HALMAN: To your point of how you go about validating whether or not a recommendation is being implemented, can you explain the internal processes you have to validate. Could you tell Nova Scotians what process you have?

            ADAM HARDING: As an auditor, that’s always a very good question and one we certainly enjoy answering - explaining our work and how we do our work.

            In terms of validating a recommendation - every year we let government know the date that we’ll be doing the download from the system that we use to compile all of the statuses. Government would go through their own process, which I wouldn’t be able to speak to. Ultimately, we get a download which indicates whether recommendations have been self-assessed as complete or not complete by the different departments or organizations that are covered by that year’s follow-up engagement.

            Once we have those individual recommendations for the complete recommendations, what we’ll do is review what the department is saying they have done. In that system it will indicate, for example, any key documents or staff who were involved in a process. It might indicate, for example, a summary of what they have done.

            When we’re looking to validate, we’re starting with that information plus the original audit report. That’s usually one of the other things that we always do is go back to the original report and look to see what the issues were that led to the recommendation. Also, what the department said they were going to do when we did the original audit.

            With all of that information together, we will then compile a list of questions for the different organizations looking for evidence and support of what they’ve said. For example, if they indicated that they had developed a policy, we would ask them to provide us with a copy of that policy. If they said that they’ve developed a process or they’ve had meetings or they’ve done something, we would be looking for evidence that would support that they have completed those particular actions.

            The level of work that we do for our follow-up engagement is a little bit different than our performance audit. Really all that means is that we don’t do quite the same extent of work to follow up, so we’re not testing as many sample items. We’re not doing the same degree of work.

            Ultimately, we’re still expressing a conclusion that the status of complete recommendations is the way that it’s being presented in our report. At the end of the day if the department is saying it’s complete, we’ve done our work. We agree that it’s complete.

            TIM HALMAN: Focusing again on the report, Recommendation 2.2 is marked as completed which means there is now, “. . . a well-defined, evidence-based model of care for mental health services, including an evaluation process.”

I’m curious as to what the Office of the Auditor General discovered in terms of a model. What is the evidence for its effectiveness for the Office of the Auditor General to make that statement?

            ADAM HARDING: In terms of that recommendation, I don’t have all the details of the specific model. The Nova Scotia Health Authority would be better able to provide more details about the specific model and the rationale for selecting it.

            At a very high level, the provincial model was implemented related to the model of care for mental health services. As part of that, objectives and strategies that also had desired deliverables and outcomes to evaluate that model. In the information that we were provided and examined to validate this recommendation, what we would have seen is that a model had been implemented and that it included some of these key things, such as objectives and strategies that would allow that evaluation of the model itself to take place.

Again, the Health Authority would be better able to provide more details about the specific rationale and why they implemented the model that they did, if that’s what you’re looking for.

            TIM HALMAN: For purposes of clarity, going back to the question I’ve already asked. Primarily, is it the Department of Health and Wellness or the Nova Scotia Health Authority that I should be asking these questions? I’m getting the sense it’s tossed back and forth, a lot of these issues. Based on your audit, could you clarify as to the best source to get information on wait times for our mental health system.

            ADAM HARDING: In regard to Recommendation 2.2 specifically, that would be to the Nova Scotia Health Authority. They would be the ones who would be best able to speak to that recommendation.

            Generally, as a guide in our report, by indicating who is responsible for recommendations - in this case, the Nova Scotia Health Authority were assessing it as complete, it would be based on work that we did and information we obtained from the Nova Scotia Health Authority. The Department of Health and Wellness may have a role in part of that, but primary responsibility for the recommendation would rest with the Nova Scotia Health Authority.

            TIM HALMAN: Mr. Harding, overall in the course of the audit or in the course of the follow-up, did you discover - whether it was based on observation or just anecdotes you heard - that there was a diffusion of responsibility, so to speak, between the Department of Health and Wellness and the Nova Scotia Health Authority as it pertains to our mental health system? Or did you find that there was clarity as to the scope of responsibilities related to wait times?

            ADAM HARDING: From a broad sense, I’m not able to answer that. We didn’t specifically look to see the roles and responsibilities across mental health services and as it relates to both organizations. As it relates to these recommendations, we were looking to see whether responsibility for the recommendations rested with the correct organization - so whether it was with the Nova Scotia Health Authority or the Department of Health and Wellness.

In terms of the recommendations that we assessed as complete, I’d be able to say that the responsibilities for those recommendations were clear in terms of we were able to get the information that we were looking for from those organizations, but I wouldn’t be able to make any comments from the broader system perspective based on the work that we did for this project.

            TIM HALMAN: Since this has been in place since October 2019, I’m curious. In the audit and the follow-up, what data and methodology did you see in terms of an attempt to reduce the wait times for those who need access to this service? Were you given access to data and the methodology used to improve the wait times?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: For this project, we’re focused on the recommendations that we’ve made, so there’s not a recommendation here specific to reducing the wait times. We’re looking to define the wait times and report those. I believe that’s Recommendation 2.3, which was made to all three organizations: the department, the Health Authority, and the IWK.

We wouldn’t have been looking for any data around reduction of wait times specific to these recommendations. Our follow-up work is very narrow. It’s very focused on just what we’ve asked them to do, what have you done, and then we look to assess the reasonability of that. We wouldn’t have gone any broader than that.

TIM HALMAN: So it’s correct to say that you did not get access to data or information regarding wait times. You weren’t granted access to that information - is that a correct statement?

ANDREW ATHERTON: We wouldn’t have sought access to that. It’s not an issue of whether we were granted. If we needed to get access to that, we would be given access to that, but in this instance it’s not something that was necessary to do this report.

THE CHAIR: The time for the PC caucus for the first round is up. We’ll go to the NDP caucus for 20 minutes. Ms. Leblanc.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Good morning, everybody. I’m going to start in with some questions about some of the recommendations that were not complete. The first thing I want to ask about is homes for special care. Homes for special care overseen by the Department of Health and Wellness include long-term care and residential care facilities.

In 2016, your office recommended the department establish clear responsibilities and accountability for service provider performance and reporting requirements to ensure activities are carried out. This recommendation has not been completed. The May 2020 follow-up report states, “By not completing this recommendation, there is a risk that Health and Wellness may not be adequately monitoring and managing homes for special care.”

My first question is: If not completing this recommendation creates the risk that the Department of Health and Wellness may not be adequately monitoring and managing homes for special care, is this a significant concern in terms of dealing with a pandemic like COVID-19?

TERRY SPICER: Certainly, in a pandemic, issues around monitoring and making sure what’s happening at these facilities, I guess, gets magnified. It was an important recommendation and it’s valid today and probably as much as it ever was. Pandemics tend to magnify these types of recommendations and so yes, it’s certainly extremely important and extremely relevant today.

SUSAN LEBLANC: Is it possible then that the absence of clear responsibility as an accountability for service provider performance and reporting may have contributed to the COVID-19 outbreak that we saw in long-term care facilities?

TERRY SPICER: We would not be able to comment on that. I think you would need to get management in and talk to them about that. When we make those recommendations, we look at what the risks would be of not doing this and the risks we’ve laid out there. That again would definitely be a question that you would need to talk to management about because we haven’t done additional audit work related to the consequences.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: According to a response that our caucus received to a freedom of information request, the government doesn’t have nor collect any data on the number of residents in multiple occupancy rooms in long-term care facilities. Multiple occupancy rooms, as we all know, have been identified as a significant factor in the outbreak at Northwood in the first wave of the pandemic.

            Would you categorize this lack of data as an example of the government not adequately monitoring and managing homes for special care? Is data collection part of that management?

[9:30 a.m.]

            TERRY SPICER: It would really depend on the contracts that they signed with the providers. The essence of our recommendation at that point in time was to better clarify in some detail what you expect with these service providers. If part of that was how many people in a room, then we would expect that there would be data and stuff to support that. It really depends on how they structure those contracts.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: And we don’t have that information now. We wouldn’t be able to know what’s in those contracts.

            TERRY SPICER: You would have to ask management about that.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: Are you able to provide any insight into why this recommendation was not completed in the four years from the point that this weakness was identified in the department’s management of health and safety risks in long-term care? Have they explained why the recommendation hasn’t been completed?

            TERRY SPICER: We certainly have asked them and have included their response in the report. We can go to that response if you wish.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: I think we can wait on that because we have access to it. I guess I was asking if you have any kind of overarching thoughts on that.

            TERRY SPICER: No overarching thoughts. I guess just to be clear, it’s extremely difficult for us to do audit level work on management’s comments like that. We really put them there for information purposes because we think it does provide some information to the committee to look at. Really, to get any type of depth and breadth of a conversation about that, you would need to get management in.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: I’m going to move on now to the home care support contracts. In 2017, your office recommended that the Department of Health and Wellness put a process in place to verify the accuracy of reporting from home support providers to ensure that the department has accurate information to use for decision-making, and that the department and the NSHA maintain an integrated record of home support complaints received, including their outcomes.

            These recommendations have not been completed. The government’s failure to adequately invest in long-term care has meant that they are very reliant on various home care providers to provide health care services to our aging population. Since these recommendations have not been completed, how confident are you that the department has accurate information to use to make decisions about increasing spending on home care contracts?

            TERRY SPICER: I really don’t have a lot of information to provide one way or the other on that. We know the recommendation hasn’t been completed, so the risks that are associated with that still exist. Whether that information is out there now and that could be provided, we don’t know.

Again, I hate to say the same things but really it is management that needs to come in and speak to what information they have available and what they can provide.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: Without an integrated record of home support complaints, does the government have any mechanism for reporting on the quality of care being delivered through home care support contracts?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: As Mr. Spicer has alluded to, and as I’ve said, we look specifically at the recommendations. In this case, we’re looking for an integrated record of home support complaints. We didn’t look at how that impacts the overall service delivery. Our focus is on the complaints and on the records. We’re looking to see how well those complaints are recorded so we can see how those have been addressed. I can’t take that to how that impacts service overall. That’s three steps beyond what we were looking at here. You would need to bring in the department and the Health Authority to ask them to take it beyond there.

            Our work is very narrow when it comes to follow-up. We go a little broader when we do a performance audit, but when it comes to our follow-up work that’s specific to the recommendations that we made, we get the response from management and we assess the reasonability of that. Particularly the not complete ones, we do very little with those because management has already said, no, we’re not done.

This year, we asked management to provide their summaries, which are in Appendix IV, so for the complaints one, it’s Page 60 of our report. You can see what management has said. We read that and make sure that it doesn’t jump out at us as completely outlandish and then we move on with that. We’re not in a position to provide any more information as to the impact of that at this time.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: Just on that - and forgive me, I always sort of get these timelines confused. If this is a 2017 report, you’ll look at that one more time as a follow-up? Is that correct?

            TERRY SPICER: That’s correct.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: When will that be?

            TERRY SPICER: We’ll be looking at it two more times under our new process. We’ll be starting that work probably late this year for reporting. Typically, we report this in the Spring. Each year our follow-up reports are reported in February. It was pushed this year out to May. We’ll start the work at the end of this year and report early next year.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: I want to move on to mental health services now. Based on the May 2020 report, the NSHA has not completed three recommendations related to mental health. In 2017, the Auditor General recommended that the NSHA:

·         “finalize policies for emergency mental health services in collaboration with the IWK as required, and reflect a provincial approach to service delivery

·         implement the emergency department safety recommendations identified in the January 2017 Improving Workplace Safety report as accepted by the government

·         ensure funding to programs and services is allocated based on service delivery plans, and include accountability requirements for the performance of funded programs and services

. . . By not completing these recommendations, there are risks that policies are inconsistent, identified emergency department safety issues may not be addressed, and funding to programs and services may not be based on service delivery plans.”

These weaknesses were identified three years ago. Would you be concerned that the risks your office identified may have been intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic?

            TERRY SPICER: I think I would have to go back to a very similar response I provided to one of your previous questions. If the recommendations are not complete, the risks associated with those recommendations exist and continue to exist. It’s possible that they could be even more elevated during a pandemic.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: Certainly, we have seen in many cases throughout the province the way the pandemic has shone a light on the cracks in the system and places where there are already risks. We know that vulnerable populations were affected by this lack of responsibility, as it were - and have suffered more greatly, for sure. I agree with that.

            More generally now, based on this follow-up report, would you recommend the Public Accounts Committee call any of the departments to appear - we’ve already talked about the Department of Health and Wellness - in particular to discuss incomplete recommendations? When you think about all of the incomplete recommendations, do you think that there are certain ones that we should be calling for sure?

            TERRY SPICER: What I would do is look at 2016 as an example. There are a number of audits there that the recommendation implementation is slower than other departments and there may be very good reasons for that. I would look at those. I think they are species at risk and the Department of Health and Wellness have a couple. I think it would probably be a good idea to bring them in to understand why those recommendations are still outstanding. They perhaps can respond better to some of your questions about what that means and what the bigger risks are associated with those things.

            I would, if I were the committee, look at some of those. I think in 2017, there’s a couple, as well, that you would look at. I don’t have the list here, but some of them that the percentages are a little bit lower. I would think it would be wise to bring them in and have a conversation about why that is.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: Again, a general question. The overall completion rate for the recommendations is pretty good. We’ve seen 93 per cent of the 2015 recommendations completed; 70 per cent of the 2016; and 81 per cent of the 2017 recommendations completed.

            The province’s Auditor General performance audit policy states that the generally accepted time frame for completion of agreed upon Auditor General recommendations is two years. Government agreed to these recommendations and made a commitment to complete them. As when you bring a new report and the government agrees to it.

            Are you satisfied with the rationale provided by the departments regarding the recommendations that have not been completed within the accepted time frame?

            TERRY SPICER: That is really a question for the Public Accounts Committee and any other oversight bodies that would be looking at this. It’s not the Auditor General’s role really to be saying you need to do this in six months or whatever. We use the two years as a general benchmark. It just gives a sense of where things are.

            We do recognize that not all recommendations are the same. Not all of them require the same amount of effort and things that need to happen to get them done. We do recognize that, as well, so we use two years. There could be valid reasons why something may take three years or even four years. However, I think as you go down that three- or four-year range, it becomes a little harder to understand why it takes that long.

            That would be my only comment about that. Again, I think you would need to explore that with management quite closely as to why something is taking four years or five years to implement. What is it about it that takes that long? Then you can judge for yourselves whether you think that’s a reasonable amount of time or not.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: I was thinking about the recommendations being accepted and that kind of thing. There’s some that take five years or just sort of fall by the wayside. Our percentage of completion is really good at 90 per cent, but those other ones - in your experience, is it a conscious decision by a department to say they would get these things done? Actually, it’s not possible in our mandate or in our in this year or these five years and then some just make a clear decision that they’re not going to complete them. Does that happen very often?

            TERRY SPICER: When we do our performance audits, we have a good conversation with management; whether they agree with the recommendations and do they plan to implement them. Generally, we’d like for them to put timelines in their responses. Very high 90s percentage - 99 per cent - they agree with them and they believe they’re needed. We have to be careful as the Auditor General’s Office not to be speaking for management. That’s not the role of the Auditor General’s Office.

            However, I think it’s only fair and reasonable that certain things may happen in a department. They may completely reorganize, as an example, and responsibilities that used to reside in one department have now been moved to another department. I would think that those would be factors that one would need to look at if one were trying to assess whether two years is the right amount of time or three years is the right amount of time. I think you need to take every recommendation specifically and speak to management about what the plan was and those types of things.

[9:45 a.m.]

            In the report there are certain things that we think should be happening, like developing implementation plans that will help move that process in a more logical way through it. If they have people assigned responsibility, do they have a process internally to be monitoring the status of the implementation. All of those things are important steps that contribute to help getting these recommendations done, as well.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: My final question is: Of the 27 recommendations that are not completed in this report, are there any that you would point to as particularly concerning just in terms of the impact that they would have on Nova Scotians for not being complete?

            TERRY SPICER: None I would point to in particular. We think all of the recommendations are important - I know we’ve said that before, but it’s true. The audits that we select, we select them because they are important to Nova Scotians. They’re all particularly important.

            In the COVID-19 world that we’re in right now, perhaps those that relate to long-term care facilities and home care facilities and mental health could be elevated in the environment that we’re in now.

            THE CHAIR: The time for the NDP caucus is up. We’ll go now for 20 minutes to the Liberal caucus. Ms. Lohnes-Croft.

            SUZANNE LOHNES-CROFT: It’s good to have you back. Congratulations on the shifts of your positions. We wish the former Auditor General well in his new position in B.C. I hope you bake as well as he does.

            I represent a constituency I call “Land & Sea”. I have a large forestry sector and I also have fishing in my area, so I’m going to start with aquaculture. We’ve seen an improvement in the managing of diseases in our fishery stock. I’m just wanting to ask a few questions about that. We know a lot of aquaculture, if there’s any opposition, it’s usually over the health of the fish.

            What did you find in the improvement of the long-term outlook of the fisheries stocks and their health?

            TERRY SPICER: I don’t believe that we can speak to that specifically. Again, to go back to Mr. Atherton’s comments, when we do this follow-up report we are looking very specifically at the recommendation and whether it was implemented or not. We wouldn’t then typically look at what the effects of that sort of thing are.

            One of the things that we can say is that the nine recommendations that we had on the aquaculture audit were all completed. That’s very good. The risks that were associated with those recommendations have been addressed. We can’t comment on the implications of that.

            SUZANNE LOHNES-CROFT: I can understand that. When you do the audit, is it a sit down with members of the department and questions and answers? You’re reading their reports, obviously, and their timelines and goals and completion. Are there any onsite visits to facilities?

            TERRY SPICER: I’ll respond quickly, and Mr. Harding can probably give you detail. You’re referring to the follow-up part of it, not the original performance audit report, right? Okay.

            It would depend on the recommendation, but it is possible that we would need to go onsite. If we need to look at implementation of something, sometimes you need to be physically onsite to understand that it is being implemented and used. It is possible that we could be doing that. In the COVID-19 world, we would do things mostly remotely now, if at all possible.

Do you have anything to add to that, Adam?

            ADAM HARDING: To follow up on what Mr. Spicer has said, yes, we very much focus on the recommendations. This year for aquaculture, there were two recommendations that were not complete last year that were completed this year. Those recommendations were very much focused around the needs to monitor and establish appropriate reporting processes when it comes to fish diseases and then also develop and implement policies and procedures respecting the various aspects of fish health program.

            Around those two recommendations, this year we wouldn’t have done any site visits for these two when we were validating what the department had provided to us. In this case, it’s focused on policies, process, that sort of thing. In this case, we would be able to get evidence of what had taken place without doing a site visit.

            SUZANNE LOHNES-CROFT: Is that self-reporting by companies and fishers who have operations?

            TERRY SPICER: Do you mean related to the recommendations here?

            SUZANNE LOHNES-CROFT: No. A lot of compliance issues in aquaculture are expected to be self-reported. There are people with watchful eyes who keep an eye on some of these. There are regular visits. There are compliance visits that are routinely done by the department, but much is self-reporting. Was part of that improvement more self-reporting by facilities that are practising aquaculture?

            TERRY SPICER: I would venture to guess that the answer would be that we wouldn’t know whether there was any self-reporting. Again, our focus would have been on the recommendation and that response would have come from management and we would have done what we would have needed to do to convince ourselves that was done. Beyond where that information comes from, I don’t think would have been part of the scope of what we would have done here.

            SUZANNE LOHNES-CROFT: I’m going to switch to forestry because I’m going to talk about silviculture a little bit. I’m curious as to what you call effective silviculture. I’m not quite sure what the standards are for effective silviculture. Is that one that the department holds or a standard that you use for this report?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: In terms of that specific recommendation, that was actually complete as of October 2017, so for this year we wouldn’t have looked any further at it. In terms of effective silviculture, that wouldn’t be something we would define. The department has defined what that is. We wouldn’t have any new information on that. That was two years ago - the follow-up report that would have found that to be complete.

            SUZANNE LOHNES-CROFT: It’s just that it’s such a hot topic right now. We had the Premier closing Northern Pulp and a lot going on with the transition team. We have the Lahey report before us and the minister’s round table. It seems to be such a hot topic, especially in my area - plus we have what’s Crown land and what is privately-owned land for silviculture practices. I was just a little curious as to if there were improvements found in one sector over the other, but that’s fine. I’ll pass it on to Ms. Miller.

            THE CHAIR: Ms. Miller.

            HON. MARGARET MILLER: I actually only have one question. There are a lot of topics that we could do. My colleagues all have their questions that they want to ask. I just wonder how Nova Scotia compares as a comparator to other provinces in the completion of the recommendations of the Auditor General. Do you have a standard or a comparison with other provinces and how do we compare?

            TERRY SPICER: That’s a question that we get asked a lot. The answer, unfortunately, is it’s extremely difficult to compare. The reason being that because each Auditor General’s Office kind of tackles this project perhaps a little bit differently and uses different time frames for when they look at things.

            We don’t know how we compare to other provinces, but I’m thinking that - again, at a very high level - these rates that we’re seeing here, our 80 per cent in two years, I think would be a good goal for any province. I think the results seem to be that 2016 had some problem areas, but that goal seems to be probably what a lot of provinces would determine to be a fairly good one.

            We don’t have a comparison to what other provinces’ implementation rates are because there’s a lot of differences. It may not be comparable.

            THE CHAIR: Mr. Jessome, with 11 minutes.

            BEN JESSOME: I’m going to jump into the subjects of licensed child care, school capital planning, and home care.

            Firstly, I guess I’ll start out with the piece around home care. If you can talk a little bit about the benchmarks you’ve established to indicate that there were gaps or a more desirable scenario with respect to the performance indicators that are referenced in that part of the report, please.

            ANDREW ATHERTON: I’m looking at this - you’re speaking to Recommendation 3.2? Just to make sure that I’m answering the right topic.

            BEN JESSOME: Yes, sir.

            ANDREW ATHERTON: Some of the issues we found in the original audit. Again, when we’re doing the follow up, we don’t find new information. Our original concerns were around no verification of hours billed by service providers or confirmation whether the service has been delivered prior to issuing payments; no verification of reporting against key performance indicators or the statistical information provided by the service providers.

            Our concern there was that the providers could inaccurately report performance to avoid penalties and they may not calculate the statistical information in accordance with department standards. We didn’t specifically see that. Our concern was with what the department was receiving and what they were doing with it.

            BEN JESSOME: As per the appendix section of the report, there is an indication that the department has some type of process established for reporting. What’s the distinction for you that considers that an inadequate means to report?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: At the end of the day here, that actually isn’t our distinction. The department indicates that they don’t feel they are complete yet. All of these conclusions are agreed to with the department. This is what they’ve said: that they don’t feel they are complete. Their response indicates final completion anticipated in 2021.

            It’s not that we’ve looked at what they did and said no, that’s not good enough. They’ve said here’s what we’ve done, but we’re not finished yet.

            BEN JESSOME: Is there any indication that there’s a concern that there may be some type of misrepresentation of the facts, perhaps, that are submitted by organizations or companies that facilitate home care? Can you elaborate a little bit on what type of information comes in and why you think that that particular method of reporting is inadequate?

[10:00 a.m.]

            ANDREW ATHERTON: I can’t go a lot deeper than I did to the first question. Our concern is if they’re not verifying the hours billed, or that the services have even been delivered before payment is issued, no verification of the statistics against key performance indicators. We didn’t necessarily see anything that was specifically wrong. What we’re looking at is a process that would allow either intentional or accidental mistakes to be made.

            Our expectation is that the department should be overseeing these processes. They should have steps in place to ensure that what’s coming in is accurate and that they have confidence that what the service providers are indicating has been done, that it has been done. That the people of Nova Scotia have received the services that they’re supposed to be receiving.

            BEN JESSOME: I couldn’t agree with you more. This is a group of people who we need to spend specific time looking after. If we’re not getting the information that we need to validate that care is being conducted appropriately, then we need to develop the means on our end to be sure that that care is happening in a top-quality manner.

            Moving to school capital planning, please. There appears to be an indication that there has been a process developed - I believe there’s a 2019 date referenced. In Recommendation 2.2. “The new process for long-term capital planning was approved on May 29, 2019.” Can you go into a little bit about where that benchmark was initially and where the OAG felt there was a gap? Subsequently, how that new process for all future capital planning is an improvement to the previous status quo?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: I can start with a little bit of information about what we originally found. There was a tangible capital asset request template that school boards at the time were using. When we looked at it there were many, many sections of it that weren’t complete at all. There were a lot of gaps.

            Our perspective on it was that there should be a standard approach used so that all school assessments are consistent, that the same information is being put forth in front of a committee to make the decision so that we can ensure it’s an apples-to-apples assessment.

            As for the new process, because the department indicated that this was not complete as of October 2019, we will not have looked at that yet. We will look at that shortly, assuming that this time frame indicated here has been complied with. If they’ve met that and they have a new process in place then in a month and change when we get the new download, if it says it has been completed, then we’ll assess what they say. We’ll be looking for support for that new process. As of today, I’m not in a position to speak to what that process is.

            BEN JESSOME: I’ll just shift gears, before I run out of time, on to licensed child care. It appears that the focus is targeted at home-based daycare operations, as I understand it based on the information in the appendix here. Can you, again, go into kind of the benchmark that you used to establish that there was a gap here and the subsequent information around improvements and expected timelines for those improvements?

            ADAM HARDING: In terms of that recommendation, what we had originally found was that the department wasn’t inspecting approved family home daycare centres in accordance with departmental policy. The department was really relying on licensed agencies to monitor approved family home daycares. However, the policy of the department had indicated that the department would inspect at least 25 per cent of home daycares under each agency every year, which at the time wasn’t being done.

            In terms of benchmarks or gaps, I can’t really speak to it. Again, this would be a case where the department has assessed this recommendation as not complete. They have said that as of October 18, 2019 it is not complete. They provided their summary of what they’re doing or what they’re working on. Beyond that, I wouldn’t be able to provide any comments.

            BEN JESSOME: Another element of that licensed child care piece has to do with grants. There’s an indication that they’re not being perhaps appropriately distributed. Can you elaborate on that?

            ADAM HARDING: There were two recommendations that really dealt with grants: Recommendations 1.7 and 1.8. A lot of the issues that led to those two recommendations were very similar. The department was evaluating the Early Childhood Enhancement Grant and child care subsidy programs in 2016.

            They determined at that time that the program objectives weren’t being met. They’ve taken some steps to address those issues, but the department really was relying on self-reporting by child care centres to distribute program funding. Therefore, there was a risk that funding may not be based on actual eligibility.

            Annual reviews of subsidy clients also weren’t being conducted as required by departmental policy at the time. That created a risk that grants may not be awarded based on actual eligibility and grant money may not be distributed according to actual need.

            Again, for these two recommendations the department has assessed these two as not complete as of October 18, 2019. They gave a bit of an indication in their summary of the work that they are doing. They also provided some timelines. I note they had indicated that by August 2020, they were anticipating these two recommendations as being complete.

            I wouldn’t be able to speak to whether COVID-19 may have had an impact on those timelines that they were originally anticipating, but we will be doing our follow-up again on this chapter as of next month, actually. We’ll get the download and at that time we’ll be able to see how they’ve self-assessed this recommendation.

            THE CHAIR: Thank you. The time allotted for the first round of questioning has expired. As mentioned earlier in the meeting, we’ll now take a 15-minute break. You’re reminded to have your masks on, leave through the side exits and come back in through the main door.

            We will resume at 10:22 a.m.

            [10:07 a.m. The committee recessed.]

            [10:22 a.m. The committee reconvened.]

            THE CHAIR: Order please. We’ll call the meeting back to order. We’ll have the second round of questioning to the Office of the Auditor General.

            This round will be 12 minutes for each caucus. We’ll begin with the PC caucus. Mr. Halman.

            TIM HALMAN: I’d like to turn your attention to the November 2017 follow-up - Managing Home Care Support Contracts. Specifically, gentlemen, if we could look at Page 60, Recommendation 3.2. “The Department of Health and Wellness and the Nova Scotia Health Authority should put a process in place to verify the accuracy of reporting from home support providers. Reported hours, performance indicators, and statistical reporting should be included in the verification process.”

            With respect to home care, I’ve heard from constituents over the years that they’re still charged the full hour if some arrive late or if others leave early. They’re still charged, regardless. Through the scope of your audit and follow-up, has the Department of Health and Wellness and the Nova Scotia Health Authority established a process to verify accuracy of reporting - what time home care workers show up and leave - from the home support providers?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: As you can see here, this is a recommendation that the Department of Health and Wellness has deemed not complete. At this point, no, it does not appear that there is a process to verify the accuracy of the reporting from home support providers.

            As to specifically when a support worker arrives or leaves a house, I can’t speak to whether that was part of our initial concern. We were at a higher level than that. It was a bigger picture of just an overall verification of the information provided. I don’t have any information to get any further into the minutes of people spending time in a home care situation.

            TIM HALMAN: As an MLA, one of the central complaints I hear about home care - it’s not in your report - is how often client visits are cancelled because there’s insufficient staffing to provide care for all prescribed visits. Obviously, I do understand you can only speak within the scope of the follow-up and the audits. I’m curious, though, within the scope of the follow-up, did that topic ever come up - tracking the number of cancellations from home care workers and continuing care workers with the clients?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: No. That would not have come up during our follow-up process. We were just looking at the recommendations. If we didn’t have a recommendation specific to that, then we wouldn’t have seen any information around it during our follow-up work.

            TIM HALMAN: Would that be a topic the Office of the Auditor General would be interested in having a look at?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: I will never say no to whether I’m interested in considering a topic. There’s an unending list of areas we can look at. I’ve got an ever-growing list of things we should consider at some point - it seems it’s always getting longer. I won’t rule it out. No promises that it’s happening imminently, but I’m always considering things and that’s certainly an area that we’ll consider as we go forward.

            TIM HALMAN: I certainly appreciate that. I have also heard great things about home care, in all fairness. I have also heard over three years that this is, for my constituents, a common concern. I would encourage you to add to that comprehensive list you have of areas of government sectors to investigate and to audit.

            On Page 60, Recommendation 3.5, “The Department of Health and Wellness and the Nova Scotia Health Authority should maintain an integrated record of home support complaints received, including their outcome.” Within the scope of your follow-up, do you know if the Department of Health and Wellness and the Nova Scotia Health Authority established a centralized database for home support complaints?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: As these recommendations are deemed not complete, we wouldn’t have done extensive work - or any work - looking at what has happened to date. Just looking at the responses on Page 60, it would appear the Health Authority has indicated they have established processes and databases separately. We haven’t looked at that to see whether that’s the case. There’s no indication here that they have established a centralized database. The department and the Health Authority are indicating they haven’t, but I can’t speak to the voracity of that.

            TIM HALMAN: With respect to home care providers that take on many more clients than they can provide care for, I’ve certainly heard about that from some of my constituents. In the scope of your audit and follow-up, did you find out how often clients or their family cancel visits? Did you come across data information on that?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: No. Again, if there wasn’t a recommendation specific to it, we would not have been looking for that information. We wouldn’t have asked for that information; we wouldn’t have been provided with that information. I can’t say that I’ve seen anything through our follow-up process on that.

            TIM HALMAN: Just to segue into that follow-up process. Mr. Spicer, you indicated two years is the benchmark by which you decide to go back. How is it you arrived at that benchmark of two years? Is that sort of best practice among various Offices of Auditors General throughout Canada? What was the criteria at which you arrived at the two years as opposed to, say, one year?

            TERRY SPICER: It really was a judgment call on our part. We had to be reasonable in understanding that all recommendations are not the same. Certain ones will take a lot more time and certain ones will take less. We do need to give management some time to react to the recommendations. As an organization, we thought going back and looking after two years would be an appropriate amount of time for the department to develop their plans and do what they need to do to get the recommendations implemented.

            It was really a judgment call on our part. We’ve been doing performance audits for a long time. We know the nature of the recommendations. Generally speaking, we felt that two years was a reasonable amount of time.

            TIM HALMAN: Is that considered best practice, or does it vary among Offices of Auditors General? If I did a jurisdictional scan, would I discover that in Saskatchewan they do a follow-up every year?

            TERRY SPICER: It very much is different. Different Auditor General Offices seem to have different approaches to this. Some will do them after a year. Some will just simply do management responses and not provide any assurance on those. We’re in the middle of that process.

[10:30 a.m.]

            It really is all over the map. Some offices will do a follow-up only on departments that they are currently auditing, so they’ll only do Health as an example, if they happen to be doing an audit in their Department of Health. It is quite varied in the approaches.

            TIM HALMAN: When you do a follow-up - again, this is process - do you usually request to speak with a specific position within a department? Or does the department offer a list of positions that you can speak with about the inquiries that you’re making? I’m curious about the process of that.

            ADAM HARDING: When departments self-assess the status of their recommendations, part of the information that they’re providing to us is a key contact for the recommendations. It varies depending on the organization and the nature of the recommendations. Sometimes it could be a more senior individual. Sometimes it might be someone who’s a little more junior in the organization.

            It really depends very much, though, on the nature of the recommendation. If the recommendation was very specific and very action-oriented, they might be giving us the name of someone who can speak to the implementation at a more detailed level than someone at a more senior level within the same organization.

            Conversely, if it’s a recommendation that’s very broad in scope, they might provide us - at least initially - with the name of a more senior individual to start with. From there, as we learn more about the recommendation or as we are seeking our information that we need, we would contact whatever staff within the organizations that we need to.

            Those names within that system are really a starting point, but it’s not where we stop. We would certainly seek out anyone who we felt we needed to speak with to obtain the information that we need.

            TIM HALMAN: How far can you go with that when you’re seeking out that key position to speak to within a department to be able to extrapolate the critical information? Does the Office of the Auditor General have the power to compel a certain position within a department to speak on a topic?

            TERRY SPICER: The Auditor General Act is fairly powerful in that way. We have the authority to speak to whomever we believe we need to speak to and to see whatever information we believe we need to look at. As Mr. Harding said, if we don’t feel we have the evidence and information that we need from a particular person, we will follow the chain until we get to the proper person.

            TIM HALMAN: Have you encountered a resistance if you submit a position stating you want this individual in this role to speak on this? Have you, in the course of your time with the Office of the Auditor General, encountered resistance to the key positions you want to speak with?

            TERRY SPICER: I would say overall no. We get very good co-operation from the entities that we audit. We’ve got a very good working relationship with them all. It’s important we maintain that, and we do. We don’t have any problem getting the information we need.

            THE CHAIR: Thank you. The time for the PC caucus has expired. To the NDP caucus for 12 minutes. Ms. Chender.

            CLAUDIA CHENDER: Welcome, gentlemen. I want to ask a question about the recommendations related to responsible gambling prevention and treatment of problem gambling.

            In 2015 - earlier Mr. Spicer was talking about some of these stale dated recommendations - I believe this would form one of those. The Department of Health and Wellness “establish goals to determine if gambling prevention and treatment efforts are effectively reducing the number of Nova Scotians experiencing gambling harms, . . .” and to evaluate progress on an annual basis. These recommendations were recorded as not complete in the May 2020 follow-up report.

            The department indicated that there would be a report, including baseline data, produced in May 2020. Do you know if this report was produced?

            TERRY SPICER: No, we don’t. We haven’t followed further to look at that.

            CLAUDIA CHENDER: Well, we look forward to finding that out at the appropriate time. Just to probe a little bit further into this particular area, our caucus has had concerns about how gaming is managed for quite a while now. An FOI that we received shows that the government’s decision in 2014 to abandon the MyPlay program - which was essentially a responsible gambling program where players had a card that collected data and that prompted them - was due to a significant drop in revenue. So they abandoned the program because they weren’t making as much money, which presumably would have been a foreseeable result of people gambling more responsibly.

            In emails to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, a government staff member admitted that the MyPlay system was acting as a disincentive to people using VLTs - again, ideally, part of the goal of the project. If people are using VLTs in an irresponsible manner, this program was in fact designed to show them that they didn’t need to do that.

            Revenues by VLTs increased by $10 million in the years following the elimination of MyPlay - in a year. We know that program had its flaws and people would use multiple cards, but when it was removed, it was not at all replaced. My question is: If your office found in 2015 that the department didn’t have goals to determine if gambling prevention and treatment efforts were effective, period - which is how I read the report - do you have any insight into how the decision could have been made based on your review and your analysis to cancel the MyPlay program?

            TERRY SPICER: No, we don’t. We certainly wouldn’t look at that as part of the follow-up because we would focus on the recommendations here. To my knowledge, I don’t believe that was part of the original scope of the performance audit or if that happened after that time frame. Sorry, I don’t have a lot of information on that.

            CLAUDIA CHENDER: I’ll just come back at it one other way and if it’s not in the scope, then we can move along. From the perspective of an auditor, if there are not goals in place in a department to track something - to track any kind of metric, but in this case, the metric would be prevention and treatment efforts for gaming specifically - would you say that without such metrics in place, that there is sufficient information to discontinue a program?

            TERRY SPICER: I would say that’s a risk. I think you would have to look at the specific program to understand what information you need, but there is definitely a risk.

            CLAUDIA CHENDER: I want to move now to critical infrastructure resiliency. In the May report, you indicated that the Emergency Management Office has not completed a 2016 recommendation to ensure all critical infrastructure owned by the province is identified and has documented all hazard risk assessments. The risk of not completing this is that the government may not be prepared to respond to events impacting its critical infrastructure. The Emergency Management Office response to that stated that a matrix was being developed and would be considered as part of the province’s critical infrastructure strategy. The timeline for that completion, I believe, was Fall 2019. Can you advise if that was, in fact, completed?

            ADAM HARDING: This would be another recommendation where the timing of this project comes into play. Again, departments would be undertaking their own internal process to review their own status and then update the system that we ultimately get the recommendation status from.

            In this case, at some point prior to our download, which was October 18, 2019, they would have populated their summary within that system. So at that point they were anticipating Fall 2019, but ultimately they said that the recommendation at that point wasn’t complete, so we wouldn’t have done any work past that date to verify whether that matrix had been developed in accordance with their timeline around this recommendation.

            CLAUDIA CHENDER: Just to clarify, what was the time of your download?

            ADAM HARDING: For this follow-up report, our download was October 18, 2019. Prior to that, departments would be populating that information in the system.

            CLAUDIA CHENDER: So it might be reasonable to assume that if you had alerted the department to the date of the download - which I think you said earlier that you do - and that the date of expected completion was Fall 2019, that it is unlikely that the date of Fall 2019 was met? Is that fair to say given that the download was in the beginning of October?

            TERRY SPICER: I don’t think that would be fair for us to say. Again, the way we do this is, we have to cut off at a period in time. We look at it as of October 18^th - it was done or not done. If it’s not done, management then provides their responses to what they plan to do with it.

            It wouldn’t be fair for us, nor could we say that because it was a short time period between October and maybe November, that means it wasn’t done. Keeping in mind that there has now been almost a year elapsed from that time frame. It very well could be done and that would be a great question for management to respond.

            CLAUDIA CHENDER: We will look forward to following up on that. I guess another more specific question on that audit is - acknowledging that our current situation was not contemplated at the time of this audit or by anyone ever, probably, pretty much until it happened except for a few super smart people - would an All-Hazards Risk Assessment, which is being looked at here, include looking at the capacity for critical infrastructure to respond to pressures created by something like a global pandemic? Would that be part of this All-Hazards Risk Assessment that was being looked at in this audit?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: I can’t speak nearly as eloquently or deeply as the folks from the department or EMO could speak, but I do understand from some previous audits that I’ve worked on that that is the concept with All-Hazards - that it does address all hazards. That it should look at it.

            I know when we did work on the pandemic preparedness quite a while ago that that was a term that I heard a lot was “all-hazards planning”. That’s what they were working towards. As to the depth that that planning goes, you’re getting beyond my ability to speak, so you’d have to talk to the department for that.

            CLAUDIA CHENDER: Certainly, the folks at EMO have done a great job. I think it’s helpful to understand that this probably was a part of it. I think we look forward to kind of probing the status of that matrix just for our own understanding of how that work unfolds.

            I want to move to climate change management. The Department of Environment has not completed a recommendation to regularly review its rating of climate change risks to determine if those ratings have changed and to identify any new actions required to address the changes. By not completing this recommendation there’s a risk, of course, that Environment is not considering whether changes to risk ratings are needed that may result in certain areas needing more attention.

            There’s so much to be said about this, but I think it’s clear from the title we use - climate change - that we are anticipating a shifting risk with climate change. There’s lots of modelling, but as with my question about the pandemic, I don’t think most of us policymakers and elected officials understand the exact shapes that these things will take. I think we’ve seen more severe storms. I think we’ve seen a change in weather patterns that I think it’s safe to say that most of us have not predicted even in the last few years.

            The department indicated in a response that they were seeking funding from the federal government to conduct this work. I’m wondering if your office has received any update on this work.

            TERRY SPICER: That would be a similar situation to the others. Once it’s past the October date, we don’t do any work on it to verify what has happened subsequent to that. When you bring management in, I’m sure they’ll enlighten you on it.

            CLAUDIA CHENDER: Just to clarify, is it your understanding that the department has not reviewed its rating of climate change risks in the past three years?

            TERRY SPICER: Maybe Adam would be better to respond to that.

            ADAM HARDING: In terms of the recommendation, ultimately the department is assessing that the recommendation is not complete. Based on their assessment that it’s not complete, I would infer that they haven’t done that review. Otherwise, I presume they would have said that the recommendation was complete and we then would have looked at what they had done.

[10:45 a.m.]

            THE CHAIR: The time for the NDP caucus has expired. I’ll allow 12 minutes for the Liberal caucus - Ms. DiCostanzo.

            RAFAH DICOSTANZO: My first question is actually regarding universities and the report - Recommendation 4.2. I just wanted to understand, how did you deal with the different universities that received different amounts of funding from government? What was your base or your goal - the mutual goal for all the universities and how did you work with them in order to come up with that report?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: You’re going back quite a bit for us. This recommendation was complete as of 2017. We haven’t looked at it in any way, shape, or form the last two years at all. I wasn’t part of the original audit and I don’t have a lot of information from the original audit with me, so I really can’t provide any further information on that. We wouldn’t have looked at it for the purpose that we’re here today. We wouldn’t have looked at that recommendation at all.

            TERRY SPICER: Maybe I can just add a little bit to that. The focus of the audit at the time was on how the department funds universities. It was really about how do you determine how much a university should get, how you monitor what they use that money for to the extent that they need to.

            It was really purely on a focus on a departmental funding program. It wasn’t looking at the universities themselves.

            RAFAH DICOSTANZO: I understand that. You weren’t meeting with any of the universities themselves. You were just doing it with the department, based on the amount that they get. You gave them recommendations and all universities have reached the right amount of efficiency - they give you enough reports. Has this helped them in dealing with what is coming with COVID-19 and the lack of funding they’re going to receive from the students, because a lot of them depend on international students as well? What recommendations were there and how is the government going to help them with that part of financial? Are they going to lose a lot of money and was that part of the report that you prepared?

            TERRY SPICER: That specifically wouldn’t have been part of the report. We would have talked to universities in our scoping exercise to understand what process the universities do, what issues they find with the university funding model and stuff like that. We talked to universities in that sense. Then again, the focus would have been on the department and how they distribute the money. I would have to go back into the details of the audit, which was a few years ago to provide any more detail on that, but that’s really my understanding of how it worked.

            RAFAH DICOSTANZO: I’m just wondering if that would require another audit after or would that be something that you need to follow. I’m concerned about the universities and the amount of funding they receive. It was based on a certain number of students that they received and how that will work in the future.

            The other question I had, actually, was regarding the gambling that my colleague started as well. Did we see, as part of your reporting, there was a reduction in the number of youths who were getting engaged in gambling? Was that one of the items on your report?

            ADAM HARDING: Again, for this report we’re very much focused on the recommendations. There wasn’t a specific recommendation related to youth. For the purposes of follow-up, I wouldn’t be able to speak to whether there was a reduction or anything to that regard.

            I’m also not familiar with the details of that original audit. It was from 2015, so it was a few years ago. I don’t believe that specifically was part of the scope of that work that we did.

            RAFAH DICOSTANZO: I had two items, the First Nations and the youth. I guess the answer for the Frist Nations will be very similar.

            ADAM HARDING: Yes. Again, very much for this report, our focus is on the recommendations. We’d be able to say that the recommendation about negotiations with First Nation bands - that it’s not complete. In terms of what the Office of Aboriginal Affairs is doing in regard to that recommendation and the work that they have undertaken, we’re not in a position to provide any comment beyond what we’ve provided in our report for their summary.

            RAFAH DICOSTANZO: The last question I had was also for Recommendation 1.1, “The Department of Health and Wellness should have a management information system to efficiently and effectively manage its responsibilities for licensing and inspections of homes for special care.” If you can maybe outline on that one - how did you come up with the investigation that you did?

            ADAM HARDING: Around Recommendation 1.1 for homes for special care: In the original audit, what we had found was that the department was not using AMANDA - it’s an information system amongst other functions that it has - or an alternative database application. Staff primarily were using spreadsheets to track the stages of licensing and inspection processes. All that really created a risk of inaccurate or inconsistent information for management reporting.

            This year, that recommendation was assessed as complete, so we would have done some work around that. At a very high level, our understanding is that the department has adopted the AMANDA system. They use that and the processes within it to automate business processes including license renewals, complaints, and inspections. They’re using an existing system to be able to manage their responsibilities.

            That system also generates reporting, as well. As part of our work, we would have looked to validate the reasonability of what we’re being told. We’re looking to see evidence that the system is being used, evidence of reports coming out of the system, and that sort of thing.

            RAFAH DICOSTANZO: I think that’s also very timely now after COVID-19 that this was completed ahead of time, which was wonderful. Thank you again and I move it to my colleague, Mr. Jessome.

            THE CHAIR: Mr. Jessome.

            BEN JESSOME: I’m going to jump back. I kind of scurried on to licensed child care from school capital planning. I did have one question that I did not get a chance to ask last round.

            Through the Chair, I would like for the Office of the Auditor General to provide any information related to the content of the evaluations that were in place related to school capital planning. Things that you might have noted were considerations like school population, school projections, geographic areas, and age of the school. Can you comment on those types of qualifiers that would go into what the existing process was and how it has evolved since then?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: I don’t have a ton of information with me on that. The items that you talk to in terms of school population and whatnot, those were considered. As we’ve noted, the template that was used often had incomplete sections. While it may have asked for information on condition or on school population, there were inconsistencies or were gaps in what was provided.

            We look at Recommendation 2.1, “. . . should work with school boards to have a coordinated and comprehensive long-term capital plan for schools . . .” That has improved. At the time, there was little information on the general condition of all schools. There is now a five-year school capital plan.

            In terms of the new approach that is supposed to have been in place as of May 2019, we haven’t looked at that yet. We’ll be looking at that shortly and assuming that the department has determined it’s complete and has it in place, then we’ll be looking at it and be able to speak to you - provide a report to you - early mid-2021.

            BEN JESSOME: Was there any element of requests from community involved in the school capital planning process that you could note? I represent a community that has been challenged to deal with the enrolment in the area since before I was going to the schools. I’m just wondering if there’s any element of consideration that you would know related to a community supporting the decision for capital projects in their community.

            ANDREW ATHERTON: That wasn’t an area that we specifically got into. Our focus was more on the tangible - the issues with the schools, the issues with school population. I would presume that there were many phone calls to school board members at the time we were doing the work. Now presumably, many of those end up at the RCE or with the elected members, but that isn’t something that we specifically got into or tried to quantify in any way.

            BEN JESSOME: It’s often noted that schools are built based on current population rather than projected. Did you come across that in your findings at all?

            ANDREW ATHERTON: We wouldn’t have seen it at this time and I don’t recall specifically from when we did the audit whether there was anything related to that. It wouldn’t have been part of this follow-up process so I’m afraid I don’t have any more to share with you, sorry.

            THE CHAIR: The time for questioning has expired. There was a lot of territory covered in that whole conversation this morning. We want to thank everybody for their participation and invite the witnesses if they want to make any closing remarks, they can do so now.

            TERRY SPICER: Thank you for the interest in our work. As the Chair mentioned, this is a very difficult audit for us to get prepared for because there’s 160 recommendations, many of which would have been worked on four and five years ago.

            There were a lot of very good questions today and very important questions. Because of the scope and nature of what we’re trying to do here, we’re not able to answer a lot of those questions, so I would encourage you to bring management in and have those questions responded to. Again, thank you very much.

            THE CHAIR: So now that we have finished the round of questioning, we’ll move on to some committee business. The first is the correspondence. I think everybody has been provided this electronically, but I’ll go through all the correspondence that did come through.

            The Nova Scotia Health Authority request to postpone the April 8^th appearance, dated March 16, 2020.

The Office of the Auditor General 2014-19 calendar year reports, summary of chapters and whether audited organizations were witnesses at PAC on that audit.

The Nova Scotia Health Authority request to postpone May 13, 2020 appearance dated April 16^th.

Susan Leblanc and Lisa Roberts - letter to the Chair dated April 24, 2020 request to meet immediately upon the release of the Auditor General’s follow-up, and the Chair’s response dated April 27, 2020.

[11:00 a.m.]

            Honourable Kevin Murphy’s response to the Chair’s correspondence inquiring how meetings can be held safely in accordance with Public Health directives dated May 5, 2020, and the Chair’s letter was included with that.

            Susan Leblanc and Lisa Roberts - letter to the Chair dated May 20, 2020 asking for the rationale regarding the option that unanimous consent of the committee is required in order to call a virtual meeting. The Chair’s response dated May 25, 2020.

            Susan Leblanc and Lisa Roberts - letter to the Chair dated June 2, 2020 request to have PAC reconvene. The Chair’s response dated June 4, 2020.

            The Office of the Auditor General’s 2019-20 Performance Report and 2020-21 Business Plan for the Office of the Auditor General.

            Tim Halman - letter to the Chair dated June 12, 2020 requesting that a meeting be scheduled in accordance with Public Health protocols. The Chair’s response dated June 29, 2020.

            Honourable Kevin Murphy - response to the Chair’s letter inquiring when in-person meetings may be able to be held dated August 10^th, and that letter was included.

            Susan Leblanc and Lisa Roberts - letter to the Chair dated August 28^th requesting that PAC be reconvened.

            As you can see, there was still lots of correspondence going back and forth even though we weren’t meeting. The good thing is, here we are.

            Next is the record of decision for the subcommittee. The subcommittee met via teleconference on May 13^th and reviewed the follow-up report of the Auditor General. The record of the decision has been provided to the members. I would request a motion to approve that record of decision.

            BEN JESSOME: So moved.

            THE CHAIR: Do we have a seconder? Seconded by Ms. DiCostanzo.

            Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

            The motion is carried.

            The next item is Lisa Roberts - consideration for an additional meeting with the Auditor General concerning the follow-up report that was discussed at the March 11^th meeting. This is more of a housekeeping item, just being brought forward as it was left outstanding from the last meeting of the committee in March.

            I guess what we’ll do now is look at the date of our next meeting, believe it or not. The next meeting will be October 14, 2020 in the Chamber. There’s an in camera briefing at 8:30 to 9:00 a.m. and I’ll be here for that one. From 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. the committee will meet. The topic and witnesses will be determined.

            Ms. Chender.

            CLAUDIA CHENDER: I’d like to make a motion for the consideration of the committee.

            This motion is being brought out of an abundance of caution but also, just having read through the reams of correspondence, all of which pointed to a single and specific matter which was the ability of the standing committee that we currently sit in to meet over the past six months. It’s obviously something that is necessary.

            Despite the efforts of Opposition Parties to call a meeting of this committee over the past several months, the absence of clarity in the Rules of the House of Assembly as to virtual meetings meant that we could not meet. The Liberal members of this committee were not willing to grant that consent.

            As House Leader, I attempted to discuss this with the Speaker but the response that I received was similar to the one that we have in the package of correspondence in front of us. From his letter of August 10, 2020: As you are aware, legislative committees make their own decisions as to when, where, and how they will meet.

            It’s worth noting that all other provinces in Canada were able to safely convene during the pandemic enabling elected members to engage in their legislative work. There is no reason, as far as I can tell, why this was not able to occur here in Nova Scotia. We could have met virtually.

            Any suggestion that either Public Accounts or Health, our two main standing committees, don’t normally meet over the Summer - which was a line that I heard regularly - is false. In fact, within the last couple of years since the advent of the Health Committee, these committees do in fact meet during the Summer regularly.

            We recognize that it is preferred that Standing Committee meetings be conducted with all members physically present. However, committees may wish to sit from time to time in virtual proceedings in circumstances where there’s a global pandemic or travel restrictions, health vulnerability, or other physical distancing requirements or other completely unforeseen things - I will rule nothing out in this year 2020 - could befall us.

Committees are free to organize their proceedings as they see fit, provided that they comply with the orders and instructions issued by the House. In cases where the House rules do not prescribe anything specific and they do not contemplate virtual meetings, committees may adopt procedural rules to govern their proceedings. Therefore, I would like to make the following motion:

            I move that where it is not possible for the Public Accounts Committee to meet in person due to public health order or other pressing reason, the committee will meet virtually, according to its predetermined schedule in a manner to be determined by the Chair in consultation with the clerk.

            THE CHAIR: Do we have a seconder for that motion? Seconded by Mr. Halman.

Discussion on the motion - Ms. Miller.

            MARGARET MILLER: I can gather what the honourable member is saying about meeting, but I haven’t seen any proof of anything - of other provinces all meeting on their committees. I know that the HR Committee does meet all Summer, but traditionally, other committees have been dismissed. I’d like to see what the information is from other provinces and if they do meet during the Summer months.

            TIM HALMAN: I want to thank the member for Dartmouth South for bringing forward this motion. I believe it captures what is so critical that we need to address. The example that comes to my mind right away is committees of the federal government in Ottawa met during this first wave. Obviously, as a Legislature, as a committee, we need to adapt to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Most certainly, we need to make sure that questions are asked to government. I’d like to put a motion forward to extend the time so we can have a further discussion on this.

            THE CHAIR: We have a motion. We will need another motion at this point. The motion is to extend the time. We do have to know how long we’re going to extend it. As it’s scheduled now we’re going to 11:15 a.m.

            TIM HALMAN: Let’s extend the time of the Public Accounts Committee to 11:30 a.m.

            THE CHAIR: We have the motion on the floor. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

            The motion is defeated.

             Back to the motion on the table. Are there any further comments or discussion? Ms. Chender.

            CLAUDIA CHENDER: I would just like to respond to some of the comments of my colleague, Ms. Miller, and to say that we certainly could furnish proof of the meeting of other legislative committees across the country. I found that proof on Google, but I’m happy to send links to all the other Legislative Assemblies and their meetings, including the federal Parliament.

            When the Health Committee came into being, which was around the time that this committee was effectively neutered and its meetings were reduced by less than half of their former amount, it was determined that both of those meetings would meet once per month throughout the year. Any suggestion that these meetings do not meet during the Summer is false. I will repeat that.

I am aware that we have four and a half minutes left. I will ask my colleagues to consider please supporting the motion that says that if we can’t meet in person, we meet virtually. If my colleagues are intending to vote against this motion, I would like to hear a substantive reason why these meetings should not continue virtually if they can’t happen in person, without a suggestion that there isn’t proof or without a suggestion that they don’t normally meet during the Summer.

            THE CHAIR: Ms. Miller.

            MARGARET MILLER: Thank you for those comments. The Health Committee is certainly very new and the intent always was to have 12 meetings a year, but this Summer has been extraordinary. We’ve had COVID-19 this Summer and, quite frankly, the Department of Health and Wellness has been focusing all the resources on all the information that was required to provide to Nova Scotians, all the services required. Certainly, this was an exceptional thing.

            As the Auditor General’s Office knows, getting involved with these meetings takes a lot of work. It takes a lot of preparation to make sure that they have all the information. Certainly, it wasn’t appropriate this Summer to have it.

            As per my information, the Public Accounts Committee until last year - at least from 2013 on - was not meeting through the Summer. Last year was the first year that they had. The intent was to have the Health Committee meeting, but with COVID-19 it hasn’t, but it is resumed now. I believe that we can hope that we will be able to continue in the vein that we are and meet here in person. The online was not available at that time and was not something that we want to pursue and will continue in this vein.

            THE CHAIR: Ms. Leblanc.

            SUSAN LEBLANC: We want to call the question, but before I call the question, I just want to say that all of the reasons or all of the comments given by the Liberal Party are not answers to the question that my colleague has asked. Let’s call the question and we’d like to have a recorded vote, please.

            THE CHAIR: Mr. Maguire.

            BRENDAN MAGUIRE: I know that we did have the HR Committee running during the pandemic. There were some issues on and off with doing that, including some people losing internet connection. Sorry, not internet connection, but their phones were dropping and things like that.

I do appreciate that this is very important. It is a different time. I think that Public Health, the Department of Health and Wellness, and all committees, and all government - whether it’s the NDP, the Progressive Conservative Party or the Liberal Party - have adjusted as well as we can to this and we’ll continue to look for ways to keep the public safe when it comes to COVID-19 and at the same time continue to keep government moving forward.

I know that one of the members here is a member that’s in discussion with the other two Party House Leaders on the way this is going to move forward, whether it’s in person, whether it’s limited capacity here in the House. That individual would probably know a lot more than anyone else sitting here at the table. What I would say is that I hope we’ll continue to move these committees forward.

THE CHAIR: The motion has been called for a vote and a recorded vote has been requested. I’ll ask the clerk if she could call the names.

YEAS                                                 NAYS

Ms. Leblanc                                        Ms. Lohnes-Croft

Ms. Chender                                       Ms. Miller

Mr. Halman                                         Mr. Jessome

Mr. Bain                                              Ms. DiCostanzo

                                                            Mr. Maguire

THE CHAIR: The motion has been defeated.

            That concludes our business for this morning. If there is no further business at this point, the meeting stands adjourned. I’ll remind you once again to exit through the side exits and make sure you take everything - if you have paper, pens, water bottles, or anything like that, please take them. There are recycle bins next to the exits.

            The subcommittee will meet very shortly. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.

            [The committee adjourned at 11:15 a.m.]