1999 ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MANAGEMENT BOARD SECRETARIAT

1998 ANNUAL REPORT

CONTENTS

Thursday 25 November 1999

1999 Annual Report, Provincial Auditor
Government Advertising
Year 2000 / Information Technology Preparedness

Ms Michele Noble, deputy minister, Management Board of Cabinet
Ms Suzanna Birchwood, director, communications services branch,
Management Board of Cabinet
Mr Paul Scott, assistant deputy minister, year 2000 initiative, Management Board of Cabinet,
Ms Gail Peach, assistant deputy minister and CEO, health sector year 2000 project
Ministry of Health
Mr Scott Campbell, chief information officer, Management Board of Cabinet

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Chair / Président
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les Iles L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh L)

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh L)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les Iles L)
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North / -Nord PC)
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines L)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr Erik Peters, Provincial Auditor

Clerk / Greffière

Ms Tonia Grannum

Staff / Personnel

Mr Ray McLellan, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1033 in committee room 1, following a closed session.

1999 ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Consideration of chapter 2, guidelines recommended for government advertising.

The Chair (Mr John Gerretsen): I'd like to call the committee to order. The first issue deals with government advertising.

I wonder if you could all identify yourselves for the Hansard record.

Ms Michele Noble: I'm Michele Noble, Deputy Minister of Management Board Secretariat. With me is Suzanna Birchwood, the director of communications with the ministry, the area to which the staff that constitutes the Advertising Review Board reports. I also have with me Scott Campbell, the corporate chief information officer for the OPS, and Paul Scott, the ADM responsible for the Y2K initiative and in charge of the corporate project management office.

The Chair: We have split the two issues into separate sections. We will deal with the government advertising issue first, for about 40 minutes. If you have an opening statement or a response to the auditor's report, perhaps you could indicate that to us now, and then we'll have questions from the members of the committee.

Ms Noble: I understand the committee would like to speak first to the advertising and then to the other item.

The Chair: We will deal with the other item about 40 or 45 minutes from now.

Ms Noble: That's fine.

In a couple of very brief opening remarks, I would like to thank the members of the committee for the opportunity of being here this morning to discuss this issue in terms of bringing members of the committee up to date with respect to the advertising directive and to comment and try and put this in the context of some work we're doing on the corporate directive in general.

Management Board Secretariat has recognized the importance of good management practices and accountability. To that end, the secretariat has, over the last couple of years, been engaged in a project whereby we are looking at the question of directives in general and trying to bring them up to date with current good public administrative practice.

To that end, we've been looking at areas such as the business planning process and also at corporate audit. We've also been looking at new financial human resource information systems as a way of improving our capacity to work within these directives, and then, as I mentioned, the directive initiatives themselves.

The directives are an essential part of the government's accountability cycle. What we're doing in looking at them is to try to make sure we have outlined purpose, application, scope, principles, mandatory requirements and responsibilities as a general framework that we wish to bring all the directives into compliance with.

In terms of looking at the directives, we are working with a set of values-supporting them-dealing with quality public service, fairness, effectiveness, integrity, openness and dealing with the questions of accountability, setting a fundamental foundation within the directives.

To help us manage the review project, there is a forum of responsible officials across the public service who have been involved with us in trying to update these directives and bring these into compliance with public administrative practices at this time.

There are currently 132 directives. They are available. This is down from 160 two years ago. Many of them have been revised, and some that were no longer relevant have been removed. We are basically trying to ensure that the government's commitment to spend wisely and be accountable is being met.

The other element with respect to the directives is that we go through a process of consultation. We are also working with a process of plain-language writing. We work with legal services, look at the question of human resource impact, and look at the issues of making sure appropriate communications are in place, that the procedure is well understood and that the approvals take place.

Within this general context, we are currently looking at the advertising and creative communication services directive, and it's being updated to reflect changes in the advertising world. As well, the concerns of the Provincial Auditor around certain advertising and communications campaigns are being addressed as part of the comprehensive look at the advertising directive. So we are taking into account the observations of the auditor as part of this process.

By way of background, the directive that is currently in place, which is under review, was created in 1985 to provide principles and requirements for buying advertising and creative services. So the focus of that directive is on procurement. Since that time, changes have been made related to procurement practices. In 1994 they were changed to reflect arrangements with Ontario in terms of trade agreements, and in 1998 there were amendments in terms of the Canadian content clause.

It is important to note that the nature and scope of advertising has changed significantly over the 15 years since the directive was created. A significant review of the directive was called for, and today we are looking at new and different ways of sharing information with the public on the government programs and services. To that effect, recently there was an article in the Globe and Mail about the Internet as a vehicle of communication. That is the kind of thing we have to take into account to ensure that the directive in this area is appropriate. So that reflects where we are today.

On the review, we worked over the summer, looking at other jurisdictions and what they have done. In the fall, we have been talking to other ministries and looking at their particular needs, issues that have arisen in terms of the use of the current directive. We'll be pulling this together to have a revised directive as quickly as possible, taking into consideration the various inputs we've had and, as I said, certainly the auditor's comments are among the issues we're taking into account.

The Chair: We'll start with about five minutes for each caucus, and then we'll use up the remaining time. We'll start with the Liberals, and then NDP and the government caucus.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Management Board of Cabinet and the Management Board Secretariat are supposed to be a totally non-partisan part of the public service. Some of you have been here for several governments, so you can comment on it in a generic sense. How much of the advertising policy is actually out of your hands and influenced significantly by political appointees of any government that happens to be in power, instead of simply in your hands?

Ms Noble: In terms of the responsibilities we have, we provide the staff work in preparing the advice to Management Board of Cabinet, which obviously is made up of the members of any given government of the day. So we provide that work, and it is the responsibility of Management Board to then approve the directive, in terms of setting the framework.

With respect to day-to-day operations, the staff perform the function of being responsible for the process of procurement in compliance with the directive. We have a role that we play at Management Board, but individual ministries also have their own responsibilities under the directive.

So from the point of view of the operation, of ensuring that the process is undertaken, the staff officers are responsible for that. Obviously the program directions of the government of the day and those kinds of elements would become the content elements in terms of communication, and clearly the individual ministries are responsible for looking at their needs in terms of advertising support. The question of dollars has to be dealt with as other budgets are dealt with in terms of making dollars available.

Mr Bradley: Each political party has a person we could all think of, as elected members, who probably has too much power in each of our parties when we've been in government, who directs the general communications program of the government from a political point of view. How much power do you have to resist the directives of political people in the Peterson, Rae or Harris governments, the political person who is out there trying to make the government look good in a political sense? How much power do you have to resist that from any government?

Ms Noble: The traditional relationship between the public service and the government is that the government and the ministers are responsible for the operations of their departments and the decisions they make, and we are responsible for providing advice to them. I think we carry out those responsibilities. Again, I point to the question of determining what is needed in terms of moving forward on the government program. The minister of any individual department would be responsible for making those decisions.

Mr Bradley: This may be a more difficult question, but would you find it helpful to have some independent body review government advertising from the point of view of determining whether it's partisan or not? Again, regardless of what government happens to be in power, would you find it to be helpful for Management Board to have an outside agency of some kind, just from the view of whether it is partisan or not, review it? Would that be helpful or not helpful?

Ms Noble: Obviously, within the context of whatever directive is there and approved, then the appropriate mechanisms would have to be in place to ensure that that is taking place. The issues in terms of the use of the advertising have traditionally been much more on the procurement side. The question at the moment which has surfaced in terms of the definition of "appropriate advertising" is obviously something that is being considered in the context of the current directive. I think the question then will be in terms of setting the accountability for whatever is ultimately decided should be the principles and guidelines.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Thank you for coming today. Clearly, the auditor's concern had to do with the difference between government advertising and blatant political, partisan advertising. That's the issue before us today. I heard you say in your remarks that the directive is being amended to take the auditor's concerns into account, but I'd listened carefully and it wasn't clear to me how that concern, which I think is what we're discussing today, is being addressed. I heard you talk about all the other directives you're amending, etc, but with respect to what's the difference between partisan advertising and government advertising, how are you changing the directive to reflect his concerns?

Ms Noble: The auditor's report I think was signalling a concern that has been brought to his attention and he was offering as models other jurisdictions in which there had been variations on approaches in terms of how the principles and values of this question should be dealt with. When I commented that we're taking it into account, we are in fact including among the areas of the other jurisdictions we're looking at the models that those jurisdictions have used. We've also been looking at what other jurisdictions in Canada are using. In terms of taking into account, my understanding of what the auditor was implying is that the current directive does not provide sufficient guidance in this area. Consequently, we are looking at the other models that he directed us to as well as to other jurisdictions to find how others have handled the issue of providing greater guidance.

Ms Martel: Your directive would then be seen by the government members on Management Board and either confirmed by them or rejected by them.

Ms Noble: That's correct. The directives will have to go to the board for approval.

Ms Martel: When do you anticipate being able to bring something forward to the board?

Ms Noble: As soon as possible. It'll probably be within the next few months.

Ms Martel: Can you give the committee a sense as to what other jurisdictions-there didn't seem to be very many that you could pattern yourself after-you are looking at in that context in more specific terms?

Ms Noble: We have, as I said, followed up and have actually been looking at the areas that the auditor raised in terms of New Zealand. We've also been looking at the UK. We also are aware of some work in Australia that I believe has been patterned on the New Zealand experience. We've been looking at the federal government and we've also been looking at other provinces. In terms of the other provinces, what I can indicate to the committee is that they have not tackled this issue. In fact, I would say the Ontario directive, in the way in which it deals with procurement, is a much better directive on that front than perhaps some of the other provinces have.

Ms Martel: Just to follow up from where Mr Bradley was, this has to do with independence. At least in the UK and New Zealand we are told that the auditor can audit against guidelines that the assembly has established. Would it be your view and what you submit to Management Board that you would be looking at our auditor to audit specific criteria or guidelines that have been attached to it, or would you be looking at an independent agency to do that?

Ms Noble: At the present time the auditor is positioned to audit against all of the Management Board directives. At a minimum, this directive would fall into that category so it would be within the auditor's purview to audit against that.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): My understanding is that the advertising directive was created in 1985. I presume that this directive was used when the Liberal government spent, from 1985 to 1990, some $277 million on advertising, as adjusted for inflation, and presumably the same directive that the NDP used when they spent some $200 million on advertising. Could you tell me what you see as the fundamental purpose of the directive that all three parties have been operating under for the last 14 years?

1050

Ms Noble: Actually, we've got copies of the current directive which we could distribute to the members of the committee. If you've got them, in the preamble the purpose and application of the directive is set out in the front part of that. I think the focus of the current directive, as I said, is on the procurement side. It was very much concerned at that point in time with issues of procurement and fairness, and transparency in the procurement process.

It also sets out the rules and responsibilities of the various parties, ministries, deputy ministers etc and puts those in place so that everyone has a clear understanding of the responsibilities they have. Also included would be the responsibilities of the Management Board Secretariat with respect to it. It's to establish the principles that are under use. The focus, as I said, was very much in terms of some of the procurement elements but it also does set out the roles and responsibilities.

The Chair: Just to make sure about the directive, you're talking about the directive that was handed out in April 1998?

Ms Noble: Yes. The reason for that particular date is that that reflects the last time it was amended, so we reissued them with the amendments. The 1998 date reflects the change in there, the change with respect to Canadian content, and that was what caused the reissuance. With the exception of that and the reference to trade agreements, the directive is essentially unchanged since 1985.

Mr Wood: The question of past auditors' reports was discussed earlier this morning. In 1988, the auditor found with the Peterson government that, "Excessive costs were incurred and taxpayers often did not get proper value for money." He found that $30 million worth of taxpayers' money had been wasted. I guess the Liberals had a few problems with their own directive and that may explain why they haven't talked a lot until recently about the effectiveness of the directive.

Did I correctly understand you to say a couple of minutes ago that there have been only minor changes to the directive since 1988? Is that what I heard you say a couple of minutes ago?

Ms Noble: That's my understanding.

Mr Wood: So the substance of the directive has been the same between 1988 and now?

Ms Noble: With the exceptions that I did note in terms of reflecting the trade agreements and the change to Canadian content.

Mr Wood: In taking a look at the auditor's report, he said: "The Canadian federal government and the other nine provinces do not have guidelines in place to distinguish between political and non-political advertising." He goes on to say, "The United Kingdom and New Zealand have adopted conventions acknowledging that it's quite legitimate for governments to use advertising to communicate with their publics."

We've heard discussion this morning about guidelines in other jurisdictions. British Columbia, for example, has these guidelines. They help ministries develop and maintain their communications plan and ensure that advertising, publishing and promotional resources are used efficiently and effectively.

Madam Deputy, as you pursue the review of this directive, what effect is the auditor's report going to have on your review?

Ms Noble: As I was commenting slightly earlier, the auditor has clearly expressed the opinion that there is insufficient clarity in the directive as it currently stands. As I said, we have been looking at the New Zealand jurisdiction. We are also looking at the UK, and we have some recent Australian experience. But we have also been looking at other jurisdictions, so we are going to be looking at this question and dealing with the question of clarity.

The Chair: One more minute.

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I want to come back to that issue you've referred to with regard to the question of looking at other jurisdictions. It seems to me from the information that has been provided to us that those other jurisdictions have set up what could be described as fairly broad principles. In looking at what appeared to me to be very broad principles, I wonder if you would care to comment on what you see as a possibility in terms of a direction that you'd want to recommend in the way of a directive.

Ms Noble: In terms of looking at those principles, given the auditor's comment that he felt that they provided greater guidance, we obviously have to pay particular attention. I think the comment that they are very much at the level of principle is an accurate one, so we're looking at the language there and looking at it from the point of view of its appropriateness within the Ontario context. But at the moment, given that we are not yet at the stage where we've totally completed our consultation, we've not yet moved to the point of formulating recommended language.

The Chair: The time is up now. We'll have another go around. Mr Cleary.

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): Just to carry on from the previous conversation, how long will it be before you think there will be some changes, or could be some changes?

Ms Noble: As I said, I think as quickly as possible, sometime in the next few months.

Mr Cleary: So that'll be in the year 2000.

Ms Noble: I think certainly at some point they would be there for application during the year 2000-01.

Mr Cleary: OK. At the present time, the director for advertising, I understand, comes from Management Board.

Ms Noble: The directive is approved by Management Board of Cabinet, yes.

Mr Cleary: Right. So all ministries have an input into that advertising.

Ms Noble: Into the creation of the directive?

Mr Cleary: Right.

Ms Noble: We are involving a discussion with other ministries as part of the process we're working through at the moment to formulate recommendations in terms of changes to the current directive. I can't speak to the process that took place when the directive that is currently in place was developed. I wasn't there at the time.

Mr Cleary: Jim, do you have something?

Mr Bradley: Yes. I saw a central control and also you said that ministries had some degree of independence to conduct their advertising as they saw fit. I'm trying to determine just how much control you have over those ministries, whether it's just a general directive or whether you can pronounce on the advertising campaigns that would take place within specific ministries.

Ms Noble: The way in which the directive works at the moment, and you can see from the language, is that individual ministries and individual deputies have accountability under the directive for carrying it out.

What we have as a responsibility centrally relates to the operation of the Advertising Review Board. Ministries are expected to be in compliance with expectations such as, they have to work with the Advertising Review Board for the selection of creative resources. The Advertising Review Board has a role to play specifically where the campaign is expected to be in excess of $500,000. So that all comes through the board and is handled that way.

The staff are responsible for the supports to the procurement process of resources. For instance, where there's a vendor-of-record approach for a roster of creative resources, we provide support to the Advertising Review Board for that procurement process.

In terms of the particulars of the creative content of an advertising campaign, we look at it from a very basic point of view, from a technical point of view, in terms of: Does it look as if it's going to meet the needs of the campaign that the ministry has determined is the campaign they need? For instance, one of the policies which we operate under is to ensure that, depending on the particular campaign, there's a representative reflection of Ontarians, should that be appropriate to the particular campaign.

We check it for those kinds of things, but the actual decision that we need a creative campaign would be made by independent ministries. They would be responsible for having the authorized budget etc for undertaking a campaign and they would be responsible for working within the context of the directive in terms of that campaign being created and carried out.

Mr Bradley: Do you think it would be advantageous for the Management Board Secretariat, being as it is totally non-partisan and independent, to have more specific control over individual campaigns by ministries? I know you set the guidelines; I know there's kind of an overseeing. Do you think that more power should be concentrated in the hands of the Management Board Secretariat to ensure that the advertising by individual ministries is in fact appropriate?

1100

Ms Noble: That's the kind of question we deal with on many fronts, as to whether or not you need centralized control. I think the principles that are at play in the operations of the public administration currently are that there is very much accountability that rests with individual departments and, as I said earlier, individual ministers are responsible for their departments. I think the question of whether or not there should be a centralized control signoff and approval would have to be looked at in the context of whether people felt that that particular accountability was not functioning appropriately.

Mr Bradley: This may be an impossible question to answer, so I'll frame it that way. Would Management Board Secretariat feel slighted by the Legislature or the government deciding that it was going to have an independent review board which would deal strictly with whether advertising is of a partisan nature or it is not? I can think of advertising by every government I've sat in the Legislature with that may be defined as not exactly non-partisan when I think of different ads all through the years. Would noses be out of joint at the Management Board Secretariat if such an agency were established?

Ms Noble: I think I can safely say, from the point of view of the public administration, it's obviously up to the Legislature, if it wishes, to make that decision, or if the government wishes to have an independent body. Would we be slighted if we had an independent body making decisions? That would be someone else's decision and we would be working within that framework.

Ms Martel: I noticed that there were Management Board exemptions to the directive, specifically on page 4 with respect to Canadian content, and then on page 5 with respect to the controls on advertising campaign themes being reviewed by the Advertising Review Board. Can you explain to me under what circumstances Management Board would be permitting exemptions? Can you give us some concrete examples?

Ms Noble: Perhaps in terms of dealing with the trade agreements. The trade agreements call for all advertising over certain levels to be posted. This is really a procurement of services question. I think there would be very rare exceptions, and exemptions are by no means a matter of routine. However, the public posting under the trade agreement requires a minimum number of days of posting. There may be an issue of urgency and it would be on that basis that the board might approve an exemption. So the case would have to be made that it was absolutely urgent that something be done and you didn't have time to go to a public RFP process for X number of days on the MERX.

In those circumstances, that wouldn't necessarily mean that people didn't check and have more than one bid, but they simply would not be posting it publicly on the MERX system, which is what we use as a means of complying with the trade agreement.

Ms Martel: I'm unclear as to the role of the Advertising Review Board. This is a branch of Management Board?

Ms Noble: No, the Advertising Review Board is actually an agency, and the members are appointed by the government.

Ms Martel: By OIC. Are they full-time or part-time?

Ms Noble: They're part-time.

Ms Martel: How many board members?

Ms Suzanna Birchwood: There are currently six board members.

Ms Martel: What are their terms? Are they three-year?

Ms Birchwood: They're appointed to three-year terms.

The Chair: Could you just identify yourself for Hansard.

Ms Birchwood: I'm Suzanna Birchwood, from Management Board, communications.

There are six board members, and they work on three-year terms.

Ms Martel: They would be reviewing every item with respect to communications or advertising that is over $500,000?

Ms Noble: They are responsible for obtaining the services for those which are over $500,000.

Ms Martel: So they just do the tenders, then. Are they responsible for ensuring that the directive is also enforced?

Ms Noble: The directive as it applies to the procurement process. Those are one and the same thing.

Ms Martel: Would there be a difference between procurement, where I would think in terms of supplies on the trade side, versus hiring expertise for ads, like television ads, leaflets, that kind of thing?

Ms Noble: They're responsible for obtaining the creative service. They're not responsible for the content of the campaign. The Advertising Review Board was a response to ensuring that there was some impartiality and to ensure transparency in the way in which this type of service was obtained by government.

Mrs Munro: I want to come back to the question I began on the previous round with regard to the general principles. In the work you're doing right now, are there any jurisdictions which have adopted these principles that you're looking at that have any kind of role for a third party?

Ms Noble: A third party being an independent third party?

Mrs Munro: Yes. There has been much discussion about the notion of the need for a third-party process. I believe we're looking at principles that come from the UK and New Zealand, and I just wondered if, in establishing those principles, they had also established any kind of third-party process.

Ms Noble: Not to our knowledge. In terms of the materials we have, they don't speak to a third party being there.

Mrs Munro: So these in effect are simply guidelines that would cover the kind of work that is being done now?

Ms Noble: The information we have obtained would be the equivalent of our directive. It sets out the expectations and process, and there is no third party mentioned in the materials we have.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Just two things. The first is that at the start I asked for a copy of the 1988 auditor's report, where we looked at government advertising and communications expenditures. Back in 1988, they reported-I'll just read from it:

"Advertising goods and services were acquired with insufficient regard for economy. Many of the expenditures we reviewed did not result from the ministries or the secretariats receiving value for money. For example, competitive selection procedures were not followed for subcontracted goods and services. Estimates invoices were not supported with adequate detail. Excessive costs were incurred. Questionable expenditures were made."

That was done under a 1985 directive. If that could happen under a directive that is virtually unchanged, I have to ask you, in a nutshell, how would you say we've tightened procurement policy so this type of thing doesn't happen again? How would you say we're managing the system better so this type of thing doesn't happen? The Liberals didn't change it after the report came out, the NDP didn't change it and apparently we didn't really change it except for the Canadian content. So I'm just curious; how would you say we've tightened up so this type of thing doesn't happen again?

Ms Noble: There are two elements. One is the content of the directive itself. I think the directive that is in place is fairly clear, and I am not aware that there are particular concerns, given that the issues raised were procurement, that it is the directive that is judged not sufficient. What the audit report of 1988 spoke to was issues of compliance with the directive and that really comes down to the understanding of people about what is expected of them.

What can be said is that as part of the work that is being done in terms of the restructuring and reform within the public service at the moment, there is a great deal of emphasis being placed on the issue of accountability. This is being reinforced with respect to a directive on accountability. It has been made much clearer within the public service in terms of individual managers and staff responsibilities for working within the framework that is set for them.

In terms of what we have done, I think it really has to do with creating and changing culture and reinforcing within the culture the expectations of people that they will operate in compliance with the directive.

As I said, I'm not aware of concerns about the deficiency on the procurement side, although obviously there may be questions that we need to make sure we've looked at before we finalize new language. I think it has much more to do with the culture within the organization, and there has been a considerable amount of effort made to reinforce with management the expectations that these are very serious and that there are clear expectations that they shall be complied with.

1110

Mr Maves: With that in mind, politically I was smiling to myself, but as a taxpayer I was very frustrated when, last year or a year and a half ago, I came home and my wife had a fridge magnet on our fridge of Tommy the Tooth or Marty Molar or somebody with a toothbrush in his hand. It was a red and white fridge magnet, a little thing, and at the bottom all it said was, "Elinor Caplan, Minister of Health." As a taxpayer, I was frustrated. As a politician, I was delighted because at the time Mr Bradley was after our government about what he thought were our partisan ads.

Going by what the auditor talks about, the New Zealand audit office-he uses some of the principles they have in place-this fridge magnet, to me, didn't explain a policy of the government in any way, which is something that New Zealand says it should do. Secondly, it didn't inform the public of government services available to them at the time, unless the tooth was going to come and brush people's teeth for them, I'm not sure, and it didn't inform the public of their rights and liabilities under the law. These are just some of the things that the New Zealand audit office has in place as principles about material.

Given your first answer about a change in culture, do you think the Ministry of Health would be able to produce thousands of fridge magnets like that again, or do you think there's a possibility that could happen again, or with a change in culture and all this, is there anything that would stop us from being able to produce thousands of fridge magnets like that again? I know it's an odd question.

Ms Noble: I'm not sure if it's designed for a straightforward answer. But I think certainly within the context of expectations, we need to deal with the purposes, and I think to the degree that there is clarity brought in terms of the guidelines, and to the degree that whatever those guidelines are, there is work that is outside those guidelines, my view would be that the expectation would be that people would be complying with the guidelines.

I think what I hear being said is in terms of New Zealand, would that comply? The answer probably would be no.

The Vice-Chair (Mr John C. Cleary): Thank you very much. I think the time is up now.

MANAGEMENT BOARD SECRETARIAT

Consideration of section 3.12, Year 2000/information technology preparedness.

The Vice-Chair: OK. Could we move on the next section. I would ask you to introduce your new people as they're coming up to the table.

Ms Noble: Just to go over it again, to my immediate left is Scott Campbell, who is the corporate chief information officer for the OPS. To his left we have Gail Peach, who is with the Ministry of Health office responsible with respect to the outreach on Y2K. I also have, to my right, Paul Scott who is the ADM responsible for the Y2K project for the government of Ontario.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Do you have some opening remarks?

Ms Noble: I do, with the committee's indulgence. I guess the first thing to say is that, all along as we've been working with the Provincial Auditor's office, not just on this most recent report but on the previous one, I think we at the secretariat have been very much concerned that we need to ensure that the public service and the government operations in Ontario are prepared for the year 2000. I'm pleased to advise you that much progress has been made since the auditor's review for the period ending March 31, 1999.

I'd like to, first, provide you with an overview of the program and then to bring you up to date with the status of Y2K or year 2000 readiness of the province and the measures that have been taken to address the issues raised by the auditor.

As I said at the outset, we have found and have taken the challenge of the year 2000 extremely seriously. As the auditor reported, the cost of year 2000 compliance for Ontario government ministries is estimated at between $350 million and $400 million.

In addition, at the time of his review, $324 million had been allocated to hospitals, $32 million to other health sector organizations and $89 million to other key parts of the broader public sector to assist them in their preparations for system remedy and equipment replacement. This has been through ministries such as health, community and social services, and education and training.

The government's year 2000 program began in 1996 when the information and the information technology directions committee established the year 2000 coordination council. As the program began to expand, Management Board Secretariat established the year 2000 corporate project management office-that was in 1997-to coordinate ministry efforts, monitor progress, manage resource issues and report on progress to Management Board of Cabinet. Each ministry is responsible for ensuring its own year 2000 readiness.

The year 2000 project is the largest information technology project the government has undertaken. Our major challenge was to identify, fix, test and reimplement any date-sensitive technology. To achieve this within the time available, we focused resources based on criticality and risk. We also established target dates for completion of significant project activities.

As the project proceeded, we closely monitored and applied confidence ratings for each project. Where acceleration was needed, we required the ministry to develop specific detailed action plans in order to accelerate the project. Throughout the process, we have applied quality assurance measures and due diligence principles to gain comfort that we had done not only the right things, but we had done them in an appropriate fashion.

The auditor acknowledged that we had implemented a number of sound practices in both his 1998 and 1999 reports.

The government's priority was to focus in on the mission-critical projects first. There were 63 projects identified within the Ontario public service where computer systems are essential to a ministry's operations or its ability to provide services to Ontario, where public health and safety may be impacted, or where critical payments or collection of revenue maybe prevented were the systems to fail.

1120

Following his 1999 review, the auditor recommended that the government should further accelerate the conversion of mission-critical projects. I am happy to be able to report to you that all 63 mission-critical projects are now complete and considered Y2K ready.

The government's next level of priorities was to focus on business-critical projects. Business-critical projects include systems or technology components that support mission-critical projects, core businesses or internal administration processes. Two hundred and forty-three such projects were identified as important in supporting the effective and efficient management of government programs and services and are broken down into three levels. Of the 243, 53 were deemed to be business-critical tier 1; 127 were considered business-critical tier 2 projects; and 63 were business-critical tier 3 projects.

To illustrate, an example of a business-critical tier 1 project would be the laboratory equipment project at the Ministry of the Environment. This project has been undertaken to remediate specialized environmental testing equipment at the ministry's laboratories. The Ontario Science Centre exhibits and support systems is an example of a business-critical tier two project. They are with the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. This project involves the remediation of attraction exhibits and support systems including computerized exhibits, OMNIMAX theatre systems, security systems and telephone systems at the centre.

The remediation of a correspondence tracking system which tracks the receipt and disposition of correspondence received by the deputy's office and other offices at the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is an example of a business-critical tier 3 project. Through those examples, I hope the committee can see the way we weighted and set priorities at the three levels.

During the 1999 review, the auditor recommended that the government further accelerate the conversion of business-critical projects. As of November 16, 91% of all business-critical projects were complete. The corporate project management office has reviewed and confirmed ministry plans for completing all required business-critical systems by the end of 1999. Contingency plans are in place for any projects that are currently incomplete and which support necessary service.

The auditor has also recommended that the government should further accelerate the development of contingency plans. Each ministry is responsible for developing and testing a comprehensive business continuity plan for its key businesses, focussing on maintaining critical business operations should problems occur. I am pleased to report that all ministries have plans in place that will be activated in the event of a disruption.

To meet the year 2000 challenge, the government has also identified priority sectors, which include the broader public health sector, public safety and emergency preparedness, water and sewage, and power. The broader public sector organizations and other service providers are responsible for their own year 2000 readiness. However, the government is liaising with these organizations and service providers and collecting information from them about their own states of year 2000 readiness. Depending on their relationship, ministries have provided some financial support and assistance to the BPS organizations and other service providers from time to time.

The auditor expressed his particular concern with regard to the broader public health sector and recommended that the government should intensify monitoring the readiness of hospitals. On the basis of data provided by the hospital sector, 89% of hospitals will have completed their remediation by the end of November and 100% by December 31, 1999. More than 92% of all hospitals have reported completion of their contingency plans, and all will be done by the end of December.

At the end of his summary report, the auditor referenced other detailed review observations. Included in them, the auditor recommended that the Ontario Realty Corp should devote additional resources to its remediation efforts, closely monitor progress and develop contingency plans. Additional resources have been assigned to complete outstanding work including the development of contingency plans. In addition, the corporate project management office continues to closely monitor ORC's progress.

The auditor also recommended that MBS should develop and distribute system certification criteria as soon as possible and set target dates for systems to be certified. I am pleased to report that ministries confirmed their state of readiness as at September 30, 1999, using a self-assessment or certification program which incorporated information from independent third-party reviews.

Finally, the auditor recommended that ministries should ensure that their business-critical project plans include detailed steps for each phase. Ministries have submitted detailed action plans to the corporate project management office.

As we approach January 1, 2000, I believe we have taken prudent measures to manage the risk associated with the year 2000. We have implemented plans to restrict activity at key times and control the systems production environment to promote a smooth transition through the critical event period. In addition, a corporate response centre and ministry response centres will be established to address potential disruptions and issues that may arise during the transition period. Vacation and overtime policies are in place to ensure that key staff will be available during the transition period, which has been defined as December 27 through January 10. Protocols are being developed to effectively manage communications as well.

During the transition period the corporate response centre will have a representative in the Emergency Measures Ontario provincial operation centre to act as a liaison and keep the corporate response centre apprised of emergency situations in the unlikely event that any should occur.

The government has taken the challenge of year 2000 extremely seriously, and we will continue to manage the risks related to the year 2000 in order to minimize service disruption for Ontario citizens and to protect their safety and well-being.

This concludes my remarks to the committee.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. It is my understanding that we'll go in five-minute rotations starting with the official opposition.

Mr Bradley: Like Mr Maves, I am amazed that nobody figured this was going to be a problem until the late 1990s, and now it's all we hear. We're probably sick of hearing Y2K, but nobody anywhere seemed to talk about Y2K problems until nearly the very end.

I guess the overall question I have, in the absolutely worst-case scenario we hear from those who have written those books and promote them on various radio and television programs, what contingency plans are there, if you are able to reveal them, in terms of public order if all hell breaks loose on January 1, 2000? That's the most extreme scenario, but you keep hearing people saying this could happen and we'll have the army in the streets and maybe no police are going to be able to be off at that time.

What contingency plans are there in terms of public security?

Ms Noble: Perhaps I could answer generally and then invite colleagues to add anything if they wish.

In general, the approach to this at all levels has been one of very strong co-operation and coordination. Consequently we hear that the province has been working very closely with the federal government initiatives on their very strong ties between Emergency Measures here in Ontario and the people in Ottawa, and so they are coordinating plans within their own operations. Emergency Measures here in Ontario is working with individual municipal jurisdictions within the context of how they work together around Emergency Measures plans.

At the individual municipal level, clearly they would be making plans with respect to public security within their own areas, and so I don't have details of which incident would promote what reaction. But I think I can tell the committee that the manner in which this has been done has been based on very strong cooperation between various levels of government and in terms of jurisdictions across the country. As well, I'm aware that the federal government is also working in cooperation on a North American grid. So we have a series of groups working cooperatively, one with the other, in terms of insuring that plans are in place.

I don't know whether Paul wants to add anything to that.

Mr Paul Scott: Only to say that the provincial operations centre, which is the instrument of Emergency Measures Ontario operation, will be in operation beginning December 30, as if there were an emergency, and totally prepared to respond to any kind of emergency that arises and, as the deputy said, is in touch with the national contingency planning group in Ottawa. So every step has been taken, and they've all been tested. There was a two-day test of our emergency measures operations in September to ensure we'd be ready.

Mr Bradley: Again, it's difficult for government to control everything. We talked about hospitals a little while ago in the committee. Without going into detail since we were in camera, I guess, we talked about what happens with hospitals and so on. But what about something even broader than that, over which you would have a bit of leverage only because you pay the bills?

Let's focus on medical things, for instance. Whatever is going to happen with doctors' offices and other medical clinics that aren't hospitals, which you can fairly directly control. Whatever is going to happen in those situations? How are we controlling them, and how are we assisting them with their computer systems. As we know, virtually everything is on computer, and I guess there are two things to look at: You could make a mistake money-wise but, more importantly, a mistake on medication or on a diagnosis or something of that nature. How much control do we have there and how much directive have we given there?

1130

Ms Gail Peach: We have been surveying on a quarterly basis all of the broader health care sector, all of the institutional components. We also did a survey of the medical profession, laboratories and pharmacies across this province through a telephone survey that was randomly sampled. We did a very extensive survey at the beginning specifically with physicians to identify very clearly what type of equipment they had in their offices, and we found out that there was actually very little equipment in their offices that would be implicated because of computer chips and digitalization.

We also then funded all of the health care associations, such as the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Medical Association and the pharmacists' association, to develop educational materials and toolkits that were distributed to their members so that they would be able to know what the issue was and how to proceed in an organized way to address the problem. We believe and certainly the reports that we get back from the associations are that there has been very extensive education and support provided to all components of the broader health care sector.

Ms Martel: I ask for the indulgence of the deputy. I do want to ask questions on this, but there was one question that I forgot on the advertising, so I just want to go back to it.

The directive on page 5 is very clear. I'll just quote it for Hansard: "The names of ministers and/or deputy ministers are not to appear on any government advertisement, pamphlet, brochure, sign or any other media." With respect to the blue highway signs that say, "Your tax dollars at work," have Mike Harris's name on them. They say, "Premier Harris." I'm wondering how that is allowed to happen even now under this directive.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): It's the same directive you were under.

Ms Martel: I just wanted to raise the point that it's happening now under the Conservatives, and I'd like to know why this is happening and who authorized it.

Ms Noble: The decision about the highway signs was not something that was dealt with through Management Board, if you're asking that question, whether it would be part of a decision that would have been made on program content. I think the question of that language in the directive and its use is something that obviously is under review. It's also a particular element that's addressed I believe in the United Kingdom guidelines, where they actually do allow that there could be names, but under certain circumstances.

Ms Martel: Without changing the directive, because you've told us that the current directive is in place and you're looking at revisions, right now under the directive, as I read page 5, a minister's name, and that would include the Premier because he is a minister, should not be on a sign. It is explicitly forbidden under this guideline, and I would like to know how it happens that right now on highway signs in the province, Premier Harris's name appears. Who authorized that?

Ms Noble: As I said, I don't have the answer to that question in the sense that the decision about content is made by the individual ministries. The question of those signs would not have come through the Advertising Review Board or any central process in that sense, so I can't give you the answer to the question.

Ms Martel: But it would have come to Management Board, would it not?

Ms Noble: No. The design of those signs-in fact, I don't even believe that the money for the signs would have come through. They would have been part of the program project in terms of highway signage.

Ms Martel: What signs are we referring to, then, in the directive if they're not highway signs? What kind of signs are we talking about?

Ms Noble: I wasn't arguing about the definition of a sign. You were questioning who authorized, and I was indicating I didn't have the answer.

Mrs Munro: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I just wanted to raise the issue that we had already agreed on the times for the discussions on this issue. I think that we have heard an answer from the deputy on the issue, and I would just ask that we go back to our original agreement on the times for discussion of items.

The Vice-Chair: OK. We'll let the deputy finish the answer and then we'll move on.

Ms Martel: She said she doesn't know, so I would ask the deputy to return to this committee-you can send it by mail to our research officer when you find out the details of how that was authorized, because my read of it would be clearly that it should not be authorized and those signs should be taken down. I would like to know how this managed to get past a directive which very clearly talks about signs.

The Vice-Chair: I think we'll have to move on with another question, because we agreed on the 40 minutes for each issue.

Ms Martel: With respect to hospitals, the ones that did not comply even after the auditor had made a recommendation and expressed very serious concerns about Y2K and hospitals not being in compliance, can you give us some indication of what the problem was with those 20 or 30 or so hospitals that even after they were clearly asked by the Ministry of Health to let the ministry know the level of compliance still managed to delay and stall?

Ms Peach: The auditor's report was as a result of a survey that was taken in January. At that time there were 20 hospitals that indicated through their self-assessment that they were not sure they would be able to be compliant and be ready for year 2000 by December.

We have continued to survey on a quarterly basis until September of this year and then we moved into monthly surveys. Since the summer survey, all hospitals have clearly indicated from their self-assessments that they will be compliant for the year 2000. There is no hospital outstanding. In fact, with the directive that went out in October by the deputy minister requesting that signed statements be received by our office that all contingency plans be in place, we have now a 96% response rate that indicates that all hospitals do have their contingency plans in place. The four outstanding hospitals we have been in touch with on a weekly basis, and they have indicated that they will have those signed statements to our office by the end of November.

Ms Mushinski: I'd like to pursue what's been identified by the auditor in terms of the accountability framework and the relationship of the Ministry of Health to the transfer partners or to the broader public sector.

It seems to me that the hospitals, as I recall, were asked to identify what the funding requirements would be in order to upgrade their computers to become Y2K compliant. The money was flowed, my understanding is, much earlier this year, probably January or February, in order to do that. Yet there were still I think 40 or 41 hospitals that did not become compliant by the time the auditor had completed his audit and there was some significant resistance from those hospitals to obey the ministry's directive, if that's correct.

Could you tell me what you have done to make sure that compliance is ready by the year 2000 and, given that certain critical components have been identified, what we're putting in place to make sure that our transfer partners do indeed comply with ministry directives in the future?

Ms Noble: Perhaps I could just make a general statement and then turn it over to Gail.

One of the things in terms of dealing with the broader public sector on this issue, from the government's perspective, the various agencies that the government has dealings with, whether they be hospitals or children's aid societies or some other institution, from the perspective of responsibilities, these are independent organizations and they have an independent responsibility for the operations of their corporations, and I use that term in its very general sense.

Consequently, the role the government has been playing has been one very much ensuring that the sectors we deal with are fully aware of the issues. They are aware of their obligations in terms of readiness and to provide support as we can, in terms of making sure that they are ready. That's the framework within which we've been operating. I will turn it over to Gail Peach to respond in terms of the specifics of your question.

1140

Ms Peach: Certainly with the results that were reported by the auditor, those were January survey results of a self-assessment. In order to remediate the equipment that exists within hospitals, that takes a certain amount of time, so there was never any expectation that the remediation would be completed by January 1999. The expectation was that remediation and contingency planning would be completed by December 31, 1999, so that the health care system would be ready as we passed through the millennium.

The results are indicating very clearly now that the hospitals are ready and that they have, as of November 15, notified their stakeholders, their communities, as to their state of readiness.

In terms of the accountability and the money that was flowed, in September we did survey the field to gain an estimate as to the costs that were anticipated to do the remediation and preparation for year 2000. Since that point in time, $387 million has flowed to the broader health care sector to assist them with their remediation and contingency implementation plans.

Mr Erik Peters: I just want to make a small clarification. We never asked whether hospitals were ready in January 1999, that they were complying. You had asked in January 1999, "Will you be ready by December 1999, with the readiness?" I just wanted to clarify that point.

Ms Mushinski: I understood that.

Mr Peters: OK, good.

The Vice-Chair: The official opposition.

Mr Bradley: When you transfer money to various agencies for the purposes of dealing with Y2K problems, how do you police the fact that the money that is allocated to them is actually spent on Y2K problems and not squirreled away in some other account for other purposes?

Ms Noble: Each ministry's practice varies slightly, but in general we're asking that there be a submission and reconciliation of accounts so that we will have a chance. It won't be for some time, because we're waiting for the material to come in the post-January 1 period. But the processes do include reconciliation.

I don't know if you want more details. We can get some more details from the health sector specifically. Money has been given. If it's found, again specifically in health, it doesn't meet the requirements, then there is an ability to work within the existing financing framework to ensure they only got what they needed for Y2K purposes as part of this initiative.

Mr Bradley: When you were seized of this problem, let's put it that way, for the first time-you may have brought consultants in; more likely you have your own expertise within the ministry of course-did you sit down to try to anticipate how crooks might take advantage of the Y2K problem to disrupt government?

I guess if we were in revolutionary mode where we didn't have a democracy, we might worry that people were going to use it to overthrow the government or something. In this case, I'm thinking of people who could be crooked and try to take advantage of the Y2K problem. Did you have people who anticipated that and you dealt with the problem?

Ms Noble: I think as we approach the date all the parties involved in this process have anticipated that there may be those who wish to cause disruptions and take advantage of the expectation or the possibility of disruption, and steps have been taken. I would leave to Scott Campbell the comments specifically in terms of our own network and computer operations.

Mr Scott Campbell: In terms of the issues around security, we have the normal procedures around security in terms of virus scanning, firewalls, proxy servers, things like that. But in terms of what we are actually doing over the transition period, as we call it, from December 31 to January 1, we have a heightened level of security preparedness. It's fair to say there have been a number of things in the media about this. We are ensuring that all our virus scanning software, for example, is up to date. We are ensuring that all ministries have their virus scanning software up to date. The same thing is true for firewalls and so on.

The other point I would make is that over this transition period, basically this 24- to 48-hour period, we are only running that which is absolutely essential. We're not running all our systems, thereby reducing our exposure to what's absolutely critical to run over that period. As we go through that period and see that things are stable or they need some adjustment, we'll start ramping back up and reinitiating the systems. As you know, December 31 falls on a Friday, and we have a Saturday, Sunday and of course a holiday Monday, so in effect we have three days in which we can reinitiate the various systems and so on.

Ms Martel: Of the $350 million to $400 million that it has cost to comply, how much of that would have been directed to hospitals? Do you have a breakdown ministry by ministry or sector by sector?

Ms Noble: There are actually two amounts. The $350 million to $400 million that I was referring to specifically is a range on the government, in terms of remediation of its own operations. There is a separate amount that has been set, and I believe currently the number is $355 million, for the health sector.

Ms Martel: Those would have been the two significant expenditures, internal government ministries and then specifically hospitals.

Ms Noble: Yes.

Ms Martel: What about labs?

Ms Peach: According to the eligibility criteria determined by Management Board, labs were not eligible for financial assistance from the province of Ontario.

Mr Maves: First of all I want to congratulate you, because the auditor, in general terms, for the most part is pleased by the performance that the government has had on Y2K readiness. We shouldn't lose sight of that. You deserve some congratulations.

My last question is going to be, where are you all going to be on New Year's eve, so I feel safe?

You said government-wide you spent $400 million; on the health sector, $355 million. Do you have a number that we spent on the whole BPS?

Mr Campbell: In terms of the Ontario public service itself-that's the Ontario government directly-to date we've spent $316 million. In terms of the broader public sector partners and agents, we've spent $163 million. In addition, for medical equipment there's another $300 million. So the total is $780 million.

Ms Noble: Just to clarify, that's actual expenditures to date. We are anticipating that there are still some bills that we have not yet received. In other words, expenditures have been made but the monies have not yet been recovered. So the numbers, when we finally finish with this, will be higher than the ones we've just given you.

1150

Mr Maves: My question is actually to Mr Campbell, because I think he is an IT specialist. Mr Bradley, when he started off, alluded to it, and that is when people first really tweaked to the whole Y2K problem. I think the earliest we heard of anyone really starting to do something about it was the Bank of Montreal in 1994.

I don't know how long you've been in the government of Ontario, but I just wonder, when did people within the government start to say, "We've got to do something about this"? In general, why do you think it took until the latter half of the 1990s to really get moving on it?

Mr Campbell: You've asked three questions. The answer to your first question is that I've been with the Ontario public service in excess of 27 years.

Secondly, we started to deal with the Y2K issue in November 1996.

Thirdly, in terms of the latter part of your question, I think there is always a tendency to say, "Maybe this will be solved in other ways," and so on.

I think what happened in the early to mid-1990s is that there were many people who felt that many of the systems that were around at the time were actually going to be replaced, that: "Oh, we'll never keep this system up. We're obviously going to replace it with X or Y." As the middle of the 1990s came upon us, people said, "Oh no, I guess we're not. We're going to keep this system, so therefore we have to repair the system as opposed to replacing it." We couldn't replace it, either because we didn't have the time or, alternatively, we wouldn't have had the money. It's a very significant exercise from a financial point of view to replace some of these systems.

And to answer your question, Mr Maves, I will be in the corporate response centre on December 31.

Mr Maves: None of you will be flying?

Ms Noble: No, we'll be here.

Mr Bradley: Not as exciting as my New Year's Eve.

The Chair: You'll be here; we all know that.

Mrs Munro: I just wanted to echo Mr Maves's comments with regard to the work that has been done, obviously in a relatively short period of time. The issue that I think you identified was the issue of the broader public sector and the ways by which that had to be addressed. I think on a long-term basis all of us recognize that that continues to be an issue in providing direction, so I simply want to add a note of congratulations on getting it all together. I'm glad to know that's where you'll be New Year's Eve.

Mr Bradley: I can't possibly think of many more questions to ask about computers, since my laptop consists of a sheaf of lists and my knowledge of computers has been described by some as medieval.

I'm intrigued by the fact that simply changing a date into a new century can somehow throw all these computer systems into disarray. I just find that flabbergasting, if that's a proper use of that word. So unless Mr Gerretsen has some further insights into these computer problems, I certainly will terminate my comments now.

The Chair: My knowledge is just one year ahead of your knowledge. That's about all.

Thank you very much, all of you, for your attendance here this morning and for the answers to the questions that you gave.

1998 ANNUAL REPORT

The Chair: There is one other matter that I wanted to very quickly deal with with the committee before 12 o'clock.

You may recall the 1998 annual report. The issue was raised that there were some time-specific issues in that report and in order to give that report any meaning at all, some of those times had to be changed.

Ms Mushinski: Extended.

The Chair: Yes, they had to be extended, in some cases by six months. Where, let's say, it had been a year but that year has already passed, I think the suggestion has been made that it be six months. Would you like to address that, Ray?

Mr Ray McLellan: Elaine Campbell prepared this report last year. Elaine is in my office. I sat down and talked to her, and she said that in some instances we'll just have to make adjustments. It's more of a technical nature and certainly doesn't change the content of the report.

As you can see on page 3, paragraph 3, January of this year to January 1998, it's minor things, and in some cases it was a tense they have changed, but certainly not the substance of the report. I have Elaine's assurance on that.

I did speak with the auditor briefly after the last meeting on this issue, and also I spoke with the Chair about it. If the committee is in agreement, it seems to me that it's a fairly straightforward thing. Hopefully that's the case.

Mrs Munro: The only comment I would just wish to make is that in accepting these changes, it's on the understanding-during our previous meeting I believe we had agreed that there would be no changes. I recognize the advice that's being provided to us here today, but just for the record to understand that despite the commitment that we had made previously to accepting it without change, we are now accepting it without change except for these suggestions.

The Chair: I believe it was discussed at the tail end of the last meeting; I could be in error on that. But in effect some of these are merely grammatical changes.

Mrs Munro: I understand that. I'm not objecting to that. I'm just saying that it was my understanding that, when we left the last meeting, the direction was that this would be accepted without change. All I want is to make it clear that, while accepting that in principle, we are then prepared to pass it now with these changes. Is that fair to everyone?

The Chair: That's my understanding.

Mr Maves: Just a question. Is this common practice, that this committee has to approve retroactive changes to a report? Is that why this comes here?

Mr Peters: I just wanted to help out. If you'll recall, at the last meeting the report was distributed to everybody just at the very tail end. What happened is, actually, as you walked out the door you flipped it open and it said all of a sudden that this committee should have had the report by April 1, 1999, on this issue and by the others. Then we had a little bit of a huddle as to how we best deal with it, and the idea was that the researcher would go through and see where we might have been in default; in other words, by tabling the report, by saying we expected reports to happen or things to happen that just didn't happen and the committee didn't know if they had happened or whatever. So what we're doing now-the approach was taken that the researcher would go through the report and see, where there are factual corrections of this nature to be made, that they would be brought forward to this committee. That's where we stand right now and that's why you have it in front of you.

Mr Maves: Do we need to look at the implications of these?

Mr Peters: The only implication is that somewhere you might want a briefing as to whether some of the reports that were promised or that were to be looked at-whether you wanted to have that brought forward or deal with those reports that were in stage. That's really the only other implication.

Mr Maves: Is there any reason why we couldn't just approve this at our next meeting?

The Chair: Maybe that's the best way to deal with it in all fairness, because it was Ms Martel that insisted there be no changes made. Then later on there was discussion to the effect that if there were just some of these grammatical and time changes, she had no problem. Since she isn't here, I quite frankly would prefer to hear her comments as well before we deal with this. Perhaps we could just table this until our next meeting.

Mrs Munro: I'll move adjournment.

The Chair: We're adjourned until next Thursday.

The committee adjourned at 1158.