►
From YouTube: Standing Committee on Public Accounts
Description
Legislative Assembly of Alberta
assembly.ab.ca
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
Public
Accounts
to
order
welcome
everyone
in
attendance.
My
name
is
Shannon
Phillips
I'm,
the
MLA
for
Lethbridge
West
and
chair
of
this
committee.
I'd,
ask
the
members
and
those
joining
the
committee
at
the
table
introduce
themselves
for
the
record
and
then
I
will
call
on
those
joining
us
by
video
conference.
We'll
begin
with
Deputy
chair.
B
And
we
do
have
four
members
joining
us
by
video
conference
this
morning,
we'll
start
with
we'll
go
with
member
Singh
member
tour
member
lovely
member
Stefan.
If
you
could
introduce
yourselves
released.
B
We
have
a
few
housekeeping
items.
The
microphones
are
operated
by
Hansard
staff
committee
proceedings
are
live,
streamed
on
the
internet
and
broadcast
on
Alberta
assembly
TV
and,
of
course,
the
audio
and
transcripts
of
meetings
can
be
accessed
by
the
Legislative
Assembly
website.
Those
participating
by
video
conference
encourage
please
turn
on
your
camera.
B
When
speaking
and
mute
your
microphone
when
not
speaking,
members
participating
virtually,
who
wish
to
be
placed
on
a
speaker's
list
are
asked
to
email
or
send
a
message
to
the
committee
clerk
Warren,
Huffman
and
members
in
the
room
are
asked
to
please
signal
to
the
chair.
Please
set
your
cell
phones
and
other
devices
to
silent
for
the
duration
of
the
meeting,
we'll
now
move
on
to
approval
of
the
agenda.
Are
there
any
changes
or
additions
to
the
draft
agenda
to
the
room,
seeing
none?
B
If
not,
would
someone
like
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
agenda
moved
by
the
deputy
chair
that
the
standing
committee,
or
on
Public
Accounts,
approved
the
draft
agenda
for
today's
meeting
as
distributed?
Is
there
any
discussion
on
this
motion
seeing
none
all
in
favor.
C
B
B
Oh
and
we
have
a
member
Yasin
who
has
joined
us
virtually
remember
you've,
seen
if
you'd
like
to
introduce
yourself
for
the
record.
B
Very
good,
thank
you
member.
We
will
now
move
on
to
the
approval
of
the
minutes.
We
have
minutes
from
the
December
13th
meeting
of
the
committee.
Do
members
have
any
errors
or
missions
to
note.
B
C
B
Opposed
thank
you.
That
motion
is
carried
now,
we'll
move
on
to
our
guests
from
the
office
of
the
auditor
general
who
are
here
to
address
the
report
of
the
auditor,
general
November,
2022
and
other
reports.
Now
normally,
we
would
have
15
minutes
of
opening
remarks
of
the
between
the
ministry
and
the
auditor
general.
However,
the
AG
has
asked
to
have
up
to
20
minutes
to
make
his
opening
remarks.
We'll
still
follow
the
same
structure
subsequent
to
that
to
15
and
15,
followed
by
10
10
10
10
10..
B
Are
there
any
objects
to
objections
to
this
request,
seeing
none?
We
will
now
invite
the
governor
general
to
provide
his
opening
remarks
not
exceeding
20
minutes.
Thank.
G
You
well
thank
you
very
much
chair
and
committee
members.
We
might
not
take
the
20,
but
just
wanted
to
give
my
assistant
Auditors
General
an
opportunity
to
provide
a
bit
of
an
overview
of
of
their
work,
so
I
won't
be
speaking
too
much
I'm
not
going
to
reintroduce
the
members
of
the
table.
G
I
would
like
to
introduce
a
couple
of
members
sitting
in
the
gallery,
though
this
morning,
and
we
have
Karen
zoltenko,
who
is
our
business
leader
on
the
audit
side,
so
she
looks
after
all
of
our
audit
methodology
and
make
sure
we're
on
this
straight
and
narrow.
With
respect
to
how
we're
doing
our
work,
we
have
Pam
Appleman,
who
is
my
chief
of
staff,
and
then
we
have
Cheryl
Schneider,
who
is
the
head
of
our
stakeholder
engagement?
So
I
welcome
them
here
today
as
well.
G
G
G
It
summarizes
the
results
of
our
financial
statement
audits
and
those
results
actually
enable
us
to
issue
a
clean
audit
opinion
on
the
Consolidated
financial
statements
of
the
province
this
year,
which
is
a
very
good
thing.
The
report
also
identifies
opportunities
to
improve
processes
to
better
program
and
Service
delivery
of
the
government.
It
also
highlights
opportunities
for
improved
accountability
to
albertans,
for
results
achieved
with
public
resources.
G
Our
office
provides
government
decision
makers
and
members
of
the
legislative
assembly
each
of
you
individually
and
collectively
you
today
in
this
committee
the
findings
and
recommendations
which
we
hope
help
improve
the
performance
and
promote
accountability
within
government.
Now
we
track
and
follow
up
all
of
our
recommendations,
and
our
report
includes
a
summary
of
those
outstanding
recommendations.
G
I
am
pleased
to
report
that
22
of
our
previous
recommendations
have
been
implemented
and
that
we
made
16
new
recommendations
since
the
release
of
our
November
21
report
and
you'll
notice,
those
in
each
one
of
the
individual
sections
they
will
be
highlighted
as
new
and
I
believe
the
aags
are
going
to
briefly
introduce
those
to
you
this
morning.
Our
monitoring
of
those
outstanding
recommendations
help
ensure
that
they
are
acted
upon
and
we
do
sincerely
appreciate
the
efforts
of
this
Committee
in
helping
Advance
the
implementation
of
our
recommendations.
I
Good
morning,
everyone
and
thank
you
Doug,
so
I'll
walk
through
the
highlights
of
our
audit
of
the
government
of
Alberta's
Consolidated
financial
statements.
Those
highlights
start
on
page
10
of
our
November
2022
report
and
include
our
audit
opinion
and
the
key
audit
matters.
So
we
issued
a
clean
opinion
on
the
province's
Consolidated
financial
statements,
which
means
that
we
concluded
the
financial
statements
are
free
from
material
misstatement
and
presented
fairly
in
accordance
with
Canadian
public
sector
accounting
standards.
I
The
key
audit
matters,
which
are
those
matters
that
would
be
the
most
significant
items
to
our
audit
and
our
conclusion
on
those
matters,
are
listed
on
page
14
of
our
report
and
I'll
touch
briefly
on
those.
The
first
key
audit
matter
was
the
government's
investment
in
the
Northwest
Redwater
partnership
during
2021
government
restructured
its
arrangement
with
the
sturgeon
refinery,
and
we
examine
the
restructuring
transactions
and
ensured
those
were
properly
recorded
and
disclosed
within
the
financial
statements.
I
The
second
key
audit
matter
was
environmental
liabilities.
These
are
subject
to
significant
judgment
and
estimation
and
We
examined
how
those
liabilities
are
recognized
and
disclosed
within
this
province's
financial
statements.
I
The
liabilities
primarily
from
sites
used
by
the
Ministry
of
Transportation,
as
well
as
the
ministry
of
environment
and
parks
and
the
Alberta
energy
regulator,
the
next
key
audit
matter
I
want
to
touch
on
were
the
electricity
rebates
to
albertans
the
50
per
month.
Rebates
were
announced
close
to
year
end
and
our
Focus
was
on
ensuring
those
costs
of
those
rebates
were
recorded
in
the
proper
period
and
the
last
key
audit
matter
was
the
covid-19
response,
costs
and
programs.
I
The
next
audit
I
want
to
talk
about
is
our
performance
audit
of
the
covid-19
capital
stimulus
initiative.
The
initiative
was
announced
by
government
in
June
2020
and
was
part
of
Alberta's
economic
recovery
plan.
The
government
committed
to
spend
1.6
billion
dollars
on
new
capital
and
maintenance
projects
and
estimated
that
investment
would
create
7
500
jobs.
I
Our
audit
approach
looked
at
systems
to
design
the
initiative
deliver.
It
monitor
the
results
and
report
back
to
albertans
on
the
results.
We
found
that
the
department
had
effective
systems
to
design,
deliver
and
monitor
the
initiative.
Existing
Capital
planning
systems
were
used
which
allowed
the
department
to
get
the
initiative
up
and
running
quickly
and
efficiently.
I
We
identified
one
area
of
improvement,
the
reporting
back
to
albertans
on
the
results
of
the
initiative,
and
we
found
that
the
Department's
annual
reporting
did
not
include
an
analysis
of
whether
the
desired
results
of
the
initiative
were
achieved.
Department's
reporting
focused
on
Project
spending
and
construction
status.
However,
there
was
no
reporting
back
on
the
number
of
jobs
created
by
this
initiative.
E
We
issued
no
new
recommendations
from
our
2022
financial
statement
audits
of
these
Ministries.
In
our
November
report,
we
did
Issue
new
recommendations
to
some
of
these
Ministries
earlier
this
year
from
our
audit
work,
which
we
publicly
reported
in
March
and
May.
Most
of
the
outstanding
recommendations
in
these
Ministries
have
been
made
within
the
past
three
years.
However,
both
the
advanced
education
and
education
have
relatively
old
outstanding
recommendations
dating
back
between
seven
to
almost
10
years.
E
Advanced
education,
including
the
post-secondary
institutions,
have
the
largest
number
of
outstanding
recommendations
at
16..
As
we've
just
recently
completed
financial
statement.
Audit
work
on
the
province's
post-secondary
institutions
with
June
30th
fiscal
year
ends.
We
will
report
the
results
of
our
2022
audit
work
on
all
post-secondary
institutions
in
our
annual
PSI
report
card
in
the
first
part
of
calendar,
2023.
E
I
would
like
to
draw
the
committee's
attention
to
Performance
artwork.
We
did
on
the
small
and
medium
Enterprise
relaunch
grant
program,
starting
on
page
87
of
our
November
report.
The
objective
of
our
audit
was
to
assess
if
the
Department
of
Jobs
economy
and
Innovation
had
effective
processes
to
design
deliver,
Monitor
and
report
on
that
program.
E
The
program
was
designed
with
one
significant
difference
from
a
normal
funding
program
and
that
the
department
relied
on
applicants,
assertions
that
they
were
eligible
for
the
program
and
did
not
verify
those
eligibility
assertions
until
after
a
benefit
payment
was
made.
That
was
reasonable,
given
the
need
to
quickly
get
money
out
to
albertans.
E
It's
important
to
note
that
our
recommendation
is
not
about
the
number
of
verifications
that
were
completed,
but
the
sampling
method
applied
by
the
department
in
doing
their
verifications.
We
found
the
method
used,
did
not
allow
the
department
to
extrapolate
the
results
of
their
testing
over
the
remainder
of
the
population
to
be
able
to
conclude
the
program
recipient
eligibility.
Overall,
Department
management
needs
to
determine
what
further
verification
testing
work
is
required
to
conclude
on
program
recipient
eligibility
and
clearly
explain
to
albertans
the
results.
E
We
also
followed
up
on
the
Department
of
Labor
and
immigration's
post,
a
similar
post
payment
eligibility
verification
work
on
the
emergency
isolation,
Support
Program,
which
we
reported
on
in
March
and
include
that
in
our
page
or
on
page
108
of
of
our
November
report.
There
we
also
found
post
payment
eligibility.
Verification
processes
were
insufficient
to
allow
that
department
to
make
any
conclusion
on
the
extent
of
program
recipient
eligibility.
We
did
not
make
a
recommendation
to
labor
and
immigration
to
complete
this
process.
E
H
Thanks
Rob
good
morning
last
year,
I
had
responsibility
for
audit
work
in
the
ministries
of
children's
services,
community
and
Social
Services
seniors
and
housing,
indigenous
relations,
Municipal
Affairs
and
Justice
and
solicitor
general
this
past
year.
We
did
not
issue
any
recommendations
arising
for
my
from
our
2022
financial
statement
audits
really
relating
to
any
of
these
Ministries.
H
But
I
will
briefly
take
you
through
some
of
the
highlights
of
the
performance
audit
work
that
my
team's
completed
this
year
on
page
37
of
our
November
report.
We
describe
the
performance
audit
that
we
completed
at
community
and
Social
Services
on
their
family
support
for
children
with
disabilities
program.
H
We
focus
this
audit
on
processes
used
by
caseworkers
to
assess
family
and
child
needs
and
then
to
develop
support
plans.
We
selected
these
areas
because
judgment
is
required
and
this
increases
the
risk
of
inconsistencies
occurring
in
program
delivery
across
the
province.
In
fact,
the
department
released
a
report
last
December
where
inconsistencies
in
program
delivery
were
a
common
theme
based
on
our
audit
findings.
We
made
three
new
recommendations:
centering
on
updating
guides
for
staff
that
support
these
processes.
H
H
However,
errors
are
still
occurring
in
important
areas
such
as
asset
recording
and
financial
planning,
and
so
we
repeated
the
recommendation
that
the
office
ensures
policies
and
procedures
are
being
consistently
complied
with
and
finally,
on
page
111
of
the
report,
we
describe
the
performance
audit
we
completed
at
Municipal
Affairs
on
their
two
coveted
programs
called
most
and
MSP
together.
Under
these
programs,
the
department
issued
1.1
billion
dollars
in
Grants
to
municipalities
across
Alberta.
H
The
other
program
was
intended
to
stimulate
the
economy
and
create
local
jobs
by
funding
shovel
ready
capital
projects,
the
tarp,
the
the
pardon
me
the
department
was
able
to
use
existing
systems
and
resources
to
administer
these
programs,
and
so
we
found
that
they
had
adequate
processes
in
place
to
design,
deliver
and
monitor
the
programs.
However,
we
did
note
the
department
could
have
improved
how
they
reported
on
the
results
achieves
with
these
monies
in
their
annual
report.
F
Good
morning,
for
the
time
remaining,
I
wanted
to
highlight
new
recommendations.
We
made
to
energy
environment,
Parks,
now,
environment,
protected
areas
and
health.
Since
the
otter
General's
report
released
last
fall,
the
details
of
these
were
included
in
releases
from
our
office
earlier
in
the
year.
Firstly,
for
energy,
we
completed
a
performance
audit
on
the
site
rehabilitation
program
and
we
did
find
that
the
department
had
done
a
good
job
when
it
came
to
designing
monitoring
and
Reporting
on
that
program.
F
We
do
not
see
evidence
how
the
department
evaluated
this
risk
and
what
responses
were
considered
to
support
its
its
decision,
making
a
lot
of
that
was
done,
informally
in
environment
and
protected
areas.
We
completed
a
performance
audit
on
the
pesticide
Management
program
and
we
made
three
recommendations
to
the
department.
The
three
areas
were
to
properly
monitor
risks,
ensure
public
information
on
pesticides
is
current
and
accurate
and
as
well
as
having
suitable
metrics
to
to
evaluate
the
program.
F
A
few
of
the
key
findings
that
that
audit
included
were
a
lack
of
proactive
inspections
over
the
last
five
years:
insufficient
monitoring
of
pesticide
application
near
water
and
outdated
and
inaccurate
public
information
on
registered
pesticide
products
and,
finally,
to
the
Department
of
Health.
We
made
a
recommendation
to
improve
upon
their
Grant
Management
processes.
This
was
in
response
to
our
findings.
When
We
examined
the
department
processes
around
the
grant
to
arches.
F
Overall,
health
and
environment
and
protected
areas
continue
to
have
a
relatively
large
number
of
outstanding
recommendations,
while
in
energy
we
have
seen
the
number
of
outstanding
recommendations
be
implemented
over
the
last
for
the
last
few
years
and
for
all
those
recommendations
where
you've
been
notified,
that
the
Departments
are
ready
for
follow-up,
we're
in
various
stages
of
completing
that
work.
Thus
we're
hopeful
that
the
number
of
recommendations,
particularly
those
that
are
older
than
three
years,
can
be
reported
as
implemented
in
the
near
future,
and
with
that.
Thank
you,
chair
and
committee.
B
Thank
you
and
does
that
conclude
the
remarks
from
the
auditor
General's
office?
Okay,
very
good,
so
we
will
now
move
to
the
official
opposition
for
a
15-minute
block.
Please
member
pancholi.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
to
all
of
you
for
being
here
today
and
for
your
Folsom
report
and
the
opportunity
to
ask
some
questions
about
that
today.
I
want
to
focus
my
questions
today
on
the
analysis
in
the
report
on
the
small,
medium
Enterprise,
relaunch,
Grant
of
jobs,
economy
and
innovation.
Of
course,
I
will
be
calling
it
smerg
for
the
whole
time,
because
that's
how
we
all
know
it
so
with
respect
to
smerg.
K
So
on
page
92
of
the
report,
it
says
and
I
quote,
improvements
should
be
made
to
monitoring
and
Reporting
systems
as
well.
It
also
includes
statement
quote:
the
department
cannot
currently
conclude
that
the
majority
of
the
recipients
were
eligible
for
the
program.
End
quote
so,
as
mentioned.
Of
course,
these
were
sort
of
urgently
made
payments
to
try
to
keep
businesses
and
albertans
sort
of
solvent
in
a
in
a
tricky
time.
K
So
we
understand,
of
course,
that
that
the
money
had
to
flow
quite
quickly
as
a
result
of
that,
but
I
was
wondering
if
the,
if
you
can
provide
some
insight
into
you
know
what
was
the
department
departmental
explanation
for
not
verifying
eligibility
fully
investigating
that
at
a
later
date?
Was
there
any
explanation
given
as
to
why
they
they
didn't
really
do
that
in
a
Folsom
way.
E
Bro,
well,
they
have
done
some
work
and
so
on
page
98,
it
shows
the
extent
of
some
of
the
verification
work
that
they
had
completed.
So
there's
lots
of
ways
that
you
can
do
some
analysis
of
the
population
after
the
payments
have
been
made.
There's
lots
of
different
sampling
methods.
E
So
so
that's
why
we
identified
made
the
recommendation
that
more
work
needs
to
be
done
on
that
they
had
indicated
when
we
were
doing
our
artwork,
that
they
were
still
analyzing
what
they
were
doing
with
the
high-risk
group,
because,
as
you
can
see
on
page
98,
they
did
identify
that
of
the
group
that
they
did
sample.
There
were
a
number
that
were
found
to
be
ineligible.
E
That
might
not
be
representative
of
that
entire
high-risk
group.
So,
again,
more
work
needs
to
be
done
to
assess
what
that
means.
In
terms
of
that
category,
but
you
know
we
did
not
see
plans
for
for
any
sort
of
testing
within
the
low
risk
group,
and
so
that's
where
you
know
like
I
said
we
we
made
the
suggestion
or
the
recommendation
that
that
more
work
needs
to
be
done
on
that,
because
that
does
represent
96
of
the
applications
that
had
been
approved.
K
Thank
you,
Mr
dries
and
that's
that's
was
going
to
be.
One
of
my
comments
was
that
the
low
risk
group
or
how
to
categorize
the
lowers
group
is
roughly
about
610
million
dollars
of
the
650
million
that
was
allocated
for
this
program
and
that
was
actually
distributed,
and
so
you
know,
was
there
explanation
as
to
why
no
one?
No
verification
was
done
in
the
low
risk
group
and
and
actually
also
for
my
own
interest.
How
did
they
categorize
what
was
low
risk
and
what
was
high
risk?
Do
you
have
any
sense
of
that?
Yeah.
E
E
So
some
of
the
the
sole
Proprietors,
for
instance,
would
maybe
be
a
little
bit
of
a
higher
risk
group
and
also
certain
businesses,
in
which
two
of
the
main
categories
for
criteria
were
that
the
the
businesses
need
to,
or
the
organizations
needed
to
be
able
to
demonstrate
that
they
had
to
curtail
or
close
their
operations
as
a
result
of
the
the
public
health
orders
and
that
their
revenues
had
also
decreased
by
30
percent.
E
And
so
there
may
be
certain
businesses
within
that
category,
where
you
know
being
able
to
demonstrate
that
might
be
at
a
higher
risk.
So
that's
how
they
they
tried
to
segregate
out
the
two.
The
two
categories
with
the
low
risk
group
you
know
there
may
have
been
maybe
a
sense
that,
because
they
were
assessed
as
lower
risk,
little
or
no
work
needed
to
be
done
on
on
those
applications.
But
as
we
point
out
in
the
report,
it
doesn't
really
matter
if
you
categorize
something
judgmentally
as
low
risk
or
higher
risk.
N
E
K
You
Mr
Jason
and
on
that
note
I
mean,
as
you
said,
we've
all
agreed
that
there
was
an
urgency
to
getting
the
funds
out
as
quickly
as
possible,
but
essentially
given
not
only
the
the
small
sort
of
sampling
of
just
the
high
risk
applications
and
the
the
zero
sampling
really
of
of
the
of
the
low
risk
I
mean
it
appears
that
this
this
program
was
essentially
a
sort
of
a
pay
first,
which
we
understand
why
we'd
want
to
pay
first,
but
there
was
no
verification
afterwards,
like
a
pay.
First
verify
never
kind
of
program.
K
It's
essentially
what
we're
seeing
for
a
650
million
dollar
expenditure.
Have
you
seen
something
like
that
before
in
in
a
program?
Do
you
have
any
sort
of
past
experiences
where
you'd
say?
Yes,
this
makes
sense
and
we've
seen
this
happen
before.
Is
this
acceptable,
I
suppose.
E
Well,
it's
a
unique
situation,
so
have
I
seen
that
no,
but
the
pandemic
created
a
a
situation
where
money
needed
to
be
sent
out
quickly
and
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
I
think
it
is
reasonable
in
terms
of
applying
that
sort
of
a
process.
We
did
see
the
same
thing
done
in
other
jurisdictions,
so
it's
not
something
that
was
solely
unique
to
to
what
was
done
here
in
Alberta,
so
it
it
applying
that
sort
of
a
process
is
is
reasonable
in
the
circumstance.
E
However,
you
then
design
the
post
payment
after
to
do
some
work
to
verify
the
fact
that
what
controls
you
did
have
them
in
place
and
the
assertions
that
you
were
relying
on
were,
in
fact
reasonable
and
in
a
normal
program
you
would
gather
all
that
information
first
and
then
make
a
decision
to
to
pay
somebody.
E
So
you
you
get
kind
of
100
coverage
before
the
money
goes
out
again,
it's
reasonable
that
they
didn't
do
it
in
this
case
and
you
would
only
be
sampling
a
portion
of
the
population.
The
important
part
is
you:
you
need
to
make
a
sample
that
is
representative
of
of
the
entire
population.
G
If
I
could
supplement
briefly,
so
one
of
the
things
that
we
considered
when
looking
at
this
was
the
consistency
of
the
methodology
and
the
application
being
applied
both
to
other
similar
I'll
call
them
emergency
situations,
as
well
as
the
ongoing
requirement
of
other
programs.
So
it's
very
well
accepted
practice
to
obtain
support
for
Grants.
G
You
know
that's
applicable
in
the
Income
Support
Program
the
age
program,
the
Alberta
seniors
benefit
program,
it's
a
requirement,
for
example,
with
the
Municipal
Affairs,
the
monies
that
went
out
there,
as
well
as
the
safe
restart
program
and
the
education
sector,
and
what
we
found,
for
example,
just
to
provide
some
context
is
that
in
those
two
other
examples
that
I
cite
related
to
covet
money
is
going
out.
G
There
was,
you
know,
processes
to
to
look
at
the
the
money
that
was
being
spent
and
what
was
it
being
spent
on
so,
for
example,
in
the
education
sector,
you
know
they
even
went
to
links
to
require
schedules
to
be
provided
back
to
the
department
from
the
school
boards
who
received
the
safe,
restart
monies.
What
we're
seeing
in
these
particular
programs
that
Rob
is
identifying
is
is
an
anomaly
with
respect
to
the
the
support
that
was
provided
to
demonstrate
the
eligibility
requirement
being
met.
And,
yes,
you
are
correct,
correct.
G
These
are
significant
dollars.
Having
said
that,
we
are
in
a
unique
time
and
we
go
to
great
pains
to
to
explain
that
that
yes,
money
was
did
get
out
the
door
quickly,
but
at
the
same
time
I
believe
albertans
do
expect
that
you
know
there
would
be
there
would
be
the
same.
G
K
Thank
you,
Mr
Wiley
I,
appreciate
that
and
and
I
note
in
the
report
that
it
does
say
that
management
is
considering
next
steps
to
assess
these
results
and
you
know
I'm
quite.
Do
you
believe
that
the
department
is
going
forward
and
taking
the
recommendation
to
perform
that
Eligibility,
Assessment
and
verifying
those
those
processes,
and
you
know,
I'm
wondering
if
you
think
there
might
be
some
reason
to
bring
the
ministry
back
to
report
on
that
to
this
committee?
This
is
the
what
the
committee
does
right
is
look
at
those
dollars
and
how
they
were
spent.
E
The
department
accepted
all
of
our
findings,
so
so
they
agree
with
with
what
we
found
again.
It's
it's
it's
a
determination
of
the
next
steps
and
what
that
would
be,
and
so
with
with
the
high
risk
category
again
because
of
how
they've
completed
their
sampling,
they
can't
extrapolate
this
result
across
the
rest
of
the
high
samples,
so
they're
going
to
have
to
think
about
what
to
do
next
there
and
then
what
type
of
sampling
they
would
do
on
the
low
risk
category.
E
So
there
is
some
some
thought
that
needs
to
go
into
that
what
those
conclusions
are
going
to
be
and
and
how
they
are
going
to
do
that
as
I
mentioned
earlier.
That's
that's
going
to
be
important
that
when
they
make
those
decisions
they
report
that
back
to
a
burden,
so
they
can
understand
what
they've
done.
G
With
respect
to
the
second
part
of
the
question
in
part,
that's
why
we
have
this
report
and
take
this
opportunity
to
meet
with.
You
is
for
this
report
to
be
considered
when
determining
the
Ministries
that
come
forward
to
this
committee
and
there's
a
there's,
a
subcommittee,
I
believe
still
in
existence
and
and
certainly
yes,
I-
think
that
our
objective
in
bringing
a
number
of
these
items
forward
is
to
look
at
learnings
that
were
obtained
through
this
period
and
I
think
that
that
would
be
very
germane
to
exploring
through
this
committee.
G
K
Thank
you
to
both
of
you
I'm
just
going
to
follow
up
a
little
bit
too
I
mean
it's
it's
some
relation
as
as
well
the
comments
and
the
report
on
the
emergency
isolation,
Support
Program,
similar
challenges
about
you,
know,
verification
after
the
fact
and
I
acknowledge
that
the
report
indicates
it's
somewhat
too
late
now
to
go
back,
because
you
know
people
weren't
expected
to
keep
their
their
supporting
documents
for
this
long,
but
again,
I'm
sort
of
looking
for
what
was
the
Department's
explanation
for
the
lack
of
verification
for
the
Emergency
isolation,
Support
Program.
E
So
so
work
was
done
in
terms
of
the
the
small
sample
that
they
did
send
out.
As
we
noted
in
the
in
our
report,
the
information
that
did
come
back.
There
was
only
41
respondents,
I
believe
that
responded
back
and
only
a
portion
of
those
that
could
actually
verify
eligibility.
So
a
very
small
portion.
E
E
You
know,
I
think
it's
it's
more
kind
of
a
running
out
of
time
kind
of
situation,
where
the
amount
of
work
that
they
could
have
done,
they
might
not
have
been
able
to
complete,
and
so
you
know,
I
think
it's
probably
best
to
go
to
to
the
Department
and
ask
them
why
they
made
the
decision
not
to
do
any
more
work.
But
I
think
that
that
was
a
factor
in
in
at
in
that
by
the
time
that
they
had
completed
some
of
that
and
realized
that
more
work
needed
to
be
completed.
K
Thank
you
so
I
mean
I
think
then
it
speaks
to,
as
you
mentioned,
going
back
to
the
ministry
and
finding
out
why
they
didn't
prioritize
in
that
brief
two-year
period
of
time
seeking
to
verify
and
they
that
wouldn't
be
part
of
the
audit
process
for
yourself
in
terms
of
providing
that
explanation,
that's
that's
not
something
that
okay!
Thank
you
I'm,
getting
a
for
those
who
can't
see
the
visual
I'm
getting
a
shaking
of
the
head.
K
So
so
we
can
record
that
I'm
running
out
of
time
in
this
block,
but
I
do
want
to
sort
of
touch
on
page
91
of
the
report
and
hopefully
I'll
get
some
more
time
after
the
next
rotation.
Page
91
of
the
of
the
report,
States
that
respect
to
the
audit
of
the
smerd
program
quote
these
findings
serve
as
learnings
for
government
in
the
design
of
future
benefit
programs.
So
I
think
you
know,
there's
opportunities
here
to
see
how
funds
are
delivered
in
these
kinds
of
programs.
K
Support
programs
like
this
in
the
future,
so
you
know
maybe
I'll
just
put
a
put
a
bit
of
a
pin
on
this
because
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
get
much
into
the
answer.
But
you
know
we
know
that
in
speaking
of
future
programs,
the
premier
has
recently
announced
that
there's
going
to
be
support,
payments
provided
to
individuals
who
meet
certain
eligibility
requirements
to
help
with
affordability
challenges
right.
K
So
we
know
that
there's
going
to
be
100
for
every
family,
with
a
household
income
of
under
180,
000
and
seniors
under
180
000
per
month
for
six
months.
So
this
is
this
is
going
to
be
rolling
out
in
January.
I
understand
that
in
mid-December,
when
the
technical
briefing
was
provided
on
this
program,
it
hadn't
yet
been
decided
how
that
program
would
be
designed
in
terms
of.
K
Would
it
be
that
the
you
know
the
the
payments,
the
systems,
the
portals
and
verification
data
would
be
built
by
the
government
of
Alberta
by
the
Goa,
or
would
they
Outsource
it
to
a
third
party?
So
really
the
process
of
income,
verification,
hadn't
really
been
decided
on,
and
it's
going
to
be
rolling
out
next
month,
I
was
conscious
of
my
time,
I'm
looking
at
it
right
now,
I'm
going
to
maybe
I'll
just
pause
on
that
and
we'll
come
back
to
it
in
the
next
rotation,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
I
get
a
full.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
member
control.
We
will
now
move
to
the
government
side
for
15
minutes
for
their
opening
block.
We
have
member
Hunter
and
just
for
the
record
just
before
you
start
remember
sorry,
we
did.
We
were
joined
by
a
member
Panda
if
he
could
in
introduce
himself
for
the
record.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
to
the
auditor
General's
office
for
being
here.
I
have
a
few
questions
that
pertain
to
this
report,
but
I'm
just
wondering
if
I
can
just
get
I,
don't
know
whether
you
can
answer
these
now,
but
how
many
FTE
staff
does
the
office
of
the
auditor
general
have
at
this
point.
G
I,
don't
have
that
information
for
you
today.
Remember.
Can
you
provide
that
for
us
remember,
the
the
the
issues
of
I
wasn't
prepared
to
talk
to
that.
If
you
would
refer
to
the
select
standing
committee
on
ledge
offices,
that
is
where
I
we
give
a
wholesome
discussion
on
our
on
our
operations,
our
results,
our
budget,
our
ftes
and
and
and
all
of
those
I
believe
there
were
some
questions
on
that
and
they
might
be
in
the
record.
G
But
certainly
we
could
go
back
and
look
at
look
at
the
Hansard
for
what
was
discussed
there
for
sure.
D
Okay,
sorry
did
so
you
would
provide
that
or
you
have
provided
you
I'm,
not
sure
what
you.
G
Said
I'm
not
too
sure
if
we've
already
provided
that
to
the
standing
committee
on
ledge
offices
who,
as
I
say,
actually
explores
the
operations
of
of
of
our
office,
not
necessarily
the
audit
work,
so
the
division
as
you're
aware
is.
That
committee
looks
after
the
operations
assessing
our
needs.
Our
budgets,
our
staffing,
our
results,
and
this
committee
looks
after
our
audit
results.
D
So
how
many
staff
are
working
from
home
versus
at
the
office?
It.
G
Varies
we
have
a
practice
of
of
the,
so
the
principle
is
it's
a
it's
what's?
What's
the
word,
we're
calling
it
yeah?
We
have
these.
We
have
these
referred
to
as
guiding
principles.
Essentially
all
employees,
the
primary
place
of
work
is
the
office.
However,
recognizing
that
and
the
secondary
of
course,
we
try
and
do
most
of
our
work
is
out
in
the
audit
field.
G
However,
not
all
of
our
Oddities
are
actually
working
back
in
the
office,
so
in
those
cases
the
audit
teams
would
have
to
work
remotely
depending
on
the
individual
projects
and
then
the
rest
of
the
time
they
would
be
working
in
the
in
the
office.
So
it
really
depends
on
on
the
particular
project.
G
I
guess
is
the
is
the
best
answer
I
can
give.
Primarily
we
are
trying
to
work
in
the
audit
field
as
much
as
possible
wherever
The
Oddities
are,
are
back
in
the
in
the
office
right.
K
Sure,
yes,
23b
speaking
to
a
matter
other
than
the
question
under
discussion.
The
purpose
of
this
committee
today
is
to
review
the
report
on
the
audits
completed
by
the
office
of
the
auditor
general.
It's
as
the
honor
generals
mentioned,
the
details
of
the
office
itself
and
its
staff
and
how
it
operates
is
dealt
with
under
the
select
special
standing
committee
on
legislative
offices.
B
C
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
Madam
chair
I,
just
think
that
the
honorable
member
I
was
just
simply
asking
about
the
capacity
of
the
auditor
general
to
be
able
to
perform
the
work
that
we're
discussing
today.
I
think
it's
extremely
relevant
in
terms
of
just
seeing
that
we
have
the
appropriate
Human
Resources
intact
in
place
to
be
able
to
provide
the
information
to
the
committee.
B
There's
no
question
that
many
of
these
questions
are
more
properly
in
order
at
the
standing
committee
on
ledge
offices,
legislative
offices.
However,
I
think
if
the
honorable
member
wants
to
sort
of
you
know,
ask
these
questions
and
then
move
on
to
some
of
the
substantive
audits,
I
think
that's
fine
and
yeah.
You
should
feel
free
to
do
so.
So
please
go
ahead.
D
G
Yes,
that
question
was
asked
at
the
standing
committee
on
alleged
offices
with
respect
to
our
budget
submission,
and
my
answer
was:
yes:
we
put
forward
the
budget
that
we
put
forward
was
a
realistic
budget.
It
was
designed
around
the
audit
work
that
we
currently
do
and
that
we
plan
on
doing
so.
Yes,
we
believe
we
have
the
resources
to
complete
the
the
body
of
work
ahead
of
us
in
the
next
fiscal
year.
Right.
D
And
that's
the
reason
why
I
was
asking
those
questions
is
because
I
know
that
we're
supposed
to
focus
on
the
the
report
here,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it's
fulsome
enough
as
the
work
you
do
is
extremely
important
to
help
the
government
be
better
at
what
they
do.
So
that
was
why
I
was
asking
that
question
those
questions
on
page
two
of
the
annual
report.
It
explains
that
the
government
had
to
respond
with
very
time
sense
and
often
one-time
programs
to
support
albertans
throughout
the
pandemic.
G
So,
thank
you,
chair
for
the
question.
So
when
this
covet
first
came
in
and
we
knew
we
would
be
doing
some
work
on
it,
we
actually
developed
a
bit
of
a
framework,
and
that
is
what's
outlined
on
page
two
of
the
report
and
that
framework
included
a
multi-stage
approach
to
addressing
the
covet
expenditures
and
the
implications
of
Cobra
covet
on
government
and
and
government
programs,
and
essentially
what
we
determined
to
do
is.
We
would
break
it
down
into
a
framework
consisting
of
three
first,
the
financial
transactions
and
those
transactions
that
specifically
related
to
cobit.
G
What
were
the
results
for
the
dollars
expended
and
then
the
third
part
of
that
was
looking
at
it
at
a
program
level
and
that's
what
you
see
in
the
results
of
this
particular
report,
where
we
looked
at
specific
programs
and
where
those
programs
were
all
designed
where
they
implemented
well,
was
there
sufficient
monitoring
and
was
there
sufficient
reporting?
So
that
was
the
that
was
the
approach
that
we
we
took
as
an
office.
It
was
a
methodical
approach.
G
D
G
So
there's
two
significant
pieces,
and
actually
you
know
what
I'll
just
ask
Eric
and
Rob
to
speak
to
the
to
both
of
those
who
are
in
the
finalization
stage
of
those
audits.
F
Yeah
so
within
the
Department
of
Health
and
Alberta
Health
Services,
we
have
a
quite
a
quite
a
large
performance
audit
that
we've
we've
completed,
examination,
work
and
right
at
the
final
stages
of
wrapping
up
the
reporting
on
the
response
at
Continuing,
Care,
Facilities
and
and
that
scope
includes
everything
from
the
planning,
the
the
monitoring,
the
communication
and
and
Reporting
involved
related
to
to
that
response,
and
so
that's
something
in
the
near
future
that
that
we
plan
to
to
release
in
in
the
health
sector
right.
Thank.
E
You
we've
completed
some
work
on
the
critical
worker
benefit
program,
and
so
we
are
just
in
the
in
the
final
stages
of
of
finalizing
everything
related
to
to
our
work
on
that,
and
we're
also
doing
some
work
right
now.
Looking
at
the
Alberta
jobs
now
program.
D
So,
in
the
same
vein
as
the
member
member
pencholi's
questioning,
there's
more
affordability
programs
that
are
coming
out
from
the
government,
do
you
feel
that
that
the
work
that
you're
doing
now
is
going
to
be
able
to
help
the
government
be
better
at
rolling
those
out.
G
I
certainly
do
I
mean
we've
had
some
good
dialogue
with
the
Ministries,
where
we've
undertaken
the
work
now
and
hopefully
that
will
be
factored
into
the
the
evaluation
of
of
what
worked
well
and
maybe
areas
for
improvement,
and
that
those
would
be
considered
going
forward
with
with
future
programming
for
sure,
okay.
D
On
the
summary
of
recommendations
on
page
five,
I
noticed
that
a
few
Ministries
had
no
new
implemented,
implemented
or
outstanding
recommendations.
In
fact,
the
ministry
of
culture,
seniors
and
housing,
executive,
Council
and
the
offices
of
the
legislative
assemblies
have
all
have
no
recommendations
from
your
office.
Is
it
normal
for
some
Ministries
to
have
no
recommendations.
G
Short
answer:
yes,
you
know
the
recommendations
result
from
the
work
being
conducted
and,
given
the
you
know,
assessments
of
where
we're
going
to
be
directing
our
resources.
Some
Ministries
may
receive
more
audit
effort
than
others.
So,
for
example,
we
would
be
looking
at
larger,
spend
organized
Ministries
such
as
health
Advanced,
education,
Etc.
G
One
of
the
things
I
would
mention
is
that
we
are
rolling
out
as
part
of
our
recent
business
plan.
That
again
we
had
a
really
good
discussion
on
I.
Think
was
this
notion
of
recurring
body
of
work,
so
we
are
implementing
a
rotational
cycle
where
we
will
be
looking
at
Grant
programs
at
all
Ministries.
We
will
be
looking
at
contracts
at
all
Ministries
and
we
will
be
looking
at
results
reporting
at
all
Ministries
and
those
will
be
a
rotational
cycle.
G
So
every
Ministry
can
expect
to
see
us
at
least
once
within
a
a
three-year
cycle.
We're
working
out
the
details
of
that.
But
so
you
know
again
the
reason
why
a
significant
number
of
part
of
the
government
business
has
done
through
grants,
contracts,
Etc
so
short
answer.
Yes,
some
Ministries,
you
can
see
less
audit
work
than
than
others,
depending
on
the
risk
residing
at
that
Ministry.
G
G
So
certainly
we
would
want
to
be
directing
resources
and
auditing
where
there
are
significant
spins
of
of
taxpayer
dollars.
But
then
we
also
look
at
certain
other
areas
that
that
would
pose
risk
not
only
to
the
delivery
and
successive
delivery
of
the
program,
but
on
on
health
and
safety
and
Welfare
welfare
of
albertans,
the
safeguarding
of
of
assets
Etc.
So
that
also
really
directs
the
nature
and
extent
of
work
that
we
would
be
doing.
Environmental
Eric
mentioned
One
auto.
We
looked
at
pesticide
management.
G
That
was
an
issue
of
determined
to
be
of
safety
related
to
albertans,
and
we
heard
from
a
number
of
albertans
with
respect
to
that.
So
our
work
is
is
driven
by
a
number
of
factors
we
receive
I.
Believe
last
year
was
144
direct
requests
from
albertans
directly
and
then,
of
course,
there's
there's
input
from
the
mlas
is
representative
of
of
all
albertans.
So
a
number
of
factors-
I,
guess
direct
the
nature
of
our
work,
chair.
D
Thank
you
on
page
10
of
the
annual
report.
It
says
it
is
our
responsibility
to
express
an
independent
opinion
that
provides
reasonable
assurance
that
the
consolidation,
Consolidated
financial
statements
are
free
of
material
statements
and
are
fairly
represented
in
accordance
with
a
public
sector
accounting
standards.
Are
there
any
metrics
that
your
office
uses
to
find
reasonable
in
this
context
reasonable
materiality?
Yes,.
G
Okay,
so
the
financial
statement
audits
are
are
driven
around
the
concept
of
materiality
and
that's
a
numeric
number,
that
is,
that
is
determined
and
that
in
large
part,
determines
the
extent
of
of
audit
work
and
audit
coverage
that
is
required
to
be
able
to
issue
an
apprent,
an
opinion
to
provide
that
coverage.
It
kind
of
goes
back
to
the
line
of
questioning
around
the
Eis
and
the
smerk
programs.
When
we
were
looking
at
at
that
is
Rob
mentioned
the
you
know,
the
methodology
used
to
do
coverage
of
high-risk
low
risk.
G
Well,
in
that
particular
case,
the
issue
is:
what's
the
methodology
and
the
coverage
to
enable
them
to
extrapolate
the
results
over
the
population.
So
short
answer
materiality
is
a
significant
aspect
as
well
as
disclosure
in
the
in
the
notes
that
help
readers
understand
the
nature
of
the
operations
and
disclose
the
transaction
and
and
this
and
a
disclosure
of
the
nature
of
the
transactions
in
the
financial
statements.
G
G
It's
it
varies,
I
guess
in
in
severity
and
nature,
where
we
get
concerned
is
when
the
the
the
magnitude
of
those
mistakes
get
to
that
level
of
significance
that
would
warrant
an
adjustment
by
management
or
where
there
would
be
a
requirement
to
change
the
disclosure
in
the
financial
statements
to
to
ensure
that
what
is
being
represented
and
presented
to
the
user
of
the
financial
statements
clearly
reflects
the
underlying
transactions
and
substance
of
the
transactions.
So
it's
it's
it's
when
either
of
those
two
are
are
reaching.
G
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I'm,
just
going
to
follow
up
on
on
the
questions.
I
began
in
my
last
block
and
thank
you
to
MLA
Hunter
for
bringing
forward
sort
of
carrying
on
some
of
those
conversations
around
the
learnings
from
the
smerg
and
the
employment
or
sorry,
the
emergency
isolation
payments.
What
that
can
take
forward
into
the
affordability
payments
that
will
be
rolled
out
next
month,
so
I
mean
again.
K
These
are
different
contexts
in
the
sense
that
we're
not
going
to
be
looking
at
an
emergency
situation
like
we
were,
with
smerg
and
with
the
emergency
isolation
and,
of
course,
we've
seen
some
challenges
here,
with
verification,
after
the
fact
that
those
two
programs.
So
what
advice
would
your
office
have
in
terms
of
how
to
ensure
that
only
eligible
recipients
get
the
money
under
these
affordability
programs
that
will
be
rolled
out
next
month?
Based
on
what
you
did
in
these?
These
audits.
G
Well,
I
think
going
back
to
the
primary
issue.
Here
was
you
know
ensuring
eligibility
of
of
Grant
recipients,
which
I
think
is
commonly
accepted
as
as
the
right
thing
to
do,
with
the
with
the
juxtaposing,
as
we've
got
to
get
the
money
out
the
door
quickly,
which
was
the
issue
here.
You
know,
I,
don't
know.
One
of
the
things
that
could
be
considered
is,
you
know,
maybe
still
requesting
supporting
information,
but
not
necessarily
having
to
review
all
of
that
information
prior
to
payment.
G
G
You
know
why
didn't
they
follow
through
well,
maybe
and
I'm,
not
speaking
for
them,
because
it
hasn't
been
described
to
me,
but
one
could
maybe
assume
that
time
got
away
on
them
a
little
bit.
They
had
a
time
restriction,
they
didn't
get
the
they
didn't,
have
the
information
in
hand
and
in
a
way
you
go,
whereas
if
you
have
the
information,
but
that
don't
doesn't
mean
you
necessarily
have
to
slow
down
the
process
so
obtain
it.
If
you
want
to
pre-issue
go
right
ahead,
but
then
you
you
have
the
information.
G
E
As
we've
indicated
in
the
report,
I
think
that
the
department
really
needs
to
think
about
those
Lessons,
Learned
and
and
what
they
can
do.
As
the
auditor
general
has
pointed
out,
one
of
the
things
about
the
post
payment
process
is
requesting
all
that
information
from
individuals
later,
which
is
time
consuming,
and
maybe
not,
everybody
responds
and
so
trying
to
trying
to
gather
that
up
and
then
the
results
of
that
figuring
out
what
to
do.
E
H
I
just
have
something
to
add
so
when,
when
we
did
the
the
covered
audits
at
Municipal
Affairs,
so
this
was
giving
grants
out
to
municipalities
using
systems
and
resources
that
were
already
in
place.
So
it
was
a
much
smoother
process
for
them,
so
I
would
say
going
forward
wherever
possible
if
the
Department's
Ministries
could
use
existing
processes
and
system
existing
data
banks
that
are
already
in
place.
That
would
be
something
that
that
would
probably
help
a
lot
in
terms
of
verification.
Thank.
K
So
when
you
talk
about
existing
systems,
certainly
using
an
existing
system-
and
in
that
case
the
Child
Care
Subsidy
model
to
verify
household
income,
they
rely
on
CRA
income
data
right
because
again,
when
you,
when
I'm
speaking
to
Mr,
Wiley's
comments
about
eligibility
and
speed.
Well,
when
we're
talking
about
eligibility
being
being
based
primarily
on
income
household
income,
for
the
deliver
of
these
methods,
it
would
make
sense
then,
to
use,
for
example,
CRA
already
quickly
verifies
household
income
as
well
as
that's
used
already
in
existing
systems
under
the
Child
Care
Subsidy
model.
K
H
I
mean
even
within
the
Ministries,
they
have
their
own
data
banks
on
folks
who
are
in
age
and
income,
support
and
so
number
of
children
that
that
information
is
already
there.
It
would
be
a
matter
of
updating
it
to
current
status,
but
there
are
banks
within
the
Ministries
themselves
already
that
could
be
used
and
systems
that
are
that
are
well
supported
and
have
been
in
place
for
a
time
that
could
also
be
used.
So
it's
not
a
matter
of
creating
new
systems,
new
processes,
that's
where
I
would
say
the
the
efficiencies
are.
K
So
do
you
have
any
sense,
then
of
of
you
know
when
we
heard
from
the
the
department
on
this
program,
potentially
it's
going
to
be
rolled
out
next
month
they
weren't
certain.
They
were
going
to
be
using
Canadian
the
Canada
Revenue
Agency
household
income
model.
Do
you
have
any
sense
why
they
would
choose
to
go
or
try
to
use
a
different
eligibility
or
income
verification
process
other
than
CRA
for
this
kind
of
a
distribution
of
a
program
I.
J
Thank
you
very
much
so
I
I
want
to
focus
on
the
analysis
of
the
covet
Capital
stimulus
initiative,
detailed
on
pages
138,
to
150
of
the
report
that
what
involved
the
two
billion
dollars
in
spending
the
stated
objective
of
the
plan
is
you
note
on
page
143
was
and
I
quote,
to
create
jobs.
End
quote
this
was
a
message
that
the
government
repeated
over
and
over
again,
but
you
also
know
that
on
page
one
or
you
also
note
on
page
144,
the
treasury
board
in
finance
did
not
measure
the
actual
number
of
jobs
created.
J
Despite
adding
projects
during
the
program,
and
you
note
that
TBF
did
not
validate
the
job
creation
estimates
that
the
modeling
tool
produced
with
actual
job
creation
data,
nor
did
they
update
and
rerun
the
model
as
circumstance
changes.
That's
a
quote
from
your
own
report.
Did
the
department
have
an
explanation
as
to
why
they
failed
to
measure
the
only
outcome
that
it
put
forward
as
the
measure
of
success
for
this
two
billion
dollars
in
spending.
J
A
I
Yeah
I
mean
I,
guess
I
would
say.
Our
general
expectation
is
where
there
are
significant,
spend
on
programs
or
initiatives
that
the
objectives
of
that
would
be
clearly
defined
and
that
there
would
be
reporting
back
to
it
on
it.
So
that's
our
you
know
working
at
a
high
level.
That
would
be
our
general
expectation
around
significant
spends.
I
You
know,
I
think
what
you'll
see
from
our
July
report
of
2022
there
when
we
did
look
at
reporting
back
on
objectives
and
whether
or
not
those
are
achieved.
What
we,
what
we
typically
find,
is
lots
of
reporting
on
dollars
spent.
But
if
there
are,
you
know
other
objectives
related
to
programs,
sometimes
the
reporting
on
that
you
know
we
generally
find
be
improved.
J
So
since
2020,
that's
roughly
20
billion
dollars
in
spending
without
adequate
oversight,
and
you
notice
that
the
government
didn't
really
provide
an
explanation
for
this
failure
to
do
its
basic
due
diligence.
Can
you
explain
to
the
committee
what
the
risk
taxpayers
is
of
the
government
failing
to
do
its
due
diligence
in
this
case.
I
You
know
the
government
hasn't
a
capital
planning
process
that
it
uses
annually
to
produce
its
its
budget
and,
and
what
we
found
in
in
this
case
was
a
lot
of
the
the
the
processes
and
systems
used
to
you
know,
obtain
information
on
Capital
needs
and
review
that
information
and
make
decisions
on
capital
projects
was
was
similar
to
you
know
the
regular
process.
So
in
terms
of
approving
projects,
you
know
we
didn't
see
a
large
risk
there,
annual
reporting
on
projects
and
and
dollars
spent.
You
know
we
saw
that
you
know
that
was
happening.
C
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
Madam
chair
and
thank
you
very
much
Mr
Riley
for
coming
for
us
with
the
rest
of
your
team
here
today.
I
guess
just
a
couple,
quick
questions
regarding
School
jurisdiction.
So
it
says
that
the
total
number
of
recommendations
for
schools
has
plateaued
over
the
past
three
years.
However,
it
is
well
below
the
188
outstanding
recommendations
from
10
years
ago,
as
listed
in
the
annual
report.
Just
wonder
if
you
can
expand
upon
what
has
made
it
possible
for
this
number
to
decline.
G
Well,
I
can't
comment
specifically
what's
given
rise
to
the
decline,
but
it
would
be,
you
know,
improved
processes.
We
highlight
in
that
section
of
a
report
and
I
believe
you're
referring
to
the
education
section
our
194
week.
You
know
we
we
categorize
and
break
down
the
recommendations
into
into
several
groups.
They're
one
is
findings
and
recommendations
relating
to
financial
reporting
and
oversight
processes
within
school
boards.
Our
school
jurisdictions.
Pardon
me
the
internal
controls
area.
G
So
how
well
those
internal
control
mechanisms
are
working
and
then
the
information
technology
and
management
recommendations,
so
I
guess
what
I
would
surmise
a
chair
would
be
that
you
know
there
have
been
improved
mechanisms
to
prepare
the
financial
statements
to
report
the
financial
transactions
with
fewer
errors
that
the
internal
controls
have
improved
within
those
organizations
resulting
in
less
recommendations
and
that
information
technology
issues
again
would
be
better
managed
within
the
within
the
school
jurisdictions.
G
A
recommendation
is
a
result
of
of
of
a
finding
and
you
have
a
finding
when
a
criteria
is
not
is
not
met.
So
there
is
that
linear
relationship,
so
I
would
suggest
that
each
one
of
these
process
areas
has
improved
I.
Believe
it
was
a
10-year
period
where
we
said
it
was
about
190
and
it's
down
to
95
or
something
like
that.
So
yeah
there's
been
a
significant,
significant
reduction
in
the
number
of
recommendations
over
that
10-year
period.
C
Excellent
and
always
nice
to
see
that
level
of
improvement
over
the
last
couple
years
to
kind
of
address.
Many
of
your
concerns.
I
know
I
have
a
number
of
other
questions,
but
I
know.
A
number
of
my
colleagues
are
very
anxious
to
ask
their
questions
as
well.
So
I'd
like
to
see
the
rest
of
my
time
up
to
MLA
tour
test
some
questions.
Thank
you
very
much.
L
Well,
thank
you
chair
and
thank
I
would
just
want
to
start
by
saying
thank
you
to
the
auditor
general
and
his
Department
I
really
appreciate
the
work
you
do
for
keeping
the
dormant
accountable,
especially
when
it
comes
to
spending
the
Alberta
taxpayers
dollars.
So
I
will
start
my
question
to
Pages
59
to
61..
They
outline
the
recommendation
from
your
office
to
the
minister
of
energy.
There
is
one
new
recommendation
for
implemented
and
four
ready
for
assessment
and
two
not
implemented
yet.
L
G
Thank
you
chair
for
the
question.
G
Well,
our
process
is
that
for
every
recommendation
there
are
supporting
criteria
that
give
rise
to
that
recommendation
and
that's
where
you
have
criteria
that
have
have
not
been
met
so
in
in
each
one
of
these.
We
would
go
through
and
assess
the
individual
audit
criteria
that
resulted
in
in
that
recommendation
and
that's
what
we
would
be.
That's
what
we'd
be
re-examining
I,
don't
have
those
specific
criteria,
but
maybe
I'll
ask
Eric
if
you
could
provide
just
a
bit
of
a
flavor
of
of
what's
behind
the
those
individual,
four
sure.
F
So
those
four
recommendations
stemmed
from
a
performance
audit.
We
did
in
2018
related
to
risk
management
processes
to
oversee
the
processing
agreement
related
to
sturgeon,
Refinery
and-
and
actually
this
is
work
where
we've
we've
completed
the
examination
of
the
follow-up
and
it's
it's
something
we
plan
to
be
reporting
on
in
in
the
near
future,
and
in
this
particular
case
you
know,
as
as
Doug
was
describing
the
process.
F
You
know
we
had
received
an
implementation
plan
that
outlined
the
actions
that
apmc
was
going
to
take
to
implement
and,
and
that
really
you
know,
guides
our
work
to
see
if
those
are
in
fact
done.
I
had
also
mentioned
with
with
energy
that
that
was
a
Ministry
where
we've
seen
a
number
of
recommendations
implemented
over
the
last
couple
of
years.
F
F
So
we
are
seeing
a
good
Trend
there
as
far
as
recommendations
being
implemented
and
then
the
final
one
as
far
as
what's
not
ready
for
assessment
yet
and
and
is
certainly
one
that
we
hope
to
follow
up
soon
is
around
environmental
liabilities,
and
that's
one
that
both
the
the
Department
of
environment
and
protected
areas
and
energy
are
are
working
together
on
to
to
resolve
and
actually
maybe
more
specifically,
it's
not
the
department
of
energy.
But
the
Alberta
energy
regulator
is
working
with
environment
protected
areas.
So
hopefully
that
helps.
L
Yeah,
thank
you
and
on
page
38
of
the
report,
you
provide
three
new
recommendations
to
Alberta
community
and
Social
Services,
more
specifically
to
the
department
of
family
support
for
children
with
disabilities.
All
three
recommendations
relate
to
staff,
improving
their
ability
to
assess
needs
and
to
complete
sport
planning.
So
my
first
question
is
given
that
all
three
recommendations
relate
to
the
same
issue.
Can
you
provide
more
information
on
how
you
were
able
to
identify
this
problem.
G
G
We
identified
three
particular
areas
of
focus
that
we
would
be
looking
on
to
see
that
that
certain
aspects
of
that
program
are
operating
effectively
and
and
that's
really
what
you're
you're
seeing
here
is
that
you
know
the
first
part
was
was
dealing
with
the
consistency
of
of
of
application
of
the
program,
and
there
was
determined
was
that
you
know.
G
Part
of
the
criteria
would
be
that
there
should
have
been
sufficient
guidance
provided
to
the
staff
and-
and
it
was
determined
that
you
know
there
was
some
some
opportunities
for
improvements
relating
to
that
guidance
provided
by
staff
and
also
relating
to
the
consistency
of
the
rates
that
were
being
applied.
Within
Province
there
were
certain
zones
that
had
you
know,
identified
some
common
rates
that
would
provide
some
consistency
but
again
other
zones
within
the
province
where
there
was
no
no,
what's
the
word
I'm
looking
for
best
best
practice
rate.
G
G
The
training
is
an
important
aspect
to
ensure
consistency
of
of
of
a
practice
as
well,
then,
on
the
the
oversight,
so
the
review
of
of
the
work
that
is
being
done
and-
and
there
was
opportunity
for
improvement
in
each
three
of
those
areas
Patty
do
you
want
to
supplement,
did
I
miss
anything
I'm.
H
Sure
all
I
would
add
is
that
we
did
focus
on
on
specifically
the
assessment
process
and
the
creation
of
the
plans.
We
knew
from
the
Department's
own
work
that
there
were
inconsistencies
in
program
delivery.
So,
depending
on
who
your
caseworker
was
and
where
you
were
going
in
the
province,
there
were
differences
in
what
eligible
families
were
receiving
in
terms
of
support
and
services.
L
H
L
You
and
I
think
most
of
my
question.
You
answered
it
but
still
another
question:
did
your
audit
find
any
evidence
of
serious
issues
arising
from
this
problem,
or
are
these
a
simply
recommendation
based
on
the
best
practices.
H
Well,
I
would
say
that
there
were
concerns
that
families
who
were
equally
eligible
were
not
receiving
similar
supports
and
services
for
their
children.
So
in
in
so
far
as
that's
a
serious
issue,
I
would
say
there
was
some
serious
issues
within
the
program,
and
so
we
we
focus
all
of
our
work
on
on
risk
areas
and
where
we
can
add
the
most
values.
So
in
our
determination
that
was
an
area
worth
looking
at
where
we
could
add
some
real
value
to
albertans.
H
L
B
Thank
you,
member
tour.
We're
going
to
go
to
the
official
opposition
for
10
minutes,
member
Tran,
trolley.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
just
want
to
follow
up
a
little
bit
on
my
questions.
I
was
asking
earlier.
I
was
thinking
about
your
responses
about
how
to
best
distribute
income
tested
program
supports
to
to
albertans,
and,
of
course,
we
don't
have
existing
programs
that
are
used
to
delivering
these
kind
of
pro
this
kind
of
support
to
2
million
albertans,
which
is
what
we're
looking
at
with
the
affordability
program.
K
So
you
know
it
seems
pretty
clear
that
even
the
government
vibrated
with
its
current
income
testing
programs,
rely
on
CRA
to
kind
of
make
that
income
assessment
and
it's
and
that's
usually
the
best
and-
and
you
know,
efficient
way
to
Monitor
and
Report
standards
for
these
dollars
being
distributed.
So
in
your
opinion,
what
kind
of
resources
would
be
needed
in
your
staff
system
development
all
these
pieces
to
replicate
the
sophistication
of
cras
income
assessment
processes
at
the
Goa
level?
G
I
couldn't
answer
that
question
today.
I
just
don't
know
the
level
of
resources.
K
Thank
you.
Do
you
know
of
any
programs
within
the
GOA
that
are
based
on
income
that
uses
something
other
than
CRA
to
assess
eligibility.
H
K
Thank
you
and
for
those
programs,
though,
you
certainly
wouldn't
see
the
number
of
albertans
that
were
looking
to
distribute
in
this
case
right
so
for
2
million
albertans
I
mean
those
programs
are
just
listed,
are
much
smaller
programs
serving.
So
you
know,
Goa
wouldn't
be
holding
data
on
2
million
albertans
with
respect
to
their
income.
Would
that
be
correct
to
say,
as
far
as
I'm
aware,
that's
correct?
Okay,
thank
you.
So
I
will
then
see
my
time
back
over
to
MLA
Schmidt.
J
So,
just
going
back
to
the
questions
around
the
capital
projects,
so
on
page
147,
the
auditor
general
report
notes
that
you,
you
did
some
testing
on
these
projects.
The
testing
confirmed
that
treasury
board
and
finance
did
not
obtain
detailed
information
on
the
status
of
the
project,
such
as
anticipated
completion
date,
construction
phase
or
detail
variances
by
quarter
as
it's
usually
done.
It
seems
to
me
that
basic
good
governance
is
falling
to
the
Wayside
here.
J
I
So
I
would
say
from
a
financial
point
of
view
in
terms
of
tracking
the
the
spend
you
know
we
saw
you
know
good
processes
on
on
that
in
terms
of
tracking
the
project
status.
I
You
know,
I
think
that's
what
we're
that's,
what
we're
talking
about
here
and
and
where
this
maybe
comes
into
play
with
the
stimulus
programs.
Is
you
know,
you're
you're
interested
in
the
timing
of
that
spend
and
the
status
of
those
projects
and
when
they're,
starting
because
you're
trying
to
you
know
stimulate
the
economy
during
a
particular
period?
I
So
if
you're,
not
Gathering
that
information,
you
know
quarterly
it,
it
sort
of
prevents
you
and
and
prevents,
would
be
preventing
staff
at
the
Department
of
Treasury
board
and
finance
to
ask
questions
about
the
status
of
those
projects.
So
so
just
to
be
clear,
the
those
projects
would
be
delivered
at
you
know
at
infrastructure
at
Transportation
at
school
boards
different
different
projects,
and
they
would
have
detailed
project
management
information.
I
But
if
that
information
is
not
not
shared
with
treasury
board
and
finance
quarterly
it
would
you
know
it
would
prevent
staff
there
from
asking
questions
about.
You
know
the
timing
and
the
completion
dates
and
the
flow
of
funds
around
those
projects,
but
from
like
an
accounting
first
particular
dollar
spent
in
quarters
like
I,
wouldn't
have
any
concerns
with
the
the
tracking
of
those
dollars,
but
it
would
be
tracking
of
those
the
status
of
those
projects.
J
So
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
signature
goal
of
the
coveted
Capital
stimulus
initiative,
which
was
to
create
jobs.
We
know
the
treasury
board
and
finance
didn't
track
that,
so
there
was
no
ability
to
measure
the
outcome,
despite
government
consistently
telling
albertans
that
they
knew
how
many
jobs
they
were
creating.
On
page
147
of
the
report,
the
you
conclude
by
noting
and
I
quote
Additionally.
The
department
does
not
plan
to
evaluate
the
initiative
after
it
ended
and
so
no
real-time
tracking
on
the
objective
and
no
after
the
fact
evaluation.
J
I
Again
so
the
reasons
why
I
guess
I
think
you
you
would
have
to
ask
the
department,
but
our
you
know,
as
our
general
expectation
around
the
covid
programs,
because
a
lot
of
them
were
one-time
programs.
Is
that
at
the
end
of
that,
you
would
do
an
evaluation,
some
sort
of
a
post-program
evaluation,
and
you
know
what
did
we
learn
from
this?
I
So
where
the,
where
the
capital
stimulus
you
know,
program,
I,
think
their
you
know
their
thinking.
Is
you
know
that
just
sort
of
folds
and
rolls
into
the
overall
government
Capital
plan?
So
it's
it's
not
a
it's,
not
any
different
than
the
capital
plan
spending
that
we
have
annually.
I
That
seemed
to
be
the
you
know
the
reason
we
were
provided
with
why
a
separate
evaluation
wouldn't
be
done
of
this
compared
to
some
of
the
other.
You
know
like
the
emergency
isolation,
support
program
or
the
smerg
program,
where
it's
sort
of
a
one
call
it
a
one-off
type
program.
J
I
want
to
ask
about
strategic
projects
there
that
were
included
in
the
covet
Capital
stimulus
initiative.
11
strategic
projects
were
put
forward
but
critically,
as
you
know
it
on
page
145,
four
of
those
11
projects
were
approved
by
cabinet
ministers
with
zero
evaluation
process
from
treasury
board
and
finance.
On
page
149,
you
identify
those
projects.
First,
can
you
confirm
that
I've
got
the
numbers
right?
There
was
301
million
dollars
worth
of
projects
approved
by
treasury
board
Committee
of
cabinet,
with
no
evaluation
by
the
official
experts
in
treasury
board
and
finance.
I
J
In
your
auditing,
can
you
think
of
any
recent
example
where
multiple
capital
projects
worth
a
combined?
300
million
dollars
were
approved
by
treasury
board
or
a
committee
of
cabinet,
with
no
evaluation
by
the
department.
I
So
what
I
would
say
about
these
is
that
yeah
there
was
an
evaluation
criteria
used
by
the
department
to
review
all
of
these
projects.
So
there
was,
you
know,
a
request
out
to
departments
that
came
up
came
came
through,
500
projects
came
back
and
you
know
an
evaluation
process
was
done
to
you,
know,
Rank
and
assess
those
and
prioritize
spending
so
yeah
for
these
four
particular
projects.
I
And
approved,
without
going
through
the
evaluation
process
by
the
department
staff.
Now,
that's
not
to
say
that
these
projects
aren't,
you
know
needed
or
they're,
not,
you
know
necessary,
but
they
weren't
when
we
were
looking
at
the
process
and
and
and
how
they
were
allocating
those
dollars.
They
didn't
go
through
that
evaluation
process
that
the
department
had
developed.
J
Do
you
have
any
insight
as
to
why
that
system
of
government
broke
down
I
mean
I,
know
that
politicians
come
forward
with
pet
projects
all
the
time,
but
the
role
of
staff
and
and
the
civil
services
to
provide
some
kind
of
objective
evaluation,
but
that
didn't
seem
to
happen
in
this
case.
Do
you
know
why.
I
So
in
this
case,
what
I
would
say
is
you
know
these
projects
may
have
been
developed
or
not
developed,
you've
evaluated
by
Department
staff?
You
know
so
there
are
projects
here
from
transportation
and
and
we'll
have
no
doubt
or
the
transportation
had
done
work
on
that.
What
we're
saying
in
our
report
is
that
those
projects
weren't
evaluated
by
the
Department
of
Treasury
board
and
finances
staff
that
are,
you
know,
responsible
for
Capital
planning.
I
These
projects
would
have
we
didn't
look
at
those
evaluations,
but
these
projects
would
have
been
on.
M
Member
go
ahead.
Please!
Thank
you.
So
much
Madam
chair,
pardon
me
on
page
five
of
the
report.
There's
a
table
showing
that
Alberta
Health
has
16
outstanding
recommendations
that
are
over
three
years
old.
Many
of
these
recommendations
date
back
as
far
as
2014
before
the
NDP
was
in
office.
Can
the
auditor
general
please
explain
if
there
are
any
procedures
in
place
to
monitor
the
progress?
G
Yes,
we
there's
a
we.
Our
process
is
first
off.
We
follow
up
on
all
of
the
recommendations
that
we
make
and
the
process
is.
Is
that
to
ensure
that
when
we're
doing
our
follow-up
work,
we're
we're
aligned
with
the
activity
at
the
department
and
we're
going
in
at
the
right
time?
What
we
request
is
that,
there's
you
know
an
action
plan,
that's
developed
for
how
the
department
would
deal
with
the
specific
recommendations
and
based
on
that
action
plan.
G
That
would
determine
that
the
timing
of
when
we
would
be
going
in
and
doing
recommendations,
follow-up
work.
Pardon
me.
There
are
circumstances,
though,
that
we'll
we'll
go
back,
maybe
given
the
nature
of
a
recommendation,
and
sometimes
the
Departments
will
ask
us
to
come
in
and
do
a
you
know
an
interim
look,
so
to
speak.
The
point
I'm
trying
to
drive
to
is,
though,
that
we
we
follow
up
on
on
all
of
our
recommendations
and
when
we
do
that
work,
it's
it's
best
to
do
it.
G
M
Go
ahead,
I
was
just
going
to
move
on
to
my
next
question,
given
the
significant
delays
on
these
recommendations,
has
your
office
identified
specific
obstacles
to
make
progress
on
these
items.
F
Here
so
as
far
as
the
the
suite
of
Health
recommendations,
there's
one
grouping
there,
where
we've
we're
in
the
middle
of
doing
the
follow-up
work
around
chronic
disease
management,
and
so
you
know
some
of
those.
Those
recommendations
you
know
did
take
a
fair
bit
of
time
for
the
Department
Alberta
Health
Services,
to
to
implement
and
in
some
cases,
certainly
understandably
so
because
they're,
quite
quite
substantive
and
and
Broad
recommendations
to
to
implement
so
we're
an
ongoing.
You
know
conversations
of
the
progress
of
that
work
and
whether
the
actions
are
being
being
completed.
F
So
obviously
the
the
results
of
the
all
the
various
follow-up
work
is
is
to
come.
But
I.
You
know
hopeful
to
see
that
the
greater
than
three
years
number
will
will
decline
over
the
coming
years
as
we're
able
to
report
on
chronic
disease
management,
as
well
as
there's
three
outstanding
recommendations
related
to
seniors
care
that
will
be
reporting
alongside
our
our
covid-19
response
and
continuing
care.
F
F
So
that
related
to
some
of
the
comments
I
made
in
my
the
opening
remarks,
we
were
looking
at
a
grant
that
was
provided
to
arches
and
as
part
of
that
work,
when
we
were
looking
at
the
process,
we
did
identify
a
couple
areas
that
that
could
be
improved,
that
you
know
applied
more
broadly
to
to
the
Grant
Management
processes
within
the
Department
of
Health.
Primarily,
you
know
there
being
evidence
that
financial
information
that's
received
by
recipients
evidence
that
that
review
has
actually
taken
place.
F
The
other
element
to
that
was
there's
a
requirement
that
there's
a
senior
Financial
Officer
from
the
recipient
that
signs
off
on
information
that's
submitted
to
the
Department
of
Health,
and
one
of
the
things
we
identified
through
this
was
that
it
wasn't
always
necessarily
clear
if
the
department
knew
if
the
person
signing
off
you
know
had
the
necessary
you
know,
qualifications
or
or
that
that
position
and
part
of
where
there
is
Rises
there
is
that
you
know
you
have
some
smaller
organizations
where
you
know
the
the
department
may
need
to.
F
You
know
recognize
you
know
who
who
might
be
in
a
position
to
be
able
to
to
do
that,
but
they
they
lack
some
of
that
information
to
to
know
that.
So
we
felt
that
you
know
it's
appropriate
to
make
a
recommendation
there
to
to
help
improve
the
Grant
Management
processes
overall.
Q
Thank
you
very
much.
I
would
like
to
thank
the
auditor
general
and
the
officials
with
him
for
being
here
today
and
I
appreciate
all
the
works
been
done
by
your
office
in
ensuring
government.
Ministries
are
working
within
the
bounds
required
for
efficient
and
effective
public
service,
and
my
question
relates
to
the
Park's
environment
in
Parks
here
and
on
page
of
64
of
the
report.
You
provide
three
new
new
recommendations
to
a
better
environment
and
Parks.
F
And,
and
so
obviously,
you
can't
inspect
everything
and
everyone
that
that's
certainly
not
cost
efficient,
but
having
some
risk
framework
to
decide
what
you're
going
to
look
at
proactively
was.
Was
the
driver
behind
that
that
recommendation
there's
a
number
of
different
potential
areas
for
non-compliance?
One
that
we
do
report
on
that
is
often
very
top
of
mind.
F
Is
the
use
of
pesticides
near
water
bodies
and
there's
a
specific
requirements
of
you
know
when
that
work
is
done
based
on
what
the
weather
is
and
those
types
of
things,
and
we
found
that
there
were
deficiencies
there
and
some
areas
of
non-compliance.
So
so,
there's
a
really
a
wide
range
of
things
that
could
result
in
non-compliance,
but
there
are
particular
focal
areas
that
that
I
think
weren't
a
risk
based.
Look.
Q
Q
F
Yes
understood
well
that
is
actually
part
of
what
the
department
will
have
to
establish
as
they're
implementing
the
recommendation.
So
the
the
various
you
know
inherent
risks
that
are
in
place
related
to
you
know
their
regulatory
work
on
on
pesticides,
and
then
you
know
deriving
the
appropriate
response
to
that.
So
that
is
actually
part.
I
presume
would
be
part
of
what
they're
doing
as
far
as
their
actions
towards
the
recommendation.
Q
F
So,
as
part
of
the
testing
we
we
did
I
mean
we
could
see
where
you
know
non-compliance,
whether
through
you
know,
complaints
or
or
whether
there
is
information
supplied
to
the
department
indicated
there
was
non-compliance
that
you
know
there
is
a
you
know,
sort
of
a
follow-up
process
for
that
I
did
already
mention,
I
mean
specific
work.
We
did
to
look
at
use
around
water
bodies
and
some
of
the
the
some
of
the
reporting
that
those
that
are
using
pesticides
have
to
provide.
F
You
know
we
did.
We
did
find
some
some
non-compliance
there.
Also.
Another
key
item
that
arose
was
just
the
the
listing
that
needs
to
be.
You
know,
regularly
updated
and
ensured
that
only
registered
products
are
on
there
and
that
only
registered
products
are
actually
being
used
and-
and
we've
found
some
some
issues
where
it
looked
like.
F
You
know,
products
that
were
no
longer
on
the
the
list
were
actually
being
used
and
the
department
had
to
go
back
and
just
to
make
sure
if
that
you
know
was
in
fact
you
know
a
legal
product
used
or
is
it
just
an
air
in
their
data?
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
cleanup
that
had
to
take
place
at
the
department
as
well
just
to
make
sure
that
they
had
all
that
correct
information.
F
But
ultimately
our
our
approach
was
to
look
at
the
process
and
how
that
was
functioning,
and
we
did
also
want
to
recognize
that
I
mean
it's
not
like.
They
can
throw
an
unlimited
number
of
people
at
regulatory
activities
for
pesticides,
so
that
they're
designing
a
good
good
process
to
capture
those
risks
and
appropriately
respond
to
them.
Q
B
Thank
you,
member
Singh,
fourth
rotation,
then,
over
to
the
official
opposition.
Please.
J
The
capital
projects
again
so
just
just
to
be
clear.
The
auditor
general
didn't
office
didn't
actually
look
to
transportation's
evaluations
of
the
projects
that
were
put
forward
as
part
of
this
covet
Capital
stimulus
initiative.
Is
that
correct?
You
just
looked
at
treasury
board
finances
analysis
of
the
report
or
of
the
projects.
Sorry.
I
Yeah
for
the
for
those
four
projects,
what
I
can
say
is
we
did
not.
We
did
not
go
to
the
Department
of
Health,
Transportation
or
education
and
look
at
you
know
the
amount
of
work
they
had
done
on
those
projects.
G
I
could
just
get
back
to
when
we're
doing
an
audit.
We
scope
an
audit
and
what's
in
scope-
and
in
this
case
we
were
auditing
the
process
at
the
Department
of
Treasury
board
and
finance
that
it
was
using
and
what
you're
seeing
here
is
we're
identifying,
where
there
was
exceptions
to
that
process
and
we're
identifying
those
and
and
highlighting
those.
So
we
weren't
auditing
in
this
audit
processes
used
by
Transportation
or
other
Ministries.
G
It
was
the
expectation,
was
that
they'd
be
following
the
process
and
where
they
weren't
we'd,
bring
forward
the
exceptions
and
Report
those.
J
So
I
I
I
guess
my
concern
is
that
for,
for
example,
there
was
a
120
million
dollar
Road,
the
expansion
of
Highway
11
that
ran
right
through
the
the
minister
at
the
Times
constituency,
the
former
Vice
chair
of
priorities
and
implementations
Committee
of
cabinet.
J
Now
this
was
a
120
million
dollar
project
that
was
spent
with
no
evaluation
from
treasury
board
and
finance.
You
know
what
what
additional
information
I
guess
would
the
people
of
Alberta
need
to
know
to
make
sure
that
this
wasn't
just
pure
pork
barrel
Politics?
On
behalf
of
the
now
member
of
Ruby
Rocky
Mountain,
House
sundry,.
J
J
If
what
what
question
would
somebody
looking
into
this
need
to
ask
to
make
sure
that
this
was
a
project
that
merited
construction
and
not
something
that
was
just
a
pet
project
by
the
minister?
Well,.
G
Again,
we
would
we
would.
We
would
cite
the
criteria
that
are
being
used
with
respect
to
the
specific
program
to
determine
whether
they
you
know,
met
that
criteria.
If
you
will
and
I
just
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
Loop
this
back
to
the
performance
reporting
again,
this
is
an
opportunity
where,
if
this
program,
there
was
a
reporting
back
on
the
effectiveness
of
this
program
and
and
the
efficacy
of
of
of
its
operations,
this
would
be
an
opportunity
for
management
to
describe
exactly
what
happened
here
and
what
process
those
projects
went
through.
G
So
again,
I
think
trying
to
highlight
the
importance
of
performance
reporting.
It's
not
a
perfunctory
task,
it's
an
opportunity
to
help
inform
so
that,
quite
frankly,
members
such
as
yourself
and
albertans
aren't
asking
these
questions.
What's
going
on
here,
there's
an
opportunity
to
to
describe
fully
and
we're
not
saying
anything,
nefarious
is
going
on
again.
Our
Point
here
is
that
you
had
a
process
and
in
four
particular
cases
it
was
not
followed,
and
it's
not
for
us
quite
frankly
to
be
answering
that
that's
an
excellent
opportunity.
G
We're
performance
reporting
is
a
great
opportunity
we
had
included
in
our
performance
report
where
we
mentioned
earlier,
where
we
met
with
with
the
committee.
There
were
certain
performance
measures
that
we
did
not
meet.
We
did
not
achieve
targets
in
one
particular
area,
but
it
was
an
opportunity
for
us
to
describe
why
right
and
and
then,
if
there's
further
questions,
we're
prepared
to
answer
that,
but
I
think
that's
this
wholesome
notion
of
performance
reporting
it's
a
great
opportunity
to
help,
inform
and
to
deal
with
the
type
of
questions
that
you're
now
asking
remember.
J
So
just
one
final
question
for
me:
noting
that
the
process
had
some
exceptions
here
and
that
Transportation
could
have
done.
The
analysis
is
that
going
to
be
the
work
of
some
future
investigations
by
the
auditor
general?
Will
you
look
further
into
these
projects
and
and
see
if
the
pro
proper
processes
were
in
place
by
Alberta
transportation
to
approve
these
projects.
I
I
I
You
know
when
they
would
twin
roads
when
they
wouldn't
when
they
repave
roads
when
they
shouldn't
and
all
of
that,
so
so
they
would.
You
know
they
would.
They
would
have
answers
to
those
questions
as
to
you
know
where
this
this
particular
project
or
other
projects
fit
in
their
prioritization
model
based
on
on
the
criteria
they
use.
R
R
It
is
essential
that
all
FSD
caseworkers
are
equally
skilled
and
able
to
assess,
need
plant
supports
for
the
child
and
family
training
completion
time.
Overall,
training
completion
and
even
review
of
training
materials
was
really
real,
really
poor,
Regional
differences
are
glaring
and
often
service
levels
are
influenced
by
the
time
of
year,
the
location
and
the
worker.
So
at
the
time
of
the
audit,
how
many
so
I
note
that
there
were
260
active
staff
members
that
were
identified
in
the
report
in
Alberta?
R
R
My
problem
is:
I
have
asked
the
department
a
number
of
times
and
I'm,
not
getting
that
information
and
the
reason
I'm
asking
that
is
since
2019,
community
and
Social
Services
has
lost
over
500
ftes
and
so
with
the
three
recommendations
focused
very
much
on
Staffing,
so
Frontline
caseworkers,
as
well
as
managers,
because
oversight
was
clearly
a
problem
in
this
performance
audit.
R
Obviously-
and
so
it's
just
I'm
wanting
to
see
like
does
it
have
something
to
do
with
the
fact
that
over
500
ftes
have
been
lost
so
I'm,
just
not
able
to
find
that
information.
So
if
you
have
it,
that
would
be
great.
I
was
also
going
to
ask
about
staff
turnover
rates.
If
the
auditor
General's
office
has
that
information
or
if
that's
available,
okay.
R
So
do
so,
the
ministry
is
taking
much
longer
to
determine
eligibility
to
approve
supports
to
sign
contracts
and
renewals,
and
there
really
are
no
published
acceptable
timelines
for
each
stage.
So
there's
application
and
then
there's
an
assessment
portion.
Then
there's
the
development
of
the
plan.
Now
was
there?
Are
there
any
timelines
internal
to
the
ministry
like
sort
of
benchmarks
about
how
long
these
different
phases
should
be
taking.
H
R
Not
seen
them
so,
okay
that'd
be
great.
If
you
could
point
us
to
those
later.
R
Just
like
to
say
on
the
record
too,
that
you
know
in
all
budget
estimates
and
even
through
Public
Accounts
well,
the
CSS
meeting
got
bumped,
obviously,
but
that
I
have
tried
for
a
number
of
years
to
get
that
information
and
have
not
been
able
to.
So.
One
of
the
other
questions
I
have
is
about
the
wait
list,
because
there
are
no
clear
goals
and
benchmarks
that
we
have
this
wait
list.
R
They
need
and
I've
asked
the
ministry
about
their
wait
list
and
he
plans
to
address
the
wait
list
and
I
don't
get
anything
back
and
there
are
literally
4
000
families
noted
in
there
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
there
was
any
work
by
the
AG's
office
to
to
look
at
that
wait
list
to
look
at
the
growth
of
the
the
wait
list.
Any
work
at
all.
There.
H
B
O
You
thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
alter
General
and
your
team
for
the
work
you
do.
I'll
be
quick
here
getting
to
my
questions,
I
notice,
on
page
80
of
the
report
that
indigenous
relations
only
have
one
new
recommendation
and
it
states
that
the
department
of
indigenous
economic
participation
should
improve
its
performance
reporting
process
for
its
programs
to
achieve
increased
indigenous
economic
participation.
Super
question:
can
the
auto
General
please
further
admire
how
these
improved
performance
reporting
processes
will
help
lead
to
Greater
indigenous
economic
participation.
G
So
we
just
want
to
be
clear
to
share
the
question:
how
these
recommendations
to
improve
performance
reporting
will
help.
O
G
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
question
yeah.
Well,
this
program,
I
believe,
was
originally
established
by
the
government
in
2000,
thereabouts
and-
and
it's
really
was
originally
designed
to
deal
with
achieving
self-reliance
and
enhanced
well-being
of
indigenous
peoples
and
then
in
2020.
G
It
was
articulated
as
improved
Economic,
Security
and
prosperity
of
indigenous
peoples
in
Alberta,
and
our
point
is
that
there
are
programs
that
are
in
place,
monies
are
being
expended
and
yet
there's
an
opportunity
to
determine
what
is
being
achieved.
So
what
are
the
results
achieved
for
that
spend
and
that's
why
we're
actually
make
the
three-part
recommendation,
which
is
you
know,
to
establish
targets
for
all
programs?
G
So
what
are
the
objectives
and
then
what
is
what's
to
be
achieved
by
the
program
and
then
reporting
back
on
that
the
learning
would
be
what's
working?
Well,
what's
not
working
well,
do
we
need
to
invest
in
programs
that
are
working
well?
Do
we
need
to
stop
investing
in
programs
that
are
not
working
so
well,
so
it's
it's
really
that
you
know
performance
reporting
is
is
part
of
a
continual
learning.
G
Envelope
too,
where
you
know
the
idea,
if
you
have
an
objective,
you
were
you,
you
know
you
go
and
do
the
work
you
report
back
and
then
you
assess
whether
you've
achieved
what
you
wanted
to,
and
you
make
a
an
assessment
again
of
how
do
we
how
how
best
to
achieve
that
objective?
So
it
really
is
about
coming
back
and
and
achieving
what
the
the
objectives
of
of
the
government
and
and
the
programs
are.
G
That's
why
performance
reporting
is
is
important
from
that
learning
perspective,
but
then
there's
also
the
public
accountability
perspective
and
and
Reporting
back
to
the
legislative
assembly
on
what
was
achieved
with
the
investment
of
of
tax
dollars.
So
hopefully
that
helps.
O
Yes
and
thank
you,
I
will
pass
on
to
my
colleague,
Emily
step.
One
now.
N
There
we
go
I
have
a
question
about
the
December
22nd
or
December
2022
auditor
general
report.
Page
98
of
the
report
says
that,
as
discussed
earlier,
that
5400
applicants
were
identified
as
high
risk.
We
sampled
just
over
a
thousand
of
them
and
over
half
of
them
were
found
to
be
eligible.
N
G
Remember,
I'm
not
too
sure
at
this
time
what
the
department
is
is
going
to
do.
What
we're
reporting
on
page
98
is,
you
cite,
is
the
results
of
the
Department's
own
work
and
it
that
is
they've
determined
that
546
were
ineligible,
which
represents
52
percent
I'm,
not
sure
what
they're
going
to
do
in
following
up
on
that
Rob.
Do
you
know.
E
No,
that
is
one
of
the
questions
that
we
had
asked
and
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
because
of
how
they
completed
their
sampling,
that
52
percent
can't
be
applied
to
the
other
54
or
to
the
remainder
of
that
population
of
5400
high-risk
applications.
So
they
would
need
to
do
some
other
analysis
or
some
other
additional
testing
to
get
Comfort
to
be
able
to
make
that
conclusion
on
on
the
population
as
a
whole.
So
the
the
testing
that
they
have
completed,
because
it
was
more
judgmental
in
terms
of
how
they
made
their
selections.
E
That
would
provide
information
strictly
on
that,
roughly
one
thousand
payments
or
applicants
that
they
examined,
but
they
it
wouldn't
provide
any
additional
information
on
the
remaining.
You
know,
roughly
4
400.
N
Okay,
maybe
as
a
supplemental
question
to
that,
because
I
know
we're
running
out
of
time,
but
as
I
understand
it
smer
cost
Alberta
taxpayers
over
600
million
dollars,
I'm
wondering
what
deterrence
in
the
program
design
are
there
against
fraud?
Are
there
Financial
penalties
for
inappropriate
applications?
Is
there
interest
on
monies
that
were
inappropriately
paid.
E
I
I,
don't
know
all
of
the
details
off
the
top
of
my
head,
I'm
I'm,
not
aware
of
anything.
It
would
simply
be
that
if
you
were
determined
to
be
ineligible,
you
would
need
to
repay
any
monies
that
were
paid
to
you
back,
but
there
was
an
interest
component
in
addition
and
and
any
sort
of
an
additional
penalty,
I
I'm.
Sorry
I
can't
recall
that
off
the
top
of
my
head.
N
N
Look
at
the
value
for
money,
comparing
the
economic
benefits
from
this
program
versus
the
600
million
dollar
cost.
E
We
did
not
do
that.
In
fact
we
asked
the
question
in
term
when
we
looked
at
the
design
of
the
program.
We
looked
to
see
what
sort
of
measures
the
department
was
actually
going
to
look
at,
because
the
the
overall
objective
was
the
program
were
to
help
these
organizations
through
this
time.
E
So
how
are
they
measuring
that
and
how
are
they
going
to
make
that
assessment
and,
as
we
point
out
on
page
99,
we
didn't
see
any
assessment
being
made
by
the
department
looking
at
that
there's
they
had
indicated
that
there
may
be
some
additional
analysis
that
they
may
do
and
that
it
may
come
out
of
that.
But
at
this
point
in
time
we
haven't
seen
anything
where
they've
done
that
type
of
analysis.
N
E
P
Thank
you
chair.
Can
you
hear
me?
Thank
you
yes
yeah,
so
my
questions
are
related
to
recommendations
on
page
157
to
treasury
board.
Finance.
Of
course,
all
albertans
and
taxpayers
appreciate
they
have
a
balanced
budget
now,
but
I
just
wanted
to
talk
about
the
you
know:
the
liquidity
to
reduce
government
debt
and
the
minimized
borrowing
costs.
P
Specifically.
How
much
is
the
TBF
currently
spending
on
servicing
the
debt
and
if
they
include
all
your
recommendations
like
effective
utilization
of
our
liquid
assets,
what
would
be
the
net
total
net
impact
of
the
changes
on
the
budget
turned
on
the
economy.
G
Chair
through
you,
I'm
not
too
sure
if
we
can
answer
some
of
the
specifics
on
the
the
actual
changes
in
the
economic
impact,
but
I'll
ask
Brad
to
see
at
a
high
level
if
we
could
try
to
address
your
question.
Yeah.
I
I,
don't
I
don't
have
specific
numbers,
but
what
I?
What
I
can
say
is
so
yeah.
We've
got
five
recommendations
here,
related
to
cash
management
from
2016.,
and
a
lot
of
that
was
looking
at
ways
in
which
the
government
managed
cash
and
if
you
were,
you
know,
flowing
funds
out
to
different
entities.
You
had
cash
in
various
Pockets
that
you
couldn't
utilize
and
couldn't
spend
effectively.
So
I
know
right
now.
I
The
treasury
board
and
finance
is,
is
implementing
a
new
system
around
pooling
cash
better
to
help
to
you
know,
minimize
interest
costs
and
and
maximize
Returns
on
that
cash,
so
they're
in
the
process
now
of
implementing
a
new
liquidity
management
strategy,
and
that
is
going
to
be
something
that
we
you
know.
We
look
up
in
upcoming
audits,.
P
A
P
All
agree
that
by
paying
back
debt
quickly,
we
avoid
paying
hundreds
of
millions
in
interest
to
the
Banks
overseas.
So
we
can
use
that
money
for
public
programs,
including
building
infrastructure
required
for
delivering
public
programs.
Do
you
agree,
foreign.
B
Thank
you,
honorable
member.
We
now
have
three
minutes
per
side
to
read.
Questions
into
the
record.
If
there
are
any
for
for
written
follow-up,
I
will
look
to
the
official
opposition.
No
questions.
I
I
will
look
to
the
government
side
good.
B
No
questions
already
then
well.
Thank
you
very
much
everyone,
and
that
now
concludes
from
a
piece
of
our
meeting
here
this
morning.
If
there
were
any
outstanding
questions
that
were
requested
during
the
Q
a
period,
we
ask
that
those
be
responded
to
in
writing
within
30
days
and
is
there
any
other
business
for
discussion
right
now.
B
There
will
be
no
caroling.
Thank
you,
member
pan,
Shirley,
for
that
that
is
out
of
order,
and
so
the
date
of
the
next
meeting
will
be
at
the
call
of
the
chair
in
the
new
year,
I'll
Now
call
for
a
motion
to
adjourn
moved
by
member
Hunter.
Thank
you
all
in
favor
any
opposed
the
committee
is
now
adjourned.
Thank
you.