W, n ,
had two years, which was industry system limbo. i don't care which side of the house you're on or where you sit as a training provider or as an employer. i think every- body agrees the system needs stability. at's what we're dedicated to providing.
i don't know that it's accurate to say that we are build- ing layer upon layer. in fact, those various constituent components already exist in the training system. ey existed in the '70s and under itac, and they exist now.
e key is: how do we develop the mechanism so that
they can collaborate and communicate, and ita pro- vides the leadership so that we are pointing all in the same direction? at, i believe, is the challenge, and i believe we're making progress in that regard.
V. Huntington: and those organizations are begin- ning to trust your capacity to deliver?
K. Evans: Well, there's nothing like results to build that trust. Just one further comment on the….
V. Huntington: all right. let's hope it doesn't collapse under its own weight here. at's my concern.
K. Evans: You know, it's obviously…. i started my response to your question by saying that the rst con- sideration is that we need to have continuity. if we nd that the complexity is in fact threatening that continuity, then we need to take a look at the complexity.
V. Huntington: Yeah. finally, my biggest concern with this entire report and the discussion that surrounds it is that.... to me, it's a broader policy issue that i believe has to be looked at. maybe this is an issue for the auditor general to comment on.
What i'm sensing is that there's a habit within govern- ment — and i'm not saying any government; i'm just saying any government — to set up these organizations almost with the wave of a wand. "You go out and do a, B, c and d. is is your mandate. go out and do it." i guess there's a budget that goes along with that mandate. But there is no overall best-practices guide, no struc- ture given, no monitoring on how these organizations set themselves up, no expectation other than mandate delivery.
i guess this is where the auditor general's report, i
nd, is so helpful. i don't think this is so much a problem
of ita, although you could question the management capacity that it had initially. But to me it's sending o, out there into the wild blue yonder…. it's like a ship with no guts in it.
i'm wondering if there's a way in which government as a whole ought to be looking at this issue and provid- ing some better basis upon which to start all of these new crown corporations and authorities that get lied
o and sent away every once in a while. i don't like to see this type of hollow shell just setting itself up for destruc- tion, when it's really given no leadership by government, as a whole, in how to maintain its viability.
i wonder if there's any recommendation the auditor general could make on how government could look at that problem.
J. Doyle: it's something i've noticed in a few situa- tions that we've looked at, whether we've conducted the full audit or not conducted the full audit. But as you'd be aware, i don't usually comment unless i've actually conducted some work.
may i just say here, in this particular report, that we found there was confusion and diculties in the early years of ita. en the ceo turned it around. ere's just no substitute for good leadership, good direction, focus, attention to detail.
i think a lot of the change and the collaboration that has occurred has been due to the leadership within the organization and the quality of the sta within that organization.
 if there's any secret ingredient that needs to be in place, i suggest that that's it. clarity of vision. clarity of approach. good sta with good leadership. at's straight out of a management textbook, i'm afraid.
now, sometimes the situation is such that no matter how good the leadership is or how good the sta are, they will have diculties because of the situation, and that does occur as well. i've not conducted any work in that particular area to assess new startups, but it's been an observation of mine that whenever a new organiz- ation starts with a mandate to bring around eective change there are always diculties at the beginning, and the dust has to settle before the outcomes that are de- sired start to manifest.
V. Huntington: and i agree. is was beautifully turned around. it's obviously on a good course, and i compliment everybody for their response to the initial issues. But as government becomes ultimately respon- sible for the startup of a crown corporation, is there no expectation, no manual, best practices, no monitoring of that initial startup to ensure that it is fullling a man- agement best practice in the initial stages?
K. Evans: if i may, we do have the crown corporations secretariat, and it is quite vigorous in sharing best practi- ces between crown corporations. i know i've learned a lot by what they've done — some of my colleagues in other crown corporations. Whether or not i could have used a crash course for six months before i started the job — probably. But the fact is that on an ongoing basis there is that kind of interchange of best practices and success stories. also, we learn from people's mistakes.