we have issues that we need to go look in. ey go in, based on the authority that the comptroller general's oce has, to get whatever information they deem necessary, get whatever interviews that they need to have from employees or other individuals, to be able to resolve what comes to our attention. So we do have four.
i think that currently what we are doing is reactive, based on what we get as information coming in. it would be nice to dedicate more sta to that, to do something more proactive, which is the purpose of the risk assess- ment that we were in the process of working on this year, to then be able to target: are there other areas outside of the reactive work that we are currently doing that we could get this group focusing on?
So yes, we have it. e work currently is reactive. it needs to be more proactive. We've been working towards that. i think we're dealing with the balance between ac- tivities and resources.
internal audit also identies a number of other areas that are high risk, outside of fraud, that we need to look at, and so our annual risk assessment would have fraud included, but it wouldn't rank as high as some of the other issues that we're dealing with. Some of the other issues that we're dealing with may have an element of fraud in them if we did nd a problem in that area.
to answer your question, yes, we've got something. no, it's not as proactive as what you're describing in the banking system. however, i'm sure the banking system itself would have had some degree of risk assessment attached to which branch we go into because what we are seeing might be a problem, or it may have been a tip as well.
We do a bit of that. e question always is with fraud: how much of an investment do you want to make? i think a coordinated strategy, at least, and a risk assess- ment would get us a better sense on: are we adequately invested in that area?
J. Doyle: i just wanted to observe that this particu- lar topic is on my radar screen. or is it a sonar screen? Whatever screen it is, it's on there. i think more re- sources need to be deployed until such time as there is a robust, mainstreamed system in place within the B.c. public service. i'm not sure yet what my contri- bution or my oce's contribution to that will be, but i think it needs to be ramped up sooner rather than later, and i'm looking at how we can contribute to that process.
 n o w , a t t h e m o m e n t w e ' v e s t o p p e d a t t h e g u i d a n c arrangements, but i think there are also areas that i mentioned at the beginning where we would be going into other areas within the entity that have not been looked at much. e
W, n ,
We'll also be looking at the management letters, which is information on the ground from external auditors, fellow cas who are looking at control weaknesses that exist within entities. from that we'll be able to estimate some kind of risk prole in regard to dierent organ- izations. add to that the whistle-blowing tip line…. i'm happy to make a few comments about whistle-blower protection later. i have made some already before this committee on other occasions.
it seems to me that now that this is a topic, now that it has been reported on and now that i've mentioned that we are going to be doing some work on it, i think that we need to move forward. i think that the four people do a good job. it's just that, as has been described, they are reactive. ey're not proactive. i don't think they have the same impact, ralph, that your team of draconian in- spectors would have had when it comes to banks, and maybe they shouldn't have.
ere is a lot of fraud going on, and i'm not sure that
we need to put that on the front page of newspapers. i think what we need to do is learn from those weaknesses and deal with them.
e fact that there is fraud when it comes to claims….
is fraud the correct characterization? it could just be incorrect lling out of forms. it could be any number of dierent things that caused an overpayment or an underpayment. i think putting those things into per- spective properly and putting the resources where the risks are is what's required, and i think there's a bit of thinking to be done into that situation as we go forward.
i would say that during the coming calendar year, if i were here talking again about fraud and where we are, i might be talking a little bit about what else we found and how we are progressing to try and im- prove the level of fraud within the sector. indeed, i hope Stuart is here, either in this capacity or his pre- vious capacity, doing the same thing, because i think it's important.
b. Ralston (Chair): ank you very much. i don't have any further questions. i think people might be anx- ious to adjourn.
Before we do, i just want to make a brief comment on our next meeting.
Next Committee Meeting
b. Ralston (Chair): We're meeting on tuesday, december 7. e IT Continuity Planning. Subject to dis- cussion between the deputy chair and myself, we may be able to accommodate it at the end of that agenda, but we'll have a discussion about the agenda.
e items that we're proposing at this point, again
subject to a discussion, would certainly be report 5, Removing Private Land from Tree Farm Licences, the audit