Background
8.1   	This follow-up chapter promotes accountability by 
giving the Legislative Assembly, and the general 
public, information about how responsive government 
has been to our value for money recommendations. 
We think it is important that both MLAs and 
taxpayers be provided with sufficient information to 
assess the progress government is making in 
implementing these recommendations.
8.2   	Note that recommendations made to departments 
and Crown agencies pursuant to our financial audit 
work are followed up annually as part of our financial 
audit process, and are not discussed in this chapter.  
For a complete list of Value for Money reports over 
the last ten years, please see Appendix A.

8.3   	We continue to have a strategic goal that 
departments and agencies accept and implement our 
value for money recommendations. Consequently, in 
this chapter we report on the progress updates as 
provided to us by departments and Crown agencies for 
value for money recommendations made in our 2009, 
2010, and 2011 Reports. Even though we did not have 
the resources to review the accuracy of all responses, 
we reviewed the responses received related to our 
2009 recommendations for accuracy and gathered and 
summarized the information submitted by 
departments for 2010 and 2011. (See Appendix B for 
detailed status report of recommendations since 
2009).
Summary 
8.4   	Our overall results show departments and agencies 
report they had implemented about 72% (83 of 115) of 
our value for money recommendations from the 2009, 
2010 and 2011 Reports of the Auditor General.  
8.5   	We are pleased that the percentage of value for 
money recommendations implemented from 2009 was 
74%, given it is the highest such four-year percentage 
we have ever reported. It also appears, based on self-
reporting by the Departments responsible for 
responding to recommendations in our 2010 and 2011 
reports, that four-year percentages may ultimately be 
at a comparable level for 2010 and 2011 as well. 
Scope and Objectives
8.6   	Our practice is to track the status of our value for 
money recommendations for four years after they first 
appear in the Report of the Auditor General, starting 
in the second year after the original Report. In other 
words, in this 2013 Report, we are tracking progress 
on value for money recommendations from 2009, 
2010 and 2011. Our objective is to determine the 
degree of progress departments and agencies have 
made in implementing our recommendations. We 
have assessed their progress as fully implemented, not 
implemented, disagreed with, or no longer applicable.

8.7   	To prepare this chapter, we request written updates 
on progress from the respective departments and 
Crown agencies. They are asked to provide their 
assessment of the status of each value for money 
recommendation. In addition, departments and 
agencies also add any explanatory comments they 
believe necessary to explain the rationale for their 
assessment. 

8.8   	We received all updates requested.

8.9   	In the past year we followed up on all value for 
money recommendations made in our 2009 Report. 
Areas covered included:
*	La Caisse populaire de Shippagan;
*	Provincial Testing of Students Anglophone Sector;
*	Environmental Trust Fund;
*	New Brunswick Innovation Foundation; and
*	Review of Nursing Home Contract with Shannex 
Inc.
Detailed Findings
8.10   	This section provides details on how well 
departments and Crown agencies have done in 
implementing value for money recommendations we 
made in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011.  Exhibit 8.1 
gives an overview of the status of recommendations 
by department and agency. Exhibit 8.2 shows the 
results summarized by year. 

8.11   	Exhibit 8.2 shows departments and agencies 
reported to us that they had implemented 48 of 68 
(about 71%) of our value for money recommendations 
from 2010 and 2011 Reports of the Auditor General.  
For 2009, based upon departmental and agency 
reporting, and our own review of their assessments, 
we have concluded that 35 of 47 (i.e. 74%) of our 
recommendations have been implemented. Of the 
remaining 12 recommendations, 10 have been agreed 
with but not yet implemented, and two have been 
disagreed with. Two additional recommendations 
made in 2009 are no longer applicable.  Consistent 
with our established process, this is the last year that 
our 2009 value for money recommendations will be 
subject to our formal follow up process. However, 
project areas covered in 2009 may be considered for 
future value for money reports.



Exhibit 8.1 - Status of Value for Money Recommendations as Reported by Departments/Agencies
Department / 
Agency
Audit area
Year
Value for Money Recommendations
% 
Implemented



Total
Disagreed
Implemented
Agreed/Not 
implemented
No longer 
applicable

Economic 
Development
Financial Assistance 
to Industry
2010
7
2
2
3
0
29

New Brunswick 
Innovation 
Foundation
2009
9
2
4
2
1
44
Tourism, Heritage 
and Culture
New Brunswick Art 
Bank
2010
7
0
7
0
0
100
Education and 
Early Childhood 
Development
Provincial Testing of 
Students 
Anglophone Sector
2009
16
0
14
2
0
88
Environment and 
Local Government
Wastewater 
Commissions
2011
7
0
5
2
0
71

Environmental Trust 
Fund
2009
8
0
5
2
1
63
Executive Council/
Legislative 
Assembly
Constituency Office 
Costs for MLAs and 
Executive Council
2011
5
0
3
2
0
60
Finance / 
Transportation and 
Infrastructure
Public Private 
Partnerships
2011
10
0
9
1
0
90
Justice and the 
Attorney General
La Caisse populaire 
de Shippagan
2009
6
0
6
0
0
100
New Brunswick 
Liquor Corporation
Agency Stores
2010
10
0
10
0
0
100
Post Secondary 
Education, Training 
and Labour
Immigration with the 
Provincial Nominee 
Program
2010
20
0
12
8
0
60
Social 
Development
CMHC Social 
Housing Agreement
2011
2
0
0
2
0
0
Transportation and 
Infrastructure / 
Social 
Development
Review of Nursing 
Home Contract with 
Shannex Inc.
2009
10
0
6
4
0
60
Totals
117
4
83
28
2
72




Exhibit 8.2 - Summary Status of Recommendations by Year as Reported by Departments/Agency 

Year
Recommendations


Total
No longer 
applicable
Implemented
Agreed/Not 
implemented
Disagreed
% Implemented
2011
24
0
17
7
0
71
2010
44
0
31
11
2
70
2009
49
2
35
10
2
74
Total
117
2
83
28
4
72

Comments on 
recommendations from 
2009
8.12   	Exhibit 8.3 provides a full listing of our 2009 
value for money recommendations that are still not 
implemented. 

8.13   	Our 2009 value for money recommendations have 
reached the end of the four year follow-up cycle. 
Projects included in the 2009 Report included: 

*	La Caisse populaire de Shippagan;
*	Provincial Testing of Students Anglophone Sector;
*	Environmental Trust Fund;
*	New Brunswick Innovation Foundation; and
*	Review of Nursing Home Contract with Shannex 
Inc.

8.14   	Immediately following Exhibit 8.3, we provide 
additional commentary on some of the value for 
money recommendations from these five 2009 
projects.
8.15   	We encourage Members of the Legislative 
Assembly to look at the 2009 value for money 
recommendations which the government has not 
implemented. Upcoming meetings of the Public 
Accounts Committee and the Crown Corporations 
Committee provide an opportunity for Members to 
pursue the status of these recommendations with the 
involved departments and Crown agencies.






Exhibit 8.3 - Summary Status of 2009 Value for Money Recommendations Not Implemented
Departmen
t / Agency
Chapter 
Name
Year
Volume
Chapter
Paragrap
h
Recommendation
Status
Economic 
Developm
ent
New 
Brunswick 
Innovatio
n 
Foundatio
n
200
9
3
4
25
We recommend BNB should require NBIF to sign a letter of 
agreement before transferring additional funds to the Trust. 
That letter of agreement should clearly document: 
*	The amount and timing of funding to flow from BNB to 
NBIF, the period covered, and any significant details 
relating to the process for NBIF accessing those funds. 
*	BNB performance expectations for NBIF relating to its 
delivery of innovation funding. Those performance 
expectations should include: 
?	Expected program outcomes to be achieved by NBIF; 
?	A requirement for NBIF to be covered by and 
compliant with the provincial Auditor General Act, 
giving our Office the legal right to conduct 
compliance and performance audits at NBIF and 
report the results of those audits to the Legislative 
Assembly; 
?	A requirement for periodic independent evaluations 
of the delivery of innovation funding through NBIF 
using recognized evaluation standards; and 
?	A requirement for NBIF to apply public sector values 
in delivering innovation funding for the Province. 
This should include a requirement for NBIF to adopt a 
code of conduct, including conflict-of-interest 
guidelines, that is signed by all board members and 
staff. It should also include a requirement that NBIF 
be as publicly open as possible regarding access to 
information on the agreements, objectives, activities, 
and achievements with appropriate provisions being 
made for legitimate concerns of personal privacy, 
commercial confidence, and intergovernmental 
negotiations.
*	Reporting required by BNB from NBIF. Required 
reporting should facilitate BNB monitoring and 
effectiveness reporting related to all aspects of NBIF’s 
performance. 
*	A requirement for both parties to comply with terms of the 
operational memorandum of understanding signed by 
BNB and NBIF. 
*	Specific remedies available to BNB should NBIF fail to 
meet government performance expectations or reporting 
requirements associated with the arrangement. In such 
cases, BNB should have the right to withdraw funding, 
roll-over funding to future years, or take other specific 
actions as determined appropriate in the circumstances. 
*	The role of government representatives on the board of 
NBIF.
*	Other terms and conditions as considered necessary in the 
circumstances.
Not 
Implemented
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
 
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
N
e
w
 
B
r
u
n
s
w
i
c
k
 
I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
 
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
200
9
3
4
27
We recommend BNB should publicly report information on 
the extent to which the arrangement with NBIF has 
accomplished its provincial policy objectives, and at what 
cost, in its annual report.
Not 
Implemented


200
9
3
4
28
We recommend BNB should table evaluation reports related 
to the arrangement in the Legislative Assembly because of 
the value of those reports as inputs to public policy 
decisions associated with the delivery of innovation funding.
Disagreed 
With


200
9
3
4
29
We recommend BNB should carefully consider the 
ramifications of the potential conflict for government 
representatives on the NBIF board between their fiduciary 
duties as board members and their assigned roles as 
protectors of the provincial interest relating to innovation 
funding delivered through NBIF. Action should be taken to 
mitigate any identified risks. The simplest option would be 
to eliminate the requirement that provincial representatives 
sit on the board of NBIF, or as a minimum remove their 
voting rights as board members.
Disagreed 
With
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
 
a
n
d
 
E
a
r
l
y
 
C
h
i
l
d
h
o
o
d
 
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
 
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
 
o
f
 
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
 
A
n
g
l
o
p
h
o
n
e
 
S
e
c
t
o
r
200
9
3
2
33
The Department should ensure the Minister’s advisory 
committee actively operates in compliance with legislation. 
The representation on the Minister’s advisory committee and 
the frequency of its meetings should allow the advisory 
committee to serve its purpose.
Not 
Implemented


200
9
3
2
91
The Department should document a policy on reporting 
individual students’ results on provincial tests.
Not 
Implemented
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
 
a
n
d
 
L
o
c
a
l
 
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
 
T
r
u
s
t
 
F
u
n
d
200
9
3
3
43
We therefore recommended the Department establish clearer 
objectives for the Environmental Trust Fund.
Not 
Implemented


200
9
3
3
105
We recommended the Department’s annual report include 
more information about the performance of the 
Environmental Trust Fund.
Not 
Implemented
S
o
c
i
a
l
 
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
 
o
f
 
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
 
H
o
m
e
 
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
 
w
i
t
h
 
S
h
a
n
n
e
x
 
I
n
c
.
200
9
3
5
48
We recommended the Department of Social Development 
put in place a formal mechanism to assess the success of the 
pilot project they have entered into with Shannex.
Not 
Implemented


200
9
3
5
62
We recommended the Department of Social Development 
prepare and document a risk assessment of the Shannex 
contract and identify any mitigating actions that should be 
put in place.
Not 
Implemented


200
9
3
5
72
We recommended the Department of Social Development 
start planning a replacement tender in year three of the 
current contract.
Not 
Implemented


200
9
3
5
75
We recommended the Department of Social Development 
put in place a plan for how residents would be 
accommodated through any future move that could be 
required at the expiration of the contract term.
Not 
Implemented












Health
Medicare – Payments to Doctors (2012)

8.16   	In 2012, we did work to determine if the Department 
of Health (Department) was maximizing its recovery of 
incorrect Medicare payments to doctors, through the 
practitioner audit function. We concluded that this was 
not the case. Consequently, we made three 
recommendations in our 2012 Report addressing 
identified deficiencies.

8.17   	Medicare has a huge impact on the lives of all New 
Brunswickers. In the 2010-2011 fiscal year (2011), 
roughly 1,873 doctors were paid under this program. 
Medicare expenditures for 2011 were slightly more than 
half of a billion dollars ($553.3 million) and represented 
one of government’s highest cost programs. Because of 
the significance of the Medicare program, we reviewed the 
status of our recommendations in 2013, even though a 
2012 report would not normally be reviewed until 2014 
under our regular follow up process.

8.18   	We were pleased to note that one recommendation had 
already been implemented. Starting with their 2011-12 
annual report, the Department now publicly reports 
summary-level information showing doctor remuneration 
by specialty and total payments for each remuneration 
method (i.e. Fee-For-Service, salary, sessional, other). 
Work has also commenced pursuant to the implementation 
of the other two recommendations. We will be revisiting 
the status of all three recommendations in future years as 
part of our regular follow up process.



Education and Early Childhood Development
Provincial Testing of Students Anglophone Sector

8.19   	In this project our objectives were to assess the 
Department’s:
*	Strategic direction for its provincial testing of 
student in the Anglophone sector; and
*	Process of administering its provincial testing of 
students in the Anglophone sector.
8.20   	We concluded in 2009 that the department had not 
yet finalized a strategic plan for its provincial testing 
of students in the Anglophone sector. In addition, 
because the purpose for provincial testing had not 
been clearly documented, we were unable to conclude 
on the appropriateness of the Department’s process of 
administering its provincial testing of students in the 
Anglophone sector.
Fourteen of Sixteen 
recommendations have 
been fully implemented
8.21   	 We are pleased to report that of our sixteen 
original recommendations to the Department, fourteen 
have been fully implemented. However, two are still 
outstanding.
8.22   	In 2009 we recommended that:
“The Department should ensure the Minister’s 
advisory committee actively operates in compliance 
with legislation. The representation on the Minister’s 
advisory committee and the frequency of its meetings 
should allow the advisory committee to serve its 
purpose.”
8.23   	Although the Department indicated that the 
committee was compliant until May 2012, they stated 
that:
“The Minister’s advisory committee was actively 
operating from 2009 – May 2012 but was inactive in 
2012-2013.  The committee will reconvene in 2013-
14.”
The Department told us that a new committee has 
been formed and plans to begin meeting in the fall of 
2013.
8.24   	We continue to believe that compliance with the 
legislation is important and in order to be effective the 
committee needs to be active annually at a minimum. 

8.25   	We also recommended that:
“The Department should document a policy on 
reporting individual students’ results on provincial 
tests.”
8.26   	In their 2013 response, the Department indicated 
that they have “…consulted with stakeholders and 
continues to consider the requirement for formalized 
policy.  Districts and staff are certainly aware of 
consistent protocol and this will be monitored on an 
ongoing basis.  The new Framework document will 
clearly articulate individual students’ results.”
8.27   	We believe that policies provide the foundation 
for consistency in Department practices and 
procedures.  Although staff may be aware of the 
protocol, a lack of formal requirement can lead to 
inconsistent application. We encourage the 
Department to move forward with implementation of 
this recommendation.




Department of Environment and Local Government
Environmental Trust Fund 

8.28   	In this project, we wanted to determine whether 
the purpose of the Environmental Trust Fund (ETF) is 
clearly established, whether the ETF is operating as 
intended with respect to grants and whether the 
achievement of ETF goals and objectives are being 
measured and reported.








Five of our eight 
recommendations have 
been implemented
8.29   	Our 2009 report concluded that the Department 
has eligibility and assessment criteria which it is 
applying to project selection but inspection guidelines 
needed to be documented. We also concluded that 
ETF should develop more clearly defined objectives 
that are tied to the Department’s priorities as well as 
increase the amount of information pertaining to the 
Fund in the Department’s annual report.
8.30   	We made eight recommendations and have 
concluded that five have been implemented and one is 
no longer applicable due to changes in the program. 
The status of the two recommendations that have not 
been fully implemented is discussed in the paragraphs 
that follow.
8.31   	We recommended “the Department establish 
clearer objectives for the Environmental Trust Fund”. 
8.32   	The Department responded in 2013, indicating it 
“continues strategically linking project funding to 
departmental and government objectives.  The 
objectives are posted on the Department website.”
8.33   	While the Department does implement a strategic 
approach in linking project funding to departmental 
and government priorities, discussions with the 
Department indicated that the objectives of the ETF 
have not yet been formally developed, documented 
and communicated to applicants.
8.34   	We also recommended “the Department’s annual 
report include more information about the 
performance of the Environmental Trust Fund”. 
8.35   	In its 2013 response the Department stated  it “has 
been providing more information on the performance 
of the ETF in its annual report.”
8.36   	The Department indicated that it is actively 
working on providing additional information such as 
profiling successful ETF projects in its annual report. 
However, this information does not appear in its 2011-
12 annual report, the most recent one available. 
8.37   	The Department continues to indicate its 
agreement with both these recommendations, and 
although progress has been made by the Department 
towards their achievement, they have not been fully 
implemented.




Economic Development
New Brunswick Innovation Foundation 

8.38   	Our objective in this audit was:
“To assess whether governance structures and 
practices established by Business New Brunswick in 
connection with the delivery of innovation funding 
through the New Brunswick Innovation Foundation 
ensure accountability and protection of the public 
interest.”
8.39   	We concluded that based on our audit work, 
governance structures and practices established by 
Business New Brunswick in connection with the 
delivery of innovation funding through the New  
Brunswick Innovation Foundation did not ensure  
accountability and protection of the public interest.
Only four of nine 
recommendations have 
been fully implemented
8.40   	We made nine recommendations to Business New 
Brunswick (BNB), now the Department of Economic 
Development (ED), four of which have been 
implemented and one of which is no longer 
applicable. We note that two of our recommendations 
are not fully implemented and ED disagrees with the 
remaining two.
8.41   	The following paragraphs address the four 
recommendations that are still outstanding.
8.42   	We recommended, “BNB should require NBIF to 
sign a letter of agreement before transferring 
additional funds to the Trust.” We went on to specify 
a list of items that should be clearly documented in 
the letter of agreement.
8.43   	ED has, in fact, signed an accountability 
Agreement with NBIF for the period ending 31 March 
2013. It documents some, but not all, of the items 
included in our recommendation. Specific omissions 
include:
*	A requirement for NBIF to be covered by and 
compliant with the provincial Auditor General 
Act;
*	A requirement for NBIF to apply public sector 
values in delivering innovation funding for the 
Province;
*	Specific remedies available to BNB (i.e. ED) 
should NBIF fail to meet government performance 
expectations or reporting requirements; and
*	Information explaining the roles of government 
representatives on the board of NBIF.
8.44   	We continue to believe that these requirements are 
necessary to ensure accountability and protection of 
the public interest relating to the arrangement between 
ED and NBIF.
8.45   	We also recommended, “BNB should publicly 
report information on the extent to which the 
arrangement with NBIF has accomplished its 
provincial policy objectives, and at what cost, in its 
annual report.”
8.46   	We reviewed the most recent ED annual report 
available, for 2011-12, and found no information 
relating to the performance of NBIF.
8.47   	The Department disagreed with the following two 
recommendations:
*	We recommend BNB should table evaluation 
reports related to the arrangement in the 
Legislative Assembly because of the value of those 
reports as inputs to public policy decisions 
associated with the delivery of innovation funding.
*	We recommend BNB should carefully consider the 
ramifications of the potential conflict for 
government representatives on the NBIF board 
between their fiduciary duties as board members 
and their assigned roles as protectors of the 
provincial interest relating to innovation funding 
delivered through NBIF. Action should be taken to 
mitigate any identified risks. The simplest option 
would be to eliminate the requirement that 
provincial representatives sit on the board of 
NBIF, or as a minimum remove their voting rights 
as board members.
8.48   	For the first recommendation, the 2013 ED 
response stated ,“NBIF produces an Annual Report, 
detailing its investments and performance outcomes.  
An information MEC will include the NBIF annual 
report.  The Minister also is prepared to answer any 
questions relating to NBIF in the Legislature.”
8.49   	For the second recommendation, their 2013 
response noted “Government representatives provide 
a stewardship to the funding distributed by NBIF, 
according to the [Financial Administration Act] FAA.  
It is the opinion of the Office of the Attorney General 
that provincial officials serving on the NBIF Board 
did not pose a serious risk of conflict, provided 
fiduciary responsibilities were respected and 
appropriate precautions were taken in potential 
conflict of interest situations.”
8.50   	We continue to believe that the first 
recommendation should be implemented by the 
Department for the reason stated in the 
recommendation wording. In the case of the second 
recommendation, the Department appears to be 
willing to accept a certain level of risk in order to 
obtain the perceived benefits of placing government 
representatives on the NBIF board.  We continue to 
believe that the potential conflict is significant enough 
to warrant taking one of the actions suggested in our 
recommendation.




Social Development
Review of Nursing Home Contract with Shannex Inc.
Six of our ten 
recommendations have 
been implemented
8.51   	In 2009, we reviewed a Social Development 
nursing home contract with Shannex Inc. The contract 
was undertaken through an approved exemption from 
the public tendering process under Public Purchasing 
Act regulation 94-157, section 27.1(1)(d) as an urgent 
situation.
8.52   	We made ten recommendations to Social 
Development (SD) and the then Department of Supply 
and Services, now the Department of Government 
Services (DGS). We note in the following paragraphs 
however that four of the recommendations to SD 
remain outstanding.
8.53   	We recommended that “the Department of Social 
Development put in place a formal mechanism to 
assess the success of the pilot project they have 
entered into with Shannex.” We believe that 
evaluating the success of pilot projects is necessary to 
measure the level of success of projects and 
continually improve planning for future projects of a 
similar nature.
8.54   	In their 2013 response, SD stated:
	The “Evaluation of the 3.5 Hours of Care in 
	Nursing Homes Pilot Project” was completed in 
	January 2013. The 3 new Shannex nursing homes 
	were included. Each nursing home was evaluated 
	in three broad areas:
*	Resident outcomes (extent to which nursing 
home were meeting its service and care goals 
for each resident, quality of resident care, 
etc.);
*	System outcomes (extent to which the nursing 
homes were meeting service standards); and
*	Nursing and care staff outcomes (stability of 
staffing, quality of worklife, work environment 
and staff satisfaction, etc).
8.55   	The evaluation undertaken by the Department 
appears to assess the service delivery and working 
conditions of the Shannex facilities. The essence of 
our recommendation was to assess success of the pilot 
project.  Also, there is no evaluation of whether this 
delivery model is more economical than the 
traditional model. We continue to believe that an 
evaluation of pilot projects is beneficial and should be 
undertaken by the Department.
8.56   	We also recommended “the Department of Social 
Development prepare and document a risk assessment 
of the Shannex contract and identify any mitigating 
actions that should be put in place.”
8.57   	The SD 2013 response states the Department 
“inspects and monitors all nursing homes operated by 
Shannex in New Brunswick and would require 
Shannex to take remedial action if required.
An evaluation will be conducted to identify any 
potential risks associated with the Shannex contract 
and to identify appropriate actions to mitigate 
potential risks.”
8.58   	Although our recommendation has not yet been 
implemented by the Department, we are pleased that 
SD is planning a risk evaluation of the Shannex 
contract in the future.
8.59   	A recommendation that “the Department of Social 
Development start planning a replacement tender in 
year three of the current contract” has yet to be 
implemented by SD.
8.60   	In their 2013 response, SD indicated “Government 
committed to a purchase of service contract for 216 
nursing home beds, in three 72-bed facilities, for a 5-
year period from the day each facility opened.
*	Monarch hall in Riverview opened in March 2010;
*	Embassy Hall in Quispamsis opened in April 2010; 
and
*	Thomas Hall in Fredericton opened in October 
2010.
Work on the development of a replacement tender will 
begin in the Fall of 2013.”
8.61   	Although this appears to highlight progress for 
future nursing home development, it does not address 
the specific recommendation we made.
8.62   	Finally, the fourth recommendation we made in 
2009 that remains outstanding was “the Department of 
Social Development put in place a plan for how 
residents would be accommodated through any future 
move that could be required at the expiration of the 
contract term.”
8.63   	In 2013 SD responded that “A contingency plan 
will be developed for moving residents out of the 
Shannex homes, if required, at the expiration of the 
existing contract.”
8.64   	While we are pleased that SD intends to develop a 
contingency plan in the future, this has not yet been 
completed and we could not evaluate the degree to 
which it would meet the recommendation. 
8.65   	While we are pleased that six of the 
recommendations have been implemented, we 
encourage SD to move forward in implementing our 
four remaining outstanding recommendations. 




Department of Justice and Attorney General
La Caisse populaire de Shippagan 
We are pleased to note 
that all six of our 
recommendations have 
been fully implemented
8.66   	We were asked by the Minister of Finance to 
report to the Legislative Assembly on the sequence of 
events that led to the government’s intervention in la 
Caisse populaire de Shippagan. Specifically, we were 
asked to provide our “opinion on how to better 
prevent this type of exposure in the future”.
8.67   	In 2009, we made six recommendations which we 
believed robust enough to detect or prevent 
reoccurrences of the Caisse populaire de Shippagan 
events. 

8.68   	We are very pleased to report that all have been 
implemented. The changes will provide the parties 
involved with the authority and independence needed 
to properly govern the credit union system in New 
Brunswick.




General Comments 
on the 
Implementation of 
our 
Recommendations 
8.69   	As noted earlier, we encourage the Public 
Accounts and Crown Corporations Committees to use 
this chapter to hold government accountable for 
implementing our value for money recommendations.  
Exhibit 8.4 reports government’s progress, in 
implementing our value for money recommendations 
since 1999.  

       Exhibit 8.4 - Implementation of Value for Money Recommendations   
Year
Number of 
Recommendations
Recommendations Implemented Within


Two years
Three years
Four years
1999
99
35%
42%
42%
2000
90
26%
41%
49%
2001
187
53%
64%
72%
2002
147
39%
58%
63%
2003
124
31%
36%
42%
2004
110
31%
38%
49%
2005
89
27%
38%
49%
2006
65
22%
38%
N/A*
2007
47
19%
N/A*
45%**
2008
48
N/A*
60%**
57%****
2009
49
73%**
73%***
74%****
2010
44
64%***
70%***
-
2011
24
71%***
-
-
*       No follow-up performed in 2010
**     As self-reported by departments and agencies with confirmation by our  
         Office in the Department of Justice and Consumer Affairs 
***   As self-reported by departments and agencies
**** As self-reported by departments and agencies and reviewed for accuracy by 
         our Office.


8.70   	We are encouraged that the percentage of value for 
money recommendations implemented from 2009 was 
74%, the highest such four-year percentage we have 
ever reported.  It also appears, based on self-reporting 
by the departments and agencies responsible for 
responding to recommendations in our 2010 and 2011 
reports, that four-year percentages may be at a 
comparable level in the next two years. 
8.71   	However, we would highlight the significant 
discrepancy between the projects with the highest 
implementation rates (e.g.  Justice and the Attorney 
General – La Caisse populaire de Shippigan - 100%) 
and those with much lower rates (e.g. Economic 
Development – New Brunswick Innovation 
Foundation – 44%). 
8.72   	We are committed to continuing to work with 
departments and Crown agencies to develop sound, 
practical recommendations in all our value for money 
reports. Also, we will continue to use our follow-up 
process as a means of providing encouragement and 
support for departments and Crown agencies to fully 
implement, on a timely basis, as many of our value for 
money recommendations as possible.

 Follow-up on Recommendations from Prior Years’ Value for Money Chapters                                    
Chapter 8	                                                                                                                          

Chapter 8                                     Follow-up on Recommendations from Prior Years’ Value for Money 
Chapters

272
                                                                                                                    Report of the Auditor General - 2013
271
Report of the Auditor General – 2013