The committee met at 8:44 a.m.

R. Thorpe (Chair): We have eight members here now, so we'll get started.

A Voice: There are two more just coming.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Okay. The first item is an orientation. Has that been passed around, Kelly?

K. Dunsdon: Yes, it has.

A. van Iersel: If you wish, sir.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yes, thank you.

A. van Iersel: As has been stated, there is a brief document before you which I put together for purposes of orienting the members new to the committee. This is something we haven't done before, so I would like feedback after as to whether or not this was useful.

There are actually four roles that my office plays with respect to this committee, and I'm only talking about what we do for you. One is the arranging of witnesses, which we have done for some time, but we do that in cooperation with the ministries, Crown corporations and the auditor general. The other is a lesser role in recent years, which is the provision of payment information to the Chair and members of the select standing committee -- yourselves -- and then responding to OAG reports.

Sometimes when we speak of documents such as public accounts, we are requested to come and speak to our views with respect to those documents. There are also other documents that touch on the office of the comptroller general, such as the corporate accounting system, so we'll come here and speak to that. Finally, as you know, I'm here with you on a weekly basis to provide any information that you may wish relative to our financial policies and procedures as they come about through other discussions.

On the arranging of witnesses, I won't go through every point, but it is primarily our responsibility. We try to call them in conformance with the agreed schedule, and we try to give witnesses about two weeks' time. What we have done -- and what was previously provided -- was that we put together, because of our experience with dealing with people, what's called a presenter's guide, which is attachment No. 1.

It lays out in very plain terms what witnesses can expect from the committee and from our office and the support that's available to them. We have made some minor adjustments for today reflecting another item of discussion this morning, which is the follow-up process. If that's agreed to today, the follow-up process is going to change slightly from one of a regular appearance to one of a written document -- and perhaps an appearance after that.

As a provider of financial information I've also provided another attachment that's included in the government policy manual, which talks about the circumstances under which information can be requested by the Chair or members and the policy that guides myself and other ministries in returning that information. I guess it's important to note that, as I say, we haven't done much of this lately. We're pretty helpful in trying to provide general information, and we usually focus on the information that is related to the public accounts that has been tabled this year or in prior years.

There are some restrictions in terms of freedom of information and privacy, which does apply. We were asked to provide information also if there's anything that relates to lawyer-client relationship. We also have to work with the Ministry of Attorney General in that regard. The policy is attached. What I would suggest is that if members have an opportunity to read that and wish to call me, I would be very happy to answer questions then or even now.

OAG reports. As I say, we're here on a somewhat regular basis dealing with various reports that affect our office, and that's to provide testimony as to how we see things. Then on regular attendance, I think I've pretty much covered that off. This is intended primarily as a takeaway document for people to read and raise questions with me separately or later, if they wish. That's all I have to say on that.

P. Gregory: I might just point out that we had circulated for the members' benefit a small pamphlet called "Auditing for Better Public Sector Accountability and Performance," which is intended as an orientation to our office. It's quite brief.

I might just elaborate on a few of the points. The auditor general serves the assembly and the people of British Columbia by providing independent assessments and advice that enhance government accountability and performance. We've got four core activities that we undertake. We audit and report on the fairness and reliability of the accountability information provided by government on its performance to the assembly. We audit and report directly on aspects of government performance that are of importance to legislators and the public for which the government does not provide accountability information. We support the development and implementation of principles for government use in reporting accountability information to the assembly and the public, and we advise on specific ways to improve government accountability practices and on performance.

There are really three kinds of performance that we look at. The first is financial, where we provide independent professional opinions on whether the financial statements prepared by government and its related organizations are presented fairly. The reports are also provided to the Legislative Assembly on the adequacy of financial controls and financial management.

On the operational side, the auditor general carries out performance audits that provide the Legislative Assembly with independent assessments about whether the programs of government and its related organizations are implemented and administered economically, efficiently and cost-effectively. These audits also assess whether members of the assembly and the public are provided with fair, reliable accountability information.

The third aspect of performance that we would look at is that. . . . We carry out compliance audits that provide the assembly with independent assessments as to whether gov-

ernment and its related organizations comply with legislation and related authorities governing their administrative, financial and regulatory activities.

The auditor general is an officer of the Legislature and is therefore independent of government and in a position to make independent assessments of those matters that he reviews.

Again, we would be most happy. . . . This is a very brief orientation, obviously. If any members of the committee would like further information, we could answer questions now. Or we'd be happy to hear from members later and meet with them separately, if that would be their wish.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Do any members have any questions of either Arn or Peter at this point in time?

Arn, one question I would have. . . . We've talked about it before. Presenting groups -- if we can get their presentations a day in advance. . . . Is that something we could put in this package? Is it a doable thing for the committee members to have some of the presentation materials beforehand so that they can have a little bit more time to read them and maybe formulate some questions?

A. van Iersel: Certainly, Chair. That's actually something I've understood from past discussions here. I believe -- I'll search for it in the exact narrative here -- we do say that they're required to provide it in advance. We're trying to do that at least one week before the committee. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): Super, fantastic.

Craig, you also wanted to say something about this?

C. James: Just very briefly, especially for new members. . . . Most of the members currently on the committee have had a wide range of experience with parliamentary committees and in particular with this one.

I refer members to two documents. I've circulated for members this morning a document entitled "Guidelines for Public Accounts Committees in Canada," a document which I prepared back in the early nineties. It's being updated to reflect the practice of various public accounts committees across the country. Also in front of you -- it may not actually be in front of you, because I've got stacks of them right here -- are the expanded terms of reference -- the motion which was moved last week expanding the terms of reference for the Public Accounts Committee, re-referring many of the issues which were referred to the committee last session and adding report No. 11, "Towards a More Accountable Government: Putting Ideas into Practice," March 2000, and also, in addition to the powers that had been previously conferred upon this committee, additional powers enabling the committee to sit while the House is sitting, sit inter-sessionally and the usual practice that the committee has found itself engaged in over the past several years.

Just so members know, the difference between this committee and the committee back in 1986 is huge. The trend has certainly been, since 1986, for this committee to become more businesslike in its pursuit of reviewing reports from the auditor general. I just would like to mention two things. There are a couple of matters which the committee cannot do, for want of a better term. It can't undertake inquiries on its own without authority from the House or a referral from the House. It is to deal with only the matters which have been referred to it by the House. And though I don't think this committee, in the past, has ever asked the auditor general to undertake an audit, that would be, in my view, beyond the terms of reference of this committee as well.

For those new members on the committee or any others that would like to discuss further the role of the Public Accounts Committee and any procedural or administrative aspects of it, I would be more than delighted to meet separately or with groups of members to go over that. Also, just to remind members, in mid-September of this year the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees, of which I am the executive director, is holding its annual meeting in Nova Scotia sort of in conjunction with the Conference of Legislative Auditors, who will be holding their separate conference at the same place and at the same time. More information will be coming out about that later.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thanks very much, Arn. I would encourage each and every member, if they do want more detail and more of an orientation, to contact either Arn or Peter. I know their offices would be very pleased to facilitate that.

No other discussion on point 1? We'll move to the setting of priorities. In my review, we have -- if I could categorize them -- draft reports to look at, both finished draft and almost finished draft reports. Then we have the possibility of follow-up, and I think we discussed pursuing that in a written fashion. Then, of course, we should be looking at the outstanding reports and looking at which order we want to address those in as a committee.

Does anyone have any thoughts or inputs in those areas?

M. Coell: It seems to me that we should deal with the draft reports first, then go to the follow-ups -- and then a list to be prioritized by the group.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Anyone else have any thoughts?

Evelyn?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): No.

R. Thorpe (Chair): All right. I certainly would agree with that, and it appears that all other committee members would
 

agree with that. I'm just wondering, with respect to the written follow-up. . . . I think perhaps we could do that in parallel as we are going through the draft. We could get all of that written follow-up out of here and get people working on it in coordination with Peter and Arn, etc., and get going on that. With respect to the draft reports, is there any particular order in which you want to address them, or do you just want to address them as the Clerk's office has them ready for review?

Kelly, did you want to say anything on where we stand at the present time?

K. Dunsdon: As it stands right now, there are three draft reports that are actually completed, and those were circulated to all members by e-mail on April 5. If anyone has any comments about those reports, just let me know. In terms of the other draft reports, there are three others in progress and five others that are in very, very preliminary stages. That's where things stand with the draft reports right now.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yes, Rick?

R. Kasper: Just to refresh my memory. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): Sorry, Steve. Could Steve go first, please?

S. Orcherton: Yeah, thanks. And pardon me; I'm a little bit confused here. Are we referring to this document that was passed out, the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts terms of reference, with all these reports? Is that what we are talking about here? This is the work that we have that still has to be tidied up?

K. Dunsdon: I think the terms of reference include all the outstanding matters that we haven't reported on.

S. Orcherton: Yes. So that's all the pieces on this. . . ? Okay.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yes, Rick?

R. Kasper: Just to refresh my memory, what's different in these draft reports from what we had previously discussed at the committee when we last touched on those reports?

K. Dunsdon: What's different in the three reports that are completed?

R. Kasper: Yes.

A Voice: We'd have to review them.

K. Dunsdon: Well, I have a presentation prepared -- to go over the draft reports, again, to indicate the changes. I can do that right now, if you'd like. Or we can get copies of the reports and distribute them again.

R. Kasper: I'd appreciate it.

A Voice: I'd like the reports.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Well, in fact, I believe that the draft reports we discussed at the last meeting were all e-mailed out to everyone. Is that not correct?

K. Dunsdon: Yeah.

R. Thorpe (Chair): And one of the things that I thought we committed to as a group was reviewing those and getting some feedback into the Clerk's office. Maybe it was hectic for people, and we just didn't have a chance to do it.

Yes, Evelyn?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): That's what I would say. I haven't seen copies of these drafts. They may be available in the offices of our staff. So we'll need to take a look at those before we proceed.

D. Streifel: Hard copy.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Hard copy.

D. Zirnhelt: Hard copy.

D. Streifel: Okay, you got it: a hard copy.

D. Zirnhelt: I'd be happy to have e-mail, but we just proved that it didn't get to me. So I'd prefer another method.

R. Thorpe (Chair): While we work our way through the technological changes, perhaps we could do the hard-copy method and commit to a review.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Staff have to print it off and give it to us.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yes, that's exactly what has to happen.

So there are three draft reports that I understood were sent out last week. If we can get hard copies of those to members while we're here today, can we commit to having our inputs and being ready to put those into some form for next week's meeting? Can we commit to that as a group? Okay -- very good.

Kelly, if you want to get the draft copies for people before we disperse today, that would be great. Thank you.

P. Calendino: I just want to say that I do have the reports. My assistant did print them off. But I also looked at my desk, and I found a hard copy of some of them. I think it's a waste of energy and a waste of time to e-mail them when we do have the hard copies already printed by the office of the auditor general.

G. Farrell-Collins: I prefer to get it by e-mail. Then it's another stack of paper that I don't have to carry around. I don't care if we do it both ways, but if I get it by e-mail and I want a hard copy, I hit the print button, and it sort of comes out of the printer. But if you want them to do that for you, that's fine too. But I would rather not get the hard copy.
 

R. Kasper: I would suggest that we follow up on what Kelly had said her intention was: to give us an overview of the changes to the report. That's something we can then follow up on.

G. Farrell-Collins: Sorry, my understanding was that we were to have reviewed the reports, and then we can have a discussion about what those things are. To have somebody walk us through it when some members haven't read it probably isn't a good use of Kelly's time or our time. Perhaps we could review it, either in hard copy or electronic, and then the next time, perhaps we could have Kelly walk us through it.

R. Kasper: Well, how long will it take to get copies right now?

K. Dunsdon: They're all done, actually.

D. Streifel: I think one of the problems I have is that I might not know what the reports look like. I probably have them, but being new to the committee and new to the processes of public accounts and those circumstances, I wouldn't mind a title on it. If it says here, "Dennis, this is what this report is," then I've probably got it. I think I do have them; I think they did come around -- but whatever.

I wouldn't mind trying to get picked up on the updates here. It might be fine for somebody who's sat on the committee for a long time and can wander on through these things and is looking for some high points. I wouldn't mind a bit of a background briefing as we kick this committee. I think it will remove a lot of the concern and the bristly backbones as we move through this thing this session.

C. James: If I might just interject for a moment. I find that the most effective way of communicating with members while the House is in session is to actually put the documents or the papers on the desks just before question period in the House. Most members are in attendance, and it's at that point that they certainly can get the material. We may try that to see if it's helpful, but failing that, what we'll do is contact members individually to see what their preference is in terms of actually receiving the material, whatever it may be.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Yes, I think we need to set this aside.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Kelly, you wanted to. . . ?

K. Dunsdon: Yes.

R. Thorpe (Chair): When you're ready.

A Voice: It says draft.

A Voice: It says confidential draft.

D. Zirnhelt: Are there two, or are there three?

K. Dunsdon: There's a drinking water report that's being photocopied right now.

R. Thorpe (Chair): It's being photocopied as we speak.

With respect to the review draft on the guide to the follow-up process, has everyone had a chance to go through that? And Arn -- you or Peter -- did you want to make any comments on that?

A. van Iersel: I would personally, through the Chair, like to thank Kelly for coordinating the responses. My office did have an opportunity to go through it and made some minor suggestions. We're comfortable with what's there.

If I may, for a moment, I would like clarification on an issue relative to the distribution of reports. I noted too that they were marked confidential, and it's been my practice in the past to provide also some of the witnesses with those reports in draft form so that they can check out the technical aspects. I feel quite comfortable in dealing with them where they would involve me directly, but where there are other reports. . . . Is it permissible to go back to the people that were here about drinking water and just see if they have any questions or comments?

C. James: If I could just respond to the question. Technically, committees which are preparing their reports need to do so in camera. The contents of the reports, technically, are not to be disclosed until the committee has reported to the House. The practice of this committee, though, in order to ensure that what the committee is about to report to the House is accurate, is that the reports have been shared with the auditor general and with the comptroller general.

What the comptroller general and the auditor general do with reports is up to them, as long as the reports, if shared, are noted to those they are shared with -- to the effect that the contents of the reports are not to be disclosed publicly -- and that the purpose of the exercise is to ensure that the committee is satisfied that its recommendations or its observations are in fact fact-accurate.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think that for all practicalities, that makes a lot of sense. However, I think we need to think about it a little bit more and actually may have to formalize it through the committee.

or something, if we can, maybe at the next meeting. I'd hate to see somebody get nailed for something they didn't mean to do.

C. James: Just for the interested members, this committee's practice in this regard is quite different from the practice of the other select standing and special committees, who, when they are preparing their reports, do prepare them in camera and do not share them with anyone beyond members of the committee or its own research staff. The practice over the years in this committee, though, has worked well, and I don't think that the integrity of the process or the committee itself has been compromised in any way by continuing it. But it does have its pitfalls, as Mr. Farrell-Collins has pointed out.

R. Kasper: I think that members should bear in mind that all of the deliberations and discussions. . . . I would say 99.9 percent of the content of what we have before us was dealt with in some way, shape or form in open session. So it kind of makes a mockery of what this rule is.

I chaired a committee that dealt with privacy issues around the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If the House wanted to take action or felt that our process was inappropriate or was contrary to the rules of the Legislature, then the House could have taken action on how we conducted our business. Our business was dealt with in full open session. We had one closed meeting that, in essence, formalized what we had all agreed to put in our report in an open session process. So I don't know what the big to-do is. I can appreciate where the Clerks are coming from, but there is absolutely nothing in here that has not been said other than in open session.

I think perhaps that's an issue that this committee could raise with the House. I know that, with all due respect for the Clerk's office, we were in a bit of a tizzy last year when we decided to deal with a number of reports and with how we did our business in open session. I would hope that the committee would at least see the wisdom of its previous actions and carry on in that way in the future. I don't think there is anything to hide. I know that when we got a draft report last year, it said "confidential," and I think we all had a big chuckle about it. We dealt with it in open session.

G. Farrell-Collins: I agree with Mr. Kasper completely. I think, however, that there is a long series of rulings by Chairs and Speakers about confidentiality of committee reports. All I'm saying is that I think Rick's method is the right way to go. I agree. I can't think of anything Public Accounts has ever done that should be secret. Perhaps that's the resolution that we would want to come to, and we can do that.

I just think that to say, "Well, we've just sort of done it this way," and to go ahead and share it with people puts the comptroller general in a difficult spot. If at some point there is something that ends up in the media before this committee has dealt with it. . . . There is a whole series of precedents there that the comptroller could find himself right up against. I don't think that is fair to him or to anybody who comes after him.

What I'm suggesting is that perhaps what you are recommending is what we decide. We should make that motion as a committee and do that. It frees everybody up, and then at least if it does become public somewhere down the line, the comptroller general doesn't have his head on a platter here at the committee meeting. That's all.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I think we have been very, very open in this committee. Perhaps that's why it's called Public Accounts.

I think what we should do is ask the Clerk's office -- knowing the history and having heard the discussion of members today -- if they could draft. . . . I think we should formalize it so that staff have a proper direction. Craig, if you could draft something up for us, the Deputy Chair and myself could meet with you later this week and bring it to the committee so that we can perhaps move the motion through next week -- if everybody's happy with that.

Every item we've discussed was in open session -- all the nitty-gritty; all the yelling back and forth or. . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): There was no yelling.

R. Kasper: . . .discussion. It's just that there's absolutely nothing in any of these reports that is of a confidential nature. I think that perhaps the Clerks may want to have a little bit of a session and then maybe confer with the Speaker's office as to our deliberations here this morning. Then maybe something could be worked out in a kind of formal-informal way.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Formal-informal.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's what gets people in all sorts of trouble -- formal-informal. I think it's really simple. If the committee decides that we want to have our deliberations in public and we want the committee reports to be open as we draft them, then we should say that. That's very easy to do, and this committee is in charge of its own affairs. We don't have to go to the House for that approval; the committee can make that decision. I think it's very easy to do and we can get it done and it's finished. Then everybody's safe.

R. Thorpe (Chair): So I guess, based on your comments on Ottawa, Rick, and all the. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: Can I move that the Chair and Deputy Chair meet with the Clerk of this committee to draft a resolution that would make all stages of the drafting of these reports open to the public if so requested -- something like that? You guys can determine what the wording is.

R. Thorpe (Chair): All those in favour of that motion? Anyone opposed? Carried unanimously.

Motion approved.
 

R. Thorpe (Chair): Based on your comments, Rick, on the leaky situation in Ottawa, does that mean when we're looking at draft reports that you'd like to do protecting water sources as a first report?

We've talked about the follow-up process. I think it would be good if we had a motion on the follow-up process. Is there anyone who would like to make a motion to formalize the follow-up process that's been pulled together by staff, the auditor general's office and the comptroller general's office?

M. Coell: So moved.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Any debate?

A Voice: Are we referring to this thing again?

R. Thorpe (Chair): This one here; it's entitled "Draft Guide to the Follow-up Process." Is everyone comfortable with that? We have a motion. All those in favour?

This is nothing new; this is what we all talked about.The comptroller general and the auditor general's office, together with the Clerk's office, have met. They've gone through it. Peter, did you want to say a few words on this at all?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Arn, you're 100 percent. . . ?

A. van Iersel: I echo the auditor general's office comments. This was a collaborative document, and I'm comfortable with what's in it.

R. Kasper: In the second paragraph where it says "Committee Meetings," in the last sentence: "Only Members of the Legislative Assembly may examine witnesses." What does that mean? In the previous sentence it says, "Following each presentation, committee members" -- and it makes specific reference to committee members.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Rick, what page was that?

R. Kasper: That's the first page. My question, through you to the Clerk's office, is: does that comply with the standing orders that relate to the House as far as members of committee and non-members of committee, or should it actually be spelled out as a reference? I think we've been pretty good -- right? Non-members have participated very actively in this committee and other committees.

R. Thorpe (Chair): In the draft that I have, it says: "Only Members of the Legislative Assembly may examine witnesses."

R. Kasper: That's true, but the previous sentence makes a specific reference to committee members. I just want it clarified. Do those two sentences embrace the rules that we are governed by as far as the role of the committee, the role of committee members and the role on non-committee members? This last sentence, in my mind, says that all members of the Legislature can come here and examine witnesses, but the rules of the House say something substantially different.

C. James: If I might respond briefly. Sir Erskine May states categorically that only members of the committee that are appointed to the committee may examine witnesses, and no other member of the House. The exception was made in 1987 by the Government House Leader of the day that members other than members of the committee ought to be able to participate in committee proceedings, subject to the committee approving that and providing that the observers were not obstructionist in any way at all. That practice, again, is a departure from the practices of this House and of parliamentary committees in British Columbia, but again it is a practice which seems to have worked fairly well.

What we can do with those last two sentences is tie them together so that they are clear in terms of observers or so that members other than members of the committee wishing to examine witnesses would have that ability to do so. Certainly the precedents have been set -- with the permission of the committee.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Did you want to say anything, Gary?

G. Farrell-Collins: No. I think maybe the onus should be. . . . I don't know how you'd do it, because by practice. . . . If you say "with permission of the committee," essentially every time somebody comes in and wants to ask a question, they've got to ask the committee's permission. I don't know if you have to do that formally, or how you'd do it. Technically the committee only gives its permission by motion. If you can just say. . . .

S. Orcherton: It's fair to say, "Does anybody object to so and so asking a question?" and if there are no objections. . . .

A Voice: It's a question that ought to be asked.

G. Farrell-Collins: I agree with you; I'm just trying to see how you ask it. If one person objects, does that mean the whole committee says no, you can't ask a question?

R. Kasper: Let's say, if I'm on my usual rant, and I haven't asked everything I. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): Craig has just put this forward to me. That last sentence after "witnesses": "In addition, members of the Legislative Assembly may examine witnesses subject to the approval of the committee." Does that meet with everyone's approval?

G. Farrell-Collins: If you change the wording to "unless objected to" -- "Members of the Legislative Assembly may ask questions unless objected to by the committee. . . ." It is just a reverse so you do not have to go through this process every time.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): I do believe that it's appropriate, out of respect for the committee and members of the committee, that permission be requested for visitors to the committee to enter into the questioning of the witnesses. By and large, I can't see that permission has ever been denied. But it is a matter of respect for the committee to request that permission.

J. Weisgerber: While I expect that these deliberations focus primarily on the abilities of government members or official opposition members, the question of independence, I think, is important in the longer term. There are one or perhaps two at this moment. There have been as many as four or five independent members.

The Government House Leaders and Opposition House Leaders have been very good about allowing independent members to sit on committees of their choice. However, I think if you make it too difficult in committees like this, you may well be faced with each independent requesting to sit on key committees such as the Public Accounts Committee. The effect of that could well be to have three government members and four opposition members, which in order for the government to maintain its majority, would require a significant number of the government caucus to come and sit. I think you might want to make the process as unencumbered as possible, still allowing for people who are obstructionists or excessively wordy to be kept in some kind of control.

If indeed you make it too difficult. . . . If I were an independent member, I would request a seat on each committee there was, because I simply wouldn't subject myself to coming at the whim of committees to speak on behalf of my constituents, who have no other way of having their voice heard in these committees.

D. Streifel: I would prefer to somehow have the committee on record when we hear from folks. If we followed Mr. Farrell-Collins's advice, it would be by default that somebody could speak, unless there was a protest otherwise. I think we should be somewhat more structured, much like requesting leave in the House. I think it would be not inappropriate in this committee for members to seek permission from the committee before they address it. I don't think that would encumber or inhibit anybody. The vocal and boisterous ones -- the lengthy presentations -- are generally controlled by the Chair anyway, in my experience in committees.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): My comments are really very much the same. Seeking permission is not an encumbrance. It's simply a matter of respect for the committee.

S. Orcherton: I think the standing orders are clear. The committee is the committee, and that's the way it should work. There has been an agreement just pointed out where the Clerk -- I think in '87. . . . The House Leaders got together and said that all members who have an interest in a committee's work can come and ask questions. I think that's appropriate.

What we are talking about here is: how do we spell this out in our terms of reference so it is clear for those that follow us? I think the way to do it is what was suggested, and that's just that with the consent of the committee, any member can come. So it deals with Jack's issue about independents who want to come and ask a question on a particular topic before the committee. They raise their hand, the Chair recognizes them and you have a question. The Chair just says: "Does anyone object?" I can't predict any circumstance where anyone would, unless there was somebody being continually obstructionist. I can't predict that would occur either.

I think this is a matter of spelling out the process here, keeping within the bounds of the standing orders and trying to reflect the agreement of the House Leaders in 1987 -- which I think does work.

E. Walsh: It's been said.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Anyone else?

J. Weisgerber: I just want to say again that I think members of the official opposition and members of the government caucus are here, one assumes, through some process within that caucus. I want to be careful about the two independent members, perhaps one sitting here and one sitting over here -- one entitled to speak and the other required to seek leave each time they speak or make a presentation. I want to think about that from the point of view of witnesses or others who come. It would seem to me that this is someone who has a lesser capacity. All I'm saying to you is that the remedy for that will be for independent members to request a seat at the table. If you're happy with that, then I guess you can move on it. That would solve my problem.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Let me just bounce this off you, Jack, and see if this works for you and other members of the committee.

S. Orcherton: It's not unlike asking questions on Thursdays -- right? It's just done.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Jack, if I could. . . . That last. . . .

J. Weisgerber: Well, just a minute.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Sorry.

J. Weisgerber: It's a little bit like asking leave to respond to a ministerial statement. That's fair enough, as long as every independent member has to go through the same procedure. But if by virtue of some seniority or some membership, I get to respond to a ministerial statement and somebody else has to ask for leave, then I think that's prejudicial to the other member.

P. Calendino: That's what the system is.

S. Orcherton: That's what the standing orders say. Those are the rules.

J. Weisgerber: But what I'm saying is that the standing orders say that if you're not a representative of an official party, you've got to ask leave. That applies to all members equally.
 

Interjections.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Mr. Kasper, thank you very much for all your input again.

Does this last sentence work for people: "In addition, Members of the Legislative Assembly may examine, in the same manner, witnesses, with the approval of the committee"? Does that work for people? Jack, does that work for you?

J. Weisgerber: Sure.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Mr. Kasper, does that work for you?

R. Kasper: No, it's just that I liked what the Clerk said, because there was a specific reference to past practice in 1987, which set a tone.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Rick, this reflects this. This puts in place our practices.

It's changed, and we're going to need a motion. It's changed with the addition: "Members of the Legislative Assembly may examine, in the same manner, witnesses, with the approval of the committee." Is everyone in favour of that? Anyone opposed? Carried unanimously.

Motion approved.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Now the follow-up process has been approved as amended. This is the way in which this committee will work, hopefully much more efficiently. It will have its hands on these matters on a much more timely basis.

The next item on the agenda is. . . . Kelly, you wanted to talk to us about some correspondence regarding protecting drinking water sources.

K. Dunsdon: I just wanted to draw members' attention to some correspondence that was received in our office. Actually, I've distributed this to everyone under cover of a memo dated April 3. It's correspondence relating to the drinking water issue. It's copies of letters that have come from the North Okanagan Water Authority regarding the auditor general's report, expressing support for the recommendations in that report and making some comments regarding the action plan that has been put in place by the Ministries of Environment and Health in response to those recommendations.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Did the auditor general's office receive a copy of that? Does the auditor general's office have any comments?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Kelly, were copies of this also sent to the various ministry staff that were part of our review?

K. Dunsdon: Yes, a copy was sent at your request to the Ministry of Environment -- to Dr. O'Riordan.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Is there any other correspondence on this matter that you wanted to discuss? No? Okay.

Moving right along, the format of the 1999-2000 public accounts. Arn, over to you.

A. van Iersel: There is a piece of paper related to this, called "Proposed Revisions to the Public Accounts for Fiscal 1999-00," which is the fiscal year that has just ended. We are now proceeding on the preparation of those public accounts, consistent with the legislation that has been tabled in the Legislature. We are required to have those public accounts produced by the end of August. In effect, that means that they really have to be ready by mid-August.

Why I am here. . . . It has been my practice in the past to bring changes, proposed changes, to the public accounts to the committee's attention. We have also preceded this by discussing this with the minister and so forth, so this is for the committee's information. What we are suggesting here. . . . This is consistent with the Enns report, which came out last September. If I may, I'll just quote recommendation 21 from that to give the committee a bit of background:

"The focus of discussion of overall financial indicators, such as surplus or deficit, total expenditure, total debt, etc. should be on the expanded summary entity basis to ensure there is only one bottom line. That would mean that, except for purpose of comparability with current budget plans only over the next two fiscal years, separate summary statements for the CRF would not be included in the estimates, public accounts or accompanying documents."

We also, just to be clear, produce most of the documents on the Internet. But for members of the Legislature, we produce separate statements for Crown corporations and trust funds and -- I don't have it with me today, but we also did one which was discussed here -- a separate document on payments. In addition to the official documents and those that are on the Internet, we produce hard copies for members so that they can have something to thumb through as opposed to having to search out the information.

Why we are here, in terms of this request, is consistent with the Enns recommendations in the de-emphasizing of the consolidated revenue fund. It is proposed that we drop the CRF audited financial statements as a set of financial statements that are released in the same form as the summary. What that means is that the numbers will still be included. In the summary, there is actually a schedule that starts with the CRF and builds up -- that is, pages 54 and 55 from last year.

You won't see an audit opinion on the CRF, except as it has been rolled into the larger entity. This is something we have discussed with the auditor general and others. There is comfort in dropping the CRF statements, in the sense that they are not the bottom line of government. The Enns committee said that you shouldn't call it surplus or deficit, so we are trying to respect their input on that. Those statements won't be produced any longer, other than that we will have sort of a
 

trial balance and so forth internally to us, which we will share with the auditors of course. In rolling up to the summary, they have to be assured that the numbers are correct and so forth.

What that means, then, is that volume 2 will no longer be produced in hard copy in that way. Maybe the easiest thing is if we could ask members to turn to a summary of changes in the attached. This sort of summarizes what the new public accounts will look like. Volume 1, as I said -- which was this particular document. . . . We're going to take certain pieces of the consolidated revenue fund reports and include them, because they need to be covered off. There are requirements under the Financial Administration Act that we have certain pieces of information, so we will move those to volume 1. It will become more comprehensive than what it is. We will meet our obligations for that.

We're also going to provide some more information in the public accounts on debt and debt statistics, which was a separate report. I think that at this time the debts statistics report will still get produced, but we are continuing to evolve. So in the future more of what's in that report might move into volume 1 -- the only volume -- of the public accounts for the future. Summary statements, trust guarantees and others will be provided, and the CRF will now appear in the summary. We aren't dropping any information; we're shifting it around. The only thing we're dropping is the audited statements themselves, which, as I say, are rolled up and included in our part of the audit opinion you will get for the summary financial statements. So they won't be CRF statements, and that's consistent with Enns, as I said.

We will also produce hard copies of the material that used to be in volume 2 and put that into a similar white bound document to make sure that members do have their choice of Internet versus hard copy. In a nutshell, so to speak, that's the proposal.

R. Thorpe (Chair): How many hard copies of the public accounts are distributed now? Do you have any idea?

A. van Iersel: I believe it's 1,300.

R. Thorpe (Chair): The public and people that are interested in getting the financial status of the province of British Columbia. . . . These changes will in no way whatsoever hamper their ability to get information? Is that correct?

A. van Iersel: It should not in any way. The information is still available. Starting last year in fact, my experience has been that I'm getting more inquiries related to the web site than to the hard copies.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have two questions. Obviously, with these changes, the public accounts as they come out for the previous year are. . . . I wouldn't say in the previous year. . . .The Enns report had not been incorporated into the way the budget and the estimate documents had been prepared. Now you're going to be preparing public accounts on a structure that's based on the Enns report. I'm wondering: are you confident that there's no dislocation there and that people will still be able to go into the public accounts, have the estimates book on one side of their table or desk and the public accounts on the other side, and be able to readily follow financial transactions throughout the fiscal year into the final report?

A. van Iersel: Yes, I'm confident that people will be able to do that. As I say, the only things that really are being entirely eliminated are the audited statements themselves. All the information relative to ministries, and so forth, will be included, although now it will be on the Internet as opposed to hard copy.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to follow up on the Chair's question. There are still lots of people out there who don't have direct access to the Internet. If somebody somewhere, who lives in an area of British Columbia where they don't have access to the Internet, wants to see the financial statements from these documents that we're eliminating, how are they going to get them?

A. van Iersel: I can only go by experience. I have very little response in terms of people saying that they're not getting the information that they would like. When people ask for information, our office always acts expeditiously in getting them the information. In the time that I've been comptroller, no one has ever phoned and asked for a copy of the documents, with the exception of a few members from the press -- and I think I obliged in providing that information.

G. Farrell-Collins: And they are here -- or is here.

I just want to follow that up a little bit. Are those documents available through Crown Publications or the Queen's Printer, if somebody were to write and want a copy? Or do they actually have to get a hold of the comptroller's office and have a copy printed up for them?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, I can't imagine they're in big demand or are best sellers. Just as long as people can get them if they want. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): Did the auditor general's office want to say anything on this issue?

P. Gregory: On an overall basis, the seniority of the summary financial statements is a position that our office has advocated for several years, and we're quite happy with that.

I'm joined today by Mr. Keyvan Ahmadi, who spends more time dealing with the detail around the financial statements than I. I don't know if he would have anything to add on these matters.

K. Ahmadi: Mr. Chair, as Peter has mentioned, we are in general agreement with the format and content of the public accounts.

D. Streifel: I have questions.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Do you have a question now?

D. Streifel: No, but put me on the list.

R. Thorpe (Chair): It's nice to see that our new members want to aggressively participate.

K. Ahmadi: There are a few minor details that we are still in discussion over with the office of the comptroller general, and we hope we can resolve those. The main one relates to the positioning of an extract which is proposed to be from the consolidated financial statement in the public accounts. In conjunction with the recommendation that Arn quoted earlier, we would like to see that the CRF financial information is de-emphasized. That's one area where we are still in discussion with the office of the comptroller general. Otherwise, in general, we are very pleased to see that the proposed format includes information on debt, which previously was published separately and not included in the public accounts.

R. Thorpe (Chair): We are hopeful that your office and the comptroller general's office will work through these issues. We also know that if there were any difficulties, you would come back to this committee and let us know. Of course, everyone wants the public to have all the information in a format they can have access to and understand.

D. Streifel: New committee members always ask old questions, I suppose. How many jurisdictions in Canada present the summary accounts as the public accounts for the province, as opposed to the consolidated revenue fund? Following the news across the country, as the different provinces are reporting in their budgets this time around, I guess this debate rages. It's probably something we'll pick up when we get to Halifax this September. We'll be asked the questions, and I want to have some of the answers from the perspective of a committee member. How many jurisdictions do that?

P. Gregory: The trend is moving toward summary financial information, which is a position advocated by the profession. I might let the comptroller general respond to the specifics, because I am not familiar. . . .

At my peril, to bring us back, there is another issue in the sense of consistency across the provinces, and that has to do with the expanded entity. While we produce the summary every year, the auditors and ourselves and the Enns committee have talked about whether or not we should go to an expanded entity. We're still studying that, and I think it's fair to say that across the country there are even practices on that. In terms of your future discussions, that's something that may come up as well -- what various jurisdictions are doing with respect to schools, hospitals and educational institutions.

D. Streifel: I didn't get an answer to my question, actually. The question was: how many jurisdictions report summary accounts as their only set of books? Maybe that's clearer.

J. Weisgerber: This is question period, not answer period.

D. Streifel: You've got that right, and I've had experience at that too, Jack. But I also have had experience at leading the country and stubbing my goddamn toe too, so. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): Excuse me -- stubbing your toe?

D. Streifel: Yeah -- that toe.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I thought that's what you said.

D. Streifel: Thanks for the clarification. Just a simple question: how many jurisdictions report the one set of books? I'm not interested in trends, nor the possibility that somebody might report some other books. Nor am I interested in looking at whether my parents advisory committee has a problem with their chequing accounts. So just the one question.

A. van Iersel: I don't have the specific answer today, but my understanding is that far fewer only have the summary bottom line. As I say, other jurisdictions tend to publish both sets of documents. I think B.C. -- in that sense, from an accounting point of view -- is leading. I will endeavour to check the most recent public accounts and confirm who is publishing summary and other, if I may.

R. Thorpe (Chair): The key word in your answer with respect to such was "future," so we will not pursue that today.

Does anyone have any other business today? Do we have any idea, with respect to our agenda items for next week. . . ? I would like to suggest that we're going to look at our draft reports. We'll move on our draft reports, and if we could. . . . The reports are. . . . If everyone is in agreement, we could maybe start with protecting drinking water, since it just hap
 

pens to be on the top of my pile here. Then we could move to the accountability of the 1997-1998 year. When we get through those, we could move to the review of the estimates process in British Columbia. Is everyone in agreement with that? Okay. No other business?

R. Kasper: When are we going to do the ferries?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Pardon me, Mr. Kasper?

R. Kasper: When would the report on the ferries. . . ?

R. Thorpe (Chair): As Kelly said, she is working on a number of draft reports now. Some are closer to the end of drafting, and I think we should deal with these things as they come up in the drafting process. I don't know exactly what the status of it is.

R. Kasper: Okay.

R. Thorpe (Chair): No other business? The meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 9:54 a.m.