Chair:	* Rick Thorpe (Okanagan-Penticton L)
Deputy Chair:	* Evelyn Gillespie (Comox Valley NDP)
Members:	* Pietro Calendino (Burnaby North NDP) * Murray Coell (Saanich North and the Islands L) Gary Farrell-Collins (Vancouver-Little Mountain L) * Rick Kasper (Malahat-Juan de Fuca NDP) Steve Orcherton (Victoria-Hillside NDP) * Dennis Streifel (Mission-Kent NDP) * Erda Walsh (Kootenay NDP) * John Weisbeck (Okanagan East L) * Jack Weisgerber (Peace River South Ind) * David Zirnhelt (Cariboo South NDP)
Clerks:	Craig James Kate Ryan-Lloyd
* denotes member present

[ Page 1445 ]

The committee met at 8:39 a.m.

C. James: This being the first meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament and there not being a Chair, I call for nominations for Chair.

A Voice: I move that Richard Thorpe be the Chair.

J. Weisbeck: I second that.

C. James: Any further nominations? Any further nominations? Any further nominations? There being no further nominations, I presume that Mr. Thorpe accepts.

R. Thorpe: Yes, sir.

C. James: In that case, I'll put the question.

Motion approved.

[0840]

[R. Thorpe in the chair.]

R. Thorpe (Chair): Thank you very much. Now, could we have nominations for Deputy Chair?

E. Walsh: I nominate Evelyn Gillespie.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Any seconder?

D. Zirnhelt: I second that.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Any other nominations? Any other nominations? Any other nominations? Seeing no other nominations, nominations are closed. Congratulations.

Motion approved.

C. James: The second item of the draft agenda for today's meeting includes an issue called "procedural update." Simply, I want to refer members to the motion moved by the Government House Leader yesterday, including a number of reports and issues which the committee was considering in the last session. Of course, members will understand that upon prorogation, matters to committees and committees themselves cease to exist.

Since we're now into a new session, in order for these matters to be considered by the committee, they would need to be re-referred, which they were yesterday, along with the new report by the auditor general -- Report 11, "Towards a More Accountable Government: Putting Ideas into Practice," published in March 2000.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Perhaps we could now get a status on the various workings of the committee. Kelly, I'd ask you to walk us through that.

K. Dunsdon: Good morning. This morning I've handed out two lists. The first one is the status of the committee's work as of today. You'll see from that list that there are three draft reports that have been completed and are yet to be reviewed and approved by the committee. The first one of those is "The Estimates Process," which I believe was handed out some time ago, although it hasn't been discussed in detail yet. The second is "Protecting Drinking-Water Sources," and the third is "Report on Government Financial Accountability for 1997-98."

There are also eight draft committee reports that are in progress right now. You'll also see on the list the reports of the auditor general's office. There are seven of those still to be considered by the committee.

I've also listed follow-up of committee recommendations. These are areas where the committee has made recommendations that incorporate specific follow-up dates in them. Below that you'll see updates regarding previous attendances, which is when witnesses have attended and been asked to reattend sometime in the future to provide an update, although that hasn't actually been incorporated into a committee recommendation.

The second list that has been handed out is just a brief overview of requests for information that the committee has made over the last few months and where those requests are at in terms of information that has come in and been distributed to members.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Does anyone have any questions for Kelly?

D. Zirnhelt: I've got one matter that I would like to put on the record, and that is that my family operation holds a woodlot licence. Here we're reviewing woodlots. I have dealt with this previously as a minister, diverting matters with respect to not particularly regulation but those matters that might have a financial consequence. I will be examining this in discussion with the Chair or others. The conflict commissioner will decide whether I will attend those meetings or not, but I will try to err on the side of contributing to discussions, provided there are no possible implications that a decision by this committee would be in any way financially beneficial to my family operation.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Any other comments? Perhaps we can get back to some of these items. I had a brief meeting with Evelyn yesterday, and perhaps we can come back to those when we get to item 5.

If we could hear from the auditor general's office on item 4 on the agenda, please.

[0845]

[ Page 1446 ]

We have been following up the compliance audits every two years and publishing those in the compliance report. The financial recommendations, to the extent they need following up, are followed up each year.

The committee has recently taken a more active interest in following up on reports, particularly the performance audit reports, generally requesting that management come back after about six months. We found that we had two processes. One is that the committee was requesting updates, and our office, not necessarily coordinating with that, was following up on those audit reports. It raised questions about how to best meet the committee's needs.

We met with the Chair and the Deputy Chair and staff from the Clerk of Committees' office about a month ago. At that meeting I think the committee, through the Chair and Deputy Chair, was indicating that PAC would like faster, more frequent, less formal follow-up processes -- perhaps following up after six months on most of the audits and on reports twice a year, perhaps in March and October. Likely these follow-up reports wouldn't need to be published in a formalized way to come before the committee, and the committee would be looking to our office to provide some guidance advice and assessment about the management process that was underway.

At the time we met, we thought we might rejig our follow-up process so that we would have the same process for performance audits and for compliance audits and that management representations on progress in implementing our audit recommendations would be sought from management after six months. The office would review those representations and could provide either assurance as to the fairness of those representations or comment on the progress and whether the progress seems satisfactory.

In terms of reporting, we felt that what members would likely get, then, would be a loose-leaf binder with a package for each of the reports. If we were following up, for instance, on trucking safety, we'd get representations for management, add our comment to that and provide it as a package that could go into a loose-leaf binder. The updates would come in October and March. There'd be a section for each follow-up, and likely we would present all of those follow-ups to the Speaker in March and October so that they could be tabled in the House. They would be available in the Clerk's office, but we wouldn't publish them in a formal way in a bound book and provide them to all members of the public. That access would be through our web site.

I think that was the gist of our discussions, and I think the only question that may be remaining, if that seems suitable, would be how we get the requests to management for updates. Our office is quite willing to do that and, I guess, feels that if we're going to be involved in providing assurance as to the fairness of the representations or making other comment, that might be an appropriate mode. If the committee doesn't need that, the vehicle might be through the Clerk of Committees' office, if they are not going to receive any work from our office. I believe that is the gist of our conversation, and I'll open it to the committee.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Peter, could you just go over how you see that follow-up working?

[0850]

On a regular basis, probably in March and October, we would provide those to the Speaker to be tabled in the House.

R. Kasper: Can I just ask a question? When the six-month time frame. . . . Was that normal? Or was that as a result of some of the other reports that we dealt with, where reference to six months came up, and the committee sort of adopted this six-month time frame?

P. Gregory: It really is to get the two processes -- the process that our office was following and the process that the committee was following -- coordinated. Our observation was that the committee was in the habit of requesting people to come back after six months. So we want to accommodate your schedule in ours.

R. Kasper: But it was never really a hard-and-fast rule. We just sort of slipped into this.

P. Gregory: I believe that would be a fair representation.

R. Kasper: All right, okay.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I think in fairness to everyone and the Deputy Chair -- and I've talked about it with the auditor general's office -- the practice had been every, I believe it was, two years.

R. Kasper: Two years, yeah.

R. Thorpe (Chair): We were getting a little concerned that some things were coming back two years after the fact. . .

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Trucking safety.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Trucking safety. Thanks, Evelyn.

. . .and that things weren't quite moving along. I think it was the overall unanimous position of the committee that if we're going to do work, it should be meaningful work, and that we could move these things along.

My only comment on what you've said, Peter, would be that with respect to you coming to the committee with these updates and having oral comments. . . .

R. Kasper: Are your mikes on?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yeah, this is really great technology. Maybe it's the operator -- right, Rick?

A Voice: We didn't say that.

[ Page 1447 ]

My only comment on that area would be that in fairness to the groups, the ministries and the organizations that you're going to be commenting on, it should be -- I mean, you can read it into the record -- a formal written response. A copy should actually be given to the groups just so that they know what's being said about them -- the progress that they're making, the lack of progress that they're making.

P. Gregory: Yes, I'm sure that that process can be worked out. Our office would like to use a little bit of caution, though, in that if we opine in a written way, it has to be supported by professional work in a certain way. We don't want this to become overly onerous. I mean, we want to meet everyone's needs but also meet our professional obligations. I'm sure that we will be discussing. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): I'm sure your oral comments are subject to professional obligations.

P. Gregory: Yeah. But we will certainly communicate with auditees. They will be thoughtful and provided to the committee.

A. van Iersel: I have a point of clarification, if I may. If I've understood what Peter Gregory has said, after six months, then, we would invite representatives from whatever office was being examined to come back and make a presentation. The presentation would also be in some kind of a standard format reflecting the recommendations that were made. Is that correct?

[0855]

R. Thorpe (Chair): I think it's in the discussions that the Deputy Chair and I have had on this subject. Our intent certainly is not to have every one of these groups come forward. It's to make sure, through a written process and a reporting process, which the auditor general's office is going to coordinate, that this committee is kept informed, hopefully on a very timely basis. That may assist some of the groups in moving forward with their work. I would suspect -- although we haven't discussed this as a committee, and I'd take people's comments on it -- that we may pick and choose groups, from time to time, to appear on those updates. But we would take the binder update procedure and the oral presentations as to where we are to keep the thing moving forward.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): That's also my understanding. We're largely interested in a written response. Then if the committee believes that there needs to be more work done, we would invite the entity back.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Is everyone onside with that? Do we seem. . . ?

A. van Iersel: One more comment, Chair. I think it would be useful if these procedures could be documented between the auditor general's office and myself such that they could be passed out to the various representatives, so they would know what's coming. Perhaps we could post it on the web site for the Legislative Assembly.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I think that's a very good idea. Perhaps the comptroller general's and the auditor general's offices could work in coordination with the Clerk of Committees' office here, and we could bring it forward for the next meeting. Everybody will sign off, and we'll move along.

Any other comments on the subject? Let me just ask this, then, Peter and Arn. How would you propose, then, to deal with the items that are in backlog on follow-up? Are you suggesting that your March binder will be dated sometime in April for this committee, or are you suggesting we have to wait for fall for that first binder?

P. Gregory: I guess I would like to know the committee's wishes.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I know I have some views on it. But does anyone else have any views on that?

A. van Iersel: It's my day to speak, Chair; I normally don't that often. What Iwould suggest is that if the committee could lend some guidance in terms of which are the most important items that you feel you want physical representation here on, we would invite those people to come and speak. If we could also have a list of those where you simply are requesting a written update, as we've just discussed, we would do that as quickly as possible for tabling with the committee in that binder.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I think, Arn, we're going to get to that when we get to section 5. As far as I know right now, we're dealing with section 4. My views on the binder, Peter, would be that as quickly as it could be prepared. . . . The March 2000 binder would be a little bit late in appearing before this committee. I don't know if it would be late April or early May; I'd take your advice on that. But in the effort to try to move this along, I don't think we should be deferring ourselves till October. Those would be my views.

P. Gregory: Mr. Chair, you have before you the list with the column "Fiscal 2001 Follow-ups Required" with o's and checks. It would be your intent, then, to include all of those in this next process.

R. Thorpe (Chair): It would be my personal intent that that would be the case, unless we are advised that that cannot be done.

P. Gregory: No, it can be done -- and will, if that's the wish.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Evelyn, did you have any comments on that?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Just looking at the top of that list, the "Fiscal 2001 Follow-ups Required," there are three

[ Page 1448 ]

[0900]

Any other comments from any members? Okay, if we could move to the setting of our priorities, we've talked here about the follow-up. We have a lot of work, a lot of reports on these two pages. Kelly, thank you very much for keeping on top of this thing. In talking with the Deputy Chair yesterday, first of all our schedule for meetings in session is every Tuesday from 8:30 a.m. to ten. I realize that from time to time, that is going to put pressure on people because of groups that are visiting Victoria and want to see members. But surely out of this size of a committee, we can have our priorities where we can get seven people out. If we expect to move through this heavy workload, I believe that we're going to have to meet every Tuesday, and we should make the effort to do that, unless anyone has any comments on that.

We have a number of draft reports and reports in draft format that are almost ready for our review. It would be my suggestion, after talking with Evelyn, that we move quickly on reviewing all of the drafts over the next couple of weeks, so that we can clear the decks of some of these items. We've dealt with a lot of the follow-up items, so that process is in place. If we could commit to focusing all our attention on the draft reports that are ready and the draft reports that are going to be close to being ready, it's my understanding that the Clerk's office will e-mail to your e-mail addresses -- and if you have another desire, let us know -- the draft reports by the close of business tomorrow -- whatever reports are ready. We could all make an effort to get any comments back before we meet next Tuesday, with the intent that whatever draft reports we have by tomorrow would be our workload for next week to try to get cleaned up. Then we would just continue to move through this list.

If any of the reports start to bog us down, we could maybe park those and move on to the ones that we can get off the boards, if everyone agrees with that. Does anyone have any comments on that? Boy, everybody is in an agreeable mood today.

With respect to auditor general's reports for future consideration, which are at the bottom of page 1 on the document that Kelly has provided, is it the wish of the committee to establish a priority list? Or would we just like to work through these based on the date that they were prepared?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I'm working off this one here -- "Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts Status of Committee Work, April 4th, 2000." At the bottom of that page it says: "Auditor General Reports for Future Consideration by the Committee." I think that if we can establish what methodology we want to use in moving forward on these, that is going to be helpful to the comptroller general and the Clerk's office in scheduling witnesses.

P. Gregory: I just have one observation. The first item on the list is the auditor general's 1997-98 annual report, "Auditing in the Public Interest." My recollection would be that the committee has dealt with that report. I believe that when Mr. Morfitt presented our business plan for the year 2000-2001, he did provide an overview of that report. I wonder if that could be just checked.

[0905]

K. Dunsdon: I was thinking that as well. I did go back and check the record from that day. It seemed the focus that day was on the corporate plan rather than the annual report.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Perhaps the auditor general's office and the Clerk's office could just look at that together and see if they believe that it was dealt with to the fullest extent it needed to be dealt with. You could let us know on Tuesday whether it is still on the decks or if it should be off the decks.

D. Zirnhelt: As a new member of the committee, anyway -- just a personal request -- I would be quite happy to talk about prioritization. But I am not quite ready, because I have not read any of these reports. I don't know the issues. But I would be prepared to discuss prioritizing that at the next meeting.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Have you got all the reports?

D. Zirnhelt: I don't. I checked last night. Somewhere they are in my file, but. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): I think it might be easier for us. Dennis, do you have all the reports?

D. Streifel: Not to my knowledge.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Why don't we undertake. . . ? We could ask the auditor general's office to make sure. . . .

D. Streifel: The suggestion I would make is that they provide a package for us on the work in progress and where we are at, and give us an opportunity to brief up on the circumstances. That would be good.

R. Thorpe (Chair): So if we could get those reports for future consideration to these new members. . . . Or do all members want. . . ? I know I don't need them; I have them. Jack, you have them?

M. Coell: I've got that.

E. Walsh: I've got them.

R. Thorpe (Chair): You've got them, Erda?

P. Calendino: I don't know that I have all of them, but I should have most of them.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Okay. So if we could get them for the two new members of the committee.

[ Page 1449 ]

R. Thorpe (Chair): Mr. Kasper, you want to make some comments?

R. Kasper: No.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Sure, we could do a quick review of that if you'd like. Perhaps we would ask the Clerk's office to. . . .

M. Coell: It'll be helpful for Rick too.

R. Thorpe (Chair): That will defer to the longest-standing member. Okay. So we will get those reports out.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe (Chair): The pencil works better. So we will then get those reports out. As David has suggested, which I think is a good recommendation, we will then go through at some point during our meeting next week to establish the priorities on the reports that are outstanding and move forward from that point.

Does anyone else have any other questions or comments today?

A Voice: To adjourn.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Is there any work we can do now, or would people prefer to adjourn?

Some Voices: Adjourn.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Our meeting schedule is, as we said earlier, every Tuesday while we are in session. As we move closer to the end of the session, whenever that may be, we will discuss and establish what would be an appropriate out-of-session schedule. Does anyone have any other business?

I would like to welcome -- I should have done this earlier -- the newest two members of the committee. We look forward to their input and to their early arrival at all meetings in the future. Also, members, from time to time we have had delays in getting started. Can we all commit to starting the meetings at 8:30 a.m.? We only have an hour and a half because of session, and people have other duties and other meetings. If people are in agreement, once there are seven members here, which is a quorum, we will start the meeting.

[0910]

R. Thorpe (Chair): No. Actually, we've kind of waited around.

A Voice: If we have seven people. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): In addition, the Clerk has just advised me that if committee members feel we have to have other meetings -- other than every Tuesday from 8:30 to ten -- we have that flexibility in our terms of reference, which passed through the House yesterday. So if you have that feeling, please approach the Chair. Together with the Deputy Chair, we will look at those requests.

Seeing no other business, I would. . . . Yes, Pietro?

P. Calendino: Just a question to the Clerk or perhaps even you, on whether there is any information on the yearly Canadian PAC conference and where that would be. . . .

R. Thorpe (Chair): The answer to that is yes.

Did you want to say something?

C. James: The Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees, as I understand it, will be holding its annual meeting in mid-September in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Details will be coming out shortly from the conference organizers there.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Of course, once we have that information, we will circulate it to all members of the committee for their review.

No other work here this morning? Okay, the committee is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 9:12 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada