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

* denotes member present

 

Clerks:	Craig James Kate Ryan-Lloyd
Committee Staff:	Kelly Dunsdon (Committee Researcher)

Witnesses:

Peter Gregory (Assistant Auditor General) Arn van Iersel (Comptroller General)

[ Page 1463 ]

The committee met at 8:37 a.m.

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Welcome. I call this meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to order. Just in case you're wondering why I'm in the chair, Rick has indicated that he'll probably be here within the hour. He's travelling right now and wasn't able to make it here first thing.

We have before us an agenda. We're to start reviewing the draft committee reports to the House. So unless there are any immediate questions, I'll ask Kelly to take us first through the protection of drinking water sources report.

K. Dunsdon: Good morning. On April 5 our office circulated draft committee reports by e-mail, and then again last week hard copies were distributed to all members. First of all, I'll go through the protection of drinking water sources draft report. This report covers work done by the committee in July and October of last year and February of this year.

Just to summarize for members, the report contains information about the committee's consideration of various topics relating to drinking water in the province and the 26 recommendations that were made by the auditor general. As you go through the report, you'll see the eight case studies that were done by the auditor general in communities around the province: management of B.C.'s drinking water sources; management of activities that can impact on drinking water quality, including forestry, agriculture, mining, transportation, recreation, livestock grazing, septic tanks, oil and gas drilling activities and underground storage tanks. There are also sections that discuss groundwater management in B.C., small water systems and public education initiatives.

The report also includes a discussion of written submissions received by the committee from the B.C. Medical Association; the B.C. Tap Water Association; the B.C. Water and Waste Association; the city of Kelowna; the city of Prince Rupert; North Okanagan Water Authority and the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

When this report was distributed, copies were also given to the office of the auditor general and to Mr. van Iersel. I've received comments back from the auditor general's office regarding some minor technical matters, and I've also received some comments back from the Chair. The Chair had one suggestion for the report. In that regard he suggested that a draft recommendation be included in the report, which reads as follows: "Your committee recognizes the importance of protecting drinking water sources and the high priority that British Columbians place on this issue. Accordingly, your committee recommends that the progress on the 26 recommendations made in the auditor general's report protecting drinking water sources be reviewed and reported on every six months to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts."

That's the end of my presentation.

[0840]

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): I'd just like to ask the committee how they would like to proceed -- if they want to consider the report chapter by chapter or take a look at the recommendations.

M. Coell: I would prefer just to look at the recommendations. I think the recommendation the Chair made is worthy to add -- that the committee review it and that it's brought forward every six months at least for a year or so. It would give us an idea of whether there's progress being made.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Has that recommendation been included in this draft report?

K. Dunsdon: No, it hasn't.

D. Streifel: It's a bit awkward with the number of new members here. I would prefer to do some chapter-by-chapter work on some of these reports. I think it will help us as we go along to build a pattern and a protocol with the rest of the committee. If the drinking water one is a good one to start on, I'd recommend that that's where we begin on a chapter-by-chapter basis. It will get the new folks up to speed on the scope of the reports, what the writers are like, what they're presenting. Maybe at the end of the day, if we're not experts on drinking water, I'll treat you all to a bottle of my well water.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay, are there any other comments about the way we proceed? I think it could be useful for all of us to do a quick review of what we've heard on the protection of drinking-water sources. Given that it's contained in this report, we can go quickly through. I was just looking in the report for the committee recommendations, and the reason there are none is that this committee made no recommendations. So the only recommendation to consider at this point is the recommendation that has been submitted by the Chair that this issue be reviewed on a six-month basis.

D. Streifel: A quick question. There were 26 recommendations by the auditor general. Did the committee accept all those recommendations or just accept the report?

K. Dunsdon: I believe that when Ministry of Environment officials attended, some of the recommendations were considered to be implemented. My thoughts on this were that I would draft the report and let members have a look at it and determine what recommendations they felt were appropriate for the committee to endorse.

D. Streifel: But we don't have the recommendations in this report.

K. Dunsdon: All the auditor general's recommendations are contained in text boxes in the report.

D. Streifel: Okay, they're buried. . . . They're within the. . . . Okay -- a different kind of printing.

J. Weisgerber: I wonder if it would be possible to include something in the report with respect to the issue of testing for MTBE. It's something that I raised peripherally in the discussions with the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Environment officials. Again, I'm not certain of the format of these reports and how much we want to move the investigations into new areas. But it seems to me that the evidence coming

[ Page 1464 ]

out of California and indeed the decisions that have been made by the President's office in the United States would suggest that this MTBE pollution or contamination of groundwater is seen as quite a serious problem in the United States.

[0845]

I would very much like to see this issue moved forward, if the committee would see fit to endorse that. The committee report might then be one way that we could start to encourage the various agencies to test for MTBE, which is a gasoline additive used in quantities as high as 15 percent in some of the high-octane gasolines. We know that Chevron, for example, is using about 10 percent MTBE by volume. A very, very small amount of MTBE would contaminate an entire aquifer or perhaps even a large reservoir.

In any event, I looked at the introduction and at page 6 of our report and thought that there might be one opportunity there, under the section on pathogens and chemicals, to perhaps introduce the notion of testing for MTBE.

J. Weisbeck: Yes, I think I would agree with that, and possibly. . . . Jack, you've given a fairly good explanation of the product MTBE. Probably in the report you could do the same -- explain what it is and the significance of it along with need for testing of it. I certainly agree with that.

D. Zirnhelt: Excuse me. I'm new, but are we now going to broaden the scope of what. . . ? Not that I'm opposed to it, Jack, but. . .

J. Weisgerber: No, no, a fair question.

D. Zirnhelt: . . .I'd feel more comfortable broadening the scope of what we're dealing with if I was on an environment committee or something like that. If it isn't in the auditor general's report, can we raise it? Can we delve into it? I guess what may be my instinct is: well, let's get a report on it. Bring the environment people here. But where do we begin and where do we end? This is just simply what the auditor general is reporting on, not what we as legislators choose to investigate as important items. I'm worrying that we're straying quite a way from an auditor's report.

J. Weisgerber: If I could, I think the rationale. . . . And I understand. I've wrestled with the same question myself. But it seems to me, first of all, that we're looking at a report specifically on drinking water. We're looking at a report that has been quite broad in its examination of contaminants in drinking water.

[0850]

I would argue that the auditor general looked at all of the recognized groundwater pollutants, and that this issue of MTBE contamination is somewhat of an emerging issue. I'm open to being persuaded that we shouldn't put it in the report, acknowledging that that appears to be an area of concern and hoping that one of the agencies involved or the team of agencies involved would in fact pick up on it.

I want to examine whether or not we can use the report. And let me say while I'm at it, although I was going to raise it a later time, that I wonder about the rationale for the reports generally. I mean, if indeed all the report is going to do is rehash the auditor general's statement, the response by the agencies and the comments by members during presentations or interviews of witnesses, it seems to me that all of that is there for anybody who is interested. Anybody who wants to read the auditor general's report will find a response from the agencies, can pick up Hansard and read the debate around the issues.

Unless we're going to do something significantly more than simply condense the things that have happened, then I wonder whether or not that's a good use of our resources. I'm comfortable feeling that while many of us can't find the draft reports when we come to the next meeting, if indeed we were to quiz our colleagues after we'd tabled it, we would be disappointed in the readership that our reports have.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): If the Chair might make some comments, I think this is a useful conversation about what kind of form we want our reports to appear in.

To respond to Mr. Zirnhelt, it is certainly within the scope of activity of this committee to be able to make recommendations further to the recommendations of the auditor general. These recommendations are then presented in the Legislature and can provide some further impetus to the activity of government.

R. Kasper: Well, you know, maybe one way to look at it is perhaps to make a notation in the report as an addendum where it says "chemical." Then maybe we should at least reference the comments that Jack made -- the fact that it was raised at this committee and that there was no testing done for this chemical. Well, it's fact -- right? Is it not? I just heard through you that it's factual that the issue or the questions were raised and that a testing regime did not include this chemical. Maybe that's the way to deal with it.

D. Zirnhelt: Well, I support the notion of noting it. If it has been omitted or has recently come to our attention, then we should note it. I guess my question is: what do we do after noting it? Presumably it will be read by ministry officials, but we should alert the ministry to our concern.

J. Weisgerber: Yeah. I don't think we're in a position to require or request testing, but indeed I would like to see the agencies wrap their mind around the issue and decide whether or not there is a case to be made for testing. I think that's a technical decision, one that I happen to think we should be. . . . But that's hardly scientific. I would like to see the issue acknowledged in some way. I would like to see a recommendation that the agencies consider the need for groundwater testing and that there be some interface with the federal Ministry of Environment. It seems that we're in one of those situations where federal and provincial agencies are looking at each other and saying: "Well, we kind of thought you were doing that." If there could be some kind of a recommendation that would reflect that line of thought, then I'd be more than satisfied with it.

K. Dunsdon: On page 51 of the draft report there is a section that discusses underground storage tanks. There's a bit of a discussion there about gasoline tanks and the experience in California. I suggest that this might be the most appropriate place for expansion on the MTBE issue and insertion of a recommendation.

G. Farrell-Collins: If you go to that section, "Groundwater Protection in Other Jurisdictions," the second and third

[ Page 1465 ]

paragraphs deal with issues of groundwater protection in the United States. Perhaps at that point you may want to insert. . . .

J. Weisgerber: I think that would be a very appropriate place.

G. Farrell-Collins: You may want to just insert that while the auditor general didn't review or monitor that issue -- and there's currently no monitoring of that substance -- during the review of this report, it came to the attention of members of the committee that this continues to be an issue and a growing issue, and that perhaps it's something we should be looking at. Put something in there to that effect.

S. Orcherton: Yes, I agree. I think it should be included in the report. I was going to argue it should be included on page 6, but if that's. . . .

R. Kasper: How about both?

[0855]

S. Orcherton: Well, it just seems to me that we could add. . . . We're talking about similar issues under the chemical heading. If we just added some reference to that, from there we could perhaps even point to this section on groundwater management. I think that would be the appropriate way to flag it. I think it is an important issue, and it's one that perhaps requires further investigation. We should include it in this report.

P. Calendino: Well, I'll add my two bits to that. I agree with Jack; I think it's an important issue. After all, the protection and quality of drinking water is related to the health of the citizenry, and this is a health issue more than anything else. I think it should be flagged. Wherever we put it, it should be flagged for the future, for agencies to monitor it.

D. Streifel: Just a quick question on process here. After the next meeting I'll stop saying "I'm new." But we're here to review the report of the auditor general on water, and. . .

J. Weisgerber: We've already done that.

D. Streifel: . . .we've done that. I understand what Jack is doing or wants done, and I don't disagree with him. Are we perhaps now in the process of recommending to the auditor general a future area of examination that was not included in the original report? Is that what we're doing here? Does that fit with our terms of reference and mandate on this report, or should we write something else that attaches to this and that would move the study issue on more quickly than just burying it in this report?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): If I could perhaps summarize, the report that we have in front of us is the committee's report. This report summarizes the report of the auditor general on the protection of drinking water sources. It summarizes the Hansard of our discussion of that report, including the interviews with the witnesses. As well as that, it summarizes the research that Kelly has done.

What the report does not include are recommendations of this committee. This committee is empowered to make recommendations to government. The auditor general has made 26 recommendations. We have two additional recommendations that have been suggested by this committee, which are not yet in the report. One is that the activities around drinking water protection be reviewed by this committee every six months, and the other is that there be some discussion and some reporting back -- I believe from the Ministry of Environment -- with respect to monitoring for MTBE. Is that a correct summary?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, I think that's accurate and, I think, the answer to Dennis's question. This committee makes recommendations to the House, which adopts or rejects our reports, and then government is supposed to take note of what the committee has done. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. Any member of the Legislature or the public, at any time, can offer or recommend to the auditor general or ask the auditor general to investigate anything, and the auditor general can say no or yes. We're not overstepping our bounds by suggesting to the auditor general that the office may want to monitor something or that the Ministry of Environment may want to start to monitor something as well.

D. Streifel: Just a clarification. Thank you for that, Gary. I was trying to offer some supportive questions on an issue that is, as Jack described, emerging and thought of as quite serious in some jurisdictions. I for one as a citizen and as a legislator, would like to see the issue move forward as opposed to being clipped in as a reference, buried in the middle of a document. If there's another way this committee can do that, it's fine.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): It sounds to me that you're suggesting it be included as a recommendation of this committee, further to the recommendations of the auditor general. That's probably the most visible way to put that out.

D. Streifel: It could be, because it is an emerging issue.

One quick question while I have the floor: do the committee members know what this substance is?

[0900]

J. Weisgerber: It's an ethyl product; it's a derivative of natural gas. It is a carcinogen, and it has been identified initially in California groundwater. Usually it is associated with spills around service stations, service station tanks, tank yards -- anyplace where there's been a spillage. The United States, in 1992, legislated oxygenation to improve air quality. The cheapest and most effective oxygenator was MTBE. It really took off since 1992, and I think the effects of it as a pollutant on groundwater are just now starting to show up. Areas where two years ago there were just minimal indications on testing, a couple of years later have been found to be quite serious cases of contamination. Some groundwater systems have been shut down entirely in the United States as a result of it.

We've been moving in Canada from MMT, which is another fuel additive, to MTBE. MTBE is produced in Canada, and there's actually an ironic little case where Canada got sued for banning MMT from the United States. Now there's a counter-claim with California banning the importation of MTBE from Canada. I think it's fair to say that some of the interests in Alberta, where most of the MTBE is manufactured, are not going to be particularly happy with the events hap-

[ Page 1466 ]

pening in the United States and probably will be quite resistant to change here in Canada.

S. Orcherton: I'm not an expert on this particular chemical, and I know the members raised a question in the House in this regard. I, frankly, would like to get some information on this. I don't discount what Mr. Weisgerber is saying; I think it's a serious issue. I'd be interested in hearing from someone about where this situation really is. Is it a huge problem? Is it one that's being managed or isn't being managed? What are other jurisdictions doing in this regard? I don't have enough information on it other than it strikes me that this is an important issue and should be mentioned in the report. I'd be interested in hearing more about it, frankly.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Kelly is indicating to me that she is willing to do some research on that, if you like. The other possibility is that if it appears as a recommendation in our report, we can ask officials from the Ministry of Environment to be prepared to answer questions on the issue of MTBE.

R. Kasper: Maybe the minister should come down and chat with us.

J. Weisgerber: But the initial response from the minister's staff that were here. . . . This groundwater thing bounces back and forth between Health and Environment. Those officials seemed to feel that this was a federal Environment responsibility. Because the federal government doesn't test for MTBE, nobody at this point is acknowledging that there could be a problem. Nobody's tested for it, so nobody knows. So I think the first thing that should happen is that some agency should do some tests on groundwater, very similar to what's being done all over the United States right now.

A Voice: So there's no testing going on right now?

J. Weisgerber: Apparently not -- not in Canada.

R. Kasper: Well, shall we note in the report that it's a glaring error?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Omission, perhaps.

R. Kasper: Well, whatever.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Mr. Weisgerber is going to put together a motion, and while he does that. . . .

J. Weisgerber: Yeah -- jacket off here. . . .

Interjections.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Perhaps while he's doing that, we can go back to a discussion of the format of the report itself.

Interjections.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Seeing no hands, then do I take it that that people are satisfied with the format of the report in its summary form?

R. Kasper: Does this set a precedent for other reports?

[0905]

D. Streifel: Question: are all the committee reports. . . ? Are the recommendations or the highlighting of the recommendations contained within the report, as this one is? Or do the recommendations usually come on a page or two pages?

K. Dunsdon: Are you referring to the auditor general's recommendations or to the draft?

D. Streifel: This is our report, as I understand it. We're reviewing our report and contained in the report, as you go through section by section, the office of the auditor general recommends that. . . . Is that the general format of the reports we deal with, or is this compiled specifically for this report? I would prefer to see the recommendations all together.

K. Dunsdon: Generally, I insert each auditor general recommendation in the section that discusses that in more detail. I can also compile those on a separate page that includes every single recommendation, if that's what members would like.

R. Kasper: Well, just a question through the Chair to Dennis, then. Are you suggesting that we expand on the conclusions that the committee reached on page 65? Because the committee. . . .

D. Streifel: If I could interject, I did not suggest anything. I asked a question. We were discussing formatting of the report, and my question was directed at how the reports are formatted -- if this is the way they all come. Or are some formatted differently? That was my question.

K. Dunsdon: Generally, each recommendation is referenced at the beginning of every section that discusses that topic, just so that there's a reference point for that section of the report. That can be changed, though, if that's not. . . .

D. Streifel: I just asked the question, honest. It was a question only, on the formatting.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): This is a new committee beginning a new year's worth of work. The question has been raised. Actually, Mr. Weisgerber -- who's busy now -- also raised a question about the formatting of the report.

P. Calendino: I was just looking at the conclusion there, since Mr. Weisgerber is drafting some recommendation. It says here that there has been a new chair established at the University of Victoria to look at the environmental management of drinking water, starting with Victoria, Vancouver and the Cranbrook area. That's perhaps one of the agencies that can look at this issue of monitoring the MTBE. It's my understanding that Chevron now again is adding MMT to their gasoline, so that's another compound that should be examined also. It seems to me that this is a research chair at the University of Victoria and probably the best place to look at this.

J. Weisgerber: In fairness to Chevron, I'm not sure that they are at all alone in adding MTBE. I think probably most

[ Page 1467 ]

major refiners are now using MTBE, although there's a changeover from MMT with some refiners.

P. Calendino: Yeah. But I just meant there that Chevron has started adding MMT again, after the court case against the federal government. I read that in the newspapers, and I didn't pick up that other refiners are doing the same thing.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay, there seems to be general agreement on the format of the report. Really, all we're doing now. . . . Unless there are some changes that you want to draw our attention to, Kelly, what we are dealing with now are the recommendations.

K. Dunsdon: Right.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay, so we have the conclusion of the report, which basically pulls together the conclusions of this committee, and two recommendations to consider.

Kelly, would you read that first recommendation again, please, the suggested draft recommendation from the Chair?

[0910]

K. Dunsdon: The recommendation that has been suggested by the Chair is as follows: your committee recognizes the importance of protecting drinking water sources and the high priority that British Columbians place on this issue. Accordingly, your committee recommends that the progress on the 26 recommendations made in the auditor general's report on protecting drinking water sources be reviewed and reported on every six months to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Any discussion?

R. Kasper: I just have a question. Would the six months start from the date that the report is tabled, or would it be six months from when the auditor general's report was done?

R. Thorpe (Chair): My intention in making that suggestion was to tie in with the six-month review process that we agreed on at our past meeting. This would just become part of that regular cycle.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): And were you anticipating an end date when the committee is satisfied with the progress or. . . ?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yes. I would suggest that when the committee -- whoever may be on that committee at the time -- believes that the issue has been dealt with, the committee would then strike that from their review process.

R. Kasper: So do you need a motion?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): I'll accept a motion to accept that recommendation as the recommendation of the committee.

R. Kasper: I'll move the recommendation as read.

A Voice: It's recommendations, but we haven't accepted the recommendations. How can we do that?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): All in favour? Accepted by the committee.

Motion approved.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Mr. Weisgerber, have you got your recommendation ready?

J. Weisgerber: Yes, I gave it to Kate.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay, here's the recommendation. This would be a second recommendation of the committee: that given the serious concern in the United States regarding groundwater contamination by the gasoline additive MTBE, the Ministries of Environment and Health examine the need for testing in British Columbia and report back to this committee with their findings. Any discussion?

P. Calendino: I'm just concerned with the last part of the recommendation, because it simply asks those two ministries to examine the need for monitoring, and then it also asks to report back on the results. There's a bit of conflict in there. We have to allow them to decide whether they want to do it or not.

J. Weisgerber: Well, they'd have to report back on their findings. . .

P. Calendino: Of their examination.

J. Weisgerber: . . .to examine the need and then come back.

P. Calendino: Yeah, that's the part. Perhaps the words "of their findings," should be left out -- just report back to us. We don't know whether they'll find anything or not.

J. Weisgerber: Well, they're going to find something.

P. Calendino: If they decide that they will do the testing.

J. Weisgerber: Yeah. But if they find there's no need, I guess that's still a finding. I don't want to be picky about it, but I now have ownership of this thing, and I've got to defend it. I don't care.

A Voice: You do care.

J. Weisgerber: However you decide to word it is fine with me.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Any other comments, Mr. Kasper?

R. Kasper: Does the recommendation then replace a need to expand any reference of this issue on page 51 or page 6, or is that going to happen naturally in the report?

J. Weisgerber: I would like to see an expansion, particularly under. . . . I'd like to see some kind of an explanation that gives. . . .

R. Kasper: On page 51.

[ Page 1468 ]

J. Weisgerber: I think it's the appropriate place for it, because this concern is clearly coming out of the United States.

R. Kasper: And perhaps there should be a notation on page 6, where the definition reference to chemicals and the fact that this is excluded or. . . .

[0915]

J. Weisgerber: An emerging issue; yeah.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): You're suggesting in the section on the work of the committee, because the section above that on page 6 is a review of the auditor general's report, not of the committee's work.

R. Kasper: Well, we should make a note there or something -- right? It should be noted -- you know, a little number and a footnote that there is an omission for this particular chemical. That's all.

J. Weisgerber: Yeah, it could probably come at the end of the paragraph on the work of the committee -- right?

R. Kasper: Yeah. I don't mean to confuse the issue that we're dealing with right now, which is the recommendation. I just want to clarify it in my mind. We're going to do some notations on page 51 and possibly page 6, and that's understood and accepted by the committee when we pass this recommendation. Good.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay, and I see Kelly noting this. We'll go back to the resolution, then. There's been some discussion about whether or not "with their findings" should be included in the resolution. Any strong feelings about this, one way or the other?

All those in favour of adding this as a second recommendation of the committee on the protection of drinking water sources?

Motion approved.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): We've taken a look at the format of the report and accepted that. We've added two recommendations from the committee, to be added to this report. Is there any further discussion on this report?

D. Streifel: We started the day off by discussing whether or not we'd go through this report clause by clause or section by section. I would like to do that, actually, to get comfortable with this report. I'd also like to get into at least the septic tank section of the report, because I think it is fairly thin, frankly.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's 9:15 and we've been here for 45 minutes, and we've managed to get the two recommendations done. If we were to go through each report in detail as a group, we would never get any reports done. I understand the desire of new members to become familiar with the work that the committee had previously done. But if members were able to read reports in advance -- I think they've had them for several weeks now -- and come in with specific questions about those reports or perhaps speak to their colleagues beforehand, the committee would be able to get its work done. Otherwise, if we work through these reports as a group, page by page, chapter by chapter, we'll never get them completed. There is simply too much on our agenda to do it that way, in my opinion.

P. Calendino: I don't want to object to what Mr. Farrell-Collins is trying to say, but I thought that at the beginning of the meeting it was agreed to do that, to just give the new members an idea of how the committee functions for today. In the future, I think, we won't take that much time. That's what we had discussed earlier.

R. Thorpe (Chair): This committee has continually had new members brought on side. Other members have not found that necessary. I think they experience the fact by reading the reports, checking with staff and following up. That has been the way we've operated for several years. Most members, I believe, have found that beneficial.

The other issue: if we are ever going to consider going through these line by line, we're going to have to make sure that we have technical resources here in case there are questions, or else we're going to get into debates back and forth. Quite frankly, a lot of people are going to be speaking without the background that they need to speak to these points. I strongly believe that members, when they get these reports, should read them. We purposely said we were only going to do two reports at this meeting so that members could have the opportunity to go through them and check with staff. I think the ways of the past have worked well for this committee, and given the workload we have, I think we have to be prepared to move along here.

[0920]

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): As Chair, I'd like to say a word here. I did ask a number of times throughout this discussion about whether or not we needed to discuss things. I did not see support from the committee to go through on a page-by-page or paragraph-by-paragraph basis. What we have done is accepted the format of the report and added two recommendations of the committee to this report. This report is in addition to the report of the auditor general and the Hansard of the discussion on protecting drinking water sources. It is certainly an issue that this committee feels very strongly about -- very strongly about the need to move -- and has asked for a regular six-month follow-up. I think that in light of that, with all respect to the member, we will move on to the next report. If there's an interest in discussing the next report in more depth, then I need to hear that from the members of the committee.

D. Streifel: The last I'll say on it: I raised the issue right off, and I find it a little bit peculiar that the committee is not willing to go through their own report piece by piece, to bring some of the new members up to speed.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Make a motion.

D. Streifel: But I will take direction from the Chair and accept the consensus of the committee.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've been trying to be polite. The fact of the matter is that we have a big workload in this committee. Members are expected to come here prepared, having

[ Page 1469 ]

obtained the reports, having read them and being prepared to have questions. If the member has questions about the report, let's hear them; let's talk about it. But I haven't heard that yet, and I'm not prepared personally -- not to mention everybody else and staff -- to sit here while we go through every single page of the report. I understand that the member mentioned it earlier. There was also a comment made by another member -- I can't remember which -- to deal just with the recommendations. There was no resolution on that. There were two suggestions. The Chair has, as she said, gone through and done it in the way that I thought had been recommended by Mr. Coell, I guess it was -- that we look at the recommendations.

It's not that the committee is not prepared to deal with its own report; we've dealt with it. I think even new members have had this report for two weeks. If there are questions, I'm more than happy to spend time going through it. But if there aren't and it's just a general grazing of the report, then I think that's a waste of time.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): I believe that at this point we need a motion to accept the report as has been amended by this committee, with the additional recommendations. Moved by Murray Coell, seconded by John Weisbeck. All those in favour? Opposed? Thank you; we can put that report forward for final presentation.

Motion approved.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): The next report before us is the report on government financial accountability for the 1997-98 fiscal year.

[0925]

K. Dunsdon: I'll just go through this report briefly again for members' information. The auditor general's report on this topic, "Government Financial Accountability for the 1997-98 Fiscal Year," was released in three parts in December 1998 and June 1999. The committee considered all three parts of the report in March and October of last year.

The draft committee report follows the same format as the auditor general's report in that it too is divided into three parts. The first part, starting on page 5, discusses the auditor general's report on the 1997-98 public accounts. It includes discussions of changes to and improvements in the public accounts for the fiscal year, issues arising from the audit of the financial statements for that year, and accounting policies and issues. There was some discussion among committee members during the consideration of this part of the report, so page 16 of the draft report contains a draft committee recommendation that endorses the recommendations made by the auditor general regarding the public accounts for '97-98.

Part 2 of the report starts on page 17 and is a report on the province's financial management for '97-98. It contains discussions of debt reporting and planning in B.C. and information provided to the committee by the secretary to Treasury Board when he attended before the committee in October of last year. The auditor general did not make any recommendations to the government on the topic of financial management.

Part 3 of the draft committee report starts on page 28 and deals with financial systems and controls, in particular the government's corporate accounting system. Page 41 of the report contains a draft committee recommendation endorsing the auditor general's recommendations concerning the corporate accounting system.

A copy of this draft report was circulated to all members by e-mail on April 5. Also, a hard copy was distributed at the last meeting. Copies were also given to the office of the auditor general and to the comptroller general. I've received comments back from them on the report as well, with some very minor changes. As well, the Chair has suggested that another recommendation be incorporated into the committee report that would read as follows: "Your committee recommends that this committee receive semi-annual updates on the status of implementation of the corporate accounting system as well as the recommendations in this report."

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Are there any questions of Kelly?

R. Thorpe (Chair): I was just going to ask -- and maybe that's what Arn's going to do -- for some clarification on what some of the technical questions were or changes that have to be made.

A. van lersel: Just to clarify, these comments relate to the public accounts two times ago. We've since released another set of public accounts, hence the need to deal with this. In terms of my comments, I've already mentioned this morning to Kelly, before the meeting formally started, that we've gone through this report one more time, and there are a number of minor corrections that are needed. Just to illustrate what that means, there are two different dates that are used for tabling these sets of public accounts. One says October 19; one says the 20th. I've marked all these up. Rather than taking the whole committee through -- I don't think any of these comments affect the substance -- I would propose that I leave these with Kelly for inclusion, if that's deemed to be appropriate, or we can go through each one.

R. Thorpe (Chair): I just want to make sure for the record that the points that you are raising here. . . . There are no substantive issues. They are, for the lack of a better word -- a word the government sometimes uses from day to day -- housekeeping items. Is that correct?

A. van lersel: Yes, they are primarily housekeeping items. In a couple of cases we're proposing additional words to clarify beyond what is said here, just to make it crystal clear. An example of that would be that with respect to some hospitals which are privately held, the auditor general's office has recommended that a notation be included in the public accounts. There is a reference to that in this report. We've actually already done that. But we wanted to clarify the reference in the report to make clear that these are not assets which we own; the notation simply says that. So it's correcting a few errors and clarifying the wording.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay. There are two recommendations and a third one that has been proposed. Is that correct, Kelly?

K. Dunsdon: Yes.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): The third recommendation proposed is similar to the last report, in that it's asking for a

[ Page 1470 ]

six-months follow-up, which as of our last meeting will be regularized just as part of the practice of the committee. Any comments on the report?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Any questions to ask? Any questions?

D. Streifel: Not particularly on this one.

Are you chairing from over there, Mr. Thorpe?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Well, I just wondered. It looked like you were deep into the report, and I just didn't want this to pass without you having the opportunity to ask your questions.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Well, perhaps we will. . .

D. Streifel: Is that how it works here?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): . . .conduct our business through the Chair.

D. Streifel: Chair, if you want me to ask questions, I'll ask the same ones as on the first report. I think it is important to bring new members up to. . . . Particularly in reports that are non-controversial, like drinking water and what not, it would be important to, in a way, educate new members on the processes and protocols of committee, so we avoid the further discussions where there are not. . . . That's my final word on it.

[0930]

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): This committee has half an hour until adjournment. We have three very short pieces of business, so we have the bulk of the half hour to devote to this report. Does the office of the auditor general have any comments on the recommendations made by the committee?

P. Gregory: No, we've passed our comments on to Kelly. The report is fine, in our view.

R. Kasper: So what do we need -- a motion just to adopt all three? I would move that we adopt the three recommendations as presented.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): So it's moved that we adopt the three recommendations that have been presented as part of the committee's report.

Motion approved.

R. Kasper: Do we need a motion to adopt the report?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): I believe we should have a motion to adopt the report.

R. Kasper: I move that the report be adopted as presented.

Motion approved.

R. Kasper: Did we have a motion for the other report?

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): We did have a motion for the other report.

The next item on the agenda is the status of business. I will refer this item to Kelly, I believe.

K. Dunsdon: I just want to draw members' attention to another list that I've put on your desks this morning, showing the status of committee work as of today, just to let you know what the status of the draft reports is. You'll see that there's another report that will be completed by this Thursday and put on members' desks for their review. That report is on the 1999 follow-up of performance audits pertaining to the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations management of travel, executive severance, PSERC and ICBC trucking safety. Those were all issues that were discussed by the committee in the fall of last year.

There were a couple of other issues that were contained in the auditor general's report that haven't been discussed by the committee yet, and so they are not included in that report. They can be the subject of a separate report. Those are B.C. Ferries fleet and terminal maintenance management and earthquake preparedness -- the provincial emergency program.

So that draft report will be on members' desks on Thursday. If anyone has any comments about it, please let me know. That might be a draft report that could be discussed next week or two weeks from now.

R. Thorpe (Chair): It would be two weeks, I believe.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): I would suggest that given that the next meeting will be the first opportunity for members to review this draft report, we might offer more in-depth review of the report as we go through it.

R. Kasper: How are we making out with the review of the estimates process report? Have we had any further discussions and reached a reasonable solution to the report? Are the Chair and the Deputy Chair. . . ?

R. Thorpe (Chair): Yes, actually, the Deputy Chair -- the Chair today -- and I had discussions on that. It was requested and agreed to that, while certain other discussions are taking place, that report will not come before this committee. Outside discussions are taking place with House Leaders.

R. Kasper: Okay.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Until the resolution of the court case.

R. Kasper: Just thought I'd ask.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Okay, there are a number of draft reports in progress. As you can see -- especially if you're new members -- this has been a very active committee. This is a point at which we are bringing some of our work to completion, and there are yet a number of auditor general's reports which we have not yet considered.

The next item of business is the implementation date of the new follow-up process. Kelly and I had some discussion about this at the beginning of the meeting.

[ Page 1471 ]

[0935]

K. Dunsdon: Yes. The guide that was distributed to members, if everyone has a copy of this. . . . There's no reference in the guide to an implementation date -- whether the new process will apply retroactively to things the committee has already discussed or whether it will just apply to future items. I just wanted to get a sense of whether something should be incorporated into this.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Sorry, what were you suggesting, Kelly?

K. Dunsdon: I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about whether something should be included in the guide to indicate when the new process takes effect, because there are a number of follow-up items -- you'll see on the status-of-committee-business list that I just handed out -- that include follow-up of committee recommendations. There were dates incorporated into those. Should the new process apply to those, in terms of written updates being submitted?

R. Thorpe (Chair): I thought we discussed two meetings ago that those would be followed up in writing and that those would then dovetail into the follow-up process of the auditor general's office, other than if the committee had made. . . . I don't remember exactly what reports, but I know I put forward some motions for automatic renewal. I think it's a combination of both, hopefully dovetailing that with the semi-annual update from the auditor general's office. I'd appreciate it if the auditor general or comptroller general either understood that to be what we'd agreed to or have differences on that.

P. Gregory: Madam Chair, I believe that is what the minutes reflect from the April 4 meeting. We did have a bit of a discussion as to whether this would start applying right away and about those matters that were outstanding. I think it was the expressed wish of the committee at that time that we do get written statements from those auditees.

I circulated at the last meeting, I think, a horizontal listing, which had the outstanding issues on the committee's business and those items that we would naturally follow up. At this point I think we also talked about whether there were priorities, and the Deputy Chair expressed priority for the B.C. Ferries maintenance and safety, the governance of Crown corporations and the trucking safety. Those issues are high on the list.

We also had other reports that the committee was following up: social service tax, child care grants, Vancouver Island Highway, earthquake preparedness and accounts receivable. It had also scheduled a meeting for year 2000 preparedness no later than June 30, year 2000 -- so this June. Those are the items that the committee, I believe, had on its record to follow up. We have a listing of other reports that we've issued when the Public Accounts Committee discussed those last. We're intending to follow those up six months after the committee's last deliberations.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Yes, I believe that is correct. Either there are recommendations within our own reports to follow up within six months, or they will be rolled into the new process.

The next item on the agenda says draft reports for the next meeting, but we've just discussed that.

R. Thorpe (Chair): Since we are going to have one draft report for the next meeting, it looks like, and since you've suggested that we have a little bit more in-depth review on that, I was wondering if it made any sense. . . . In looking over the list of reports that the auditor general has to talk to us about, there's one called "Towards a More Accountable Government: Putting Ideas Into Practice," which was quite a thin report. I'm just wondering if we couldn't devote. . . . I don't know if you want to devote an hour and a half to the 1999 follow-up, but if you only want to devote an hour and 15 minutes, maybe then we could have the report from the auditor general's office on that rather brief report, so we can move that one up the list too.

[0940]

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): I would suggest that the Chair and the Deputy Chair get together with the auditor general and the comptroller general to set the agenda for the next few meetings.

A. van Iersel: Hon. Chair, if I may, last meeting there was a discussion about distribution of reports while they are still in draft. Is there a motion coming to deal with my ability to release that? I had understood from the conversation that something was going to be drafted.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): The Chair and Deputy Chair will discuss that. Immediately following this meeting we'll prepare for the next meeting.

A. van Iersel: Thank you.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thanks for reminding us.

A Voice: Jeez, that follow-up thing's working well.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Is there any other business? Seeing no hands, I ask for a motion to adjourn. Was there a motion?

Motion approved.

E. Gillespie (Deputy Chair): Just to remind people, this committee will not sit next Tuesday. Make sure you get your agendas for the following Tuesday.

The committee adjourned at 9:41 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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