Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 92 — Wednesday, March 9, 2016 (HTML)

Present: Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA (Chair); Dan Ashton, MLA; Robin Austin, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Jennifer Rice, MLA; Jackie Tegart, MLA; John Yap, MLA

1. There not yet being a Chair elected to serve the Committee, the meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. by the Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees.

2. Resolved, that Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA, be elected Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. (George Heyman, MLA)

3. Resolved, that Carole James, MLA, be elected Deputy Chair of Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. (Dan Ashton, MLA)

4. The Committee considered correspondence dated March 4, 2016 from the Minister of Finance regarding 2016/17 event-related funding for Elections BC and correspondence dated March 2, 2016 and related information from the Ombudsperson regarding legal indemnification of witnesses in the investigation into the matter referred on July 29, 2015.

5. It was moved by George Heyman, MLA, that the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services call the Ombudsperson to attend a meeting with the Committee, at our earliest convenience, to discuss the current state of the referred inquiry into the events and actions connected with Health Ministry dismissal of researchers.

7. Resolved, that the Committee write to the Ombudsperson to acknowledge his correspondence of March 2, 2016 and referencing the motion proposed earlier today and the Committee decision regarding that motion. (George Heyman, MLA)

8. The Committee discussed its plan to schedule meetings to receive financial and operational updates from statutory officers. The Committee also expressed interest in a site visit to the Office of the Auditor General during the spring session.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


CONTENTS
Page
Election of Chair and Deputy Chair	2143
Elections B.C. Funding	2143
Correspondence from Office of the Ombudsperson	2143
Committee Workplan and Meeting Schedule	2147

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Good afternoon, Members. As this is the first meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the current, fifth, session, and as there is not yet a Chair elected to serve your committee, the first item of business is election of Chair. I would like to open the floor to nominations for that position.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Any further nominations? Any further nominations? Any further nominations?

S. Hamilton (Chair): As my first official duty as Chair, I will call for nominations for the position of Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We have Carole James nominated. Do I see any further nominations? Any further nominations? Any further nominations?

As my second official duty, I would like to offer the member for Skeena and the member for North Coast a welcome to the committee. I know the member for Skeena is well versed in the way the committee works. You know all the ins and outs, so I expect all kinds of good things.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We will go back to the agenda. Item 3 is a review of current correspondence. I’m just going to turn a lot of this over to our good Clerk.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): For this afternoon’s meeting, I have provided you all with two sets of information. The first letter, dated March 4, actually arrived for your committee today. It is a letter from Minister de Jong regarding your approved event-related funding for Elections B.C. for the forthcoming fiscal year. It complies with the usual format of these kinds of letters for event-related funding, noting that it would be allocated on an as-required basis by Elections B.C. That information has been provided to you all this afternoon.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): In addition, I draw your attention to a package provided by the Office of the Ombudsperson on March 2, which has also been circulated in conjunction with this meeting. As you will see, it includes a cover letter to the Chair, in his capacity as convener of the committee, and attached was an information bulletin from the Office of the Ombudsperson, an information package that had been prepared by the Office of the Ombudsperson with respect to the investigation of the matter referred by this committee — information for witnesses and a copy of the legal fee indemnity, which, as members know, has been established by government and is available to witnesses in the context of this investigation.

There has not yet been a response provided to the Ombudsperson with regard to this correspondence, but I know the Chair wanted to have it presented to you all on the agenda today.

Well, we may as well just knock off the correspondence one at a time here. If I could ask the committee to refer to the letter from the Minister of Finance with respect to the Elections B.C. office and the appropriation that had been provided. Are there any questions about the information contained in the letter?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): If you wish. It is now noted on your record. In the past, I don’t think that we have conveyed any formal responses to this kind of information. But we did want to bring it to your attention now, because it relates to matters the committee considered late last year.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay, seeing nothing further, I will move on to the correspondence from the Ombudsperson regarding an information package for witnesses with respect to the health care firings.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): It’s very much in the hands of your committee at this stage, Mr. Chair. I have had a chance to have a brief conversation, as I know the Chair and the Deputy Chair have had previously, with the Ombudsperson. If there are any general questions, I’m happy to respond to those. I’m anticipating that the committee may want to discuss it briefly. We’re happy to prepare any response, if required, back to the Ombudsperson with regard to that correspondence.

G. Heyman: As I recall, when the committee passed the motion to refer this matter to the Ombudsperson, and again when the Ombudsperson appeared before us with a budget submission, we said to the Ombudsperson, as part of our referral, that we would welcome his return to report to the committee, particularly if there were any bumps in the road as the inquiry took form and began — and also specifically with regard to indemnification. I believe the committee took the view that it was a reasonable request. The Ombudsperson took the view that he was working on it and would report back to us. We, in turn, asked him to report back to us.

I think, as the members of the committee know, it is not going totally smoothly with respect to the impacted individuals and the family of Roderick MacIsaac, who have taken issue with a number of factors associated with the inquiry as well as with the level of indemnification.

With that in mind, I would move that the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services call the Ombudsperson to attend a meeting with the committee, at our earliest convenience, to discuss the current state of the referred inquiry into the events and actions connected with Health Ministry dismissal of researchers.

E. Foster: I would refer to page 2 of the letter that we received, or the Chair received, from the Ombudsperson, dated March 2. It says:

“I appreciate that there may be interest on the part of the committee from time to time when issues are raised publicly. However, I respectfully request that the committee recognize the importance of my office conducting this investigation independently.

“In the event that I encounter material impediments to the investigation, I am mindful of section 7(a) of the special directions and the opportunity I have to make an interim report to the Select Standing Committee. I do not see the need to make such a report at this time. However, if the need arises, I will not hesitate to do so.”

I would suggest, then, anything else that we might do would be interfering with this investigation.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the point that Eric is making in referring to the Ombudsperson’s letter. But with respect, I don’t see how asking the Ombudsperson to appear before this committee to answer questions that we have about the conduct and what are obviously impediments to a smoothly running inquiry, based on a referral from this committee and special directions from this committee, can possibly be interfering with his investigation.

In fact, he didn’t raise any objection, at the time we made the referral with the special directions, to our statement that we wished to have periodic reports, particularly if something was appearing as an impediment to the investigation.

I’m mindful of the fact that the Ombudsperson urged us, when he originally came before us, to not make the referral unless it was unanimous. It was not unanimous, as everyone on this committee knows, but following the vote, we made every attempt on this side of the committee to work collaboratively in order to establish terms of reference that we thought could be workable.

We were mindful of the feelings of the impacted researchers and the survivor. We took steps, I think collectively, to try, notwithstanding the fact that that was not the first choice of the fired researchers. They had wanted a different kind of inquiry. We wanted to make it, as much as we could, an inquiry in which they could feel and believe there was some possibility that they would be heard.

Given that a number of us have concerns that that is not currently the case, I think it is completely appropriate that we ask the Ombudsperson to appear before us and answer some questions that we have. It need not be questions that every member of the committee has.

I think it is reasonable, if we want to not have this process fail spectacularly or become significantly more politicized than it already is. It’s a reasonable request. If any number of members of the committee wish the Ombudsperson to appear, I think it’s incumbent on him to appear, particularly given his statement that he did not
[ Page 2145 ]
want the issue of an Ombudsperson inquiry to initially or continue to be a divisive issue.

Having said that, I think it’s important that this motion pass. I don’t think it’s up to the Ombudsperson to determine when it’s appropriate for him to appear before the committee. I think that’s up to the committee.

E. Foster: I refer back to his letter. If you look at the…. The conversation we had was that if he had or he saw problems, he would come back to us. I think us calling him in here is interfering with the work of an independent officer. I don’t think we’re here to direct him. I mean, we gave him a job to do. If he feels, as he says here, there is in issue and he needs to come back, be it for more funds or to change the direction that we’d given him, he would come back.

He’s an independent officer of the Legislature, and I think he should be allowed to conduct his investigation. If he runs into issues, he will come back and see us.

G. Heyman: With respect, we did direct him. We gave him special directions. That’s the right, under the act, of this committee, and we did that. Part of that was to report to us if there were problems. Now we have a number of the impacted researchers who are saying that, given the circumstances, they don’t plan to participate, and they plan to resist a summons.

If that’s not a material impediment, I don’t know what is. And if the Ombudsperson doesn’t think it’s a material impediment, I’d like him to appear before the committee and explain exactly why he thinks it isn’t.

E. Foster: I would suggest he doesn’t feel that it’s a material impediment to his time till we have the discussion, or he would come to see us. He’s an independent officer of this Legislature. Allow him to do his job.

My biggest concern is that if there’s any appearance of political interference with this investigation, it’ll call into question the integrity of the entire investigation. I could propose that we acknowledge this letter as received. We could reply back. I’m just putting it out here for discussion. We reply back to the Ombudsperson, reiterate an invitation, but I would like it to be entirely his discretion, because again, I do not want to look like we’re interfering with the investigation in any way, shape or form.

I guess, to take it a step further, I would consider any discussions between the health care workers’ legal counsel and the Ombudsperson to basically drive his concern. If he has that concern, he can certainly contact this committee and appear in front of us and say: “I’ve had discussions.” And if he feels there are modifications necessary, he should be driving that process. I don’t think we should be dragging him into it. But I’ve said my two bits.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Well, just for further information, with respect to the special directions adopted by the committee some time ago, I believe that the Ombudsperson has incorporated those as an appendix to the documents that were circulated.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes. After the Information for Witnesses package, which features the logo of the Ombudsperson’s office at the top, there’s another document, I believe, that follows immediately thereafter titled “Special Directions Regarding Referrals to Ombudsperson.”

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Right. So on page 3 of that document is a section relating, under “Reporting.” Item 7 describes the authority and discretion of the Ombudsperson with regard to those interim reports, which he may consider necessary on administrative or budgetary matters. I’d just draw your attention to that in the event that it might be helpful to your deliberations.

G. Heyman: I’ll offer a comment. It’s pretty clear how this vote is going to go. It’s also pretty clear to me, if we draw up Hansard, that uncontested statements that were made at this committee, as well as directly to the Ombudsperson…. I assume the Ombudsperson will be monitoring this discussion or monitoring Hansard. The Ombudsperson will know about this motion.

I would hope that the Ombudsperson would understand that if roughly 45 percent of committee members wish him to appear and explain to us exactly what is going on with an inquiry he’s conducting under a referral from this committee, which he wished to not see politicized, he will choose to appear before us. Certainly, we will be making our views known one way or the other. I’d prefer to do it at this committee, but….

S. Hamilton (Chair): If I could reiterate, I think that’s maybe, if you want to call it that, the concession that I would have been prepared to make — to support a motion that would see us responding to his letter dated March 2 and reiterating the committee’s desire to maintain an open door policy, if you will.

I just don’t want to be seen, as a committee, to be dragging him into the process, because then I’m afraid we’re going to politicize it. If he sees a need to come and talk to us, and if he sees a desire from this committee to maybe
[ Page 2146 ]
go forward with some alternative recommendation — again reiterating the fact that the committee is always here — then, by all means, contact us. But to write him specifically and request that he appear to answer specific questions that have been brought up in the media — to me, that just politicizes the issue.

If it’s a soft approach, and again reiterating the door is open, then I’d be prepared to go that way. I don’t know about the rest of the committee. Nevertheless, if we’re willing to go that route, I could support it. But to actually specifically call him and ask him to appear before this committee based on everything that’s been going on in the last week or so that’s been churned up in the media — I’m not supportive of that tack. But I’ll leave that up to the committee to decide.

Okay. We have a motion on the floor, then. We can either amend it, or we can vote on it and move forward from there. Does anyone have any flavour?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Well, I’m happy to accommodate any wishes of the committee in terms of procedural adaptations. I think the motion is on the floor. I don’t have a copy of the motion, but I’m happy to make copies for members if there’s an appetite to review any essence of those details.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Any further questions? Seeing none, I’ll call the question on the motion that’s on the floor.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Motion fails. I’ll go back to the floor. Are there any other alternatives to this discussion?

G. Heyman: I would suggest, or move if necessary, that in correspondence you have stated you intend to send to the Ombudsperson, he be made aware of the motion as well as the vote — and the content of the motion.

Once again, do we agree that…? Personally, I think this letter from the Ombudsperson should be acknowledged. Maybe if I could leave it to the Clerk’s good offices to craft something, and we can discuss it with the Deputy Chair and myself prior to sending it off. If the committee is in agreement with that, we can proceed that way. Or if it’s that important, we can reconvene the committee to discuss the content of the letter before we send it.

E. Foster: Just a request, if I could, to have the letter, once you and the Deputy Chair have crafted it, be sent out so we could have a look at it before it goes out.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Before it goes out. So no need to reconvene the committee. Just send copies in confidence, and then we’ll reply to him accordingly. That would be fine with me, sure. I appreciate that. It’s pretty tough to get everybody in the same room at the same time these days anyway.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, I’m happy to work with yourself and the Deputy Chair in preparing some correspondence for your approval.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much. Do we need a motion to that effect — that we just actually respond accordingly, and we’ll craft a letter at a later…?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): It’s certainly at your discretion. I think the directions to me are clear, but if you wish to formalize it by way of a motion, feel free to do so.

G. Heyman: I move that the letter to the Ombudsperson include a reference to the motion and the content of the motion as well as the result.

Just so I’m clear. The motion that you made that was then defeated…. Are we going to move forward with another motion to actually acknowledge this letter — acknowledge receipt and then respond to this letter?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, a second distinct motion has been moved by George.

G. Heyman: I’ve sent the original motion that was defeated to the Clerk. My second motion was that on the suggestion of the Chair, we acknowledge the Ombudsperson’s letter and that in that letter of acknowledgment, we include a reference to the motion that was defeated, as well as its content.

S. Hamilton (Chair): A reference to it, not the actual motion. Then, of course, he can go to Hansard and look up the content.

Next on the agenda. What do we have here? Future meeting schedules. I was going to turn this over to you, Kate.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): The next item on the agenda relates to planning of committee meetings in conjunction with the spring session.

Members will recall that last spring, there was an invitation issued to all statutory offices to have the independent officers appear before you in the context of a general operational and budget update. It was certainly an invitation, and they could bring forward matters as they so wished. In the case of some offices, I think they provided your committee with an update on new projects or reports that had been recently issued, as well as just an overview of expenditures to that point in the fiscal year.

If there’s an interest to do so, I’d be happy to work with the Chair and the Deputy Chair to outline some proposed dates for that process to be available to them again this year and then, in conjunction with the availability of all eight statutory offices, to coordinate some meetings in the weeks ahead.

D. Ashton: Also, Kate, I’d really like the opportunity to see the Auditor General’s….

D. Ashton: A tour of the office, yeah. I don’t know if that can be arranged with the time constraints we all have when the House sits, but I would really like that opportunity, especially if we have a meeting when the House isn’t sitting here in Victoria. That would be part and parcel of it.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I’d be happy to explore options for your collective visit to the office of the Auditor General. I know the Auditor General, Carol Bellringer, would, I’m sure, welcome your interest. Her facility is just a few blocks from here, within walking distance, so perhaps either on a Wednesday morning or if the committee does meet during a non-sitting week. We can make those arrangements. I will contact her office and see if we can get some possible dates in front of you all.

D. Ashton: It was just because of her offer to come over. That’s why we’d like to take her up on it and show that we do have an interest.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, absolutely. I’m happy to facilitate that.

Seeing none, thank you all very much for our first meeting of many more to come this year, I know. I need a motion to adjourn now.

Access to on-line versions of the report of proceedings (Hansard)
and webcasts of committee proceedings is available on the Internet.

Chair:	Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
	Robin Austin (Skeena NDP)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	Jennifer Rice (North Coast NDP)
	Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES